User talk:Yosf22ww

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

Again, welcome! I hope you decide to stay and contribute. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

If you have further questions, the Teahouse is a good place to ask, or you can add to the thread you started on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hi Yosf22ww! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Mamluk Sultanate several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Mamluk Sultanate, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, sir, and I appreciate that. The truth is that this dispute is not the same way most disputes are raised, as my opponent believes that my amendment is "worthless" and that "Wikipedia is not a place to explain the meanings of the Arabic language" and that "this will not benefit the reader at all and will take him off topic", although he did not dispute its credibility, but rather he believes that it is simply worthless. I thought a lot about the subject and even thought that perhaps the "official name" of the Mamluk state was not essential or important in history to formulate it, so I was thinking of creating an independent article that explains and addresses the subject of the name of the Mamluk state in detail, but I do not know if I should actually start because it might be cancelled due to my opponent saying "Wikipedia is not a place for this". So I ask you, should I take this step? Or continue trying to insert it into the original article? And what will Wikipedia's position be in both cases? Yosf22ww (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yosf22ww. Whether a separate article on the name of the state makes sense depends on whether there are multiple reliable sources discussing it. Looking at the discussion on the Talk page, it doesn't look as if you have shown that there are. I would advise you not to keep trying to add it to the existing article. This is edit warring - see the warning above. You might find it helpful to ask for advice at the teahouse. My own suggestion would be to focus on improving other articles for a while. Tacyarg (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've already included reliable sources, academic references, and contemporary sources on the Mamluk era, but they were removed due to their lack of usefulness or importance. I was told that Wikipedia's policies generally oppose them, but they didn't understand, despite the misunderstanding or ambiguity in the request. In any case, it's clear that I'm allowed to write an article discussing the identity and name of the Mamluk state on Wikipedia in general, provided I have reliable sources, references, and sufficient evidence. Therefore, I will start working on this article now. However, when we're done, a position on the main article still needs to be taken if the article is successful. Thank you again for your response and contribution to reaching a compromise solution to the conflict. Yosf22ww (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Izz al-Din al-Afram has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Izz al-Din al-Afram. Thanks! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Izz al-Din al-Afram (September 20)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @RangersRus! I noticed that you were the editor who personally reviewed and declined the article *Izz al-Din al-Afram*. I have read your message carefully, and I must admit I was somewhat surprised by its content. You mentioned that the article does not meet the basic requirements for a Wikipedia article and that it needs sources that are *in-depth* (“not just passing mentions about the subject”), *reliable*, *secondary*, and *independent of the subject.* This is surprising, because that is exactly what I have tried to provide, in line with the criteria for qualifying for a Wikipedia article. **Secondary sources in the article:** One of the most important secondary sources used is *al-Mawsu‘ah al-Tarikhiyah* (in Arabic: الموسوعة التاريخية), one of the major publications of *al-Durar al-Sunniyah*. It was produced by a team of authors and editors under the supervision of Shaykh ʿAlawi b. ʿAbd al-Qadir al-Saqqaf. The book covers significant historical events in Islam from the Prophet’s birth up to the present, including a substantial section on the Mamluk state, from which I drew material relevant to *Izz al-Din al-Afram* (this kind of independent, in-depth secondary coverage is precisely the type of material that demonstrates subject **notability** under WP\:Notability). If you didn't hear about it before you can check it on Internet Archive here or through major Arabic digital libraries (such as “The Comprehensive Library” here It is one of the most important and largest digital libraries in the Arab world.) Or you can just get it from the official website of the Al-dorar Al-Sunniyah here.( Please note that it is one of the most important and largest groups that write about the hadiths of the Prophet and Islamic topics, so it is highly credible.) Another major secondary source is the work of **Linda Northrup**, which is widely cited in many Wikipedia articles dealing with Mamluk history, particularly the rise of Sultan al-Mansur Qalawun; I relied on it when covering the rebellion of Sunqur al-Ashqar and the role played by *Izz al-Din al-Afram*. In addition, I used several other reliable secondary sources such as **Michael S. Fulton** and **Artur Obłuski** and Paul Balog .and Ahmed Sobhi Mansour (These are scholarly/peer-reviewed or widely accepted published works and therefore meet the WP\:Reliable sources standard and Notability.) **Primary sources in the article:** Yes, primary sources were also used, but strictly in the proper way as permitted by Wikipedia’s guidelines. They were employed in two ways: 1. Independently, only for straightforward factual details (such as his name and circumstances of his death), while ensuring neutrality with Wikipedia rules. 