# Talk:Al-Azhar Mosque

Jay, is there a reason why we should link the pages in the footnotes? Google books is iffy with displaying pages depending on where you are, so clicking the link may work for some peopla and may not for others. My preference would be to not include a link unless it is near certain that it will work. Also, and this is probably the reason Im saying anything, it just looks off to me. But if they should be there Im fine with it, just wondering why. nableezy - 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found them really helpful for the end reader in terms of checking the accuracy of citations; just like a link to an online newspaper article, which is not required, but very useful. I was also hoping to start using them myself, once the cosmetic changes are done, to try to help with the content. I know not all of them work at any given time, but many/most of them do for me. I've seen it more and more often in articles these days, and it's not an issue in terms of FA acceptance. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
All right, thats fine. I just dont like how it makes the references less uniform, with some having links and others not. But I guess that is a bit too nit-picky. nableezy - 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This isnt relevant to an article on the mosque. So what if a group held a rally at a mosque, what does that have to do with the mosque. Additionally, edit-warring isnt how you are supposed get material into an article. nableezy - 13:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring by removing it without having any discussion here. I guess the description in the article wasn't clear enough and you aren't familiar with the rally. It very much as to do with the mosque because it was organized by the mosque and the head imam was one of the speakers. I will add this information to make the connection more clear. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.150.128.173 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)
Uhh no, see WP:BRD, when something is removed you dont just push it back in. And no, it still is not relevant to the article on the mosque. If you want to add to the Ahmed el-Tayeb page that he said Al-Aksa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews... We shall not allow the Zionists to Judaize al-Quds [Jerusalem]. We are telling Israel and Europe that we shall not allow even one stone to be moved there. go do that. It still has nothing to do with the mosque itself. nableezy - 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
That is a pretty strange claim... the head imam of the mosque was a speaker at a rally organized by the mosque, and you are saying it has nothing to do with the mosque itself. Very strange!! I disagree so maybe we need to wait and hear what other people think. As for your suggestion to add it to the article about the imam, I think it is a great idea. If you think that is appropriate, maybe you can do it! 92.150.128.173 (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
PS, as you know very well I am sure from reading that page, BRD is not a rule it is just an idea, and from what it says there, nothing was bold about my change. It is not controversial... it's simply an important event that happened at the mosque. 92.150.128.173 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Every change is "bold", and when reverted it should be discussed rather than edit-warred into the article. This continues to be irrelevant noise, but as I see you will not be reasoned with I will await your block for edit-warring before removing it as the irrelevant noise that it is. nableezy - 14:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a warning message for the IP editor at User talk:92.150.128.173. I am linking to it from here since he is using multiple IPs and so might miss the notice.  His comment about BRD suggests he is not familiar with the the WP:1RR rule which has been imposed under the WP:ARBPIA case. He is expected to abide by its terms regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Since a "new" user has seen fit to reinsert this material, this is still not a newspaper, and even if a source were to make the claim that the mosque held such a rally, which they dont, a single day's events in the thousand plus years of the history of this page does not merit such a section. nableezy - 21:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But lots of source talk about these events. This isnt ordinary events. Crystalfile (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If lots of source talk about these events go make an article on it. It still merits no mention on the page of the mosque itself. This page isnt about Israel, it isnt about Palestine, it is about a mosque in Cairo with more than 1000 years of history. Try to remember that. nableezy - 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The sources don't say the mosque had anything to do with the demonstration. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I spoke on your page. Maybe this should be copied here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do. It's best to keep the discussion in one place. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I think headline cleary emphasises "Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood holds anti-Semetic rally, draws thousands at Cairo’s top mosque vowing to ‘one day kill all the Jews’", and "A Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo's most prominent mosque and " the Muslim Brotherhood held a rally at the al Azhar mosque in Cairo which turned one of the most venomous anti-Semitic meetings in Egypt in recent times" so I disagree as they do talk about importance of the mosque. Also mosque religious leader spoke. I don't want to argue with you so what am I supposed to do?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 

Does the article about the United Nations Headquarters include information about all the demonstrations that are held in front of the UN? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I will think about this as it is good example. If antisemitic rally is held in the UN, I think this is relevant. Also, it was end of service "A Muslim revival at Cairo’s most prominent mosque Friday that drew 5,000 worshippers reportedly turned into a hate-fueled rally, complete with repeated vows to “one day kill all the Jews." so was connected and imam spoke. This is different to your example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 

