Talk:Masjid al-Qiblatayn, Zeila

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Masjid al-Qiblatain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Age of the mosque

Hi Doherty93. The claim that the mosque was built in the 7th century is a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL: the only reliable source cited in this article ([1]) states that no archeological information, including dating, was currently available for the structure. No other reliable sources on Islamic architecture seem to mention this mosque either, despite this claim that it would be one of the "oldest in the world".

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this claim should be verified with clear and precise scholarly sources. If there are such sources, please provide the exact details here on the talk page and please include relevant quotes if they are not publicly accessible online. Until that's done, nobody should be removing the maintenance tag. R Prazeres (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Noting here for any other editors: not only has the maintenance template been removed multiple times without consensus ([2], [3], [4], [5]), but every source added in its place so far has been irrelevant to the statement it's supposed to verify. Therefore this issue remains unresolved. This edit also reintroduces an unsourced claim not supported by any of the cited sources either. R Prazeres (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The citations added in these latest edits are random websites and once again, not reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what is considered a reliable source. (Madain, for example, frequently just repeats what's on Wikipedia.) I have also responded to @Doherty93's comments on their talk page here, but discussion on this article should be done here in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not random. Stop trying to discredit our heritage before you start cursing! Doherty93 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I don't know what "cursing" you're talking about. More importantly: your heritage, Doherty93, is better served by respecting Wikipedia's guidelines and taking the subject seriously, which means following what reliable sources say only. A well-supported summary of what expert sources say on the topic is always more useful and more interesting to readers, and that's what Wikipedia aims to be.

If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy and how it applies here, please ask. But do not simply re-edit the article to what you prefer without discussing and resolving the issues already raised. That only impedes any progress on improving the article. (Think about what would happen if these policies didn't exist: if we were allowed to cite anything regardless of its reliability or relevance, another editor with a hostile bias, for example, could insert denigrating information based on bad/misleading sources, and keep doing that over and over again even when other editors object; nothing would ever be improved and no one would take any Wikipedia articles seriously.) R Prazeres (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove the CIA document? Have good faith in who? You’re lying. You should be ashamed of yourself!!!!! Don’t remove our content I’m dead serious!!!!! Doherty93 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: Calling me "Turkic Egyptian" (as you did here) is just plain silly. I'm obviously not a Turkic Egyptian and it wouldn't be relevant if I were. I've made an effort to assume good faith and be civil with you (these are also Wikipedia guidelines), please show other editors (myself included) respect by keeping your discussion to the article and its sources. Thank you, R Prazeres (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Everywhere there’s people like you trying to discredit our heritage. I see you gatekeeping other pages on Wikipedia with no substance. Get out of here. Doherty93 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Shameful guy! All you Egyptians are like that. Claiming h history that is not yours. Mamluks Ottomans Arabs Doherty93 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Masjid al-Qiblatayn (Somaliland) → Masjid al-Qiblatayn, Zeila – Generally, more neutral and more consistent with Wikipedia practice:

• To disambiguate buildings of the same name, the common practice elsewhere is to name the city, not the country or region. For example, see the disambiguated articles listed at Blue Mosque, Kasbah Mosque, St Mary's Church, St. John's Cathedral, etc.
• This article's history is littered with disruptive POV edits changing Somaliland to Somalia or vice-versa, due to the obvious political disagreements over the status of Somaliland, e.g.: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (and many more!). Even the current title is the result of a move without discussion a while ago: [14]. This is pointless and unnecessary, and at least some of it can be avoided by simply moving to a more regular disambiguation.

R Prazeres (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.