:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=88660434&oldid=88612085 This] might be construed as a revert to Zero's version, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=88647308&oldid=88612085 this] should not. The purpose of a block is to prevent people from disrupting Wikipedia. The cautionary note should be sufficient; no need to block the user based on questionable grounds. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=88660434&oldid=88612085 This] might be construed as a revert to Zero's version, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=88647308&oldid=88612085 this] should not. The purpose of a block is to prevent people from disrupting Wikipedia. The cautionary note should be sufficient; no need to block the user based on questionable grounds. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::While I have to agree that Ian Pitchford did violate [[WP:3RR]], I'm fine with your decision to unblock and give him a strong warning. Such matters are best if resolved without blocking, so its all fine. Cheers, [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="orange">'''Rama's arrow'''</font>]] 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
E-mail
I responded. Yanksox 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... you must have been thinking of the one I sent last night (unless my e-mail server is taking awhile). -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel Railways images
Before marking images as {{no source}}, please take minimal effort to trace the source yourself. When dealing with images of some company, for example, please check that company's web site. Eli Falk 08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose I should do that in the future, as it appears several of the images you tagged were quite easy to find (although, for what it's worth, I was tied up doing some homework and didn't have a whole lot of time on my hands). Anyway, my apologies, and thanks for taking care of the sources for those images. -- tariqabjotu 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jotu, I'm curious... I seem to recall durinig editing on Muhammad that you were inclined to remove the see also link to the Seal of the Prophets article which as I recall you did because it was a bit too glorifying. Can you tell me why the Seal of the Prophets article is so contested as it appears to be? Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made substantial edits to the Muhammad article in a very long time; I don't remember removing the link, let alone why I removed the link in the first place. -- tariqabjotu 16:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response, I invite you to respond here if you'd prefer. How do you like to be addressed on Wikipedia now, as Tariq? I researched the phrase Seal of the Prophets and I better understand it now. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes, I prefer Tariq. -- tariqabjotu 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New article you may want to edit
Hello again Tariq, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (→Netscott) 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit busy working on the Babur article, but perhaps I'll contribute if I have the time. This looks like a good Did you know... candidate once the article gets a bit longer. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
images with no license and source
Hi!
Sorry about uploading those files without specifying where I took them from. I did my best to fix that. However I still have a problem with the image Image:Yair Lapid.jpg. I took it from the Russian Wikipedia and I don't know which license it is under.
Thank you so much, Tariqabjotu, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hi Tariqabjotu,
There is a dispute over reliability of sources mentioned here [1]. I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section[2] so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think the inclusion of the full titles of sources (e.g. William Montgomery Watt, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Unviversity [sic] of Edinburgh) in the text is unnecessary. If the credentials of the source needs to be mentioned (and due to the edit war and overall volatile nature of the Muhammad article, they should), they can be placed in the footnotes. Additionally, I question the neutrality of the first paragraph at all because, although I'm sure these things were truly said by these sources, it appears to be a bit lopsided. I see a couple paragraphs essentially praising Muhammad for his treatment of animals (and even a statement that appears to denounce Christianity for it's anthropocentric views), but no contrary opinion. If I weren't too knowledgeable the subject (and, to be honest, I'm not), I'd want to know more about that contrary opinion, especially due to the last paragraph —
However, in Muslim culture hyena, bat, gecko, snake, and other reptiles as well as insects are considered to be ugly, dangerous, vicious, but also powerful and often ambivalent. While scorpion is considered as an ebodiment of demons and evil spirits.
— which seems to get short-changed, drowned out by the positive analysis of Muhammad and Islam. I'm not sure what you mean when you say (to *reformer* section here or to some other article), but I must say that reading the current Reforms section, to me, is quite painful as it appears that you all tried too hard to make everything verifiable. The lengthy quotes and long titles of scholarly distinction really are unnecessary (or at least not in the body).
