Talk:Mamilla Cemetery

Former falsehoods in this article

I edited this article recently because of rediculous falsehoods in it. The previous version claimed that half the cemetery was destroyed to build Independence park. It then claimed the "other half" was being slated to become the museum of tolerance. This is simply not true in anyway shape or form. I live next to the cemetery. Only the northwestern portion is slated to become the 'Museum of Tolerance' and this is the area that had served as the parking lot and already been destroyed. the Independence park has no connection to the cemetery, old photos at Mamilla show the cemetery as it was. Independence park forms the eastern border and is itself full of arhceological ruins, but not connected to the cemetery. Someone who never saw the cemetary fantisized that it was all being bulldozed. It is not and it still remains, about 80% of it, the way it has been for 150 years.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the sources i have read and added to the article (and others that have yet to be added), practically everything you say above is wrong. I'm going to look up the version of the article prior to your edits to see if any good source material can be salvaged. `Tiamut^talk 18:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Very POV; Center for Constitutional Rights perspective needed

The Center for Constitutional Rights' position on this issue, see[1], is that "This construction project has resulted in the disinterment of hundreds of graves, and the whereabouts of the countless human remains that have been disposed of are unknown." The parking lot (red herring) I assume was built while the cemetery has been under the control of Israeli authorities, which it has been since 1948. This is a terribly biased article at present. Here is additional material from the link above:

In 1948, the year control of the cemetery was taken over by Israel, the Israeli Religious Affairs Ministry recognized Mamilla “to be one of the most prominent Muslim cemeteries, where seventy thousand Muslim warriors of [Saladin’s] armies are interred along with many Muslim scholars. Israel will always know to protect and respect this site.” As recently as 1986, in response to an investigation by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) regarding Israel’s development projects on Mamilla, the Israeli government stated that “no project exists for the deconsecration of the site and that on the contrary the site and its tombs are to be safeguarded.”

Haberstr (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I added this material, and removed the POV tag. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the intro states "The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and other groups have filed a petition on behalf of the Palestinian descendants of those buried in an ancient Muslim cemetery, the Mamilla Cemetery, in Jerusalem." so it is really POV from an not reliable source... Avoid their info. Find somewhere else Savasorda (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. You need some reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:N. So far you're only using the CCR site. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Savasorda (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Clermont-Ganneau

There's a lot of information about this cemetery in Clermont-Ganneau's Archaeological Researches in Palestine 1873-1874. I'm a little busy at the moment but if someone else has the time, this stuff should definitely go in the article. There are also some nice pictures at the he.wiki article. I'd move them over if I knew how. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

sources with relevant info to add

• Human dignity in Jerusalem by Rashid Khalidi
• Farewell to Mamillah Cemetery in The Palestine Post, 18 December 1945
• Israel exhumes 100 new tombs in Jerusalem's historic Ma'man Allah cemetery, Middle East Monitor, 27 June 2011
• Petition to UN by mamillacampaign.org Tiamut^talk 22:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mujir al-din al-'Ulaymi's 15th century description (In French translation) Tiamut^talk 23:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Jerusalem approves revised plan for contested Museum of Tolerance site(June 9, 2011) Tiamut^talk 17:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Museum of Tolerance Special Report / Part I: Holes, Holiness and Hollywood (Part 1 of a five part series) - this has so much information that is not currently in our article. Like " At its peak the cemetery covered an area of about 200 dunams ‏(some 50 acres‏), so that in effect today large parts of downtown Jerusalem are built over graves." IT also mentions that hundreds of skeletons were removed between November 2008 and aPril 2009 during 24-hour digs to lay the foundations for the Museum of Tolerance. So much to add, i don't know where to start. Tiamut^talk 18:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sylvia Auld et al

Does anyone have more than a snippet view for this source? It's not clear it's talking about Mamilla and it contradicts other sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't have more than snippet, but the snippet I can see [2] says: "(Ma'man Allah), where the tombs of several Sufis and religious scholars, including Companions of the Prophet, were to be found." Tiamut^talk 14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Other sources that say the same:

