Jump to content

Talk:Umayyad Mosque

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


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kathouis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ummayad mosque in Damascus is not damaged due to the civil war

[edit]

It's the Ummayad mosque in Aleppo that has been damaged, it even says so in the reference you attached to it. So please don't change it back when I'm now deleting that info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.71.171 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the third most important mosque to muslims!

[edit]

here is a reference for a saying of the prophet muhammed sas: Chapter 91: DO NOT UNDERTAKE JOURNEY (PURELY FOR VISIT TO THE SACRED PLACES) BUT TO THREE MOSQUES

  • Book 007, Number 3218:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported it directly from Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) that he said: Do not undertake journey but to three mosques: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of al-Haram and the Mosque of Aqsa (Bait al-Maqdis).

  • Book 007, Number 3219:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Zuhri (but with this change of words) that he (Allah's Apostle) said:" Undertake journey to three mosques.

  • Book 007, Number 3220:

Abu Haraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) as saying: One should undertake journey to three mosques: the mosque of the Ka'ba, my mosque, and the mosque of Elia (Bait al-Maqdis).

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/007.smt.html#007.3218 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.78.2 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Demolition the church

[edit]

It should be mentioned that the church was bought by the Caliph or rather there was sort of a deal of exchange of states. The site of the chruch being in the centre of the old city made so important for the muslim to build there mosque there, since the city was the capital of their kingdom. Demolishing mosques, churches, synagouges, or any building that Allah's (GOD's) name is mention in for worship is not to be destroyed according to the Quraan.

Article from a Shia perspective

[edit]

I was amazed that when the article mentioned places of religious significance in the mosque, it was all from a Shia perspective. NO mention of the minaret of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the head of Yahya (John the Baptist, pbuh) in that section? 78.154.239.97 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TODO list

[edit]

This is a proposal for a TODO list, in the GA collaboration for the Umayyad Mosque:

  • Rewrite the History section:
    • A short ancient history subsection that redirects to Temple of Jupiter, Damascus, and maybe a fork article about the Cathedral.
    • Subsections for Umayyad (Construction), Abbasid, Ayyubid, Mamluk, Ottoman, Modern eras.
  • Rewrite the Architecture section:
    • Description of the layout, material, architectural themes.
    • Subsections for important parts of the mosque (Qubbat al-Khazna?, Al-Arous Minaret?)
    • Subsection for the many renovations it went through
  • Legacy section:
    • Religious importance, different subsections for different religions and sects (Shia, Sunni, Christian.. etc.)
  • Location- small section describing specific location of the mosque in Damascus-neighborhood, street, adjacent notable structures or places.

Feel free to add/expand. Yazan (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

How do we place references for quotations in secondary sources. For example when the reference is Le Strange's quotes of Ibn al-Faqih, the citation is just to the page in le Strange's book? Yazan (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable and desirable to get your quotations from a secondary source.You could look for collaboration from another source if you feel it is necessary. WP:RS#Quotations --Diannaa (Talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

[edit]

I am going to make a sub-page for the copy edits so that Yazan and any other interested editors can follow along with what I am doing and why. The location is Talk:Umayyad Mosque/Copy edits --Diannaa (Talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

[edit]

I suggest we merge the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid info (roughly four passages combined until later expansion) into one subsection called "Islamic Arab era" or "Arab Caliphate era" and then have the next subsection titled "Seljuk and Ayyubid rule (or era)" and have another subsection for Mamluk rule. It appears there's a lot of info on the Mamluk era in the sources you provided so I think a section on that period could stand alone. What do you think? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Also, check this one, [1]. Yazan (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the changes now. Upon a mere scan, the source look very informative and could help us out greatly with the religious significance section. The timeline will also be useful and as well as the info on the mosque's architecture. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some info from Necipoglu Important info to add

[edit]

All of the info is provided on page 72 of Gulru Necipoglu's Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World, Volume 14. Most of it renders use in the religious significance section.

