R3YBOl

Welcome!

Hello, R3YBOl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to work on a project

As Salam Alaykum w rahmatullahi w barakah tu R3YBOI, I wanted to ask you if you'd be willing to work with me on the Proto-Salafism article, which I have started. I would be very happy if you agree! Even if you don't agree, I understand thank you for your response. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh @Viceskeeni2, I really appreciate the invite, but I really don't have that much knowledge to edit religious sects. In my opinion, these type of topics require deep research, careful attention, and thorough understanding to maintain the neutrality and accuracy. I wouldn't want to contribute to something so important without having the proper expertise. Thank you of thinking of me though, and best of luck with the article. R3YBOl (🌲) 08:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the response Viceskeeni2 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Armenian Revolt (850–855)

On 15 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Armenian Revolt (850–855), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Muslim sources say that 50,000 inhabitants "burned alive" in the sacking of Tbilisi in 853? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Armenian Revolt (850–855). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Armenian Revolt (850–855)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrators notice board.

This discussion concerns you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated unexplained content removal and refusal to discuss/reach consensus on talkpage, then counter accusations to prevent reversion. Thx - M.S. Asher (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Battle of the Defile

hello. Khalid Yahya Blankinship: Not only was the Battle of the Defile a military catastrophe of the first rank for the Muslims, but it was also a crucial turning point in the history of the Transoxianan front. 2A01:5EC0:1001:FB74:1:0:9BB:F85 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

shaban: Although the garrison of Samarqand was practically annihilated and the Battle of the Pass between the Arabs and the Turgesh was not wholly an Arab victory, Junayd was able to save Samarqand. 2A01:5EC0:1001:FB74:1:0:9BB:F85 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's better to use "See aftermath section" cause result of this Battle is very complicated (if we read all what shaban and Blankinship wrote, it become even more complicate). Gibb and kennedy are also like that 2A01:5EC0:1001:FB74:1:0:9BB:F85 (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I can write all of them if you want (Gibb, Kennedy, Shaban and Blankinship). Regards 2A01:5EC0:1800:CEC9:9803:AB15:7785:B2E5 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Khalid Yahya Blankinship: Not only was the Battle of the Defile a military catastrophe of the first rank for the Muslims, but it was also a crucial turning point in the history of the Transoxianan front. I don't understand what are you trying to prove here from Blankinship's quote.. I think you're trying to tell me that the Umayyads suffered high casualties that's why they shouldn't be counted as victorious? you must know that how much the casualties was of the Umayyad side or the Türgesh side, it doesn't represent any of the sides as victorious or defeated, and the casualties don't take a part in the battle's result and they don't have anything to do with the result. Blankinship stated that the battle was an Umayyad Pyrrhic victory (I already added a link for the phrase of "Pyrrhic victory" which I suggest you may read and I am here defining it for you again in case you're lost: is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.) I didn't disagree with you that the Umayyads didn't suffer casualties (both of the sides suffered high casualties, but the Umayyads suffered more) Blankinship said: it was "a Pyrrhic victory at best" he confirmed that the battle's result was an Umayyad Pyrrhic victory, which I don't know how are we arguing about an author that stated the Umayyads were victorious. he didn't state here that they were defeated so that I would be wrong in citing him. he obviously said that the Umayyads won in a harsh cost.

for Sha'ban you told me in your edit summary:You cannot make your own evaluations Sorry but I don't know of what "evaluations" you're talking about, and for your message in my talk page here:shaban: Although the garrison of Samarqand was practically annihilated and the Battle of the Pass between the Arabs and the Turgesh was not wholly an Arab victory, Junayd was able to save Samarqand. If you read here:"Although the garrison of Samarqand was practically annihilated and the Battle of the Pass between the Arabs and the Turgesh was not wholly an Arab victory,Junayd was able to save Samarqand. After a few battles, the Turgesh withdrew, leaving Soghdiana again in the hands of the Arabs, and Junayd, satisfied with this result, marched back to Merv.2 "

You can literally see that the author referred to Pyrrhic victory to the Umayyads in the battle, he pointed out that Junayd (the commander of the Umayyads) succeeded in securing Samarqand (I brought the full quote from the book and I underlined my claims for you in case you want to read). not just because they suffered high casualties mean that they lost the battle. ￶I can write all of them if you want (Gibb, Kennedy, Shaban and Blankinship). Regards if you may point out of what Gibb and Kennedy stated about the battle, I would appreciate it. Blankinship and Shaban already stated the battle was an Umayyad victory. and again let me remind you "defeat"≠ just "suffering heavy losses". I wouldn't mind adding the word Pyrrhic in the result column of the article's infobox, but per MOS:VICTORY which states:Used for all conflicts and combat operations, such as battles, campaigns, and wars. The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed.In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result". Best R3YBOl (🌲) 13:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No I think you don't understand correctly. Result of this Battle is very complicated and it's better for reader to read aftermath to know it's results better. Regards 2A01:5EC0:1004:3BAC:1:0:9BB:1619 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I can give reference but I think it's better not take your time it's going to be long talk. 'See aftermath section' is very good people can understand the situation better. Best wishes 2A01:5EC0:1004:3BAC:1:0:9BB:1619 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to involved in edit war, The only reason was you're act that change it in favor of Arabs and ignore WP:NPOV ( most Likly think I will be despair after several days and never come back to check it),and note "Restored the result with sources. already explained for the Ip" which is wrong you don't answer my last massage at all, my massage is the last one. I make new topic let's discuss. IP that talk to R3YBOl (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

if you change it base of good faith and I'm wrong. Let's talk about it. IP that talk to R3YBOl (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

as I said to other user don't involve in edit war, I change it to "See aftermath section" talk to each other You need to reach a consensus that works for both of you. It's not worth of time to revert each others edits. Discuss it on the article's talk page and don't get into an Edit warring. Thanks Bezartanha (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

if both of you have problems you can ask me, I'm good at history, and access to books in French, Russian, English, Turkish, Persian. I can help you in this Bezartanha (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk Bezartanha (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I talked to IP that talk to R3YBOl and said that he will not continue the Edit warring. It's no need to talk let's "See aftermath section" remain this is what IP that talk to R3YBOl said. I hope you do the same. Bezartanha (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Germany-Iraq Relations

