Talk:Ain Jalut

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


Inappropriate Article creation[edit]

On 22 March 2020, Onceinawhile moved (without any discussion) the article Well of Harod to 'Ain Jalut - apparently at that time, he was quite ok with the content of Well of Harod under the name of 'Ain Jalut. This undiscussed moved was contested and undone by Shrike on 7 April 2020‎ , and subsequently, a discussion ensued on that article's talk page regarding the common name, the result of which was to keep the name Well of Harod . Unable to get his way in that discussion, Onceinawhile came here, and created what is essentially a duplicate of the Well of Harod article here, moving much of that article's content to this new article. This a blatant attempt to get aroud the result of the previous discussion. Onceinawhie should be sanctioned ed for this, and this article returned to a redirect. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was at Talk:Well of Harod, in the section "When was the name "Ein Harod" first applied to Ain Jalut". We established that the Well of Harod is considered to be at either Ain El Jemain or Ayn Jalut. Noone knows for sure, and cannot know. So in Wikipedia we have an article for the biblical location, explain the scholarly debate, and then have articles for the possible locations. This structure is the way we have it in most similar articles (see for example Kadesh (biblical) or Shechem). This reminds me of your objection to the creation of the Power House. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well of Harod is not about the biblical location, and already includes a lengthy section about Ain Jalut, which is what you duplicated here. You did not get your way when you tried to rename it, so you are trying to circumvent that community consensus here. You should be topic banned for this. I did not object to your creating the Power House article - I just object to you trying to push exceptional claims based on primary sources into it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
The information I moved from Well of Harod to Ain Jalut was originally added to that article by me[1]! Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That shows that you were happy with that article covering this material, as long as it was named the way you wanted it. The community disagrees with you, so you now attempt to bypass its decision. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry. I added that information on 8 April. On 10 April, Zero brought a source showing that there were multiple possible locations for the Well of Harod. We then had a discussion. Hence this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject[edit]

@Beyond My Ken and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: last time I checked you were not members of either WikiProject Palestine or WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Therefore it is not for you to decide what is or is not in scope. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy that requires you to be a member of project in order to remove its innapropriate addition to an article.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Tagging_pages_with_WikiProject_banners states: "In general, one should not attempt to police which projects are sufficiently relevant to place their banners on a given talk page."
I will be re-adding the two banners shortly, but will pause first in case anyone is able to bring a policy-based reason why not. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
expect to be back at WP:ANI promptly if you make such a disruptive move. The policy based reason is that you have absolutely no consensus for adding that project here - 2 editors have removed it, and two others opined at WP:ANI that it is not within the scope of ARBPIA. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a threat not an explanation. It is very clear from the WikiProject Council page that you have no right to remove the banners. Community consensus overrides local consensus. I will be adding the banners back shortly, but will continue to pause first in case anyone is able to bring a policy-based rationale that we were unaware of. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And don't think , even for a second, that you are fooling anyone with your selective quoting of what that guideline says: "projects that place their banners on a talk page have no special ownership over that page" . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read that sentence again. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with your false claim that editors need to be members of a project in order to add/remove Project links to an article's talk page. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"no special ownership over that page" is obviously describing the article itself, not the talk page... Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Is English not your first language? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance was streamlined a few months ago by Ajpolino.[2] The previous version is even clearer. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the dispute here, just dropping by to say mea culpa if anything was de-clarified. The guideline's In general, one should not attempt to police which projects are sufficiently relevant to place their banners on a given talk page. Conversely, projects that place their banners on a talk page have no special ownership over that page, and the consensus of project members can be overruled by a broader consensus at a more visible forum. intends to communicate that editors can put tags wherever they want if the projects they participate in intend to support those pages, with the caveat that no one/group has special rights anywhere in mainspace, and a broader consensus on what should(n't) be tagged should be respected. Put another way, I've seen many fights over project tags; none of them have been very productive. If there's a good reason to fight over a project tag, a larger forum than the talk page is probably merited. Anyway, feel free to edit the WikiProject guideline if unclear. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ajpolino, nothing was "de-clarified". The previous version was as clear as this one: "In 2007, editors agreed to limit "WikiProject country" banners on articles about a city if the city has changed countries over the course of history. If there is disagreement, then only the Wikiproject for the city's current country will template the article. For more information, see the 2007 discussion. Conversely, projects that place their banners on a talk page have no special ownership over that page, and the consensus of project members can be overruled by a broader consensus at a more visible forum. " the plain language of this is that if there is disagreement (as there is here), we should only list the current country project (which would be Israel) on the talk page, and that further, a consensus of editors (who may or may not be project members) can override whatever project members say. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is another section which states the same thing, maybe it should be merged together:
If you place a banner for a WikiProject in which you do not participate, and one of its regular participants removes it, do not re-add the banner without discussion. A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, do not edit-war to remove the banner.[2]
It is crystal clear that non-members of a project must not revert attempts by project members to add a banner. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to end this ridiculous game-playing, I've joined both projects. Now go shop for another forum. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You propose to end game playing by game playing? By joining a WikiProject for the sole purpose of manipulating the outcome of a dispute over a Wikiproject banner? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're playing games, and I'm going to stop you from doing so. Run along now and find another forum to shop in, this one is closed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Is_Ain_Jalut_relevant_to_Wikiproject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration? to add the Wikiprojects here. Or to put it another way, there is not a hint of consensus that the banner can be removed. I will add it back now.