  • "The sanctity of the mosque derives largely from its association with the Islamic conquest of Syria"
  • According to 8th century traditionist Sufyan al-Thauri, the value of one prayer in the Umayyad Mosque is worth 30,000 prayers.
  • The Damascus Mosque traditionally ranks fourth in sacredness. Mecca is first, Medina second and Aqsa is third.
  • Other traditional Muslim sources claim worship will continue in the Umayyad Mosque for 40 years after Earth's destruction.
  • It is universally acknowledged in Islamic sources that the mosque is one of the wonders of the world.
  • Several medieval authors count it as two wonders of the world: the mosque itself and its mosaics.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More useful information:

  • "The structure is rectangular, with a large courtyard occupying most of the area within the walls. The prayer halls were once decorated with marble panels of gold, colored glass, and mother-of-pearl, and retain some elements of this rich ornamentation." - Illustrated Dictionary of the Muslim World By Marshall Cavendish

--Al Ameer son (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social significance section?

[edit]

Any thoughts on that? I think having a section on this would be useful since in almost every source I use the author stresses its social significance. I think we would have a lot of information available for it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, take this quote from, Walker, Bethany J. (Mar., 2004). "Commemorating the Sacred Spaces of the Past: The Mamluks and the Umayyad Mosque at Damascus". Near Eastern Archaeology (The American Schools of Oriental Research) 67 (1):

In a recently published eyewitness account of the fire of 1479, most of the money and efforts for reconstructing the mosque came from Damascenes themselves (Behrens-Abouseif 2004). What emerged from this tragic event was proof of a civic consciousness, illustrating how much the identity of Damascus was tied to this mosque. While it remained an important monument for all Muslims, it was, however, no longer a financial priority for the state. Moreover, its image among civilians had been transformed. The largest part of the brilliant mosaics, which had captured the imagination of earlier generations of Muslims, had either been destroyed or had been previously plastered over and, according to Behrens-Abouseif, "no longer characterized the image of the mosque in the mind of the Damascene population" (Behrens-Abouseif 2004: 283). Thus, the political and aesthetic memory of this monument had changed from one of state power to one of local pride. While the Ummayad mosque continued, for medieval Muslims, to be one of the wonders of the world, this was the case for different aesthetic and social reasons than for earlier generations.

Btw, I should get my hands on that Behrens-Abouseif paper from 2004, in a week or so. I couldn't find it anywhere, so I emailed the prof. and she promised to mail it promptly. I suspect it would have a wealth of information about the fire/aftermath/ and some on the mosque's state before. Yazan (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. I didn't even know there was a fire in 1479–seems like they were regular occurrences back then. I found some useful info regarding its social significance during Ottoman and French colonial times. I'll list that info here within an hour (or two) for near-future reference. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

[edit]

This mosque looks surprisingly european in style,- though syrian is the clossest arab country to europe.--J intela (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ummayid Mosque-Map.GIF Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Ummayid Mosque-Map.GIF, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous temple - recent edit

[edit]

I've just reverted an edit by User:Rarevogel who changed Semitic-Canaanites to Syro-Levantine with no explanation and added, without a source, a comparison with a temple in Tyre. The actual source for the statement before what appears to be a pov change says "We have no direct knowledge of what the temple of Hadad-Ramman looked like. It probably followed the traditional form, comparable in plan to other Scmitic-Canaanite sites like the Jerusalem temple." Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for "This is considered holy by the Muslims because Muhammed recited passages from the Quran at this site."

[edit]

Can someone verify this statement, I am personally unaware of this.

"This is considered holy by the Muslims because Muhammed recited passages from the Quran at this site." Sakimonk talk 17:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very dubious statement. I do not believe Muhammad ever went to Damascus, especially after he received the revelations. The mosque is holy for Muslims for many reasons but that is not one of them. It should be removed promptly. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

passage added

[edit]

I don't have access to that piece right now, but the passage can be found here with similar wordings [2] page 14. Yaḥyā (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up - separate the temple history

[edit]