I added the sources to show it is not original research. I should have done that from the beginning. My bad. M.S. Asher (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@M.S. Asher hello, I am busy at the moment, if you give me just some days, I will promise restoring these additions that we argued about in the talk page of Free Arabian Legion. I insist in restoring it myself because I will do some simple re-writings and publish it. I hope you got no problems in that. Best R3YBOl (🌲) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason why I would need you to re-add those yourself and why I cannot restore them? You have not identified the issue with any of these, I haven't seen an actual response to any issues with the sources and information? Anyways the administrator notice board decision made it clear that the article in question was not under any protection, since it did not relate to the hamas conflict/palestine region. Making further revisions yourself is different but how is that a justification to revert another edit, when the sources are accurately reflected? M.S. Asher (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Islamophobia Page Reversion

I was curious about your recent reversion of the page to 1275306590. It seems like it erases a lot of good faith contributions--my own and that of others--and there isn't a rationale provided other than to return the article to a "normal version". Dauntbares (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked my edit at the time I restored the article. I am aware that there were some good-faith changes that I deleted, as well as some less constructive ones. I was planning to carefully review what I had removed and re-added, in order to restore only the constructive contributions. I contribute using my phone, but unfortunately, my phone no longer works. I was planning to fix it today. However, I live in a Muslim country, and Friday is an official holiday here, so no shops are open today. I will work on reviewing and restoring the good edits as soon as I can. Feel Free to revert me if you want. Best. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your phone. I am happy to let you take the lead in editing when your phone is fixed. Dauntbares (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is located here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Popular Mobilization Forces

Come discuss. Montblamc1 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies

Hello, R3YBOl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Abu Muslim

Hi dude, I noticed you revised the edits I made about Abu Muslim being a Persian.

You said his ethnicity is contested, but both the Abbasid Revolution and Abu Muslim article agree he was Persian. And I am not familiar with any source from medieval or modern times that contests it. So what exactly do you mean by that? Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting third party dispute resolution

It's clear that you are intent on citation stacking a number of sources which are of little value to WP:POVPUSH. I am requesting Wikipedia:Third opinion to resolve this before further edit warring happens. Qiushufang (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with resolving that with WP:3, or maybe we can take it to a dispute resolution noticeboard which would be better. It's somehow getting late here and I won't be active for this whole week and the one after it. I can be free on 24th of december R3YBOl (🌲) 16:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qiushufang Do you find any problems with the time I suggested? I won't fully disappear from Wikipedia in that long time though, I would check upon my watchlists everyday and revert unconstructive edits. later, I can be free on 24th of december and the days after, then we can resolve our issue in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I will restore the citations except drake's citation. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No, your behavioral problems stem from more than the Drake citation as you are adding in a bunch of low quality sources and non-English sources in what I see as a POVPUSH. So I would recommend not restoring the citations or further editing the article until the dispute is settled. If you have the time to restore the citation, it should not be difficult for you to participate in dispute resolution now. 24th December is Christmas Eve and users will be more occupied, likely impacting dispute resolution participation. It is not an ideal time. So it should happen sooner rather than later. What are you doing that requires you to be away for more than two weeks? Qiushufang (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

as you are adding in a bunch of low quality sources and non-English sources I didn't add any "non-english sources" except the ones that me and you discussed about them before. if you take a look on the sources in the footnotes (from citation number 40 to 48) which I recently added, were all English sources, the only low quality source there would be considered Drake citation It is not an ideal time. So it should happen sooner rather than late If you are busy during that time, we can discuss it on 1st of January or after.What are you doing that requires you to be away for more than two weeks? Well since you have asked, I would be away for two weeks to finish my first semester exams, I have to study and review for so many subjects and other stuff (from 7th december to 14th december), My exams start on 15th december and end on 24th december. as I said, I would check upon my watchlist to revert unconstructive edits, and hopefully I won't face any of these disruptive edits. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's why I also said low quality sources, not just non-English ones, although they may overlap. They are low quality sources that only mention the battle in passing and subject to other issues such as Drake being an extremely old source when barely any info on the battle existed. Moreover you are firmly in the camp of searching for sources until it proves you are right, regardless of the quality of the source, which is why I say it is a behavioral issue and why so many of the sources such as Olimat contradict sources that deal with the subject in a more substantial manner. If you need to study, then you shouldn't be editing. If you have the time to revert disruptive edits, then you have the time to participate in dispute resolution, which should occur now. Qiushufang (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said. it's getting late now and I should be prepared for tomorrow, I don't have time to discuss anything Olimat contradict sources that deal with the subject in a more substantial manner if you have issue with Olimat's source, you are free to remove it. If you need to study, then you shouldn't be editing I don't think it would be a big deal if I revert some unregistered editors who would act in a bad faith. which hopefully won't happen. I promise that when I get free I will tag you and discuss our issue in dispute resolution noticeboard. Best. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is pretty bad manners and implies insincerity on your part. Again, the issue here not just a single source, but your behavioral tendentiousness in seeking any source, no matter the obvious quality issues, to push a point through citation stacking then they are obviously of inferior quality. Removing a single source or edit would not solve this and I suspect not even dispute resolution will to be frank. It is hard to believe that you suddenly cannot participate in a dispute resolution for more than two weeks when you have been consistently editing on a nearly daily basis for the entire year. It should not be hard to outline your views in a succinct manner within a manageable amount of time, especially with a topic that you have been working on for months. Qiushufang (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qiushufang. I should have messaged you 5 days ago. I really apologize for the delay. before we take the issue to the DRN I was reading your messages to understand the concerns again and I realized you have got concerns about the "low quality sources (non-English sources)" though they are not "low quality" but I will replace these non-English sources and cite English ones as required (e.g one of the sources that support my claims is Filippo Donvito who also stated: "The disastrous defeat at the Battle of Talas, principally due to the betrayal of the Turkic and Sogdian auxiliaries, marked the end of Chinese expansionism toward central Asia once and for all".) Since I am gonna remove the non-English sources that I cited myself, then, I also suggest removing other non-English sources such as Bai's source since I think it's hard to verify them and English ones are preferred over the non-English. Regarding the result, I was accused of promoting an agenda only because of removing the karluks from the result parameter. from the article's talk, I noticed an editor warned you before, about adding "Abbasid-Tibetian victory" in the result parameter. I really don't know what is gonna change whether if we add Tibetans or Karluks. the same editor's argument applies to the karluks as well (replacing Karluks with Tibetans and insisting on attributing a second belligerent in the result parameter sounds like a WP:POVPUSH). As MOS:VICTORY also doesn't support the idea of adding another belligerent in the result parameter just only because they participated in the battle. As the result parameter requires either "X victory" or "inconclusive". these are the sources (none of them is non-English) that I will list them here (all the other sources' date publication is fine except Grousset, he published his book in 1939, though it was translated to English in 1970. He agreed with Bartold's statement regarding the battle) :

