Talk:Al-Baqi Cemetery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger of Demolition[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is clearly against the proposal for merging the articles. Multiple users have brought their reasoning here, e.g. merging should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles." Per this discussion, the articles should stand alone. Seyyed(t-c) 09:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Start of discussion> I do not see any reason why the Demolition of al-Baqi should have a separate article; none of the other major encyclopedias do that. There is only about 2 to 3 paragraphs worth of merging into Al-Baqi's history section, so size-wise that is not a problem. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: There are lots of lots of subjects not covered by "other major encyclopedias," while we have separate articles for them here. Are you serious? sorry, seemed weird to me! Let's delete all the articles not found in "the other major encyclopedias"! The article is certainly notable and supported by highly credible sources. This event is annually observed by both Shia and Sunni Muslims and rallies are held in this regard. Moreover, there other similar articles in our encyclopedia such as Wahhabi sack of Karbala, To be frank, this nomination seems odd to me. --Mhhossein talk 17:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just hate to see heaps of stubs and starts that together could have made a much better page. Why should the demolition be discussed in a separate article, while it could have added some much-needed well-sourced content to the main article? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that your matter is just seeing "heaps of stubs and starts." However, the article is not a stub or start as you see! It's a notable subject and the sources guarantee having a stand alone article on this. By the way, fortunately we never care what the editors hate or like (it's of course true for I myself) and have guidelines and policies instead based on which you don't tend to discuss. Can you please? --Mhhossein talk 05:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem: WP:MERGEREASON #2 (Overlap) and #4 (Context). And may I remind you that WP:N "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page". --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This an important historical event and annual gatherings are held condemning the action. None of WP:MERGEREASON #2 (Overlap) and #4 (Context) applies here because there's just one para over lap and the article itself is long enough. m,sharaf (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The demolitions are an essential part of the history of the complex - it is of course impossible to not mention the first demolitions and their historical context in this article because it accounts for all the buildings of which historical imagery exists. I seen no reason why a detailing of the second demolitions and the current state of the site should be hived off to a separate article. There seems to be nothing in Demolition of al-Baqi article that should not (or could not) be covered here. So why have two article? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield: If you look carefully at the article once again, you'll see that both demolitions are covered (the article is about both of them). Sorry, but to be honest, your comment told me that you commented here with eyes closed! By the way, there are lots of things to add to this article. --Mhhossein talk 04:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One important question: is there anything in the Demolition that can/should not be covered in Al-Baqi‘? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the quick and simple answer is that there's no reason to cover them in al-Baqi in such a detail, while the subject is substantially notable and needs to stand alone. This is while, there are lots of other things unsaid about al-Baqi which needs to be added to the main article. The merger suggestion was just a rush on your part, assuming your good faith, and will certainly lead to the improvement of the article. --Mhhossein talk 13:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to have two articles when one will do; there is no material difference in the ability of this article and Demolition of al-Baqi to fully deal with content related to the demolitions. I think all 4 reasons for merging that are detailed at WP:MERGEREASON are present here, not just the two that are cited by HyperGaruda. Duplicate: there is no content on the other article that could not be contained here; Overlap: the overlap seems to be 100% for the demolition content, Text: both articles are fairly short, so no problem with the result of a merge being an overly-long article; Context: a detailing of the history of the site is required to understand the repeated demolitions of it, further reducing the purpose of having two articles. Also, your citing of good faith above, as well as your weasel-worded implied accusation of stalking directed against the AfD proposer, are ill-disguised accusations of bad faith being behind this AfD. Do you want me to place a warning about this on your talk page, something you like doing to others? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, those criteria do not apply here. There's one paragraph historical content which is enough. Regarding my TP, do as you wish. --Mhhossein talk 17:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you in the correct place? Which AFD do you mean? --Mhhossein talk 18:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD, obviously. Your first response given in this AfD contained a link to a talk page thread in which you accused the AfD proposer of hounding you. Saying "those criteria do not apply here" is a response that rebuts nothing. I have given reasons why why I think all four actually do apply here. Remember, no actual content is going to be lost in the merge. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please realize the difference between AFD (which stands for articles for deletion) and WP:Merger. Btw, I explained why your motivations didn't apply here. Good luck. --Mhhossein talk 05:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my error: "AfD proposal" should be "merge proposal": an actual AfD process has not been initiated, though the end result would be the same if the merge proposal is accepted. Perhaps an AfD proposal should now be initiated - it will allow a greater number of editors to contribute their opinions and set a time limit on the discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please see this page to learn what AFD is. We usually use it to delete titles which are not notable. Mhhossein talk 18:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs (see reason 5 at WP:DEL) can be used to delete an unneeded content fork (See wp:CFORK) if its content is already covered, or able to be covered, in the main article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Del#5 is not applicable if mergers/redirects are appropriate (which is the case here). Anyway, back to the question at hand. Demolition of al-Baqi contains much about before and after the demolition, which should really be discussed here at Al-Baqi', such as: "History of Baqi" (obviously), the two paragraphs in "First demolition" about Hajj permissions and the rebuilding of Medina (that is about half of said section and even looks irrelevant to both articles), a description of those interred at the cemetery in "Second demolition", and recent developments regarding the cemetery in "Reactions", to name a few. In fact, Demolition of al-Baqi is hardly describing the demolition itself at all, save for two or three sentences. It all seems more to be about the aftermath. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The materials I see are closely related to the subject. The article is of course a part of the history of Baqi, however, there's no need to have them in such a detail. --Mhhossein talk 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTw, you must be kidding by saying "save for two or three sentences." --Mhhossein talk 04:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the Wahhabis of Najd's nineteenth century (1806) control over Mecca and Medina, Wahhabis demolished many of the religious building including tombs, mosques whether inside or outside the Baqi,[4] in accordance with their doctrine,[1] razed it to the ground,[5][6] and plundered the decorations and goods.

