Talk:Mosque/Archive 1

message: I am not sure where but I think this article could use something about how typical mosques are in the modern world.  I know in DE where I live it is not even as ornate as the little ones I will show below from East Ham, it just looks like a little house.  Here goes:
The Mosque of the left is London Central Mosque, the mosque by Edgware Road in London by regents park.  It has the typical mosque look and has been relatively well funded I am sure.  The other three are all little mosques I found while walking through East Ham.  They are small and just find any place they can fit.  I think if someone could help contribute to this article a section about how the difference in % of Muslims and therefore size and how the mosque looks in terms of its surroundings.  Masjid al Haram shows the power of religion... those three mosques do not.  What is the influence of this very quaint style of mosque.  gren 04:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small mosques' influence 

message: I made some changes to this article, making extensive additions. The original mosque article certainly was not worthy. Post your comments and make changes if you must. joturner 02:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Major Changes 

message: In India, most mosques(I will say majority of them) do not allow women to worship there. I know some muslim groups which argue that women are actually forbidden from worshiping in mosque. When hadiths which refer to women in mosques is pointed out to them, they say it was prior to the reveletion of Ayat of Hijab, after that it was banned. I think this point is nowhere mentioned in this article. In Kerala(state in india), it was Islahi Movement that first allowed women in mosques. --Soft coderTalk 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men and women in the mosque 

message: *Oppose as "mosque" is the correct English word. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: I think this article can be made into a featured article with a few improvements. Any comments on how to improve it? --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like the article has too much original research. I know that the article is correct, but it may not be sourced enough. In addition, I think it also needs to use footnotes for the references rather than the self-numbering style. Maybe we could say more about the evolution of mosques as well. I'm going to take a break for about an hour and then later get back to work on the Prophets of Islam (I've had to deal with the Adam and Eve article as well as a couple of other things in the process). Hopefully, someone will convert the references to the footnote style. But if I can complete the Prophets of Islam stuff soon and that's not done, I'll do that. Not a very lengthy task. joturner 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can work on it later. Work on the Prophets of Islam article, because we may get that featured too. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: China and Japan mosques: http://www.answering-christianity.com/shia_mosques_response1.htm
--Striver 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pics

message: A small factual point here - This page says that some mosques have more than one minaret purely for appearance's sake. I've heard that a mosque's having one or two minarets us largely due to whether it is a sunni or shi'a mosque. Perhpas someone who knows more might like to alter the article if this is true.
: I, or someone else, can look into that. joturner 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minarets 

message: I have started some major improvements on the article in an attempt to raise the article to featured status. I know they are some major changes, so some input would be appreciated. joturner 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid a probable edit conflict, instead of going ahead and doing so, I'm going to make a recommendation to move the citations to follow the punctuation. As in, instead of prior to a comma and/or period, move the citation to follow the comma or period. This is how most FAs do so and apparently this is how the Chicago Manual of Style does so. Pepsidrinka 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Improvements 

message: I don't know if my information are accurate but I know that Mosques are also known by the arabic جامع (Jame'). If it's true, it should be mentioned in the article. Thank you. CG 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already mentioned in the opening paragraph under a different transliteration. joturner 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jame' 

message: The template does not need to be at the top. It's unsightly there and not even necessary; the mosque article isn't even specifically linked from the template (although one could make that case that it should be). It should put where there is space for it, right next to the references. Why, Pecher, do you believe the template is essential at the top of the page? joturner 14:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On all Islam-related articles I've seen the template is on top, so why do you believe this article should be an exception? Few people will notice it at the bottom of the page, I'm afraid. I thought I have found a good place for it: to the right of the contents, so why do you object to it? Pecher Talk 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It pushes pictures and other items below the template down. The template, actually, is just too big, period. In a potential featured article, the template at the top seems really intrusive. But yes, I haven't seen it at the bottom of any other Islam-related page, but then again, I haven't seen any Islam-related featured articles with the template. joturner 14:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it looks fine at the top. It only pushes one picture down.  BhaiSaab  talk 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam Template at Top 