@R3YBOl:. If you have read my problems with your editing at talk, and your main understanding is to remove non-English sources and to add more sources in English such as the ones below, all of which as I mentioned before are just passing mentions at best and don't serve any purpose whatsoever to improve the quality of the article, then I don't think any more discussion is necessary. Adding more sources, all of which just say the same things in the same shallow manner without any substance in a citation stacking style does not improve the article's quality. It does not matter what how many sources you cite when they are all equally problematic in their shallowness, especially if all of it is to "prove a point". As I said at the page's talk, the reality of the situation is that there is only a handful of sources in English that deal with the battle beyond a passing mention at all. What is the point of adding more sources that all say the same thing? The problem is not that non-English sources are included, it is that they are used improperly to present perspectives in a non-neutral way, which does not mean we throw away all context out the window. The reason why Arab sources are not held to the same degree of reliability as Chinese ones is simply because they are not as reliable. Owing to their non-contemporary nature, their age, and less detailed descriptions, and lacking quantity, they are not as reliable as Chinese primary sources from which accounts are derived from. That does not mean their perspective cannot be represented, but the way you have done so is neither neutral or proper for Wikipedia, and you seem to deliberately go out of your way to choose the most puffery and peacock language to frame these perspectives without regard for what the material is. If you cannot understand this issue with your editing, then I don't think we need to continue this conversation anymore. Qiushufang (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the above is about the misuse of sources and citation stacking, not the conflict infobox parameters for results, which I tentatively agree can just be Abassids, although the "X victory" does not seem to be applied to situations where there is obviously an allied side. See Battle of Noryang or Battle of Baekgang, where both participants are listed in results. Battles that occurred during WW2 also commonly put all combatants on one side as either Axis or Allies. Qiushufang (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with you regarding that a little amount of historians talked about the battle in details (e.g Peers, Koerting, Donvito, and James Frankel) if we talk about "passing mentions" well the most of the sources in the article have this issue. this even includes the sources you cited (e.g S. Frederick Starr who only mentioned the battle and stated that it didn't end Tang's advance but it was An Lushan, or James A. Millward who called it of no strategical importance only) regarding the stacking sources' issue, as long as there is a solution that is recommended to cite them by WP:CITEMERGE then I don't think I will face any issues. These sources may have said almost the same thing, this indicates that they agreed on one view more than any other sources that supported different views. That's why I was gonna put them first before your paragraph (as far as I know when sources debate each other. the view that is supported by more sources comes first to cite which isn't a POVPUSH or anything biased). R3YBOl (🌲) 18:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

and you seem to deliberately go out of your way to choose the most puffery and peacock language to frame these perspectives without regard for what the material is. If you cannot understand this issue with your editing, then I don't think we need to continue this conversation anymore I genuinely don't mean to write in a non-neutral way. It isn't intentional from my part. If you notice anything that sounds biased, I would really appreciate it if you could help fix it. That's how Wikipedia works best. we all help improve each other's contributions, just like when I notice spelling mistakes and correct them. I have nothing else to do in the article except replacing the arabic sources with these English ones (since they are preferred more), fix the result parameter, and add some missing context about why the ruler of Ushrusana requested aid from the Tang Empire (As far as I do remember he had a conflict with the Abbasid commander, Ziyad) R3YBOl (🌲) 18:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

the view that is supported by more sources comes first to cite which isn't a POVPUSH or anything biased - That's actually not necessarily true at all, especially as I've pointed out that the sources they are based on are themselves problematic. The number of sources can be a sign of greater importance, but sources don't exist in a vacuum outside their content. Just because they exist doesn't mean their statements are of equal value. Their perspectives being represented doesn't mean every single source are of equal usefulness and should all be included. A single source that has more useful information or or different info that is of greater veracity is more useful than 10 sources that all say the same thing or are based on the same erroneous or dubious statements. Despite this, different views in the article are described as one perspective in the article, which is more in line with WP:NEUTRAL. Also, having five citations, while many, is not the same as having 10 citations while listing each individual author's name as though they were an army, which not only makes it problematic for readers, but is indicative of POVPUSH. I only listed the authors' names in the first place due to complaints about attribution. They are not necessary at all. In fact, even saying that most or all sources agree on something as you did here without it being deliberately stated in a reliable source is against wiki policy per WP:RS/AC. Just because more sources say the same thing also does not necessarily mean it should be listed first or that their veracity is more guaranteed, or as the previous Wiki policy states, that it should even be stated that they are more common unless a reliable source states that that is the case. To be direct, I am saying that in this case, Arabic primary sources are not as reliable as Chinese equivalents for various reasons already stated, and tertiary interpretations of those sources that are in conflict or directly contradict others should be taken with a large grain of salt when they are almost certainly wrong such as Gao Xianzhi's death. Moreover, the purpose for which all of these sources are being used is itself not very useful to Wikipedia, which as far as I can see is simply to say that the battle was very important. The basic events being described are not any different from any other source. This is why it is puffery and peacock language. Qiushufang (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

