Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (expression): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:06, 17 November 2006 editB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,958 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 22:12, 17 November 2006 edit undoAmoruso (talk | contribs)13,357 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 70: Line 70:
**I would suggest that if it going to be retained as a redirect, it just be redirected to ], rather than to a particular location. Otherwise, this silly argument is just going to continue. ] 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC) **I would suggest that if it going to be retained as a redirect, it just be redirected to ], rather than to a particular location. Otherwise, this silly argument is just going to continue. ] 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
***Hmmm, you do have a sensible point and a good compromise. Though the ] article already has a section on "third holiest site." ] 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ***Hmmm, you do have a sensible point and a good compromise. Though the ] article already has a section on "third holiest site." ] 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''] 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) *<strike>'''Delete''']<strike> 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Anon''' votes are struck out. Suspect sockpuppet. ] 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' As a phrase, it has been used, but it isn't notable, and has the added problem of being completely unreliable depending on your brand of Islamic paganism, your historical point (at one point, Mohammed had his followers bowing to Jerusalem instead of Mecca for example), and a host of other factors. Not worth having, and if any articles explicitly claim a location to be "the third holiest site in Islam", that is a factual inaccuracy that needs correcting too. ] 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Delete''' As a phrase, it has been used, but it isn't notable, and has the added problem of being completely unreliable depending on your brand of Islamic paganism, your historical point (at one point, Mohammed had his followers bowing to Jerusalem instead of Mecca for example), and a host of other factors. Not worth having, and if any articles explicitly claim a location to be "the third holiest site in Islam", that is a factual inaccuracy that needs correcting too. ] 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Seeing the comments above is funny. I particularly love such phrases as ''pre-zionist invaision'', ''Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam'' (obviously someone doesn't know his own religion here), ''Even in ] and ] there are so many references about ] but you do not care?'' - Actually, the Koran only refers to "al masjid al-aqsa" (meaning "the farthest sanctuary") once, in relation to a tale of Mohammed traveling to a heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem is referred to in all its other references as "the nearest", and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the site wasn't built until decades after Mohammed's death, so he couldn't have gone there even if he'd wanted to. But don't let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of your arguments, please. ] 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ::'''Comment''' Seeing the comments above is funny. I particularly love such phrases as ''pre-zionist invaision'', ''Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam'' (obviously someone doesn't know his own religion here), ''Even in ] and ] there are so many references about ] but you do not care?'' - Actually, the Koran only refers to "al masjid al-aqsa" (meaning "the farthest sanctuary") once, in relation to a tale of Mohammed traveling to a heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem is referred to in all its other references as "the nearest", and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the site wasn't built until decades after Mohammed's death, so he couldn't have gone there even if he'd wanted to. But don't let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of your arguments, please. ] 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 76: Line 77:
*'''Delete''' If there was a way to quantify holiness then this article would simply redirect to the article about that one site, and if you cannot quantify holiness then this subject is inherently POV. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' If there was a way to quantify holiness then this article would simply redirect to the article about that one site, and if you cannot quantify holiness then this subject is inherently POV. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', since i like the article. Not because i am the overlord of some random Cabal, not since i hate Jooos and not since i am Shi'a. Does it notice that i do not appreciate being attributed with random imaginary motives? Good. --] 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''', since i like the article. Not because i am the overlord of some random Cabal, not since i hate Jooos and not since i am Shi'a. Does it notice that i do not appreciate being attributed with random imaginary motives? Good. --] 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::(Note to ] to drop his crusade after this insightful edit). ] 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to ]. To me, there seems to be two seperate articles here trying to be born. The first article, which probably doesn't deserve to exist, is about the expression 'third holiest site' and its use and abuse, a bit like the expression ], which does not seem to have a page. The second article is the list of sites, with just one line of information about each site, and maybe a picture for some of the most important sites. Regards, ] 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' to ]. To me, there seems to be two seperate articles here trying to be born. The first article, which probably doesn't deserve to exist, is about the expression 'third holiest site' and its use and abuse, a bit like the expression ], which does not seem to have a page. The second article is the list of sites, with just one line of information about each site, and maybe a picture for some of the most important sites. Regards, ] 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