User:Al Ameer son, I suggest moving the content of pre-Islamic history to the current article on the Roman temple: Temple of Jupiter, Damascus, there are plenty of sources on the temple and its importance as a cult centre and it can potentially be expanded on its own. The Cathedral was a small one, so I don't think it warrants its own article, and thus information about it can remain here; especially as the the site was used for a while as both a mosque and a cathedral. Yazan (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, though we should keep a summarizing paragraph about the temple with a "main article" hatnote. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
I cannot seem to be able to find any references to "Darke 1992", "Burns 2005" who or what is it referring to?
can this be escalated somehow?
@Moughera: You are right, there should be entries in the bibliography, well spotted! With some quick searching I found Burns 2005 must be: Burns, Ross (2007) [2005]. Damascus: a History. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-27105-9. OCLC 648281269. and Darke 2010 must be Darke, Diana. (2010). Syria (2nd ed ed.). Chalfont St Peter: Bradt Travel Guides. ISBN 978-1-84162-314-6. OCLC 501398372. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) I'll add them to the bibliography! GPinkerton (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Moughera: It turns out Burns 2005 was already in the article, listed in the bibliography! GPinkerton (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moughera (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Burns and a few others have been used quite extensively, can we consolidate these by using name attribute in the ref tag. If yes, how? If there's a proper method to do it, please do mention otherwise I will start on this tomorrow. Moughera (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Moughera: See Help:Shortened footnotes. Thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is leaning against this move (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Umayyad Mosque → Great Mosque of Damascus –

1996 The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World
1997 F. B. Flood, “Umayyad Survivals and Mamluk Revivals: Qalawunid Architecture and the Great Mosque of Damascus.” Muqarnas, vol. 14, pp. 57–79
1999 Rafi Grafman and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon. “The Two Great Syrian Umayyad Mosques: Jerusalem and Damascus.” Muqarnas, vol. 16, pp. 1–15.
2001 The Great Mosque of Damascus: Studies on the Makings of an Ummayyad Visual Culture F. B. Flood
2004 World Encyclopedia
2005 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
2009 Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture
2009 The Oxford Companion to Architecture
2010 Islamic Art and Architecture, Robert Hillenbrand
2010 The Byzantine World, Paul Stephenson
2010 The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages
2011 The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion
2015 Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (3 ed.)
2016 Heba Mostafa “The Early Mosque Revisited: Introduction of the Minbar and the Maqsura.” Muqarnas, vol. 33, pp. 1–16.
2017 Mosaics in the Medieval World: From Late Antiquity to the Fifteenth Century, Liz James
2018 The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity
2019 "Greater Syria and Iraq (Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates), 661–1258.", Marcus Milwright in M. Fraser (ed.) Sir Banister Fletcher’s Global History of Architecture (21st ed.)