First of all, Happy new year. I hope this year brings you good fortune. I am not claiming "all historians agree" or invoking scholarly consensus, which would require WP:RS/AC sourcing. I am presenting what specific, named historians have said in their works (e.g.,"according to...") per what WP:RS/AC requires. If we don't put the view where more sources have supported it, this would be considered as a misapplication of WP:DUE. WP:DUE requires viewpoints be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Under WP:DUE, the majority viewpoint should be presented first, with the minority view presented afterwards. Multiple citations can be bundled per WP:CITEMERGE R3YBOl (🌲) 11:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qiushufang if you may also add quotes for the sources you cited in the Aftermath section, like Richard Foltz and other historians for better verification.. in page 55 of Xinjiang of China: Its Past and Present by Li Sheng mentioned that Tang's army numbered 60,000 soldiers. What are your thoughts about this? Did you notice that estimate before? Best. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Verification for what? Generally when you ask for verification you need to say what the purpose is and what is being verified. It is unfeasible to quote every citation on Wikipedia. That would also make citations unreadable. 60,000 seems to be just combining 30k for the Tang army and 30k for the Karluk forces. Qiushufang (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

After checking Foltz I couldn't find any mention of the battle and removed the source. Qiushufang (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

According to the majority sources and historians including is in your edit here

directly goes against:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. as stated by WP:RS/AC. And nothing in AC says what you calim.

Both stating that the majority of sources and historians without it being directly stated is against Wiki policy and synth.

The "debate" here that you are referencing also doesn't seem to exist. Which of these sources cite each other or directly say they are debating each other? And what is the debate you are talking about? This was never clarified. The attached content you added simply said that the battle was very important or something like that, which is so general that is useless. The actual content does not contradict each other on the basic facts much. Qiushufang (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

If we don't put the view where more sources have supported it, this would be considered as a misapplication of WP:DUE. WP:DUE requires viewpoints be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Under WP:DUE, the majority viewpoint should be presented first, with the minority view presented afterwards.

WP:DUE is not simply about an opinion held by the majority, as in multiple authors, either. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. Like I said, most of the sources beyond 2 or 3 don't talk about the topic in detail at all, and only then according to one or two pages, simply listing 10 or 12 sources that give basic stereotypical statements in a passing manner when already existing sources say the same thing doesn't improve Wikipedia and is inappropriate for inclusion. Qiushufang (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Well keep in mind S. Frederick Starr and Millward mentioned the battle by passing and didn't talk about it in detail does that mean they should be removed as well? Regarding the sources, since 16 sources are a lot. I will cite iranica,Haug,peers,Richard N. Frye, Elton L. Daniel,Jenkins, and koerting. that's it. Among these 16 sources there are two sources mentioned something like "Decline of the Tang Empire" do you think it should be mentioned in the article ? R3YBOl (🌲) 12:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Including one particular perspective that that is different from another is appropriate. The purpose is to include perspectives rather than to overload one particular one with citations in a way that makes it seem as though it is a debate and impede reading purposes. Wikipedia is not written as a debate. Attribution to a handful of authors can be fine, attribution to an army of sources is not. But neither is ideal. But honestly neither views are particularly important enough to warrant devoting two whole paragraphs to them when they overlap in the basic details so much. Nor is there any need to give them individual author attribution. I only did so because of the discussion in talk where attribution was brought up, but it is not actually ideal to have them there for reading purposes. A simple statement like "Seen as important for X reasons, but other disagree for Y reasons" in one paragraph would be more than enough. The entire section is already overloaded with details that dwarf the actual battle, making it WP:UNDUE. Qiushufang (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

The battle has been interpreted as of it's great significance, arguing that the Arab-Islamic civilization prevailed over the Chinese civilization in Transoxania, Consolidated Abbasid control of the region and the Silk Road, severed the alliance between the Chinese and the Turks, and made the Tang withdrawal from Central Asia permanent. as well as causing the decline of the Tang Empire. Conversely, another perspective holds that the Abbasid victory secured the permanent establishment of islam up to the Amu Syr region and caused the decline of Central Asian Buddhism. As the battle wasn't important strategically, and no significant loss or gain of territory occurred and the borders remained relatively unchanged. The Muslims continued to solidify their control over western Central Asia and the battle was viewed as a mere border skirmish. Relations between the Abbasids and the Tang went back to normal almost immediately and four visits by Arab envoys to the Tang court are recorded from 752 to 753 it was the An Lushan rebellion in 755 that actually ended the Tang presence in Central Asia and forced them to withdraw from the northwestern frontier.