Your source from the professor at UC-Berkeley is okay (but not very good), unless there is contradictory evidence (in which case it would not be good at all). The professor appears to be an expert in engineering, a field far from Islamic and Near Eastern history, and so I would prefer a better source. But again, I don't see it as a significant issue. The second and third sources seem fine, and I really don't know much about the fourth source to say it's great (although the fact that it was published by an established publisher makes me optimistic). -- tariqabjotu 00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your reply. "Additionally, I question the neutrality of the first paragraph at all because, although I'm sure these things were truly said by these sources, it appears to be a bit lopsided." It might be but the sources I've seen agree on that. If someone brings sources contradicting it, we can include them as well. I hope that sentence doesn't mean you would like to add a POV tag to the section :P The last sentence was added by User:TruthSpreader. I'll try to read the source myself. Thanks again for your feedback. BTW, article Reformations under Islam is just started. --Aminz 01:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could help with reducing over-verifiability of the article Reformations under Islam, I would be thankful. I am not good in english and furthermore have engaged in revert wars recently; whatever I do, with high probability it will be reverted a couple of times. --Aminz 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
I understand why you voted against my RfA, but I beg you to reconsider. I have now expanded my answer to question (1), and as for the confusion with the RfA interface itself, that was largely due to my having no experience with that particular page and the idiosyncratic way that it works; that shouldn't impede my ability to be a good editor or a good admin. I have worked hard on Wikipedia and made a lot of changes, using my extensive knowledge of certain fields as well as commitment to WP:NPOV. Almost all of my changes have been well-received; and I'm desperate to become an admin. Walton monarchist89 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not think I'm going to change to support. I notice that you have made very few edits overall and in the project space (see Wikipedia: contributions) and despite your interest in vandal-fighting, I don't see any evidence in your contributions that you participate in vandal-fighting. Additionally, you can be a good editor without being ready for adminship. That is the category I believe you would fit in to. Thus, I suggest that if this RfA fails you continue to be a good editor and dedicate a bit of time to working in areas that administrators will need experience in (WP:AfD is a good place to look). Sometime before you seek adminship again, it may be a good idea to open an editor review to get some feedback on your progress. Some admin coaching may be beneficial as well. However, please don't see adminship as a validation of your hard work toward improving Wikipedia. You don't need adminship to show you are an asset to the project, and thus there is really no need to be desperate to become an admin. Just take your time and return when you have a great amount of experience and Wiki-knowledge under your belt; adminship is first and foremost about serving Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. Thank you for your advice. Walton monarchist89 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
your 3rr warning
Hi, i know. Have you ever compared my version with the others? It's obvious that the users edit warring with me are trying to delete the sourced information which is a direct compilation from britannica. You can check this easily cause i already had given the link. The reverters are deleting every entry related with turkic people and replacing them with persian (not even iranian) and accusing the all the others as nationalist or pan-turkist vandals. What they are writing is story not history. I shall greatly appreciate if you would be kind enough to make a comparison and check the sources, then we can discuss the issue better. Regards. E104421 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica sources are okay, but sources with authors attached normally are better. I don't see the accusation of vandalism you are referring to, but you shouldn't fight fire with fire; that will only make the fire bigger. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an academic, i know how to write an article better, but i gave the britannica and columbia just as an example. These are easily reachable and reliable sources. I recommend you to check the edit summaries/histories of these articles and compare them. You'll see a how the words changes to reflect pov. Just make a comparison. Connect to Britannica (which is very simple) and compare it what's written in the article or you can compare with my version where i cited britannica. They changed the content but kept the references. Whenever i correct them, they revert. Should we let them mislead people? They are using wikipedia to make their pov propaganda. This is a kind of vandalism or whatever you call it. Regards E104421 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image is, clearly, from the baburnama, which is centuries old, meaning it is public domain.--Irishpunktom\talk 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a (translated) copy of the Baburnuma, but could not find the image in there. I see several other pieces of artwork, but this one does not appear to be one of them. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: My talk page
You definitely make a good point, but the six articles you linked to had more than just E104421 and Tajik edit warring on them. Can you link me to one where it was just those two edit warring? -- Steel 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Babur was really just an edit war between those two. Regardless, perhaps a request for mediation is in order to try to organize all the parties involved in this together. Since the Mediation Committee is really tied up at the moment, maybe a couple neutral parties could try to resolve the dispute. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it looked like an edit war in the making. I actually think this one can stand unprotection. -- Steel 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
congratulations!