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: if you are unwilling to drop the WP:STICK here, can I suggest you talk to @Beyond My Ken: first? He is a more experienced editor, and will be able to explain to you why he chose not to participate in this discussion despite having initially supported your removal. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing resembling consensus to add this article to the project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Is_Ain_Jalut_relevant_to_Wikiproject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration?. Stop making false representations, and stop your disruptive editing. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "nine families" content[edit]

Sometime after the Sursock family bought the land from the Ottoman government in 1872, they established a small village here.[1][2] In 1921, when the Jewish National Fund purchased the land, the nine families who lived here petitioned the new British administration for perpetual ownership, but were only offered a short lease with an option to buy.[3]

References

  1. ^ Ruth Kark (2017). "Consequences of the Ottoman land law: Agrarian and privatization processes in Palestine, 1858–1918". In Raghubir Chand, Etienne Nel and Stanko Pelc (ed.). Societies, Social Inequalities and Marginalization. Springer International Publishing. pp. 101–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50998-3_8.
  2. ^ Seth Frantzman (2010). The Arab settlement of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine: New Village Formation and Settlement Fixation, 1871-1948. PhD Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. pp. 155, 185.
  3. ^ Arieh Avneri (1984). The Claim of Dispossession. Transaction Books. p. 118.

I removed the above text from the article as WP:UNDUE. Much has been written about this spring, mostly about the battle and the Well of Harod. I don't see how nine families' unsuccessful petition in 1921 for perpetual ownership is significant enough to include in this article. The first source seems to be the only reliable source that gives this any significant treatment; the second is a thesis and the third is a brief mention. Also, this article is not about those families or their village; it's about a spring that has been significant for hundreds if not thousands of years. A village that existed near the spring for, at most, fifty years, and the petition of nine families who happened to live there in 1921, all seems like irrelevant trivia to me compared to the scope of the article, both in terms of time and in terms of what RSes write about when they write about Ain Jalut. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was a village here in the late Ottoman period at all is interesting and relevant. (That it was replaced by Ein Harod which later moved about 1km away should be added too.) The fact that it was owned by the Ottoman gov, then the Sursocks, then the JNF is interesting and relevant. Your argument is simply wrong. You are also not allowed to delete ARBPIA templates: "Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator." Zerotalk 04:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, it's UNDUE and Trivia. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why a village existing for decades is trivial. Explain why the ownership of a place is trivial in the article about that place. Should we remove the content about original land purchases from the countless articles on Jewish communities that have such information? Zerotalk 05:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the village. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy! and Levivich: OK, then I will create a new article called Ain Jalut (village). Thank you for the suggestion. I presume you have no objection to this? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the "legacy" section you added as undue. A mention in a speech? A brigade was named after the battle? This is all trivia. I don't think creating another POVFORK article is a good idea. The only thing to do is to see through discussion if there is consensus for this content in this article. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: WP:TRIVIA is not an argument for exclusion. The policy you mean is WP:DUE. You need to explain WHY it is due. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why I think it's undue. Per WP:ONUS, it's up to editors who seek inclusion of content to get consensus for it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: your explanation on the brigades consists of "This is all trivia". You do not explain how you reach that conclusion. Your explanation on the village is equivalent, and you acknowledge the three sources for it. The entire history of this place is not replete with detailed sources. Show us how you apply the standard you are applying here to the rest of the information in this article, and to other articles, and you will have a meaningful argument. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivia because it's not a significant part of the history of this place, per RS. It's not covered in any depth by any source. Most-in fact almost all if not all-sources that discuss this place do not mention it. Anyway, Arafat was talking about the battle, not the spring. Maybe it's due for the battle article Battle of Ain Jalut, but not the article about the spring. I especially disagree that it's significant enough for the lead or significant enough to be put in its own section, and the section to be called "Legacy". The legacy of Ain Jalut is about the Battle of Ain Jalut and the Well of Harod. That's what the sources write about. They don't write about Arafat or what he said in a speech or what he named a brigade after. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: which sources specifically are you referring to?