R3YBOl (🌲) 17:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The loss did not affect Xinjiang much, so leave out the withdrawal from Central Asia permanent, that would be the An Lushan rebellion. The Amu Syr region is the same as Tranxoiana so it doesn't need to be repeated. Qiushufang (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You're telling me to remove this part ?: Abbasid victory secured the permanent establishment of islam up to the Amu Syr region and caused the decline of Central Asian Buddhism. Ok fine we can do this. You mentioned the part where it says they made Tang's withdrawal permanent, well most of the sources I listed during our discussion mentioned that the Chinese retreated from Central Asia. I will change the statement of and made the Tang withdrawal from Central Asia permanent to something that aligns with the sources "and forced the Tang to retreat from Central Asia" thoughts? R3YBOl (🌲) 17:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Transoxiana is not Central Asia, which in its expanded modern definition includes Xinjiang, so that is incorrect. It would just be a retreat from Transoxiana an then a retreat from Xinjiang after the An Lushan rebellion. Qiushufang (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, numerous sources mentioned their retreat from Central Asia, which I don't mind citing them for the statement of forcing the Tang to retreat from Central Asia, whatever you're concluding here would be considered as a WP:OR, there is a already a source arguing that an Lushan ended their presence in Central Asia which is included in the paragraph, how can we not include the statement of Tang being forced from Central Asia for a millennium by the Abbasids, while mention sources say that An Lushan ended their presence in Central Asia? didn't we agree to include both views shortly? The current version of the article has represented both views. We can't ignore how so many sources (5-6 sources) mentioned their withdrawal from Central Asia after this battle. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR to point out that a source's information does not conform to the current expanded definition of Central Asia. A source's content does not exist in a vacuum. Definitions of terms change. Qiushufang (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition, these are not two separate views, that China did or did not withdrew from Central Asia. The Tang withdrew from Transoxiana, which is a part of Central Asia, but not from Xinjiang, which is also part of Central Asia. I don't see what the point is in saying they withdrew from Central Asia when saying Transoxiana and Xinjiang is more specific. Saying that they withdrew from all of Central Asia conflates Xinjiang with the withdrawal, which is not claimed by any source other than fringe ones. Qiushufang (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've instated a version of your proposed paragraph with some grammatical improvements as well as specifying that the withdrawal was from Central Asia west of Xinjiang. I also noticed that the version of "Central Asia" that some of the sources you attached are talking about (i.e. But the T'ang never returned west of the Pamirs (Peers) battle for control over western Central Asia... began the retreat of the Tang from Central Asia (Haug)) explains the gist of what I am talking about, aka the exact parts of Central Asia affected and to what degree. Qiushufang (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked the proposed paragraph and everything looks great, I only added a small detail regarding the submission of the Turks in the paragraph. I did some changes of such as removing some paragraphs that caused a little confusion. the reason for removing them is that we don't need additional views regarding the battle's outcomes beyond the one paragraph we added. I am happy that we resolved this issue. if you may remove this section from the talk page, I would appreciate it. R3YBOl (🌲) 12:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended content