** Why not to merge in ] an already exiting article. --- ] 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ** Why not to merge in ] an already exiting article. --- ] 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 83: Line 84:
* '''Keep.''' Why not? No policy violations are apparent, and the my-mosque-is-holier-than-thine ''content'' arguments strike me as slightly silly. Needs a better title, though, or maybe a merge to another article on Islamic holy sites. ] 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC) * '''Keep.''' Why not? No policy violations are apparent, and the my-mosque-is-holier-than-thine ''content'' arguments strike me as slightly silly. Needs a better title, though, or maybe a merge to another article on Islamic holy sites. ] 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
** Your arguments are right. I also want to merge it to ] article. But saying Keep you help them to keep "My mosque is holier than yours" POV. Please reconsider your Keep as it will not give results mentioned in your above post. --- ] 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ** Your arguments are right. I also want to merge it to ] article. But saying Keep you help them to keep "My mosque is holier than yours" POV. Please reconsider your Keep as it will not give results mentioned in your above post. --- ] 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oh Boy (sigh). ] 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*** Merging to ] looks good. But merging and POV removal are content issues and do not require deletion. They can be discussed later on the article talk page. There's no reason to reconsider my advice to keep this article. ] 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC) *** Merging to ] looks good. But merging and POV removal are content issues and do not require deletion. They can be discussed later on the article talk page. There's no reason to reconsider my advice to keep this article. ] 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep'''. I guess the idea here is to keep nominating this article for deletion until it finally gets deleted without engaging in dialog or compromising with people who hold different views. I can't go along with that. Sorry. ] 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
** No body renominated it. It is a continuation of 2nd AFD which was stopped after two days. It is relisted by a neutral admin and not be me or someother Muslim. --- ] 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep.''' It is a neutral and informative article. ] 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:12, 17 November 2006

Third holiest site in Islam (expression)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (second nomination)
Third holiest site in Islam (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first AfD was closed as no consensus. The second AfD, closed as procedural speedy keep was overturned at WP:DRV. This is a procedural relisting and I abstain. Please consider prior discussions above when discussing and closing. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please also skim through previous AFD before using this page. That will help to decide you better. Thank you--- ALM 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Article has improved with the removal of "tourist-guide" references and the addition of reliable sources confirming significant disagreement over identity of certain sites. Avi 08:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please stop pushing your POV by deleting references you do not like and creating controversy from a fact recognized by OIC that consists of all the Muslim majority countries. --- ALM 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see here: I removed the POV of "western personalities" (unless you feel that all the Iraqis quoted are also western) and fixed your citation to use wikipedia templates. I have shown in great detail here how you unfortunately only quote partial sources when the whole source would tend to repudiate your point, so I would suggest you re-study WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thank you. -- Avi 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You have still removed the fact that ALL Muslims majority countries are member of OIC (see OIC page). Can you put it back because I want to avoid WP:3RR? I never quoted a source unless I am sure about it. It must be some other person? You read WP:CITE and do not revert the material when it is cited. thanks. --- ALM 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I did something even better, I wikilinked OIC to its wikipedia article. This way, there is no need to bog down the opening paragraph with statistics, as everything you want to know about the OIC is one click away. -- Avi 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
            • It does matter a great deal and that is why I am saying it at this AFD page instead of article talk page. When we say two things FACT-1 OIC has all Muslim majorty countries and FACT-2 same OIC recognize Al-Aqsa mosque as third holiest site. Then why this article should remain kept? To annoy all the Muslims or to achieve some other hidden objectives. If you do not want to change it back I will request someone else. I believe there are still neutral persons in wikipedia and someone can do that edit for me. --- ALM 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC
              • Unfortunately in your case, wikipedia is not a vehicle for disseminating the opinions of the OIC. The OIC carries significant weight, which is why it is the only organization mentioned in the lead of the article, but as there are plenty of reliably sourced and verified statements that there are valid alternatives, to delete it because you do not like it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Similarly, adding extra sentences in the lead to (not-so-subtly) try to push one POV over another would also be a violation of NPOV. The OIC is given the weight it deserves by being in the lead. Our job here is not to appease the worlds Jews, Muslims, Christians, or animists; but to create a fair, impartial encyclopedia that bring suitably notable, reliable, and verifiable sources as devoid as possible from the specter of editor bias, and let the reader decide, and not decide for them. Threatening to violate wikipedia policy by using another editor is not an appropriate step in the dispute resolution process. Thank you -- Avi 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I have been here since a year and never get banned or even treated like that. But I meet you in last week and you have
                  • Chill out, ALM. You seem not to understand wikipedia as well as you claim. 3RR warnings are given to people to prevent them from violating WP:3RR. You do not have to be a sysop to give the warning, that is what WP:AN3 is for. There was no threat anywhere about banning, unless you have a guitly conscience, perhaps. Also, doing it again here? Can you point it out to me? I merely said that your threatening to violate wiki rules by enlisting the help of others is not a step in the wikipedia dispute resolution process. I fail to see a threat against you. Also, you should read up a bit about the difference between a ban and a block, you are interchanging the two improperly. But, as I mentioned earlier, I am finding it harder and harder to assume good faith based on your proven track record of misquoting cittations, adding POV's, delivering threats, misunderstanding editors, and lack of civil replies to those who would attempt to talk with you reasonably; but I will continue to try. So, I would suggest that 1) you may wish to study up a bit on wiki policies and guidelines more, as I think it is you who may not have a full understanding of the many policies of wikipedia and how they apply and interrelate, and also the definitions of various terms such as ban, block, 3RR, NPOV, RS, CITE, CIVIL, NPA, etc. Secondly, I think you should relax a bit about the block; it's very simple, no sysop should ban anyone unless guidelines and policies were violated, although warnings should be applied for the education of the editor and for tracking for sysop purposes (e.g. new users should not be blocked for WP:3RR without sufficient warning, etc.). Lastly, I think you should once again read about the purpose of wikipedia, and how it is not to push one POV over another, but to provide a fair, impartial encyclopedia that brings suitably notable, reliable, and verifiable sources as free as possible from NPOV. You have much to offer, but please do so in accordance with policy. Thank you. -- Avi 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • I have learned a thing from you that is to abuse other person but keep using smily. I will adopt it. Hence dear Avi you said that I have track record of misquoting cittations. Please prove of it first? Then I will ask for other serious allegations you have put against me one-by-one. I am very near to report you personal attacks against me which you are launching against me since a while now (see WP:NPA). Dear friend Avi cool down . Either prove each and everything you have said or I see what I can do with your above post. --- ALM 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • I don't know who said it, but please stop assuming why i vote as i do, stop puting me in stupid categories like "he is Muslim! HE ISS BNOOB! He is SHi*A1!!! HE HATES JOOOOOS, HE IS THE MASTERMIND OF THE MUSLIM GUILD!!!!". I have had enough of such comments on the latest month! I have no idea what the third holiest site in Islam is or is not, i voted keep since i liked the article, THATS IT! --Striver 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Dear User:Striver It was not me but the creater of this article :(. It was , and . --- ALM 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • I think i just projected some of my frustration on some users that maybe did not deserve all of it. in that case, sorry. In either way, i am not very interested in finding out who said what, as long as i am kept out of it in the future. Peace, everyone. --Striver 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Misquotes. -- Avi 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That was not me. --- ALM 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The point is not that the article has tourist guide information or not, but the point is that how much is it related to mainstream Islam and would it support that. We don't even have a single WP:RS and WP:V compatible source, that would assert this conclusion. Even the name of the article is a grave violation of WP:NPOV. TruthSpreader 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this still seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information without any real purpose. That such and such location is mentioned as the third holiest site in Islam can be