• "He fails to mention that the ancient Arab cemetery of Mamillah, where companions of the Prophet are buried,"
• "Tradition has it that companions of the Prophet are buried there,"
• "Mamillah, by contrast, is almost as old as Islam itself. Companions of the Prophet are buried there."
• "the Mamilla cemetery, formerly the largest Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem and the burial site of several companions of the Prophet" Tiamut^talk 14:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have access to the book in a few weeks. Zero^talk 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not necessary, the other sources are fine. In he.wiki it says that according to Sefi Ben Yosef the Muslim cemetery was built around the "kubakiyah", but they have much less strict sourcing requirements. I'll note again there are some good pictures there if someone knows how to transfer between wikis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are those picture free use or fair use? If the former they can (should) be moved to commons, if the latter they will need to be uploaded locally (with a valid fair use rationale). nableezy - 17:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a Clermont-Ganneau sketch which is public domain in most places, and the rest of the pics are CC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you give me links and translate the descriptions I will upload them to commons. Or you can do it yourself. But the only way for images to be shared across wikipedias is for them to be on commons. nableezy - 14:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

this one is already in commons. this is a photo of the kubakiya, and this is a crusader area grave or sarcophagus or whatever you'd call it. It's also mentioned and sketched by Clermont-Ganneau.

There's also a pic of the graveyard with Jerusalem in the background which I don't think is very good, and one with the Lion's Cave which isn't discussed yet in the article but could be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maps

We need some maps! I think this one shows the extent of the cemetery in 1943: File:JerusalemClose1943.jpg. Zero^talk 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the blue area the cemetery? Or the area around it? Is there a scale for the map? I"m trying to find info on how large an area it covered pre-1927, pre-1948, pre-1967, etc. Tiamut^talk 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fake Gravestones?

Reference this section

In August 2010, the municipality of Jerusalem removed about 300 tombstones from the Independence Park next to the cemetery after Arutz Sheva wrote an article on fake tombs planted there.[21] The Islamic Movement claimed these were recently built or renovated Muslim graves. The city claimed that the court approved removal was of "dummy gravestones" which were laid in the last seven months.