1. Chrissanthos, Stefan G. (2022). "Tang Dynasty". EBSCO. Retrieved 21 November 2025. it was also near the end of his reign that the long decline of the Tang Dynasty began. In 751 c.e., the Chinese were defeated at the Battle of Talas River by a Muslim ՙAbbāsid army. This ended China's presence in Central Asia.
2. Bosworth, C.E (2020). "KHORASAN v. History in the ʿAbbasid Period". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. XVI: Kashan–Kešaʾi Dialect. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 615–630. After the fall of Bukhara, Abu Moslem's forces were able to subjugate or pacify other areas across the Oxus, including Ḵottal, Farḡāna, Šāš (Čāč), and Keš (qq.v). In these areas, many of the local rulers were hostile to Abu Moslem, and a coalition of them appealed to T'ang China for help. A large Chinese force was sent to assist the Eḵšid (q.v.), the Sogdian ruler of Farḡāna, against the king of Šāš, and Abu Moslem retaliated by sending Ziād, his governor in Samarqand, to attack the Chinese and their allies; the main battle took place at Aṭlaḵ (Ṭarāz or Talas) in July 751 and ended in the complete rout of the Chinese coalition. Rarely mentioned by the Muslim historians (an exception is Ebn al-Aṯir, V, p. 449), the battle was of decisive importance in breaking Chinese influence in the region and beginning the process of the integration of Transoxiana into Khorasan(see Barthold, pp. 195-96; Gibb, pp. 97-98; Karev, 2002, pp. 11-16; Haug, pp. 154-58).
3. Bosworth, C.E. Ṭarāz. Vol. 10. p. 222. Talas first comes into prominence in Islamic _history as the general locale of the battle fought in Dhu'l-Hijja 133/July 751 between the Chinese governor of Kuča, Kao Sien-chih, and his Turkish allies, and the Arab commander Ziyad b. Salih al-Khuza'i, a battle which checked Chinese ambitions of establishing direct control over Central Asia
4. Grousset, Renè (1970). The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. Rutgers University Press. pp. 120 and 141. ISBN 978-0-8135-0627-2. In July, 751, Kao Sien-chih was crushed by these combined forces on the banks of the Talas, near present-day Aulie-Ata (Dzhambul). Tradition has it that Ziyad ibn-Salih brought thousands of captives back to Samarkand.*" According to Barthold, this historic day determined the fate of Central Asia. Instead of becoming Chinese, as the general trend of earlier events seemed to presage, it was to turn Muslim.....[.....]... page 141:The consolidation of Arab domination over Transoxiana after the battle of Talas in 751, already mentioned, proved after a century to have benefited the Iranian folk. In removing from Transoxiana the double Turkic (then pagan) and Chinese peril
5. Daniel, Elton L. (2010). "The Islamic East". In Robinson, Chase F. (ed.). The New Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 458. ISBN 978-0-521-83823-8. The definitive victory marking the consolidation of the Islamic east would come ten years later, after the Abbasid revolution, with Ziyad ibn Salih.'s defeat of a Chinese led army at Talas an event of world historical significance, though one curiously neglected in works by the early Arab historians.
6. Haug, Robert (2019). The Eastern Frontier Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia. I.B.Tauris. p. 154. ISBN 9781788310031. While such rebellions continued, Abū Muslim also oversaw expansion into Transoxiana that took caliphal authority further beyond the River Jaxartes than ever before. Perhaps one of the more widely known events in the history of early Abbasid Central Asia is the famed Battle of Talās - also known as Tarāz or Atlakh an engagement between armies of the Abbasid and Tang Empires that took place in July 751 along the River Taraz 12 km southeast of the city of the same name at a place called Atlakh. This confrontation, often seen as a battle for control over western Central Asia, resulted in a victory for the Abbasids and began the retreat of the Tang from Central Asia. Following the outcome of the battle, it would be over 1,000 years before the Qing Dynasty (r. 1644-1912) would bring Chinese rule back to Central Asia. As Karev has argued, this was not some accidental meeting of the two empires but the direct result of the ambitions of Abū Muslim, committed to asserting Muslim control over Transoxiana in the aftermath of the Abbasid Revolution
7. Nicholson, Oliver (2018). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. p. 110,310, and 1450. ISBN 9780198662778. OCLC 1030905378. page 110:the Arab victory over the Chinese at the Battle of Talas (751) ensured Muslim domin-ance under the new 'Abbasid regime in Central Asia...[..]... page 310:Chinese influence in Western Central Asia rarely more than nominal, ceased completely after the Arab victory at the Battle of "Talas (751)...[...].... page 1450:The famous Battle of Talas, in which the Arabs finally curbed Chinese expansion into Central Asia, took place in 751.
8. Chaffee, John W. (2018). The Muslim Merchants of Premodern China:The History of a Maritime Asian Trade Diaspora, 750-1400. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 9781107012684. Subsequent Umayyad weakness together with the expansive foreign policy of Emperor Xuanzong (r. 712–756) allowed for a return of Tang power in central Asia, but that ended abruptly in 751 when a Tang army under the Korean general Gao Xianzhi 高仙芝 was defeated at the Battle of Talas (near modern Tashkent) by an Arab army of the newly established Abbasid caliphate (750–1258).
9. Peers, Chris (2013). Battles of Ancient China. Pen & Sword Military. pp. 118–120. ISBN 1473830117. The ensuing confrontation between the Arabs and the Chinese has usually been referred to in western accounts as the Battle of Talas, after the city and river of that name, but it seems to have involved extensive manoeuvring over a wide expanse of territory over the course of several days, which tends to support the idea that most if not all of the combatants were mounted (Beckwith). In the last week of July 751, Kao Hsien-chih's forces clashed with an Arab advance guard under the command of Sa'd ibn Hamid, not far from the city of Talas. Sa'd appears to have stood on the defensive, until the approach of the main army led by Ziyad ibn Salih forced the Chinese to fall back on their own supports. Kao then deployed for battle around the town of Atlakh, and the next day Ziyad attacked him there. Tang sources say that the fighting lasted for five days, with no significant advantage gained by either side. This certainly suggests skirmishing tactics, whether or not the Arabs and their allies were exchanging missiles with Kao's troops from a distance or attempting to deliver blows with swords or lances. Neither army seems to have fielded an equivalent of the fully armoured charging cavalry that had dominated the warfare of sixth century China, and which might have forced a decision much sooner. The experience of European medieval, eighteenth century and Napoleonic warfare shows that heavy cavalry, with their vital parts protected by armour, often suffered very light casualties in combat against their equivalents, and two sides so equipped skirmishing at a distance could easily do so for a protracted period without either being seriously weakened. Finally, on the fifth day of fighting, the stalemate was broken when the Qarluq Turks suddenly defected en masse to the Arabs. The Chinese, now outnumbered, succeeded in extricating themselves under cover of darkness and fell back to their camp, where Kao held a hurried council of war. He was apparently proposing to resume the fight on the following day despite the odds against him, but his deputy commander, Li Ssu-ych, persuaded him that this course would inevitably lead to the annihilation of his army. The next morning, therefore, the Tang began a retreat to the east along a narrow track leading across a range of hills which the Chinese called the Pai-shih Ling, or White Stone Mountains. But the Ferghanans had got there first, blocking the pass with their baggage animals and retreating troops. Li Ssu-yeh, at the head of the Chinese cavalry, literally cut his way through, hacking and beating their former allies to death until the survivors abandoned the path and allowed them through. Thanks to this ruthless act Kao Hsien-chih and many of his senior officers escaped, but several thousand of the Chinese rank-and-file were overtaken by the victorious Muslims and captured. The Chinese prisoners seem on the whole to have been well treated, and as is well known, some of those incarcerated in Samarkand taught the Arabs the secret of making paper a transfer of technology to the west that would eventually have momentous consequences. Another prisoner of war, Tu Huan, travelled as far as Baghdad, and after his release in 762 returned to Ch'ang-an and wrote a book about his experiences. Kao Hsien-chih salvaged his reputation from the defeat, and continued to command Chinese armies in the civil war which was to follow. But the T'ang never returned west of the Pamirs. The only recorded battle of pre-modern times between a great Chinese dynasty and its western equivalent had ended in a disastrous Chinese defeat
10. N. Frye, Richard (1996). The Heritage of Central Asia From Antiquity to the Turkish Expansion. Markus Wiener Publishers. p. 214. ISBN 155876111X. The end of the Umayyad Caliphate also saw the end of any serious resistance to Islam in western Central Asia. It also was the end of any Chinese intervention in the west, and the last battle of Talas (or Taraz) in July 751 marks that end. Ziyad ibn Salih, lieutenant of Abu Muslim, the architect of the defeat first of Nasr ibn Sayyar and then of the Umayyads in Iraq, had suppressed a revolt in Bukhara, and then marched against a combined Chinese and Turkish army near Talas. The ruler of Shash had invaded Ferghana, whose king had called for assistance from the Chinese, while Shash allied with the Arabs. The Turks were Karluks, who had replaced the Tiirgesh in this part of Central Asia. At the battle the Kariuks deserted the Chinese, who were defeated, and many captives were brought to Samarkand, where, it is reported, they started a paper making industry.
11. Hambly, Galvin (1969). Central Asia. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 68. ISBN 0297763148. A powerful Chinese expedition had entered the valley of the upper Jaxartes and even went to the lengths of putting to death the ruler of Shash for disobedience. They were opposed, in 134/751 by Ziyad b. Salih, the general of Abu Muslim, and heavily defeated in a battle which put an end to Chinese pretensions to rule in Mawarannahr. But the battle had an interesting consequence since it was from Chinese prisoners captured on this occasion that the people of Samarqand learnt how to manufacture paper, a commodity which was eventually to supersede parchment and papyrus as a writing-material in the west.
12. C.Levi, Scott; Sela, Son (2010). Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources. Indiana University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0253013593. The defeat of the Chinese in the battle of Taraz Talas in 751 became a symbol for China's removal from Central Asian affairs for a millennium. Thus Central Asia's sedentary heartland became a province of the 'Abbasid Empire and gradually an integral part of the Muslim world. At the same time, caliphal authority in Central Asia fluctuated.
13. Dupuy, Richard Ernest; Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt (1993). The Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 BC to the Present. HarperCollins. pp. 252 and 260. ISBN 9780062700568. Battle of Talas. The Moslems finally drove the Chinese from Transoxiana"./page 260: "Kao then engaged in some questionable, and probably treasonable, intrigues in the Oxus region, whereupon the Prince of Tashkent called on the Arabs for assistance. Kao was decisively defeated (751) by the Arabs in the Battle of Talas (in Kirghiz SSR). This ended Chinese control in the areas west of the Pamirs and Tien Shan mountains.
14. Jenkins, Everett Allo (1999). The Muslim Diaspora: A Comprehensive Reference to the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Vol. 1. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. p. 60. ISBN 0-7864-0431-0. LCCN 98049332. However, the Muslim Arabs were reported to be encroaching upon his territory and his authority. In response, the emperor sent a powerful Chinese expedition to reestablish his power. The Chinese entered the upper Syr Darya Val-ley but were heavily defeated by the Arab forces (led by Ziyad ibn Salih) at the Battle of Talas. This victory effectively put an end to Chinese attempts to rule in Transoxiana and was soon followed by the final submission and conversion to Islam of the rulers of the Turkistani principalities.
15. Harris, Lilian Craig (1993). China Considers the Middle East. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 21. Chinese brought disaster upon themselves by trying to force Tashkent into submission. Allied with various kingdoms of the Tarim Basin, Tashkent encouraged resistance to Chinese control and appealed to the Caliph for support. The invading Arabs travelled eastward along the Silk Road. The Battle of Talas River was a turning point in history akin to the 732 Battle of Tours at which Charles Martel broke the Arabs' westward advance. But at Talas River the Arabs under Ziyad ben Salih were victorious, annihilating the Chinese army and breaking China's grip on Central Asia.