message: The article as it now stands describe many postive aspects of what takes place in mosques around the world.
*But that is not all. There is incitment in the name of religion. Should we ignore that ?
Zeq 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, we can't ignore it. That's one more point where the article must be expanded. Pecher Talk 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the article needs to be expanded in this area. The article doesn't talk about mosques serving as places where imams denounce terrorist attacks and there is no need to talk about imams promoting them. The incitement in the name of religion occurs in a very small number of mosques. Mentioning it in this article gives undue weight. It's the same reason the Islam article does not talk about Osama bin Laden and terrorism and the Christianity article does not talk about Eric Rudolph; they're not particularly relevant. joturner 21:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note Wikipedia:What is a featured article?: It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail joturner 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly Wikipedia NPOV policy is also important for a "featured article" Zeq 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and activity in mosques 

message: I've added a link to the article on tahara in the cleanliness section. Tahara is not terribly good at the moment, but the link certainly belongs to the article. The preferred solution must be to expand and improve Tahara. Pecher Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tahara goes to a disambiguation page and neither of them apply to Islam and/or mosques? "Tahara is not terribly good at the moment"; did you even look at the article? Pepsidrinka 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea culpa, I meant Taharah. Pecher Talk 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tahara]] link

message: I think this image :Image:Mosques in Istanbul at dusk.jpg is miscaptioned here, based on erroneous text on the image description page.  Neither of these mosques resemble the Sultan Ahmed or the Hagia Sophia.  I think we're looking at the New Mosque in the foreground and the Suleymaniye in the background.
The trouble is, many mosques were inspired by Hagia Sophia, even within Istanbul, so several of them superficially resemble each other.  Hagia Sophia is distinguished by the massive buttresses along the long axis, the sides lacking semidomes. The mosque in the background here lacks semidomes on two sides -- and thus cannot be the Sultan Ahmed, which has semidomes on four sides -- but it also lacks buttresses and so cannot be Hagia Sophia. The mosque in the foreground has a rounder dome and is in poorer repair than either the Sultan Ahmed or Haghia Sophia. Compare  and  with this image, and then see the photos at Hagia Sophia and Sultan Ahmed Mosque TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the image so that it does not mention which two mosques specifically are picture. The point of the image was to show mosques that represent the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the names of the mosques are irrelevant. joturner 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the point of the image, then it's more appropriate that one of them is not Hagia Sophia, which is not an example of Ottoman architecture. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems in your explanation above you that you have already ruled out the Hagia Sophia as one of the buildings depicted in the picture. But even if one of those buildings was the Hagia Sophia, since the Hagia Sophia "most affected the Ottoman architects and patrons as an object of admiration and imitation", I don't think there is anything wrong with having it, or any other building that resembles it, as an example of Ottoman architecture. joturner 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many buildings resembled it; that's the reason for the confusion here. And there's nothing at all wrong with showing such buildings. But Hagia Sophia itself is emblematic of Byzantine (more properly, late Roman) architecture, not Ottoman. Due to its age and relative structural unsoundness, which necessitated extensive modification over the centuries, the exterior is also much less attractive than Ottoman buildings that were inspired by it, whatever one may think of the interior. A comparison would be interesting, but this is probably not the article for it since it would bring undue emphasis to Ottoman-era mosques to the detriment of others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: I've had a look at the article as it is listed as a FAC.
* Citations in lead section is a problem.
* The word "sajada" is mentioned in the lead but not in body. This'd be in conflict with how a lead section should be.
* Saying mosques could once only be found in middle east seems a little awkward.
* Starting the history with a negative statement (about minarets) seems a little odd.
* There is an inconsistent hyphenation of Masjid Al Haram
* "has acquired the nickname of city of a thousand minarets" - does this have a citation?
* The change from Egypt to Sicily and Spain in "Diffusion and evolution" is a bit sudden
* "While only two percent of the country's mosques appeared in the United States before 1950, eighty-seven percent of American mosques were founded after 1970 and fifty percent of American mosques founded after 1980." The "while" doesn't seem right to me. Any thoughts?
* There seems to be a bit of repetition between the history and Features section about architecture stuff.
* The phrase "images of spiritual figures or other animals" seems odd - it'd be suggesting that a spiritual figure is an animal.
Andjam 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: First of all congratulations to all the editors for making it a Featured Article. However, I found a few issues with the article and am a bit surprised that these were not brought up in the FA Review. What I found is that the whole article has sections starting with "See also", while apparently they are "Main articles". If they are "Main articles", label them as such, and if they are indeed put up as "See also" sections, place the sentence at the end of the section. Another minor issue is that the article does not tell the readers that "salah" and "salat" are the same. Its quite understandable as its quite apparent for most of the editors, but the rest of the people will have trouble understanding it unless they click on the wiki-links. Another minor issue is that the first sentence of the "Social conflict" should read as "As mosques are considered important to the Muslim community, they are often at the heart of social conflicts." rather than "As they are considered important to the Muslim community, they are often at the heart of social conflicts." Also consider merging the sentence (a stand-alone sentence) with the first paragraph as it breaks the flow. Hope my observations are addressed soon. Regards, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pepsidrinka and I took care most (or possibly all) of the issues you mentioned. If you're still not satisfied, you are free to edit the article yourself. joturner 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks great now. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issues with the article 