Next year King Ibn Saud granted the permission of destruction with religious authorization provided by Qadi Abd Allah ibn Bulayhid, and the program was started on 21 April 1926[6] by Ikhwan ("The brothers").[8] The demolition contained destructing "even the simplest of the gravestones".

So no, I am not kidding. There are exactly three sentences that describe the demolitions themselves, disregarding the summary in the lead. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And who says Article X should not have a background about, and aftermath of X? There are plenty of materials closely related! Your comment is a blatant violation of your previous comments where you referred to 'context' criteria. --Mhhossein talk 05:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:I could not observe positive approach from the talks and explanations in support of merging by the nominator. Per my previous observations it is too a targeted concern. Nannadeem (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Demolition of al-Baqi is a notable subject. Moreover, per merging, merging should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles." Also, I think that the phrase "unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time" similarly means that for the articles such as Al-Baqi' which are much likely expandable considering the amount of available sources, merger is wrong. I don't see much overlap, 4 or 5 sentences at most.Saff V. (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The connected Wahabbi / Salafi / Saudi Arabian / Islamic State destruction of cultural sites is notable - but not as stand-alone subjects dealing with individual site after individual site. It is difficult not to be suspicious that there is a pov at work here, trying to fork out or marginalize connections in order to minimalize or disguise the overall narrative. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as you know we use the criteria determined by the community. See notability to see what I mean. The subject is supported by plenty of highly credible and reliable sources, where the demolition is discussed in depth! --Mhhossein talk 22:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The demolition? Or the cemetery? Because merely 3 sentences that describe two demolitions are rather evidence of the opposite. And again, WP:N "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page". --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I see here are at least 5 closely related paragraphs, while the other parts are also needed and related. Your persisting on "merely 3 sentences that describe two demolitions" seems suspicious to me, in a similar manner as Nannadeem who thought there was a "targeted concern". Do you really don't know that the article needs to explain the situation just before and after the demolition and that the renovations are exactly what we need here in such articles?Saff V. (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please ditch the personal concerns and focus on the articles. If that much background and context is needed for three sentences that describe two demolitions, then obviously WP:MERGEREASON#4 applies (dare I even call WP:COATRACK upon Demolition of al-Baqi?). All that information would fit perfectly in the article about the cemetery itself. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, those users believe that you have "personal concerns" and consequently you should ditch that concerns, please. The rest of your comment is answered above multiple times! Mhhossein talk 10:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Care to repeat the answer? Because I have not seen anyone giving a direct answer on the lack of a thorough description of the event and why it cannot be merged. What is so detailed that it cannot be merged? --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Demolition of al-Baqi (intrinsic question: Why it was destructed?) depicts the ideology behind elimination of Islamic legacy and heritage under cover of specific doctrine of faith with a motive that in future Muslims would have no affiliation with their religious history. Thus its destruction is a targeted concern at large and it does not point out any personal issue either one is editing with or without support. If it is established that no school supports the destruction of Islamic legacy, targeted concern cannot be labeled. Nannadeem (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that can be covered in this article without detriment to the subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If existence and decay/transition (i.e. its destruction or construction) all are one subject, otherwise "Merging Proposal" appears to be the king’s verdict. Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see no reason to merge this article. It is a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Where is the significant coverage of the destruction, as stipulated by WP:GNG? Allow to me to repeat that there are only 3 sentences that describe two demolitions, while the rest is background about the cemetery itself or the destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia in general. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you let yourself make such a biased comment? Of course the article needs a brief background (here 6 lines) and of course the demolition had some consequences which of course have to be covered in this article. Some historians visited and described the remainings of the destruction which of course needs to be reflected here. Wahhabis had some motivations for themselves which of course needs to be covered here. Of course the demolition had some reactions by scholars and people, which of course should be covered in under this title. Still 3 lines? Be objective please. --Mhhossein talk 07:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The events of the destruction seem independently notable to me, and I feel merging the information from that article into this article would make it unnecessarily dense. The information looks like it can be best presented in two different articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal[edit]

I think merging tag should be removed now.Nannadeem (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC) <End of discussion>[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Baqi_Cemetery&oldid=1204645963"