1. Koerting, Gayla (2022). "Battle of Talas River". EBSCO. Retrieved 21 November 2025. To stop an Arab invasion in this region, 30,000 Chinese forces, under General Gao Xianzhi, engaged the Arabs near Atlakh on the banks of the Talas River. The Chinese army suffered a devastating military defeat when their western Turkish (Qarluq) allies deserted them on the battlefield, resulting in their ground support being spread too thin.Arab rule, Islamic civilization, and power would dominate the area during the next 150 years..[..].The ramifications of the Battle of Talas were enormous for China. The Arabs captured many Chinese papermakers who worked in factories near the river. The Arabs proceeded to learn the art, keeping the papermaking process a secret, and began to export paper from distribution points outside Baghdad at inflated prices to European markets. Chinese silk workers, who were also taken as prisoners after the Battle of Talas, passed on their craft to the Arab world as well, but the quality of silk produced in the Near East never equaled that of China. Moreover,the loss of these provinces marked the decline in power of the Tang Dynasty under Emperor Xuanzong. China lost control of its main trade route, the Silk Road , for the next half century. |

|}

R3YBOl (🌲) 16:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

References

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Qiushufang (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Arab conquest of Sindh

i noticed that you reverted by edit in the article without any prior mention of why, May I know the reason? ~2026-51876 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This addition violates MOS:VICTORY which we shouldn't include dots in the result parameter, though is fine to include it in the territorial changes. but the addition doesn't have any difference of meaning with the statement that is written in the territorial changes. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.> Bananakingler (bananakingler) 11:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

arb case notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tag-teaming in North African topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Regarding and - you are removing sourced content with the justification the material "doesn't exist" or "isn't supported by the source".

1. p.164 in the cited work: "The Assyrian Levies distinguished themselves, for example, in the fighting to overcome the Rashid Ali revolt of May 1941. The force thereafter grew and survived until the final British military withdrawal from Iraq in 1955, when they too were disbanded at Habbaniya west of Baghdad."
2. p. 58 in the cited work: "Assyrians made up the majority of the Iraq Levies by 1924"

So your edit summaries are simply wrong. DiodotusNicator (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You can basically see that the works that I removed didn't provide any page numbers to verify the information. Any other editor would have removed the sources anyway because when you cite a work and you don't include page number, this will fail WP:VERIFICATION in which editors will find it hard to verify the cited information. regarding this diff () the page that you provided, however, didn't mention that "Assyrians defeated a large force of 15.000 Axis-aligned Iraqis with British air support in multiple battles. The Assyrians also defeated other Axis-aligned Arabs in campaigns in Syria and Lebanon and were also used in other theatres of the Second World War, including in the Balkans and Italy." so the removal of this information is fully justified. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

