This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somaliland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Somaliland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomalilandWikipedia:WikiProject SomalilandTemplate:WikiProject SomalilandWikiProject Somaliland articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somaliland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Somaliland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomalilandWikipedia:WikiProject SomalilandTemplate:WikiProject SomalilandWikiProject Somaliland articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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.
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.