At last, Wikipedia has your services as an administrator. I wish you all the very best. If I can ever be of help, lemme know w/o hesitation. Don't worry, this is not a premature congrats! Rama's arrow 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay(Talk) 03:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wonderful news. Congratulations. I am truly delighted. All the best, Gwernol 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations very well done. I'm glad it went very smoothly and painlessly...and you deserved dozens more votes of course. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. All the Best! --Bhadani 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to you, you deserve it! Good luck with the new tools :)--Dakota 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way to go Tariq! (→Netscott) 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any messages between us are impersonal. That your arduous journey culminated alongside mine evokes a sense of brotherhood. Congratulations for your devotion to Wikipedia despite the controversial previous RfAs you had to bear. Rama's arrow 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... that could not have just been coincidence... -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can blame Shreshth for that - if not for him, you'd have been ahead of me by 24 hrs or so. Rama's arrow 03:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All flights are booked. So I shall rather participate in the party on-line. :) And, all the best for for all the time: [3]. --Bhadani 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Statement of felicitations], you smart-ass [parent][expletive]er! I am certain you will make a wonderful sysop and do us all proud. Now go delete the Main Page - crzcrztalk 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore that last sentence. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote count, end time, support, opposition, technicalities, campaigning, notification, responding, religion, editcountitis, length of tenure, time since last nomination, neutrality, bias, civility, incivility, eagerness, humility, trust, distrust, and WP:100. Pretty good! One more support apparently got the job done. - crzcrztalk 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by appropriate categorization. Can you elaborate? -- tariqabjotu 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(...continued on my talk page...) --Piet Delport 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise...
...to see your name in the deletion log. Glad you never gave up trying for the bit. :-) Kimchi.sg 06:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. (By the way, your username change is going to be quite confusing). -- tariqabjotu 06:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change my username, only my sig. I can't change username back to what it was (see WP:BN for reason), and I wouldn't mind if people wrote Kimchi.sg instead. The user and user talk pages for Kimchi.sg redirect to mine, anyway. ;-) Kimchi.sg 06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats
Congrats Joturner. When did you become an admin?!! You deserved it man. --Aminz 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jazakallah khairan. I became an admin not too long ago — about three hours ago. -- tariqabjotu 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I missed it. Otherwise I should have given you a big support. I feel kind of guilty because I was kind of responsible (to some extent) for the previous failure of your previous RfA. But I am happy to see that you are now an Admin. CONGRAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSS!!!!!--Aminz 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joturner, though we sometimes disagree (historically I mean :) ) but may I stop by your talk page when I needed help? --Aminz 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; there was never a point when you couldn't. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks bro. --Aminz 06:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Resilient-silver.pngBarnstar of resilience from Chacor. Congratulations on finally making it through RFA, and good job not giving up after the first two. Hearty congrats. Glad you finally got the bit. – Chacor 06:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Joturner!--KchaseT 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on becoming an admin. Seeing your thank-you message, I am sorry that I didn't "vote" in your RfA (since the consensus seemed clear and correct). It really is ingenious and I wish I had a copy on my Talk page. Eluchil404 12:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on congrat's! Enjoy your new role as admin, and check out those shiny new buttons! OOhhhh! JungleCattalk/contrib 13:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, glad to see you with the buttons. Agathoclea 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me too. All the best with your tools. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You seem to be interested in civility on Wikipedia--on the other hand I think anyone who would be a Wikipedia administrator is basically a fool, as it will earn you nothing but the right to always be at least half wrong in everything you do at Wikikpedia for no pay. Please continue politely inserting yourself into discussions run amok and asking participants to be civil to each other. KP Botany 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tariqabjotu! Have fun with your new tools, and if you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a bit late, but congrats! Khoikhoi 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Late. Congrats. Good luck. ↔ ANAS - Talk 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About that Sprotecting request
Hello, Tariq,
I read your note on the Requests for page protecting page. I'm not so savvy when it comes to WP's technical issues, so maybe you can help me there: if you want to talk to someone who has a different IP every time s/he logs on, do I have to write on *each* of his various talk pages? Also, I think the anon has taken up a user name, User:Knbh. I have talked to him/her there, but there was no response. Also, s/he doesn't seem to use the account anymore.
And, IMO, it's not a question of content. Normally, when someone adds an actor/actress to an up-coming movie, I check the change via IMBd, ComingSoon, or, in case of Bollywood movies, RadioSargam, IndiaFM and Rediff. There are no references for all the actors acting in the movies the anon has edited. I asked several times for references to be added, but to no avail.