These are just a few of most authoritative tertiary sources of the past 25 years that deal specifically with the mosque. In sum, it should be clear that scholarly literature does not use "Umayyad Mosque" anything like so often as "Great Mosque of Damascus". GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
@Johnbod: Have you seen the actual numbers on a Jstor search? It's Great Mosque of Damascus 417 vs Umayyad Mosque 52.
  • Oppose The assertion that "Great Mosque of Damascus" is the more common name than "Umayyad Mosque" has not been demonstrably supported. Surveying just the sources in this article, practically all of them refer to the mosque as the "Umayyad Mosque", the notable exception being Finbar Barry Flood who uses "Great Mosque of Damascus" primarily and "Umayyad Mosque" secondarily. The generic google web search "Umayyad Mosque" Damascus fetches 340,000 hits, while "Great Mosque of Damascus" fetches 72,600 hits and "Great Mosque" Damascus fetches 240,000 hits. Admittedly, these searches are not perfect ways to assess which is the most common name, but they should give us a decent indication. Also, there is no MoS guideline and there should not be a "great mosque" rule for all historical congregation mosques of major cities. See al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Masjid an-Nabawi (English: Prophet's Mosque) in Medina, and Mosque of Amr in Cairo, for example. Even that of Mecca was called Masjid al-Haram (Eng: Sacred Mosque) until an unconvincing 3:1 vote (including an IP as one of the support votes) in favor of "Great Mosque of Mecca" changed its name here. Further, the mosques in Kufa, Samarra, Xi'an, Sanaa, Brussels and Banten do not appear to have another popular name, whereas "Umayyad Mosque" is clearly a name commonly, and I believe most commonly, used to describe this mosque. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al Ameer son: The 2009 Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, the 2010 Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the 2015 Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (3 ed.), the 2018 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, the 2004 World Encyclopedia, the 2009 Oxford Companion to Architecture and the 2005 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium all without exception use "Great Mosque of Damascus". The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity's own article on "Damascus, Great Mosque of" does not even mention "Umayyad Mosque" as a synonym. Article names needs to be common in academic literature, not Google hits (how many are based on the WP article title?). GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GPinkerton: I'm in agreement that article names for historic subjects generally should be based on the most common name used in academic literature. The sources currently in the article are generally academic, however, and just based on a survey of these sources, those which use "Umayyad Mosque" (both words in capital letters) are:
  • Abdoulkarim, Maamoun [2003] in G. Calcani Appolodorus of Damascus and Trajan's Column
  • Beattie, Andrew [1996] International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa
  • Brinner, William [1963] in his annotations of the translated A Chronicle of Damascus, 1389-1397, Volume 1
  • Burns, Burns [2005] Damascus, A History
  • Charette, Francoise [2003] Mathematical Instrumentation in Fourteenth Century Egypt and Syria
  • Dumper, Michael [2007] Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia
  • Kafescioǧlu, Çiǧdem [1999] In The Image of Rūm": Ottoman Architectural Patronage in Sixteenth-Century Aleppo and Damascus where the only time "Umayyad Mosque" is capitalized is in reference to the mosque of Damascus.
  • Kamal Ed-Din, Noha [2002] The Islamic View of Jesus
  • Kennedy, Hugh [2001] in Grabar, Oleg Interpreting Late Antiquity: Essays on the Postclassical World
  • von Leeuwen, Richard [1999] Waqfs and Urban Structures: The Case of Ottoman Damascus
  • Selin, Helaine [1997] Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures
  • le Strange, Guy [1890] Palestine under the Moslems; a description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500 where it is called the "Great Omayyad Mosque"
  • Walker, Bethany [2004] Commemorating the Sacred Spaces of the Past: The Mamluks and the Umayyad Mosque at Damascus
Great Mosque of Damascus (capital letters) is used by Finbar Barry Flood [1997] and [2001] (who secondarily uses "Umayyad Mosque") and Hanna Taragan [2004], while "great mosque of Damascus" is used Giovanni Teresio Riveira [1918]. I will explore further academic sources not used in the article tomorrow, but it does not appear that "Great Mosque" in this specific case is more common than "Umayyad Mosque", the Oxford Encyclopedia and Grove Encyclopedia notwithstanding. Also with the exception of the Damascus mosque and the less famous "Great Umayyad Mosque" of Aleppo, no other Umayyad-built mosque is typically called after the Umayyads. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Without exception all the sources there are less recent than the others that use Great Mosque of Damascus, so ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Most of those sources date from the 2000s and 1990s, certainly they cannot be considered outdated or old when it comes to the common name of the mosque today. That would be ridiculous. The sources using “great mosque of Damascus” in the article date from 1918, 1999 and 2004 so I don’t see your point actually. Also, as I stated, this was a survey of the sources used in the article currently. I’ll do further research tonight or tomorrow on academic sources not used in the article, as well as news articles and tour guides, which also are very useful when deciding what the common modern name is for a famous landmark like this. Al Ameer (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: As I have said, the articles I cited are from 2004, 2005, 2009, 2015, and 2018, all more recent than the ones that you say use "Umayyad Mosque" and list above. As I have also said, unqualified "Umayyad Mosque" cannot even be its universal name in Arabic, if Arabic Wikipedia has to call it "Umayyad Mosque (Damascus)". GPinkerton (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ok, so this is pure "personal research", but when I visited Damascus (some 20 years ago), nobody, and I mean nobody, called it the "Great Mosque of Damascus", or even the "Great Mosque". It was always the Umayyad Mosque, (There are many "Great Mosques", but not many mosques from the Umayyad era), Huldra (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there are hundreds of mosques from the Umayyad era, including several great mosques! The local name, as well, is likely to be different to the globally common name. GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: For what it’s worth, I also have never heard this mosque called “Great Mosque” from the many Syrian Americans I know who call it the “masjid or jami al-umawi” (Umayyad Mosque). Al Ameer (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Again, these assertions do not seem to have a solid basis. There are not “hundreds of mosques from the Umayyad era” and there are only two that are commonly called after the Umayyads, this one and the mosque in Aleppo, the latter of which has a completely different structure than the original unlike the mosque in Damascus, which has stayed true to its original Umayyad form despite several burnings over the centuries. The assertion that local names may be different from global ones may be true in general, but in the case of this mosque, the local name is also a name used commonly and, as it appears, most commonly, by “global” sources as well. Al Ameer (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: There most definitely are hundreds of Umayyad mosques, not the least of which is the one in Cordoba. See above for repudiation of the "global" claim. GPinkerton (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: If there are hundreds of Umayyad mosques, we certainly have a ton of work to do starting articles on them, assuming they are notable. In all my time researching the Umayyads and working on the Umayyad subject on Wikipedia, I have not observed that there is anywhere close to this many mosques which date to the Umayyad period. The vast majority of mosques originally built or expanded by the Umayyads have been completely rebuilt in the centuries since their demise in Asia and Africa in 750, and probably since their demise in Spain after 1030. But even if we accept this assertion at face value, how many of these are commonly called after the Umayyads by sources both local and global? The mosque in Cordoba is very occasionally called the “Umayyad Mosque of Cordoba” in the English sources; in these sources “Great Mosque of Cordoba” is far, far more common. Not sure how relevant Arabic wiki is to this discussion, but I don’t see how them calling it “Umayyad Mosque (Damascus)” helps your case that we should call this article “Great Mosque of Damascus”. If anything it would suggest we should name this mosque “Umayyad Mosque (Damascus)”, but we wouldn’t need to do that because in English Wikipedia, there is no other article called “Umayyad Mosque”. Vitally, this mosque is also called after the Umayyads as it was the first major mosque to be built by the dynasty after the Dome of the Rock. It was the original model for many of the other major congregational mosques built by them. Al Ameer (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: I didn't mean to imply that the hundreds of Umayyad mosques were all still functioning or all remained of original 8th/2nd century fabric or that every one of them is notable. All of the famous desert "castles" of the Umayyads had mosques within them, for example, and there are numerous archaeologically described Umayyad mosques all over the place. As pointed out, the Great Mosque of Aleppo is also called the Umayyad Mosque, as is the former Great Mosque of Tiberias, and doubtless others. There could, conceivably, be an article on "Umayyad Mosques" in which case having the Umayyad Mosque foremost in in the history would certainly jar. I would suggest Umayyad Mosque should really be a disambiguation leading to either Great Mosque of Aleppo or Great Mosque of Damascus or conceivably even "Umayyad architecture" or similar and the defects of Wikipedia's articles as is should be no impediment to improving them. GPinkerton (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: The defects of Wikipedia are not my point; my point is regardless of how many active or ruined mosques that the Umayyads contributed to in some way or form, ”Umayyad Mosque” (in capital letters) mainly refers to this mosque and the only other major mosque called after them would be the mosque in Aleppo. While I’m not opposed to the “Umayyad Mosque of Damascus” or “Umayyad Mosque (Damascus)”, I see no need for it since the mosque in Aleppo on Wikipedia is not called “Umayyad Mosque” so the disambiguation is unnecessary. Equally important, “Umayyad Mosque” on its own far more often refers to the older and better known mosque in Damascus than the one in Aleppo in my surveying of scholarly sources. Al Ameer (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Your inclusion of many mosques irrelevant to Damascus does not appear to be correct. The inclusion of a high proportion (about 50%) of "Umayyad mosque" (uncapitalized) in the results indicates that this methodology is not valid. Many of these hits refer to Umayyad mosques in widely varying places from Spain to Iraq, so if anything the argument that "Umayyad Mosque" is ambiguous is strengthened. GPinkerton (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of articles this century that mention the phrase "Umayyad Mosque" in conjunction with the word Damascus on Jstor, a mere 52 do not also mention "Great Mosque of Damascus" a phrase fully 419 articles use. GPinkerton (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing this - the first two pages (20 results) have 4 uncapped, with one for Aleppo, but the rest clearly Damascus - like "In Damascus, the great court of the Umayyad mosque forms the only open space.... " Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth result is about Cordoba. Second page has one on Aleppo. Several are fiction. Fourth page has one about the Great Mosque of Ramla. Fifth has Cordoba again. Others have the Great Mosque at Jerash. No fewer than 10% are not about Damascus at all. GPinkerton (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I missed Cordoba, but mentioned Aleppo. So 5 pages is 100 results - you specify 4 non-Damascus, plus whatever Jerash is. But discount 18,300 by 10%, it's still far more than 9,260. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Why does it not surprise me you know nothing of Jerash? I make it ten results per page, not twenty, with an average of 1 non-Damascus for every page = 5/50 = 10% See also more relevant Jstor statistic above. GPinkerton (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC) the evidence here is weak ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Maybe you can point out where you think the basilica is in the famous Roman forum of Jerash ... or the "main temple" ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - it's not enough. I clearly meant that neither of us have counted Jerash (which I see, as an ethnically divided city, had two main temples, only one with an article here). But that digression will be boring people here. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (cont'd)