The referenced webpage gives no details of any organisation known as 'The Islamic Movement.' In the absence of any evidence of what such an organisation is supposed to have said, I propose to remove that sentence.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the other ref. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check into this incident, but settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva is thoroughly unreliable and shouldn't be used as a source. Zero^talk 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing Arutz Sheva is being used for is the statement that they reported it first, which we can do without. They do have some good pics and video though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't had a chance to investigate this section, but will comment once I have. ON a related note, we still have to add the most recent destruction that took place at the end of June this year as mentioned in Israel exhumes 100 new tombs in Jerusalem's historic Ma'man Allah cemetery, Middle East Monitor, 27 June 2011. Tiamut^talk 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is MEMO considered a reliable source? Seems to be about as reliable as Arutz Sheva. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other sources, if it is a problem. The story was oddly ignored in most of the english-language press, but there is this entry at Axis of Logic by the Center for Constitutional Rights, The Mamilla Campaign which links to a report by AL-Jazeera (Available on youtube here. I'll look for more sources if these also fail to meet RS in the view of you and other fellow editors. `Tiamut^talk 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is also this report in english by the WAFA news agency [3] and in their roundup of Arabic newspaper stories, they say that al-Quds, the Arabic-language daily had a story and an editorial devoted to the issue [4]. Tiamut^talk 18:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. I know about it because I saw the al-Jazeera report linked to above the day it was broadcast. (Aside: Despite hating al-Jazeera these days, I still watch it from time to time, for lack of other options. Soon though Ghassan Bin Jido and other great reporters who resigned from the station in protest over its biased coverage of the Arab revolutions will be coming out with a new station and I won't have to watch it anymore. Yay!) Tiamut^talk 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i rewrote that section based on the only RS cited, the AFP report. I have deleted the sub-section title "Fake tombstone controversy" (twice now, after being reverted once by NO MOre Mr Nice GUy). I think that subtitle is POV, representing the ISraeli POV about what happened. THe Palestinian POV would be more like "Destruction of tombstones". The only thing we are sure happened is that the tombstones were destroyed. That is controversial in itself and the reason the event was given coverage. Parroting the Israeli propaganda line about the nature of the event in the title for that section is POV. If people want it to remain its own stand alone sub-section, please suggest alternate names. Tiamut^talk 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the name being changed, but it's a separate issue from the museum. How about "tombstones controversy"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I'd like to think about it for a while, if you don't mind. If we must have a subsection title (which I don't think is actually necessary, but can accept), might I counter with a suggestion of my own? How does "Demolition controversy" sound? Tiamut^talk 21:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I still don't think it warrants a separate section, but I can live with that compromise for now. Go ahead and change it. Tiamut^talk 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the other issue I raised about the June 2011 demolitions, did you have a chance to review the other sources I cited? Can i go ahead and add something based on them? Or do you still have RS concerns? Tiamut^talk 10:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I do have RS concerns (for example, axisoflogic doesn't seem like an RS to me), but how about something along the lines of "the Arabic press reported that 100 more tombstones were destroyed..." etc? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that will work for me. The sources I cited were largely in English (I haven't looked by Arabic-language sources yet). Characterizing them as "Arabic" isn't right. Characterizing them as ethnically Arab doesn't work for me either. There's an ENglish language report on what happened in an Iranian paper here that i just found and its a RS as far as i can tell. I find the paucity of coverage in Western papers disturbing (and somewhat offensive) but strangely unsurprising. Anyway, do you think such a qualifier is absolutely necessary? Tiamut^talk 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WAFA is reporting in English about what al-Quds reported in Arabic. The al-Jazeera report is in Arabic. I kinda doubt "Ahlul Bayt News Agency" is a RS and anyway their report is sourced to Ma'an. My concern is that these sources are, how shall I put it, somewhat agenda driven. And since none of them include the other side's response, that creates an NPOV problem. I think we established tombstones were demolished (the video shows what it shows) but the only information we have on exactly where and exactly why is pretty one sided. I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I assume you have plans to expand the history section? Otherwise the museum controversy is starting to look a bit UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have plans to continue working on all aspects of the article, including the history section (which i wrote singlehandedly). I also plan to cut down the museum controversy after adding more material and then copy editing it all. Perhaps some will go into the article on the museum itself. `

About the latest June 2011 demolitions, I'd like to hear feedback from other editors. Perhaps we should take the sources we have to RSN? Tiamut^talk 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Just making sure.

If we can't reach an agreement here I guess RSN can be the next step. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To add

Besides the June 2011 destruction mentioned in the section above, for which I am still searching for more sources this should be added.

Jerusalem's Museum of Tolerance Under Fire—For Intolerance Tiamut^talk 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Archaeologists resume work at contentious worksite of Jerusalem museum

• Muslim graves vandalised at disputed Jerusalem site Tiamut^talk 16:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I added material on the vandalism of gravestones in 2011. It was deleted by Plot Spoiler. I have restore the edit here. Could editors with a problem with the material discuss th issue here? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The material you added was objected to. Per BRD you're supposed to discuss it first, not put it back into the article and then discuss. That's how edit wars start. It's not called BDR, and for a good reason. Anyway, is this one source discussing in a couple of paragraphs an incident that apparently happened a few weeks before anyone noticed, the only coverage this got? That doesn't seem very notable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As a singular incident, does not seem notable and therefore WP:Undue. If there has been a history of vandalism, perhaps that deserves a section but not one incident. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There are other sources covering it and other cases of vandalism. I don't have time to put them together right now, but tonigh, I will add a section on vandalism over the years. Tiamut^talk 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:N specifies that The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. Arguing that something is not "very notable" is not relevant to its inclusion in an article. nableezy - 06:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find the arguments against inclusion here to be weak and somewhat hypocritical ... but there are more sources and incidents to mine. See http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/even-the-dead-and-buried-enter-the-conflict-1.308076 Even the dead and buried enter the conflict. I think we will have to revisit discussion on whether the 2010 demolition controversy deserves its iwn section as well. I created a section operating under that format. If its not acceptable, the other shouldn't be either. Tiamut^talk

