Talk:Sayf ibn Umar

Shia researcher

There is a section for shia view also another section was sourced from another wikipedia article copy and paste style so it has to be removed or a proper reference provided. 82.132.186.138 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits breaking source-text integrity and based on primary or unreliable sources

@ShuratiMuslim: in your latest edits here and here (combined view [1]), you have moved sourced text away from its sources (e.g., "It also contains important information[...]", "Little is known about Sayf's life.", etc.), you have added information based on inappropriate use of primary sources (only citing al-Tabari for "According to some sources, Sayf's full name was Sayf ibn Umar al-Usayyidi al-Tamimi" is original research), you have added information based on unreliable sources (https://www.al-islam.org/abdullah-ibn-saba-and-other-myths-sayyid-murtadha-al-askari/investigation-concerning-saif-and-his), and you have removed sourced information without any explanation (e.g., "on the structure of early Muslim armies"). Moreover, you introduced a copyright violation by literally copying text from https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-the-medieval-chronicle/sayf-ibn-umar-SIM_00255?lang=en . This is not acceptable. You should argue and convince other editors here on the talk page that your proposed edits should stay (see WP:CONSENSUS). If not, they will be reverted. Thanks for taking this into consideration. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that if you would like other editors' opinion on the reliability of an article by Murtada Sharif 'Askari published by al-islam.org, we have a special place on Wikipedia to ask this kind of question, called Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you go there to ask about this source, please don't forget to mention that we have an article on the organization behind the website, Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Apaugasma, I would answer one by one, 1. I moved sourced text away from its sources for example 'It also contains important information on the structure of early Muslim armies and government'. I don't think this line should be on the lead paragraph. It suits much better in the Kitab al-Futuh sub-heading. Removing the source infront of 'Little is known about Sayf's life' was a mistake. The source was still not removed and was infront of 'Sayf belonged to Banu Tamim'. 2. Added information based on unreliable sources. I still think al-islam.org is a reliable site, and its author Murtada Sharif Askari. 3. Now let me talk about the information you removed without explaning. You gave no reason to remove my updated 'Works' heading and the information, based on reliable sources, I gave in it. Then you removed the infobox I added, again with no explanation. You also removed the line 'Linda D. Lau and A. R. Armush also regard Sayf ibn Umar as reliable and accept his accounts and the role of the Saba'iyya at the Battle of the Camel' for which I gave a clear and reliable source. ShuratiMuslim 10:17, 4 October 2021

1. You can move a piece of text to another place in the article, if you also move its source along with it (and not change its place so it becomes unclear what text is supported by what source), and if you give a good reason for it in the edit summary. Still, other editors may then disagree with that move and revert it. If you don't want some change to be reverted, the best way is to only make that one change in a separate edit and then wait a day or so: the more changes you do in one time, the higher the chance they will all get reverted in one time. Of course, if you only disagree with one or two small things in an edit, it is better to change these small things than to revert the whole thing. But with sweeping changes like yours, that's quite impossible.

2. I appreciate that you think al-islam.org and Murtada Sharif Askari are reliable sources. I already explained why I think they're not reliable on your talk page. The only thing left to do is to ask other editors about this source at WP:RSN. If they consider it to be reliable for this article, we can use it here.

3. I presume you are talking about what I removed when reverting your edits? If so, then what I wrote above applies: if there are too many bad changes in an edit, chances are high that everything in it will get reverted along with the bad changes. To comment on the specifics:

3 A. There were several problems with your proposed infobox: we have no source for his domination being Sunni, and (entirely as an aside) Sunnism as such didn't really exist yet in the 8th century (see, e.g., here or here); Umayyad Caliphate is at best an era, not a region, and Sayf ibn Umar lived into the early Abbasid period; Kufa lies in Iraq, not Arabia. I now added an infobox with correct information.

3 B. The bit about Linda D. Lau and A. R. Armush was copied from Abdullah ibn Saba' (which is, in fact, another copyright violation: if you copy within Wikipedia, you must note this along with the source article in the edit summary), and rather than verifying the source for yourself, you misrepresented it by making it say that they "regard Sayf ibn Umar as reliable". In reality, all they are saying is that he was not entirely unreliable, and that (contrary to the claims of Wellhausen et al.) Abdullah ibn Saba' may actually have existed. Moreover, it's a bit of second-hand information as cited by Landau-Tasseron, and we're already citing Landau-Tasseron herself in the main text of the article. I think this unrepresentative piling-on is rather undue, but if other editors would be in favor of it, I would not object. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thank you for adding the template back. Can you please tell why did you remove my edits in 'Works' heading. ShuratiMuslim 11:55, 8 October 2021

As I explained, it was swept up by the larger revert. But looking at it now, the part on the Kitāb al-futūh al-kabīr wa-l-ridda just literally copied the few lines which are visible in the closed-access version https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/christian-muslim-relations-i/kitab-al-futuh-al-kabir-wa-l-ridda-COM_23609 (another copyright violation), and unduly presented these opening lines (which are thereafter analyzed and criticized) as a fact (Paul's supposed corruption of Christianity). It was, in other words, rightly reverted. The part on the Kitab al-Jamal wa masir Aisha wa Ali was a good copy-edit, which should indeed not have been reverted. However, since this subsection is unsourced, I've rather removed it entirely now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)