[edit]
1) 2,670 hits for a Google Scholar search of "Umayyad Mosque" AND Damascus versus 1,170 for a Google Scholar search of "Great Mosque of Damascus"
2) 13,500 hits for a Google Books search of "Umayyad Mosque" AND Damascus versus 9,340 hits for a Google Books search of "Great Mosque of Damascus"
3) 511 hits for a JSTOR search of ((("Umayyad Mosque") AND (damascus)) NOT ("Great mosque of damascus")) versus 256 hits for a JSTOR search of ("Great Mosque of Damascus").
These searches do appear to show "Umayyad Mosque" is more popular than "Great Mosque of Damascus" although the ambiguity of other buildings also being called "Umayyad Mosque" would support a name change to something like "Umayyad Mosque (Damascus)", as is used at the Arabic Wikipedia version of this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[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.

sidebar: old city map

[edit]

why is this here? this should either be removed or added in a manner that reflects at least some relevance, the city gate have no relevance in this article. though i have tried to rephrase and edit the template but in my opinion this needs serious restructuring or editing. Moughera (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common Arabic name

[edit]

@MullahBalawar: this mosque is most commonly known in Arabic as الجامع الأموي (al-Jāmiʿ al-Umawī), not as المسجد الأموي (al-Masjid al-Umawī): see 105 hits for the former vs. 21 hits for the latter. Meanwhile, "Great Mosque of Damascus" in Arabic would be Jāmiʿ Dimašq al-Kabīr, while Jāmiʿ Banī Dimašq al-Kabīr means "Great Mosque of the Sons of Damascus" (i.e., "Great Mosque of the Damascus clan"). Do you object if I correct this in the article? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reference

[edit]

Hi all, I've been making some revisions and, as I mentioned in an edit summary, I noticed the "Rudolff 2006" reference isn't provided in the bibliography, although it's cited multiple times. Without more details, I can't find what source this is referring to. It appears to have been missing since 2011 and before that it isn't cited, so I think an editor simply forgot to put it there to begin with. Maybe someone who worked on the page at the time could help? (I'm tagging Al Ameer son and Zozo2kx who seemed to be the ones working on it then, in case it helps.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres: Thank you for your recent efforts here. We abandoned the endeavor many years ago. Not sure if I added that source since it’s been a while, but it must be this 2006 thesis by a Britta Rudolff: Rudolff 2006. Also not sure if it qualifies as an RS; there are probably better alternatives. —Al Ameer (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you! I'll add the source at least for verifiability. A completed thesis is generally ok in my opinion, but things can always be further revised and more sources added later as desired. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements toward GA or higher

