Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

why this article is good

i've kept an eye on this article for about 3 years now, it tells the story of the imperialist battle for israel particularly well. the persian, byzantine, and islamic empires all have their place in jewish history, and the story of the muslim conquest of israel from the christians is well told. Trum5770 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Trum5770 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): c (alt text)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you can add a couple of missing refs, I can pass the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i hv provided the references...

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As a historian I disagree with this assessment. It ranks among one of the worst articles on a historical battle on wikipedia. Much is being presented as fact based on a select few sources, such as the battle lasting for 6 days while there is absolutely no way of this being certain. Edit wars on the article were abundant, but a few tireless editors in favour of a one-sided approach to this battle have prevailed through countless reverting of edits. I'd say this article is at best adequate in describing the most elaborate presentations of the battle, without acknowledging this presentation is actually hard to verify. Adding to that it is strongly biased towards an Arab point of view. Wiki1609 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, Wiki1609. The sources used in this article are extremely questionable, particularly the reliance on al-Tabari as a source. It is extremely clear that he is the only major source that reports the battle to have taken place in 634 CE rather than 636CE, which is clearly incorrect. Khalid ibn al-Walid's involvement here, too, is questionable. Also, I see Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet is cited as a source, but what is the reasoning for that? Other than background information on some of the individuals involved? There isn't anything within the work regarding Yarmouk. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree entirely. This article (via the modern writers Akram and Nicolle) is based ultimately on Tabari/ Wakidi/ Baladhuri, i.e. the Arab historians who wrote 150-200 years after the events. This account is extremely detailed , but very late and corresponds also to a religious/ideological agenda

The fact that this narration is based almost exclusively on Muslim accounts should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Byzantine and Armenian sources should also be used much more extensively (not that there is much: but, in itself, this is important, since these sources are much nearer in time to the events)

As it is, this article is quite entertaining, but makes for poor history.Giordaano (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the policies of wikipedia, i have used the modern sources, the secondary or third party sources, written by authentic historians, no one can judge the sources until they meet wikipedia reliable source standard, we are not allowed to do so according to the policies. so if some one have any personal issue on the authenticity of the sources used, then he may proceed to prove them unreliable, only commenting upon the sources wont help, if you can improve the sources then feel free to do so.

As for Armenian and byzantine sources, if some have access to those virtually extinct sources, then i would appreciate if some one could help in adding them. The article is based mostly on the work of david nicolle, one of the best historian of military history. i wonder still people doubt the factual accuracy of the article, what else do you guys want then ? you want a book written by Khalid ibn walid himself ? @User:Riskbreaker2987, if you have any queries regarding the factual accuracy of the article then we can discuss it on my talk page.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, Mohammad adil, that's certainly not what I'm looking for. I completely believe that wikipedia SHOULD include the account of al-Tabari in this article, as it is integral as a part of the Islamic narrative. I also disagree a bit with Giordaano in that I believe this article should rely on the Islamic sources quite largely, because the Greek/Syriac/Armenian information we have is very limited. What I'm arguing for is that within the other Islamic sources - al-Baladhuri, Ibn Sa'd, etc - they don't talk at all about Khalid's involvement at Yarmouk, and that absence is defeaning. With that said, Giordaano is definitely right that we should include more of the non-Muslim sources.

So what I'm saying Mohammad adil is not that I want Khalid's words himself, but I DO think the full Islamic narrative should be represented here, and considering that al-Tabari stands alone in relying on the account of Khalid's involvement provided by Sayf. b. 'Umar, I don't think it should be relied on this heavily. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

check this [1], i was amazed to know that one of the historian who wrote in the period of islamic conquest gave the exact same date, year and size of byzantine army for battle of yarmouk, that most of the islamic historians suggest.

Any ways check this out.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the battle of 'Gabitha' account. this is proven this article was deserved for GA1 rank. In the end propaganda or were Biased or not, it is generally agreed the primary sources is supporting one each other (not only Tabari or Baladhuri as popular belief, many besides those two like Waqidi ar too describe the same) and being accepted as the most detail one by second hand or tertiary source commentary Ahendra (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)