By the way, Arafat was explicitly talking about the place, making the connection to the modern day place: “ then they came to Ain Jalut in our land – in the same region where we are today fighting the Zionists”.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Group 1: all reliable sources talking about this spring (call it Ain Jalut or Ein Harold or whatever you want to call it)
Group 2: all reliable sources talking about that line you just quoted by Arafat
I'm saying Group 2 is so small (one source?) in relation to Group 1 (hundreds? thousands?) that it is UNDUE. Even within Group 2, Ain Jalut is literally a single mention in a broader point about how others fought at Ain Jalut in the same region (not even the same place) as where they are fighting today. This is extremely trivial. Even more trivial than "there was a village there once" or "there were 9 families whose petition was denied once" is "a politician mentioned it in a speech once". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: can you bring some examples of “Group 1” sources? You will find that there is no broadly-encompassing source on the topic at all. So if you applied this logic fairly to the entire article (and the Well of Harod article) you will have to delete most of the remaining information. And if you aren’t willing to apply a rule consistently, then it should not be applied at all. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Google scholar, type in "Ain Jalut", and the results that talk about this spring are examples of Group 1 sources. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: thanks, I have just done as suggested. It proves my point exactly. There is no all-encompassing source. So your proposed rule has not been applied consistently. Would you like to apply it consistently, and thereby remove all except perhaps a single sentence from this article, the Well of Harod article, and thousands of other articles? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I've written has anything to do with any "all-encompassing source". Nor have I proposed any rule whatsoever. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: your group 1 / group 2 explanation above basically said “any information which is not in most sources which mention an article should not be in the article”. If I have misunderstood, could you explain what you are getting at? I only ask that you explain it in a generic sense, so that we can test if it is being applied consistently. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I wrote, either. I don't think what I wrote is difficult to understand and I'm not sure how else to explain it. If you still don't understand why I think the content is undue, then we'll just both have to live with that. Thankfully, the process isn't for me to convince you that it's undue; the process is for you to gain consensus before re-adding the disputed content; you understanding my objection isn't required for that endeavor. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first of all see if this current POVFORK survives AfD - your opinion here would be welcome, Levivich. A reasonable suggestion was just made there by shrike (rename Well of Harrod to the current Nature Park, and keep all the discussion about the correct identification of the biblical well there, with this article being a redirect to it. ) JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread Shrike's proposal. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed to rename this article as a compromise but I mostly agree with Bolter21 suggestions that one article is enough --Shrike (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is not the name - it is that it is a content fork, replicating the same material already found in Well of Harod, for no good reason (other than to use the Arab name instead of the Hebrew one). But I am ok with renaming Well of Harod to Ma'ayan Harod Natural Park, and redirecting this article to it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complete and total distortion of what WP:DUE says. Due weight is about the proportion of viewpoints to one another, not about whether facts should be censored out of our encyclopedia article. What pray tell is the viewpoint expressed by the material that has been repeatedly removed from the article? That is a wholly spurious objection to including what several reliable sources have been provided for and none have been provided that dispute. And before somebody moves on to a notability fallacy, please remember that a. notability does not govern article content, and b. even if a. were not the case, all populated places are presumed notable. nableezy - 07:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been zero policy basis given. The material is well sourced and meets all requirements. Users cannot just shout no. I am restoring the material. nableezy - 16:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: That's incorrect, I'm afraid; the reason given was WP:ONUS, and that is 100%, unequivocally, wholly policy. Since policy states that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content, I think your next edit—self-reversion to page partially under WP:1RR restrictions—is absolutely clear and necessary. Paging User:El_C at this point; clarification as to whether the disputed material is under restriction would be useful. serial # 16:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS requires consensus, but consensus requires policy backed reasons. You cannot just shout no. That has never been an acceptable tactic on Wikipedia. Yes, this material is under a 1RR. I have made a total of one revert. nableezy - 17:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That material should never have been removed to start with ("trivia"???) because there is nothing wrong with it. Else anyone can just go around Wikipedia yelling ONUS as a substitute for "I don't like it", removing anything they feel like at the time. The idea is to add properly sourced material to WP, not remove it. Let's face it, the reason for this stuff being removed has got nada to do with it being good or bad material.