The only original reporting on the event (Ynet) doesn't say that. In fact, they say that "most worshippers who prayed at the mosque Friday quickly left it before the Muslim Brotherhood's rally got underway." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You are right and this should be reported. But it still had a connection to mosque as it was a mosque service that became this hate rally. The context of the mosque is mentioned http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=247078 and the mosque imam said antisemitic things about Jews. This is more connected then UN example as the two are linked in sources, it was relgious service and Al azhar imam was part of it and spoke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 

Another article based on Ynet. Perhaps this belongs at Mohamed Ahmed el-Tayeb, the article about the imam. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not realise a source must not be based on another. There are so many difficult rules. Maybe you are right but I wanted to show that I did not make up this connection and it was connected with the mosque. I was trying to show my behavior was good here as Nableezy said I was editting badly. Crystalfile (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

When source A (such as the Jerusalem Post) writes an article based on what source B (Ynet) has written, it's not credible when they make claims that aren't in the original article (Ynet). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried to show the link better in my edit and added a source showing how it was connected and not just a random place. Is this better?Crystalfile (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this is still not related to the mosque. You need to stop trying to force edits in without consensus. nableezy - 00:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do you say this if this was ending of a service and the mosque imam spoke to the crowd. Crystalfile (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasnt the ending of a service, and even if it was, one rally outside of a mosque with 1020+ years of history merits absolutely no mention on this page. You put more about a rally held then the article has about Napoleon shelling the mosque. This is not a news article, this is an encyclopedia article. This does not belong on this page, and forgetting the only reason that you even added this (which itself is disruptive) or even showed up at this page, there is no reason to include a rally held outside of the mosque in an encyclopedia article of the mosque. nableezy - 19:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Nableezy. we don't even mention the killng of Emad Effat, a prominent Al Azhar sheikh, whose funeral was attended by thousands [1], though perhaps we should. That's an example of recent news that might have a chance of inclusion here. The demo Crystalfire keeps trying to add here is not notable and not relevant to this page. Tiamuttalk 19:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There are actually a number of things post-revolution that need to be added. Examples: [2], [3], [4]. Not sure Effat specifically should be mentioned, but maybe. nableezy - 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
All sources discuss the place and highlight that it happened at important mosque. It was part of the service. Look at "at Cairo’s most prominent mosque Friday that drew 5,000 worshippers reportedly turned into a hate-fueled rally". The imam of the mosque spoke. This means it is connected with Al azhar. Look at the headlines which highlight the place.  You are not being accurate - see Ynet - "A Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo's most prominent mosque ". Why are you saying it happened outside? Crystalfile (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM, WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:UNDUE, etc.etc. Your attempt to smear a thousand year old mosque with trivial reportage is pointless, so desist. Homosexuals parade before the Vatican, not for that do they figure in the history of the place.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:SILLYEXAMPLES Were the homosexuals part of the vatican church service? Did their protest take place inside the vatican palace? Did the pope speak to the gays and tell them about the "trecherous straights" preventing unity. This is silly example becuase in this example there was a link with the mosque as i showed. Crystalfile (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As one walks up towards the Western Wall to visit Al-Aqsa, to your right you will see a small commemoratory plaque with Shlomo Goren's name incised, unless my memory plays me false. I.e. next to the Al-Aqsa someone has thought it appropriate to note the name of the rabbi who suggested blowing up the mosques there. I don't think this merits inclusion at those pages.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
whatever. y you keep on saying unrelated things? First about the vatican and now about plaques. This isnt relevant! I am saying that when sources make link as they do here, and imam of the mosque speaks at the rally, and this was involved with mosque service, it should be included.Crystalfile (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasnt involved with mosque service, and you still fail to comprehend that this is not a newspaper article. This is an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 18:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You dont understand WP:OWN! Sources say "A Muslim revival at Cairo’s most prominent mosque Friday that drew 5,000 worshippers reportedly turned into a hate-fueled rally" and also Ahmed Hazem in Daily News Egypt said that the event was organised by Al-Azhar according to El-Erian and was was attended by some Azhar scholars. Toodles. And of course the imam of al azhar addressed the rally.Crystalfile (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

None of that means that it has anything to do with the mosque itself. And even if it did, it still would not merit even a sentence in this article. nableezy - 14:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
pls confirm if sources did say this was part of al azhar service, al azhar imam spoke at rally, it was organised by al azhar, held at al azhar mosque and al azhar scholars attended you will still oppose my edit? Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the mimicking game. We'll figure out that old username soon enough if you keep this up. nableezy - 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You still havnt answered the question! Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have, several times. nableezy - 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Pls repeat it as I cant see it. a yes or no is enough! Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