[edit]

@R Prazeres: Any chance you will continue your great efforts improving this article? With some major reworking of the Religious significance section (with higher-quality sources), expansion of its 20th and 21st-century history, and minor tidying up elsewhere, it looks close to being a GA. I would be happy to help as well. Regards —Al Ameer (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer son. To be honest I wasn't planning to continue here, partly because my spare time will be reduced in the new year, but I'm happy to help a little where I can. If useful, feel free to tag me in any specific questions where access to sources is a problem (I usually have access to academic books and journals) or for any history/architecture details (the topics I'm most familiar with). I'll try to keep an eye on discussions here too. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres: Understood, thank you. I will let you know if I need any access. I have been digging up what I can for the Ottoman and more recent periods. Will try to tackle the Religious significance section a little later. Regards and have a happy new year, Al Ameer (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Umayyad Mosque/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ahendra (talk · contribs) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

credit for Al Ameer Son for curating and maintaining the improvement of the page, please contact him for suggestions and inputs or question Ahendra (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ahendra, thanks for the credit. Not sure if you intended to nominate or review this article, but right now it appears you are both the nominator and reviewer. I assume this was prompted by my message yesterday on the article talk page to R Prazeres encouraging him to continue his recent improvement efforts with a GAN in mind. For my part, I do not believe this is quite ready for nomination. Religious significance section needs to be rewritten, with considerable care in using modern, secondary reliable sources and better prose. The rest of the article also needs further copyediting, ref work, and some expansion of the mosque's more recent history before nomination. I would recommend withdrawing this nomination and waiting until the necessary work has been completed. Al Ameer (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, not intended to steal the credit, just keep the good work.Ahendra (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a valid review, you can't be nominator and reviewer at the same time. This is closed, the count can be incremented to /GA2. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the old mihrab

[edit]

I've been looking for one of the few surviving photos of the mihrab area before the devastating 1893 fire. I know that photos taken by Creswell and others exist; Finbarr Barry Flood's 1997 article ("Umayyad Survivals and Mamluk Revivals: Qalawunid Architecture and the Great Mosque of Damascus"), cited on the main page, includes copies of them on pages 58-59. Unfortunately I haven't found a digital version of them, but I did find this picture in the Commons which is very clearly of the pre-1893 mihrab (judging by comparison with the photos in Flood's article and of course by the different appearance of the modern mihrab). It's not of high quality and the file page doesn't provide much information. The uploader's description identifies it as the mihrab of the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus and gives the date "1900". Evidently this date is a rough estimation and the photo must be from before 1893, otherwise we would be seeing either a blackened mess or the new mihrab. I've added this photo to the article, but I just wanted to note these details for clarity and so that editors know why I didn't write "1900" in the caption of the image.

Also, if anyone knows how to get their hands on some higher-quality photos of the former mihrab that would be in the public domain, they would be a valuable addition to Wikimedia. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

[edit]

@R Prazeres: I couldn't access the sources I removed from; Zozo2kx is known for using difficult or impossible-to-access sources that are almost entirely offline. Those additions weren't attached to any specific source, and Burns is not easy to search or access. That's whyu I went with a presumptive removal. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understandable, and thanks for going through the trouble of tracking these things down. I happen to have on hand both Burns and Walker (the adjacent citations, which Zozo2kx included when they added those parts: [3], [4], [5]), so I was able to check easily. In this particular case, the removed statements were clearly paraphrasing those sources, so everything looked ok. I can't vouch for any other of Zozo2kx's edits of course. R Prazeres (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres: thanks for checking, I'm glad it turned out okay in the end! Zozo was known for either wholesale pasting or very frequently closely paraphrasing; the case involved wholesale deletion of pages because they copied extensively. At this point, it's just cleaning the smaller bits, where Zozo wasn't the main contributor or partially wrote some of it as an appropriate paraphrase. We are a bit of "remove first and verify later" for these older, tedious cases with lots of books. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umayyad_Mosque&oldid=1216571681"