placed on the location's page itself. BhaiSaab 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If that is a dispute between Shia/Sunni then many Shia should be editing here and voting for keep. Where are they? I found no Shai but only people related to Israel editing there. Obviously, we all Muslim think Jerusalem as our third holiest site and very important for Muslims and it used to be our first Kaba. In the early days of Islam prior to the hijra and until the beginning of the seventh month after hijra Muslims offered salat facing towards Jerusalem. . These people related to Israel want to make it disputed using fake media/travel-websites sources. Those sources are already discussed in above AFD. Do you think the article name is right? Third holiest site in Islam..??? Should we also create articles about First holiest site in Islam, Second holiest site in Islam, Fourth holiest site in Islam, Fifth holiest site in Islam and so on? All Muslims in last AFD have voted to delete the article hence apparently they do not think the information mentioned in this article is right. Which Shia is fighting to keeping this article? However, some people like Avi who never worked in any Islamic article and active in Jews article become interested in this one? Mostly Jew editors in last AFD voted for Keep. Do not you smell that something here is extremely wrong and they have created this article to deny Jerusalem importance in Muslims eyes? Oh I should be stupid and continue to assuming WP:AGF despite all the things I see open and clear? Please delete this POV conspiracy article and merge any useful material here in Ziyarat article. Please do not create a reason to hate wikipedia with the existence of this conspiracy article. --- ALM 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment : Many Muslim Shia users voted keep. For example User:Striver who seems to have many edits which are anti-Israel (although I assume AGF) voted keep. Amoruso 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How it becomes M.A.N.Y. Is one is equal to many in your language. I am going to ask User:Striver to vote here again because he has NOT voted in second AFD. You should give at least two people example to prove your MANY point. --- ALM 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm Shi'a. I voted delete. Sa.vakilian is Shi'a. I'm pretty sure he voted delete as well. BhaiSaab 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you BhaiSaab for your support. These people claim that they are fighting to keep that article for Shias. --- ALM 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that I don't keep racial profiling tags like you. For me a wikipedia user is a wikipedia user. I happened to notice Striver was Shia and voted keep - he has anti israeli edits and rv's. This makes your claim false. One is enough to show how bad faith and wrong your claim was. You owe a lot of people apologies too. Cheers. Amoruso 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a good article topic to me. The "expression" in the title is weird to me; why not just have the article at "Third holiest site in Islam" (which is a redirect)? Everyking 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if the article could be improved, it would be by removing some of the content and turning it into more of a list. The list is as objective as it can get. - Richardcavell 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete : POV Pushing, Edit wars, more POV pushing, personal agenda's, conflict of interest, Edit wars, Users acting in bad faith, some people that haven't even read the article or looked at it's history and don't know why it's up for AfD in the first place claiming that it's 'good' and 'interesting' , Self published sources, Undue weight given to content in articles that aren't about the sites themselves. For more information, take a look at the article's talk page. So, violation of WP:POINT, misusing WP:V, WP:NPOV among other things. And if you do find the content interesting, it has already been forked into the respective articles of the proposed site(s).And no, this isn't a mere content dispute.(WP is not a soapbox). thestick 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in favor of redistributing all noteworthy content to individual articles on particular sites. The title change to me does not solve the matter of the "third holiest site" ultimately being a theological designation and not a linguistic or a political one or a matter that can be authoritatively addressed outside of scholastic, peer-reviewed literature on the topic, written by theologians. Keeping all the sites lumped together like this as if the respective assertions from various sources were all of equal value or weight seems to me, on its face, to be a misapplication of the NPOV policy, if a well-intended one by most of the editors who worked on improving this article. I think everyone involved would be better off putting these debates behind us by forking the content and deleting the article. --Amerique 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Avi who has done a fabulous job improving the article. There has been no pre-zionist invaision scholastic, peer-reviewed literature written by theologians produced stating that Al-Aqsa Mosque is third, so why should it be needed for all the other sites? Chesdovi 11:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not what I was proposing. In any case, there is no WP policy mandating "pre-Zionist invasion" resources for Islamic theological questions, if good faith is assumed.--Amerique 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly are you referring to ? In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept. This is the same article, you can talk about renaming it in the discussion page but shouldn't list it all the time. Amoruso 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not really a third AFD but previous AFD which was speedy keep after TWO days of discussions is overturned. Why it is difficult to understand even with the URL I mentioned above? I have not renominated it but an admin had renominated it because of a thing called deltion-review. --- ALM 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