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What part of ONUS is unclear? While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. No one has yet even tried to make an argument for why the disputed content should be included. Instead, those favoring inclusion are saying that the reasons for exclusion aren't persuasive. That's not how this works. It's not up to those seeking exclusion to gain consensus for exclusion. Rather, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of WP:DUE is wholly unsupported by any part of WP:DUE. I asked questions above and never got an answer. Feel free to answer them, but you cannot just shout no. Consensus is not a vote, consensus does not mean getting the consent of those who filibuster. I have made an argument for why it should be included, that it is backed by reliable sources with none of them disputing the content. That there are several sources for this material. What exactly is the reason for not including it? Because it hurts your feelings to be reverted? nableezy - 17:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still need a good reason to remove properly sourced material, I have had this argument before over BRD, it isn't "I reverted you, now you have to discuss it." First you need a good reason to revert (dispute that it's an RS, for example). Asserting that properly sourced material is "trivia" doesn't cut it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't trivia cut it? ONUS again: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." That's exactly the argument I'm making. It's trivia, unimportant, does not improve the article, should be omitted or included elsewhere. That a Lebanese family bought some land here in 1872, or that 9 families that lived here in 1921 were given an option to buy, is trivia, as judged by how much coverage it receives by RS (almost none). To refer to these land transactions as the "legacy" of this place is UNDUE. The legacy of this place is about the Battle of Ain Jalut and the Well of Harod, as determined by RS (lots and lots of coverage). This is not a complicated argument, and it is rooted in policy: there is too little coverage of the disputed content in RS about the place to merit inclusion of the disputed content in the Wikipedia article about the place. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources, academic sources, that discuss this do not consider it trivia. Trivia is about miscellaneous information, not material covered a hundred years later by academic sources. nableezy - 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for inclusion? Well, the obvious one is that three separate sources (almost a quarter of the total number of sources in the article) have been provided and that satisfies WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. What is your reason for removal? nableezy - 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments about the three sources above. I've already addressed this. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you said only one of them is reliable (untrue) and that they represent a small fraction of the sources that discuss the well (irrelevant). What exactly in WP:DUE supports your contention that the percentage of sources that discuss this petition has anything to do with if it should be included? Because Ive read WP:DUE. It does not say anything close to what you claim. nableezy - 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat[edit]

For anyone interested, this is Arafat inspecting the Ain Jalut brigade in 1974 in Egypt: [3]. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: in this edit you wrote "Rmv text from lead; not in body; unsourced; and undue." But it is in the body, and well sourced (I have just added a second source) - see the Legacy section. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above thread. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR now enforced for ARBPIA related content (only)[edit]

Please be mindful. If one is unsure what counts as related content, the article talk page is the place to seek clarifications about that. El_C 04:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a case. If WP:ARBPIA is relevant on this article, then it usually means that it is relevant to all parts of the article. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik, if it is "related" (this one has the related notice) and if it might be unclear about which content it applies to then the person placing the notice to begin with is supposed to add invisi commentary to the article indicating the bits to which it applies. And if not present and still unclear, admin has to decide? Isn't that how it works? Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect[edit]

Per the AfD results, I've merged the content from here back to Well of Harod, and redirected. I may have missed some non-overlapping content, so feel free to go back and add anything like that. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ma'ayan Harod which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ain_Jalut&oldid=1198197877"