Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Khalid ibn al-Walid/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Khalid ibn al-Walid

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delistd. Pretty clear consensus that this no longer meets our GA standards. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

The article neutrality has been disputed by Ectomorfer with this edit. I also feel looking at the article that other such as the presence of a citation needed tag warrant the need for this reassessment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Just how this article was considered as a good article is baffling considering its full to the brim with one sided sectarian references and myths. Ectomorfer (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.[reply]

Changes have occurred over time [1]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this article isn't good but not because of a few lines about Khalid's murder of Malik and rape of his wife, which is well documented and referenced.

My concern has to do with puffery and promotional sections that call him greatest, undefeated etc and talk about military strategy with no recourse to References from war studies and strategic studies books - pov of a few fans and eulogization. Airtiza14

I agree there is some exaggerations in the article. Of course, Khalid was a great general but using some attributes like greatest, etc is not acceptable in wikipedia. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:The well documented Shia allegations are present and stated which makes this article unreliable from the get go. Tagarayen4 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)CU blocked sock of a community banned editor. [reply]

If the Shia allegations are well documented then that doesn't make it unreliable but reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::I do not see any puffery however I did see biased shia sources which have now been tagged. Also to Airtiza14 did you miss the over dose of puffery on Mukhtar al-Thaqafi article or it it only reserved for articles of people your people dislike? Ectomorfer (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.[reply]

Nothing wrong with WP:BIASED sources, Shia or otherwise. Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, as stuff like the Mukhtar al-Thaqafi article is irrelevant here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Notes:
    • Lead:
  1. There is written: "It was under his military leadership that Arabia, for the first time in history, was united under a single political entity, the Caliphate." It contradicts with the sources which claims this happened during Muhammad's life. Which one is correct?
  2. "Khalid was victorious in over a hundred battles, against the forces of the Byzantine-Roman Empire, Sassanid-Persian Empire, and their allies" I think this is an exaggeration. Most of the so-called battles were skirmishes. There is another sentence at the end of the lead: "Khalid is said to have fought around a hundred battles, both major battles and minor skirmishes as well as single duels, during his military career. " I think the second one is enough.
  3. "Conquest of Persian Mesopotamia"! As I know Khalid had a minor role in conquest of Persian Mesopotamia and he moved to Syria very soon.
  4. While Abu Bakr relied on Khalid as the chief commander of his army, Ummar dismissed him after became caliph. I think this should be added in the lead. This sentence is not clear enough: "Although Umar later relieved him of high command, he nevertheless remained the effective leader of the forces arrayed against the Byzantines during the early stages of the Byzantine–Arab Wars."--Seyyed(t-c) 07:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before Conversion to Islam:
  1. "Khalid's leadership was instrumental in turning the tables and ensuring a Meccan victory during the Battle of Uhud (625)."

This is an important issue and should be expanded.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Military campaigns during Muhammad's era:
  1. Is this correct? "Khalid assumed command of the Muslim army at the crucial moment, and defeated the Byzantine forces even when another 10,000 soldiers had arrived as reinforcements for the Byzantines... The general of the Byzantine forces was slayed and as many as 79,000 of their soldiers were killed with 30,000 taken prisoner." It looks as a tale. There is another narration which says "Khalid, seeing that the situation was hopeless, prepared to withdraw. He continued to engage the Byzantines in skirmishes, but avoided pitched battle." --Seyyed(t-c) 08:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Khalid's role in political matters of Rashidun era:
  1. This issue has not been covered in the article properly. I suggest to use Wilferd Madelung's work, The Succession to Muhammad, for more information.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invasion of Persian Empire:
  1. Exaggeration: Khalid was sent to the Persian Empire with an army consisting of 18,000 volunteers to conquer the richest province of the Persian empire, Euphrates region of lower Mesopotamia, (present day Iraq). Khalid entered lower Mesopotamia with this force.... The richest land was between Euphrates and Tigris (known as Del Iranshahr) and Khalid did not penetrate in those land. Although Al-Hirah and Anbar were major cities, but Apparently, his campaign was the final part of conquest of the Arab lands. Khalid did not fight with any major Sassanid army. He just fought with the local garrisons and Arab tribes. The first major battle between Muslims and Sassanids was Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. For more information, you can refer to the The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, Chapter 1 written by Abdolhossein Zarrinkoob.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliability:
  1. "Akram, Agha Ibrahim (2004), The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed – His Life and Campaigns" This source is reliable, however some of its strange claims should be checked with the other academic sources like its story of Battle of Mu'tah.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: Regarding your recent edit [2], whether the problem relates to the source or not?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Akram is a reliable source. The information was added by an IP, which was clearly not supported by Akram. You are correct about the strange claims being checked against Battle of Mu'tah. Did I catch all the exaggerations? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Very good for this case. Can you please check all of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that are not reliable sources:
  • The Meaning And Explanation Of The Glorious Qur’an (Vol 2) 2nd Edition By Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman
  • The sealed nectar, By S.R. Al-Mubarakpuri.
  • Tafsir Ibn Kathir all 10 volumes published by IslamKotob(appears to be primary source with no academic translation)
  • Bukhari: Military Expeditions led by Mohammed (Al-Maghaazi)(non-academic writing)
  • Chapter Two – The incident of Khalid killing Sahabi Malik bin Nuwayrah (ra) and committing Zina with his widow(some website with personal translation and interpretation of events)
  • Sahih al-Bukhari Book 89 Hadith 299(online translation of primary source)
  • Badass, by Ben Thompson???
  • "List of Battles of Muhammad". Military.hawarey.org(online website, not reliable)
  • Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Saifur (2005), The Sealed Nectar, Darussalam Publications(probably same book as above)
  • Allenby, Viscount (2003), Conquerors of Palestine Through Forty Centuries(actually written by Maj. H.O. Lock)
This is what I have found so far. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell the unreliable sources are still present.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability depends on context. A self published blog (generally considered the least reliable source) is still reliable if it is just used to source the blog authors opinion. Are any of these unreliable sources sourcing content that needs a more reliable source? AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: I would say that we should probably close with a downgrade from GA unless someone is ready to quickly work on it immediately. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is Akbar Ibrahim Agha a reliable source? Just read the book - its a crazy, high in testosterone man's fantasy novel, with little or no references.

The article is still full of puffery.

Malik bin Nuwayrah incident is too important and deserves a separate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airtiza14 (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid/1&oldid=1084310784"