if you didn't nominate it what possessed you to falsely claim that it can't be speedily kept ? It should be speedily kept because it was agreed from day one that there's no consensus on the subject and nominating the article for deletion every 2 seconds is very disruptive. Amoruso 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon votes are struck out. Suspect sockpuppet. Amoruso 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete As a phrase, it has been used, but it isn't notable, and has the added problem of being completely unreliable depending on your brand of Islamic paganism, your historical point (at one point, Mohammed had his followers bowing to Jerusalem instead of Mecca for example), and a host of other factors. Not worth having, and if any articles explicitly claim a location to be "the third holiest site in Islam", that is a factual inaccuracy that needs correcting too. RunedChozo 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Seeing the comments above is funny. I particularly love such phrases as pre-zionist invaision, Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam (obviously someone doesn't know his own religion here), Even in Quran and Hadith there are so many references about Al-Aqsa Mosque but you do not care? - Actually, the Koran only refers to "al masjid al-aqsa" (meaning "the farthest sanctuary") once, in relation to a tale of Mohammed traveling to a heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem is referred to in all its other references as "the nearest", and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the site wasn't built until decades after Mohammed's death, so he couldn't have gone there even if he'd wanted to. But don't let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of your arguments, please. RunedChozo 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is actually a reason to KEEP. You can add this information at the intro of the article. This info exists on the al aqsa mosque article , jerusalem article and others. Amoruso 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If there was a way to quantify holiness then this article would simply redirect to the article about that one site, and if you cannot quantify holiness then this subject is inherently POV. HighInBC 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, since i like the article. Not because i am the overlord of some random Cabal, not since i hate Jooos and not since i am Shi'a. Does it notice that i do not appreciate being attributed with random imaginary motives? Good. --Striver 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
(Note to ALM to drop his crusade after this insightful edit). Amoruso 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to List of major Islamic holy sites. To me, there seems to be two seperate articles here trying to be born. The first article, which probably doesn't deserve to exist, is about the expression 'third holiest site' and its use and abuse, a bit like the expression 8th wonder of the world, which does not seem to have a page. The second article is the list of sites, with just one line of information about each site, and maybe a picture for some of the most important sites. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since this is neutral and encyclopaedic. The argument that it should be deleted because the al Aqsa Mosque is obviously the third holiest site is one that totally ignores the idea of Misplaced Pages having a neutral point of view. The idea that this will be brought to AfD instead of working out issues on Talk strikes me as absurd and disruptive of process (per MartinDK). Tewfik 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not? No policy violations are apparent, and the my-mosque-is-holier-than-thine content arguments strike me as slightly silly. Needs a better title, though, or maybe a merge to another article on Islamic holy sites. Sandstein 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Your arguments are right. I also want to merge it to Ziyarat article. But saying Keep you help them to keep "My mosque is holier than yours" POV. Please reconsider your Keep as it will not give results mentioned in your above post. --- ALM 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh Boy (sigh). Amoruso 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Merging to Ziyarat looks good. But merging and POV removal are content issues and do not require deletion. They can be discussed later on the article talk page. There's no reason to reconsider my advice to keep this article. Sandstein 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. I guess the idea here is to keep nominating this article for deletion until it finally gets deleted without engaging in dialog or compromising with people who hold different views. I can't go along with that. Sorry. Elizmr 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No body renominated it. It is a continuation of 2nd AFD which was stopped after two days. It is relisted by a neutral admin and not be me or someother Muslim. --- ALM 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a neutral and informative article. Isarig 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Lindsay, James (2005). Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World. Greenwood Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN.
Categories: