Talk:Battle of the Trench

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Trench article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Battle of the Trench has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 31, 2014, and March 31, 2016.

Islam: Salaf Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.

Military history: Early Muslim

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Saudi Arabia Low‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Reason for result to be called stalemate?

The Infobox states that the battle was a stalemate and there are only two sources that hold this opinion. However other sources such as The History of al-Ṭabarī Vol. 8: The Victory of Islam: Muhammad at Medina AD 626-630/AH 5-8 Michael Fishbein State University of New York Press, 2015 seem to state that the battle was a victory for the Muslims Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaalakaa Even though the 2 sources state it was a stalemate, nowhere does the article state the result to be a stalemate. If we just use rational thinking the result is the following: the siege of Medina was a failure for the Quraysh and the Muslims successfully invaded the Banu Qurayza. This is clearly a Muslim victory. Even the language of the article seems to state so Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but on Wikipedia, we only accept analyses of reliable sources, not analyses by editors. Because that would be original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. Also, you cannot override material sourced from two Cambridge University Press publications with conflicting material from a book published by obscure non-academic publishers like Pen and Sword. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However even if other sources call it a stalemate (despite it actually not being a stalemate), in articles such as the Siege of Mecca (683) it has simply been written that the besieging army withdrew. The same can be done with this article Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every reliable source except the 2 stated in the result indicate that the siege was a Muslim victory. This includes books by professors such as 1. Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Khandaq part of that book was written by Leon Volfovsky and, as far as I know, he was not a professor at that time but an undergraduate. [1] — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article itself states that "During the night the Confederate armies withdrew, and by morning the ground was cleared of all enemy forces".In other articles defending side is the victor if the besieging side withdraws Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The withdrawal of a force does not mean they are defeated. I have partially restored the withdrawal part in the infobox. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl was a leading commander

~~Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl was a leading commander along with Abd Al Al Wad according to his own page. فضائل الصحابة (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. R Prazeres (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"According to his own page" because you added it yourself without citing any sources. Misleading statement aside, other Wikipedia articles don't count as sources. If the information is supported, add citations to reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I didn’t add anything onto the page Amr ibn Abd al-Wud, stop involving yourself in topics you have no knowledge of. فضائل الصحابة (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. R Prazeres (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did it literally right here, after you had already added it here. Both times unsourced. And your personal attacks are familiar. R Prazeres (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change any instances of Prophet "Muhammad" to "Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)" or similar. I believe it is a sin in Islam to not include the latter part. Thanks! Azmaine21 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: See WP:PBUH RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to hide your bias better

Just read the Britannica article for how to be neutral and try not to present stories in the worst light possible. Present history openly, be honest about sources, differences in sources, when it's your opinion etc. That kind of thing. 129.12.158.116 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to an overreliance of block quotes and some uncited statements. Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]