More sources to add in general:

• [5]
• Human Dignity in Jerusalem Tiamut^talk 06:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  Really? You're going to add those? They seem like RS to you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The second source is an article by Rashid Khalidi, and he is certainly an RS. The first is in ramallah Online, a local web news provider. I don't see why it cannot be used. Should I take the issue to RSN? Tiamut^talk 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains at least 30 articles that mention desecration of Jewish cemeteries. I think more than 50, but I got tired of counting. But one that mentions desecration of an Islamic cemetery is too many for some people. Such profound inconsistency. Zero^talk 07:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm too used to the stalling and evasion tactics to be upset by it anymore. The information will be added eventually, it will just take five times as much work. I don't get bored that easily. Tiamut^talk 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the pity party over? I see this interminable sense of victimization extends from real life into cyberspace. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

as do Zionist abuses, I suppose? ... in any case, the AFP story was republished by tens of other news sites, including France24 and Arabiya for eg. Other independent reports come from [6], The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Clearly your claim that it is undue to include this information holds no water. Tiamut^talk 18:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. Jewish graves are regularly vandalized around the world and I seriously doubt every such incident is mentioned in this encyclopedia (and don't think it should be, in case that wasn't clear). I'm looking at Mount of Olives that has one line about graves being vandalized and one more about a group established to reverse such vandalism. Compare with this article that now has a section about 2010 and 2011 which is half the size of the "Islamic Period" section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The 2010-2011 section includes not just vandalism, but government demolitions. I'm quite sure if Jordanian or Palestinian bulldozers were razing tombstones in the Mount of the Olives cemetery, there would be at let as much coverage of the issue as there is here. Perhaps the problem is the demolitions and vandalism themselves, rather than the recording of them? Tiamut^talk 22:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of being "quite sure" about how much coverage there would be, why don't you have a look at how the Mount of Olives article treats the fact the Jordanians demolished and vandalized tens of thousands of graves when they controlled the area? Then compare with how you'd like this article to treat the vandalism and demolition of a couple of hundred graves in Mamilla. And that's without talking about the number and quality of sources about each of these issues. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant to qualify my statement with the word "presently". The demolition of which you speak took place at the time of Jordanian control over the West Bank and no such demolitions continue into the present day. As far as I know, the destuctionthen did not involve tens of thousands of graves, but Whatever the scale, such destruction is deplorable. If its not covered sufficiently in the article on that cemetery it should be.Would you like help adding info there? Tiamut^talk 12:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• This source says 20 graves were vandalized by Israeli settlers in January 2011, of which some were completely destroyed while others had thrir tombstones removed. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• This source provides a lot of good historical info currently not included in our article. Tiamut^talk 15:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Tiamut, why are you restoring the same material to the article for the third time now without having resolved your dispute with the editors here at the Talk page? Previously this has been grounds for sanctioning editors, hence I think it advisable that you self-revert. For my part, I'm inclined to agree with the editors here that feel the additions are outside the scope of this encyclopedia article. We don't need to expand Jerusalem Light Rail every time someone gets hit by a train in the capital, and I doubt whether spraypainting graffiti on tombstones, obscene though it is, is something that's necessary to go into such detail over. The WP:UNDUE concerns raised above are valid and need to be addressed, not disregarded.

Regarding the Asem Khalidi source, it needs to earn the consensus of the community before it can be used as an RS in the article without attribution: it's an overtly polemical source, as demonstrated by the author's choice of title and his baseless claims that Israel has separate laws governing the preservation of Muslim cemeteries.—Biosketch (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with Asem Khalidi source? Which one? The one currently cited in the article (not added by me), or the one being proposed for use by me here? Please specify and note this is the first time an objection has been raised by anyone about him specifically.

About my restoring relevant, reliably sourced material to the article with modifications to respond to concerns raised by editors here, insofar as possible, I stand by my edits. Please do bring the case to whatever disciplinary forum you feel appropriate. I would like the wider community to see what editors actually trying to write and improve rticles have to deal with. I believe my editing record at this article speaks for itself.Tiamut^talk 13:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the pity party! You can edit without imagining you're some fabled victim all the time. Save us the grief. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your disruptive obstructionism is much easier to deal with without the insulting snide comments. That you are unable to raise a single valid objection does not entitle you to repeatedly cry about a supposed pity party. One editor is doing what she is supposed to do, bringing reliable sources and expanding the article. You on the other hand are mindlessly reverting without cause with the sole purpose of trying to wear her down. So how about you instead stop the party of the pitiful and either do something constructive or get out of the way. nableezy - 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just linking to a policy and claiming that it supports the suppression of reliably sourced material is not a valid objection. What exactly in WP:UNDUE supports the argument that this "detail" should be removed? That several reliable sources make note of the vandalism directed against this cemetery is enough reason that the material should be included. The claim that there is undue weight attached the material is undercut by the prevalence of reliable sources that discuss the topic. nableezy - 06:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that the "2010 and 2011 demolitions and vandalism" section is in proportion to the prominence it is given within reliable sources discussing Mamilla? IE, over half as much as those discussing the Islamic period of the graveyard?

I'm not saying it should not be mentioned, but I do think that the Museum of tolerance and the vandalism thing taking up almost half an article about a well documented 1000+ year old historic site does seem to be exactly what UNDUE is talking about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please propose how you would cut down the material in question so that this discussion can move forward. Tiamut^talk 13:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just. note to those following this discussion, I merged the 2010 and 2011 demolition and vandalism section into the section titled "Other developments" and tried to cut it down a bit, rather unsuccessfully. Suggestions on he to mke it more succint would appreciated. Tiamut^talk 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mamilla Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.france24.com/en/20111110-muslim-graves-vandalised-disputed-jerusalem-site

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

the link to afp Hazel Ward is outdated. Her one in archive.org

https://web.archive.org/web/20100815071759/https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gtT5BQ6NyRWT1w36pkmHcQAEf6DQ

someone to update it? Am not (yet) familiar with this system of links. 2A02:A03F:16FB:6C00:68CB:CADE:FE39:334C (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

614: Strategius' credibility, the Jews, sources first

Strategius is not considered accurate by any stretch of the imagination, and there's even doubt that he's been witness to any of the events, as the source clearly explains, and that on top of him being strongly biased (he was a Christian monk, so party to the conflict, and certainly not a historian).

An anonymous editor added that the "Jewish soldiers" accompanying the Sassanian army were the perpetrators of the mass murder at Mamilla & elsewhere. I know for a fact that I've encountered literature presenting it this way, offering sources and arguments which I found plausible and reasonable at the time. However, James Howard-Johnston (2010), p. 167, makes no mention at all of Jews, neither as soldiers nor as vengeful city dwellers. Anyone who has such sources is welcome to add material based on them, but not without. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Name: please discuss before changing

Hi Iskandar323. Mamilla(h) is the common name and it must come first. The etymology section is very clear on the Muslim Arabic folk etymology AND the fact that this folk etymology notwithstanding, people at different times called it by its much older name, Mamilla, which is known since the Byzantine period. Please discuss such name changes here on the talk-page before basically changing the name of the article while staying "under the radar", i.e. w/o page move. Thank you.

A surname like Makdisi needs a fully spelled-out first name, otherwise one necessarily thinks of the famous historian who wrote over 1000 years ago. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly don't remember editing this, but have at it! No issues here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)