2. The majority were used As supporting evidence alongside the secondary sources, never on their own. This follows the guidance on using primary sources WP:PRIMARY: primary sources may be used to illustrate or record what those primary materials state, but **must not** be the sole basis for analysis or claims of significance ، interpretations of primary sources require reliable secondary sources. I have therefore (a) cited primary-text quotations with page numbers and (b) relied on secondary scholarship for interpretation and to establish notability. **Integration with other Wikipedia articles:** The article has also been interlinked with related Wikipedia entries that mention *Izz al-Din al-Afram*. For example, his arrest by Sultan al-Ashraf Khalil is mentioned both in his article and in *al-Ashraf Khalil’s* page. Similarly, the *Battle of al-Jisurah* article also refers to his role there. These internal links and cross-references contribute to verifiability and show that the subject appears in other articles and contexts within the encyclopedia (see WP\:Verifiability). For these reasons, I have republished the article with an additional source and with improved information from *al-Mawsu‘ah al-Tarikhiyah*. Thank you for your time and attention. Yosf22ww (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like these Tārīkh al-Barzālī al-Muqtafi li-Tārīkh Abī Shāmah ، تاريخ البرزالي المقتفي لتاريخ أبي شامة - ت تدمري. Vol. 2. p. 429. are unreliable. Find Modern era sources written by historians and scholars whose credentials can be verified and also with the verification of the content. We can not use old source per WP:AGEMATTERS. I see you have resubmitted the draft but I still see sources as problem but I will leave it for another reviewer to review but please do not remove previous reviewer comment as it clearly says to not remove the line. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @RangersRus. . I would like to clathree points precisely so we can resolve this professionally and quickly. **1) What do you mean by “Tārīkh al-Barzālī … unreliable”?** Please clarify whethern: (a) that *al-Barzālī* is a **primary chronicle** and therefore **insufficient by itself** for claims of notability and interpretation , **or** (b) that the *specific edition/translation* I cited is **factually erroneous or otherwise unreliable** (in which case please identify edition/translator/publisher and the exact error or problem). (Policy note: primary chronicles are not banned on Wikipedia; they must simply be used carefully and not replace reliable secondary analysis. See guidance on using primary sources.**2) For clarity: how I used primary vs secondary sources in this draft** To avoid any misunderstanding, here is a concise map : * **Origin / name / parentage (straightforward contemporaneous claims):** these statements in the draft are supported by medieval chronicles such as *al-Barzālī* and *al-Maqrīzī* (used as primary, for the wording “It is said…”, names, and funeral accounts). Where interpretation or contested readings exist I relied on modern secondary reference(s) such as *Al-Mawsuʿah al-Tārikhiyah* (Al-Dorar al-Sunniyah). You can see these citations in the draft (refs: al-Barzālī ، al-Maqrīzī Al-Mawsuʿah . * **Biography / campaigns / role (interpretation & significance):** the narrative of campaigns, role in the Sunqur revolt, and military duties and the biography as well, are supported primarily by modern secondary scholarship: **Linda Northrup (From Slave to Sultan, pp.92–95)**, **Michael S. Fulton (Artillery ... — pages cited in refs)**, **Artur Obłuski **, **Balog **, and *Al-Mawsuʿah* entries. These are cited with pinpoint page ranges in the References section. on the draft page.) ***Arrest / confiscation / release and death:** these factual narratives are drawn from the chronicles but shown in the draft alongside secondary sources that discuss the events (e.g. *Al-Mawsuʿah*, Northrup, Maqrīzī editions where appropriate). The draft explicitly attributes statements to the primary chroniclers (e.g. “Al-Maqrīzī said…”) rather than converting primary claims into interpretive conclusions. **Short summary of method:** primary sources in the draft are used **only for contemporaneous factual statements** (names, reported acts, funeral account) while **modern secondary sources provide analysis, context, and claims of significance**. This is exactly the acceptable method described in Wikipedia policy (primary sources → factual raw material; secondary sources → interpretation). **3) Concerning WP:AGE MATTERS and “old sources are not usable”** Please note: WP:AGE MATTERS (redirected into WP:Reliable sources) does **not** categorically prohibit older primary sources. It warns that the *age* of a source matters in some fields because newer scholarship may supersede earlier conclusions — but it does **not** mean “no primary sources ever.” The proper reading is: use primary/older sources with care and confirm interpretations with modern secondary scholarship. See WP:RS (Age matters) and WP:Primary/Use_of_primary for the official guidanc. ### Requested clarifications / next steps (so we can finish this with minimal back-and-forth). If you consider *al-Barzālī* to be **factually unreliable**, please specify the edition/translator and the exact passage or error you mean (so we can correct or remove that edition). If you mean that it is a primary chronicle and therefore **not sufficient alone** for notability, please confirm that — because I have paired those passages with modern secondaries. You wrote you “still see sources as problem.” Please identify which of the **modern secondary sources** listed on the draft (Linda Northrup; Michael S. Fulton; Obłuski; Balog; *Al-Mawsuʿah* entries; Winslow Williams Clifford; etc.) you regard as mere “passing mentions,” **and give the page number** you rely on when you make that judgment. Per WP:RS, a reviewer’s claim that a source is “only a passing mention” is testable — we can resolve it quickly if you provide the page(s). If it helps, I can add **short quoted excerpts** (pinpoint quotations) from the secondary sources (Northrup, Fulton, *Al-Mawsuʿah*, Obłuski) to the draft to explicitly show where each source discusses al-Afram in detail. That will directly address the “in-depth” concern. AfC reviewers commonly request exactly this; the Articles for Creation guidance and Help Desk emphasize the need for secondary, in-depth coverage when assessing standalone notability. Procedural note (AfC expectations). I understand AfC’s instruction that submissions should show **in-depth, independent, reliable secondary coverage**. I believe the draft already provides modern secondary works and pinpoint citations that demonstrate such coverage — which I am prepared to make even more explicit by adding brief quoted passages or expanding the references in-line. If the concern remains, please specify which source(s)/page(s) you find insufficient so I can address those very points. I will update the draft immediately with any requested pinpoint quotations or with corrected editions if you identify a problematic edition. Thank you again for reviewing — I appreciate precise, actionable feedback rather than general statements; it allows me to fix issues promptly. Yosf22ww (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]