|
==GA Reassessment==
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Muhammad/2}}
== Overall structure of the article ==
Comparing this article to the article on [[Jesus]], I think the structure of this article is deficient, separate from but related to the issues regarding the sourcing in the article discussed previously. It presents the account of Muhammad's life as is known through early biographies and hadith largely uncritically, when many contemporary scholars have questioned the reliability of these sources, particularly the hadith (see [https://shiastudies.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/the-quest-for-the-historical-muhammad-F.-E.-Peters.pdf] [https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1002/9781118638477.ch2] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas-Goerke-2/publication/292425091_Prospects_and_limits_in_the_study_of_the_historical_muhammad/links/615d5cb9c04f5909fd865bc2/Prospects-and-limits-in-the-study-of-the-historical-muhammad.pdf] [https://journals-sagepub-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/000842980803700205]). I think the best way to fix this would be to put all of the biographic headings (i.e the contents of the subheadings "Meccan years". "Medinan years" and "Final years") under a new heading like "Biography according to traditional Islamic sources", and then a new section should be creating discussing what scholars consider knowable or probable about the "historical Muhammad". [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
: As for sources discussing the "historical Muhammad" in detail, the 2010 book [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-muhammad/916CDE471CFE5251DA6A492248613D5B The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad] is probably a good place to start. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 14:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think these are comparable examples. There is a wealth of biographical information about Muhammad, certainly relative to Jesus, whose life is extremely tricky to piece back together. The above approach is also not as simple as it sounds. Islamic tradition is not uniform. There is not one narrative. And there are early Islamic sources that are functionally secondary in that they approach the life of Muhammad not just as a religious narrative, but analytically try to tease out the more genuine narratives from the various hadith. Modern scholarly accountings are similarly based on earlier accounts. The upshot of all this is that there is a spectrum of analysis, not some sort of clear-cut religious narrative and something else. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::The things that are knowable or probable about Muhammad's life are more than the equivalent for Jesus, enough to give a basic biographical outline, probably enough to fill a Wikipedia article, but probably not a full book-length biography. I'll give you that. But there are stil huge problems with taking the accounts of the early sources at face value as this article currently does, as outlined in Robert Hoyland's 2007 paper [https://compass-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00395.x Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:It might be more preferable to do the historical criticism of facts as they are presented, as opposed to breaking it down into two sections like "According to Islamic sources" and "Historical criticism". It seems that the ''The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad'' also breaks down his life into the Meccan and Medinan years, so I would support keeping those two sections, at least. '''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered coming at this from the "Let's [[WP:GA]] it (again)!" direction? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ▼::Given the volume of scholarship, it really shouldn't be that hard to create a stable, authoritative GA biography. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course! Regarding his biography, it should only constitute a small fraction of this article. The [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-muhammad/916CDE471CFE5251DA6A492248613D5B The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad] gives only 2-3 chapters (out of 14) to his biography. Thus, lets give only a basic outline here, and refer the reader to subarticles where it is covered in more detail. The rest of the article should be the role Muhammad's life (whether historical or imagined) has played in law, philosophy, personal piety, mysticism, history of the Middle East and European thought. There should also be a section on Muhammad in art (including 21st controversial drawings, but also including music, [[Ta'zieh|plays]], architecture etc).
:::Once again, ''The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad'' is a good way for us to determine how much weight to give to each section of this article.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 17:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
::::That would be a mistake. As noted in the introduction, the ''Cambridge Companion'' "represent[s then-]current trends in the scholarly study of Muhammad’s life and legacy". Not for nothing does the introduction itself recap Muhammad's biography—that is not the focus of the work, and the three chapters which focus on his life focus on specific events, not a comprehensive biography. The ''Companion'' does not seek to be an encyclopedic reflection of the man, as this article must be. Still, it is a top-tier source. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 19:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
== Handling material cited to Rodgers ==
Now that the ANI has been resolved, I think it's a good time to aim for a consensus on what to do with material cited to Rodgers. If I was to start purging it from the article, would there be any objections? And if so, what would be the ideal course of action instead? [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 05:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:The RfC isn't closed. The in my opinion wrong topic ban on Kaalakaa is closed but to start as you say "purge" the article isn't the right way to improve the quality. [[User:Ip says|Ip says: Work Better yes.]] ([[User talk:Ip says|talk]]) 12:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Ip says}} Why isn't it the right way to improve the article quality? And what alternative course of action do you suggest instead? Discussions both on this talk page and the last two archives show a consensus that Rodgers is largely unsuitable for this article on [[WP:NPOV]] grounds. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I would use the primary sources as per wp:weight. They tell more or less the same story as Rodgers. Of course in a properly attributed and balanced way. [[User:Ip says|Ip says: Work Better yes.]] ([[User talk:Ip says|talk]]) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::That makes absolutely no sense and/or reveals no understanding of WP policy. [[WP:WEIGHT]] is essentially about giving due prominence "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [reliable] sources". That is inherently about reflecting the interpretation of secondary sources. The point of [[WP:PRIMARY]] is to exclude the use of primary sources in interpretation. They can be used only for the narrow purpose of say that in "Primary Source Y it says X", nothing more. Whether it is NPOV that that should be said at all is a question of [[WP:WEIGHT]] defined by the secondary sources. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Primary sources don't count towards [[WP:WEIGHT]], and discussions on this talk page have demonstrated that Rodgers doesn't count either. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:Remove this "Following the [[Battle of Badr]], Muhammad revealed his intention to expel the Jews from the land." under section "Conflicts With Jewish Tribes". This is attributed to Rodgers only and apparently primary sources. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 15:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Neutralhappy}} Looks like that particular statement was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1226118105 tagged] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=1226417061 May] as {{tl|dubious}} by {{u|Iskandar323}} paired with a [[#Conflict with the Jewish tribes|small discussion above]]. Are there high-quality secondary sources that talk about this? If not, I agree that it seems best to remove it for failing to satisfy [[WP:WEIGHT]], since it's now been challenged multiple times. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{removed}} [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I've also reset a couple of relatively Rodgers-heavy sections (namely "[[Muhammad#Battle of the Trench|Battle of the Trench]]" and "[[Muhammad#Conquest of Mecca|Conquest of Mecca]]") to their May 2023 status quo versions. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 00:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:And now more of the same with the "[[Muhammad#Beginning of armed conflict|Beginning of armed conflict]]" section. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::Keep up the good work. I'm glad someone has the energy to properly survey the changes. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you {{u|Iskandar323}}! Your encouragement is encouraging. :) [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 08:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
== Reliability of [[Richard A. Gabriel]] ==
To piggyback off of [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources]] where the original post said {{tq|I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page}}, I noticed that [https://books.google.com/books?id=0HQCBQAAQBAJ this book] was absent in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&oldid=1157742214#References status quo May 2023 version] but has since entered the article with dozens of citations, frequently bundling or supplementing suspect sources like Rodgers and Glubb; it may have slipped under the radar as it appears to be undiscussed on the talk page and archives. How reliable and [[WP:DUE]] is [[Richard A. Gabriel]] for this article? Is he in the top tiers of the global Muhammad scholarship community? Or are we dealing with another Rodgers-level author? For what it's worth, it's also a military-focused book published by a university press, and the end of the Google Books description says {{tq|Richard A. Gabriel challenges existing scholarship on Muhammad's place in history and offers a viewpoint not previously attempted.}} which makes me wonder if it's a [[WP:FRINGE]] point-of-view. <small>pinging eligible participants from the "suspect sources" discussion {{yo|Iskandar323|Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Anachronist|DeCausa}}</small> [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:A few reviews:[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236752207_Muhammad_Islam's_First_Great_General_review][https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA183366125&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E650f5005&aty=open-web-entry][https://www.jstor.org/stable/40111061] [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:BTW, has anyone made a list of biographies etc that are WP-good sources for this article? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't, but [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/abs/f-e-peters-muhammad-and-the-origins-of-islam-albany-state-university-of-new-york-press-1994-pp-349/113E6A4E26993ED2D5806B72FE5E0558 this review] provides the list of scholars considered competent up to 2009. Rodinson is notably on there, but again, this is a decade-and-a-half-old list and works from the 60s are pushing the limits anyway. On Gabriel (and Rodgers), if they have specific, meaningful input on matters of a strictly military nature, and they agree between themselves, then they can have at it. The problem for me was always the extension of the interpretation of these very niche specialists (whose specialism is tightly confined to military history) to political, sociocultural and religious observations that there are in no position to make, as non-Arabist, non-specialist historians (i.e.: not of the Middle Eastern specialty variety), whose entire corpuses of works consist of hopping about history rather eclectically to focus on the famous past military leaders of history. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 13:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::Well, we can use {{tl|refideas}} to make such a list atop this talk page. I currently have access to a version of [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Muhammad/vT4PAAAAQBAJ?hl=en this book] by [[Karen Armstrong]], which recent source discussions both here and at RSN appear to show as one of the top Muhammad biographies. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024 ==
{{moved discussion to|Talk:Muhammad/images|sig=[[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 22:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)}}
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024 ==
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 6}}
{{editEdit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=noyes}}
Muhhammad is not the founder of Islam. He is the first preacher. [[Special:Contributions/103.153.230.157|103.153.230.157]] ([[User talk:103.153.230.157|talk]]) 16:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> See Q6 in the FAQ near the top of this page. [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
== [[Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad#WP:LEADIMAGE?]] ==
▲:HaveIf you consideredhave comingan atopinion, this from the "Let's [[WP:GA]] it (again)!"please direction?join. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 1315: 5741, 2811 JuneSeptember 2024 (UTC)
| 