Best regards, --PlumcouchTalk2Me 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk to someone who has a different IP every time s/he logs in, it would be very difficult to make contact on his/her user talk pages. Perhaps you could encourage the user to create an account (given it's so quick and easy) to make things a bit easier. Alternatively, you could facilitate discussion on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and semi-protected the Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam article, in alignment with the other two articles for which you requested semi-protection (and were semi-protected by other admins). -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sataniscool
although you claim to be accepting of all religions on you page, you contradict yourself by blocking User_talk:Sataniscool. i'll have you know that satanism is a recognized and protected religion just like judaism or christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.3.106 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Satanism and I have long been aware of its existence (and legitimacy). But that's not the question here. Take a look at Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames, which mentions under Inflammatory usernames:Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. If the username is not a blatant violation of that rule (one could possibly make that case for User:Sataniscool), one can look at the user's contributions to see whether they are in good faith. Judging by Sataniscool's only edit, it is highly unlikely this user was going to be editing in good faith. That is why I blocked him/her. -- tariqabjotu 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with that assessment. Vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely because they present a security hazard (they can edit semi-protected pages if they are older than 4 days), and because such accounts serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the last time a new administrator removed my report about a vandalism-only account, the account was subsequently blocked by Samuel Blanning after I relisted it, although no edits were made from the account in the interim. I'm certainly not requesting that you perform any block that you find to be unjustified; however, as vandalism-only accounts are commonly blocked, I would request that you leave the reports on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so that another administrator has the opportunity to block the accounts. Thank you. John254 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so you have exposed the flaw (or is it strength?) of administrators – they don't all think alike. I stand firm with my opinion (as I'm sure you stand firm with yours) since I don't believe users should be blocked liberally. I suggest you try WP:AN or WP:RFI to get a broader spectrum of opinions, if you feel it's necessary. -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re:[Statement of gratitude]
That's quite amusing. When I first saw it I was thinking it was very impersonal then I read the explaination underneath. Gave me a chuckle, thanks. James086Talk | Contribs 06:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vndl
Thanks for that, I was about to send the list (all edits have been vandalism) to one of my local admins of User:Lad73 Thanks again SatuSuro 06:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pussy protection
Hi. See my comment at Talk:Pussy about options for protecting that page or not. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point, and I believe that's a good idea. Perhaps I'd wait for a bit more input on the talk page before unprotecting the article, though. -- tariqabjotu 14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support!
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Pitchford violated 3RR clearly
You can see the removal of same sections 4 times. Thanks. Amoruso 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[5], [6], [7]; which one is the fourth? His other edits to the page don't appear to be reverts. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [8] is another revert. You can see he reverted back to the version of User:Zero0000[9] even if he added some (which is why he said +). He removed the same blocks of material. Amoruso 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant difference between Ian's version and Zero's version. That's certainly not a revert. Regardless, I posted a message on his page regarding the imminent 3RR violation and the misuse of VandalProof. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"When Jewish independence came to an end in the year 70, the population numbered, at a conservative estimate, some 5 million people. (By Josephus' figures, there were nearer 7 million.) Even sixty years after the destruction of the Temple, at the outbreak of the revolt led by Bar Kochba in 132, when large numbers had fled or been deported, the Jewish population of the country must have numbered at least 3 million, according to Dio Cassius’ figures. Sixteen centuries later, when the practical possibility of the return to Zion appeared on the horizon, Palestine was a denuded, derelict, and depopulated country. The writings of travellers who visited Palestine in the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century are filled with descriptions of its emptiness, its desolation. In 1738, Thomas Shaw wrote of the absence of people to fill - Palestine's fertile soil. In 1785, Constantine Francois Volney described the "rained" and "desolate" country. He had not seen the worst. Pilgrims and travellers continued to report in heartrending terms on its condition. Almost sixty years later, Alexander Keith, recalling Volney's description, wrote: "In his day the land had not fully reached its last degree of desolation and depopulation."[2]
"Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw indeed no living object, heard no living sound, we found the same void, the same silence ... as we should have expected before the entombed gates of Pompeii or Herculaneam a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country ... the tomb of a whole people." [4]
I disagree. Partial reverts are counted too per WP:3RR and this isn't a partial revert - it's a full revert where he removed MORE material. How is it not a revert. Cheers. Amoruso 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This might be construed as a revert to Zero's version, but this should not. The purpose of a block is to prevent people from disrupting Wikipedia. The cautionary note should be sufficient; no need to block the user based on questionable grounds. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
While I have to agree that Ian Pitchford did violate WP:3RR, I'm fine with your decision to unblock and give him a strong warning. Such matters are best if resolved without blocking, so its all fine. Cheers, Rama's arrow 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
^ Tomas Shaw, Travels and Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant (London, 1767), p. 331ff.; Constantine Francois Volney, Travels Through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784 and 1785 (London, 1787); Alexander Keith, The Land of Israel (Edinburgh, 1944), P. 465.