See the replies at 14:05, 9 August 2012, 18:53, 8 August 2012, 21:54, 5 August 2012, and  21:50, 5 August 2012, and then see if you cant figure it out. nableezy - 15:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
those were to different things. please answer "if sources did say this was part of al azhar service, al azhar imam spoke at rally, it was organised by al azhar, held at al azhar mosque and al azhar scholars attended you will still oppose my edit?". all i want is a direct answer - sorry if you have to repeat urself. thanks and toodles.  Crystalfile (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not playing this game, my answers above are clear. If you do not have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand what others have said, you should not be editing an encyclopedia. nableezy - 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

FatemeZahraSVG.svg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The name "Bab al-Gindi" does not appear in the source that is cited for this subsection, and I have never seen the name "Bab al-Gindi" to describe Qaytbay's gate at al-Azhar (only ever the "Gate of Qaytbay" or "Qaytbay's gate", etc, which would translate as Bab Qaytbay). There is a "Bab al-Gindi" at Qaytbay's funerary complex in the Northern Cemetery, but I can find no source that gives the same name at this gate in al-Azhar.
Before removing/changing it, does anyone know if this name is actually used for the gate? And a reliable source? (e.g. "Gindi" means soldier, I presume; is this a nickname for Qaytbay?)
Cheers,
Robert Prazeres (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This book has "Bab al-Gindi" as the "Gate of Qaytbay" leading to the court of the prayer hall. nableezy - 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I saw that one too, however it's a book that only talks tangentially about architecture in Cairo, and when I checked the references cited in that book the name Bab al-Gindi still doesn't appear. The book was published in 2014 and the name Bab al-Gindi has been on this page since 2009, and the source cited here in 2009 was simply Rabbat 1996 (who doesn't mention the name, despite giving the Arabic names for every other gate). So it is quite plausible that the author of the 2014 book just took that name off this Wikipedia page in good faith. Otherwise, it's unusual that none of the (English-language) scholars who write about this topic have ever cited the name, as far as I can see.
Nableezy, I think you were one of the original editors back in 2009; do you remember where the name came from? If it's a name that is used by locals but not scholars, it would still help to know that; we could look for an Arabic source. Robert Prazeres (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Will have to go back and look. nableezy - 17:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Ive gone back through the sources that I had saved off and I cannot find where Bab al-Gindi is from. The earliest reference I have to it on this page is here which referenced Rabbat 46-48 and indeed I cannot find al-Gindi on those pages. Creswell also does not mention al-Gindi. I'll remove it in the meantime but I'll keep digging through the sources. nableezy - 19:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Good digging, thanks! (And I only managed to find one Arabic page (from a semi-government site, I think) that cites the name, but again I'm strongly guessing it just adapted the same material from the Wikipedia page.) Cheers, Robert Prazeres (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have Creswell saved as a pdf that I can email to you if youre interested in beefing up this page a bit more. One of my regrets on this site is that I never actually finished the architecture section after finally getting Creswell. Ill try to chip in again but if you are motivated to bring this to FA I would be happy to email you the various sources I have saved off (Rabbat, Creswell, Williams, and Dodge being the big ones for that section, others for the role of the ulema on the state over time). nableezy - 17:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I can definitely chip in for the architecture section, it would be great to have Creswell and Dodge (I have Rabbat and Williams) if that's available, thanks! Robert Prazeres (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, just go to Special:EmailUser/Nableezy and drop me a note and I will respond with the attachments. Thanks for bringing this up, not quite sure how this error has stood for this many years. nableezy - 02:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
R Prazeres Im going to start to try to work on this again, but each time I read the architecture section I think its more of a mess. If you have any thoughts on where to try to fill it in, and what to chop out, Im all ears. nableezy -  04:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey. I don't think we really need to cut anything for length considerations, but I'm sure there's always more details to add as one reads more refs. A more general thought I've had, though, is that the architecture section could be re-organized according to the building's components/features, rather than by historical phases, which I think is what is most commonly done elsewhere (e.g. other FAs like Wells Cathedral or 7 World Trade Center). I think that might make it easier to follow, though it might also require some thought on whether some things can are best explained in the history section instead (major expansions, for example). For example, possible subsections could include: entrance gates, the courtyard, the prayer hall (including maybe a further subsection on the mihrabs), the minarets, the attached madrasas and other auxiliary structures, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that makes a lot of sense too. I think the main problem is that I didn’t really know how to put architecture in to prose, so it’s just basically data plopped down chronologically. I like your idea of topically better. nableezy -  08:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)