So you think you can remove cited content at your pleasure if the cite doesn't contain page numbers? DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There were no page numbers included in the citation, this definitely fails WP:V. my edit summaries are not wrong, as me trying to verify a citation that did not include page numbers, my intention was to look up for the information in the cited work and then add page numbers in the citation. And you yourself found page number where it mentioned Iraq Levies were predominately Assyrian. Regarding the other part that has been restored ("Assyrians defeated a large force of 15.000 Axis-aligned Iraqis") should be removed because page 164 of the cited work does not mention any of this. Please self-revert your edit partially since the information isn't supported by the source. R3YBOl (🌲) 20:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@DiodotusNicator, regarding the discussion of Warfalla where I clarified why a source like Ibn Khaldun and al-Ya'qubi are not reliable sources. That was simply advisory and nothing else. I hope you didn't take the situation as like I have a personal problem with you. I used to cite primary sources in different myself about a year ago, and I was accused of being a bad faith-editor because of it. Maybe a different editor could have accused you of bad-faith editor because you restored non-secondary sources in Warfalla and arguing that they were valid. I dislike accusations and prefer to advise editors rather than to accuse them of bad-faith. as advising and agreeing with editors is considered as a small collaboration in the encyclopaedia. If you're not going to self revert these edits that I mentioned above, I will partially revert the edit in Iraq Levies and revert the other edit in Warfalla as well. Best wishes. R3YBOl (🌲) 20:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There were no page numbers included in the citation, this definitely fails WP:V.

Please point to where this appears in the policy page, because I can't verify it personally. DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please point to where this appears in the policy page, because I can't verify it personally.

• WP:V:verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. – this claim "Assyrians defeated a large force of 15.000 Axis-aligned Iraqis" is an example of an "unpublished ideas or information" as it's WP:OR and WP:OR states : "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published." and also WP:BURDEN states "All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment." and since you restored the unsupported claim "Assyrians defeated a large force of 15.000 Axis-aligned Iraqis" WP:BURDEN also says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution." you have not provided evidence that the source supports this claim ("Assyrians defeated a large force of 15.000 Axis-aligned Iraqis"). and there was a concern raised in the talk page of the article regarding the claim that Assyrians defeated a force of 15,000 Iraqis about almost 8 months ago. There is no doubt that the claim "Assyrians defeated a force of 15,000 Iraqis" is an original research.

R3YBOl (🌲) 22:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You ignored my question. Additionally, please read my edit; I have restored no such claim as what you're opining about here. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I have restored no such claim as what you're opining about here you still did restore another unsupported claim that I pointed out in the beginning of our discussion, "The Assyrians also served in campaigns in Syria and Lebanon and were deployed in other theatres of the Second World War, including in the Balkans and Italy." this information is not supported anywhere by the cited source. R3YBOl (🌲) 22:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. That material is covered in the body. Can I take this response to mean that you no longer believe that a cite not including page numbers fails WP:V? DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that it's covered in the body of the article. I checked the body and I only could find this "By 1943 the Iraq Levies strength stood at 166 British officers controlling 44 companies; 22 Assyrian, five Mixed Assyrian/Yizidi, ten Kurdish, and four Arab. Eleven of the Assyrian companies served in Palestine and another four served in Cyprus. The Parachute Company was attached to the Royal Marine Commando and were active in Albania, Italy and Greece. In 1943/1944 the Iraq Levies were renamed the Royal Air Force Levies." and it's also not sourced. R3YBOl (🌲) 22:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

After only a few minutes of looking through the References sections, I've verified such material is present in at least the "Chronological History of the Iraq Levies" and Solomon's "The Assyrian Levies" sources:

• "After the battle, the force expanded into several thousand men, and they fought in Italy, Yugoslavia, and Greece."
• "1943- Force strength stood at; 166 British officers, 22 Assyrian companies, 5 Assyrian/Yizidi companies, 10 Kurdish companies, 4 Gulf Arab companies and 3 Baluchi companies. In addition, 11 Assyrian companies were serving in Palestine and 4 in Cyprus. The Parachute Company was embodied in the Royal Marine Commando and later were used in operations in Albania and Greece."

DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Lacking page numbers does not mean something is unverifiable. WP:Glossary#unverifiable states Material in an article for which editors are unable to find any reliable sources that could be cited to support it. A source was already cited; lacking page numbers is a potential issue with WP:Citing sources, but page numbers are strongly suggested by WP:PAGENUM and WP:CITEPAGE, but not required; It helps to give a page number or page range—or a section, chapter, or other division of the source—because then the reader does not have to carefully review the whole cited source to find the relevant supporting evidence, which promotes efficient source checking. If the material is supported by the cited source anywhere, then it is verified by the content, even if the process of verifying the material in the article is extremely laborious. Katzrockso (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Temporary injunction proposed

Your comments on a proposed temporary topic and interaction ban are welcomed in your own section at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Proposed decision. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed remedy or finding of fact

Hi R3YBOl, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. When making edits relating to the Maghreb region, broadly construed, Bananakingler (talk · contribs), M.Bitton (talk · contribs), R3YBOl (talk · contribs), and Skitash (talk · contribs) must follow the editing expectations that would apply to a designated contentious topic. Violation of this remedy may be enforced in the same manner as a contentious topic, including through the standard set of user restrictions. Bananakingler, M.Bitton, and Skitash may appeal this remedy after six months, and every six months thereafter. R3YBOl may appeal this remedy at any time, and every six months thereafter.
2. For the purposes of content dispute resolution and edit warring, M.Bitton (talk · contribs), R3YBOl (talk · contribs), and Skitash (talk · contribs) are considered a single user. The three-revert rule applies to reverts by all three editors and, where they participate in discussions together, they are required to disclose this restriction and their arguments should be treated as though they were advanced by a single user.
3. With the standard exceptions, Bananakingler (talk · contribs) is restricted to one revert per 24 hours on any page within the Maghreb topic area, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.
4. M.Bitton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.
5. M.Bitton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months, and every twelve months thereafter.
6. Skitash (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.
7. The WP:RBK permissions of Skitash (talk · contribs) are revoked. Skitash may request restoration of the permission six months after the implementation of this remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.
8. R3YBOl (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed immediately, and every six months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 01:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb closed