message: In the social conflict section, a sentence refers to the bombings in Jama Masjid (Delhi) recently. Although the blasts did take place, as far as I know, no terrorist outfit has yet claimed responsibility of the attacks. Hence refering to it in intra-community conflict (as presently) may confuse the readers into thinking that the blasts were carried out by islamic extremist groups. However, since even no hindu (or other religion based) group has taken reponsibility, its again not suitable for the next paragraph about violence by outsiders. Any suggestions on how to remove this confusion? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know whether it is an intra- or inter-community conflict (and that's not indicated in the article). However, it's safe to say that it is one of those two (what else could it be?). Perhaps when more details come out, we could be more specific. But feel free to try something out. joturner 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we just add that the group behind it is still unknown, it should solve the problem for the time being. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social conflict 

message: It would seem to me this section is more appropriately entitled "Tax collection".  Zakat, at least historically, is a tax, not free giving to charity.  Perhaps this is not the case today, which can be specified.  However, I don't know if the mosque played this role in the days when Zakat was a mandatory tax (non-payment of which was cause for war).  Any help?Timothy Usher 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowadays, zakat is generally a purely voluntary charitable donation. Palmiro | Talk 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charity section title

message: *"Hypostyle mosques have prayer halls that are lined with a forest of columns and supports." No, that's a complete misunderstanding of the hypostyle type. The hypostyle is all about a walled rectangular open space with a low covered space in the direction of prayers. Many such mosques indeed have many columns, but that's a consequence of the necessity to support a low plain roof and depends on the mosque size. "The forrest" is something specific to Mezquita in Cordoba, which is why it is so famous, and is again the outcome of Mezquita's huge area.
:* The item is sourced from a Glendale Community College (although there are certainly other sources that agree if you feel that is not sufficient). joturner 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So, what does "affiliated" mean? It looks like material from a community college course on the "History of World Ceramics". Not to mention that Glendale Community College is highly dubious as a source, the site talks specifically about Mezquita, as I pointed out below, and it is original research to extrapolate it to all mosques of this type. The issue is just part of the larger problem with the article: it uses many unreliable sources. Also, joturner, please refrain from pasting your comments inside other people's comments. Pecher Talk 09:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  <--- I think these two sources agree with the current way the article presents hypostyle mosques.  BhaiSaab  talk 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * The item is sourced from a website through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. joturner 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *same problems here: what does "affiliated" mean? It may have been written by an undergrad student. What's more the article has converted a correct and logical statement "established in the Umayyad and Abbasid mosques" into an illogical "pioneered". Pecher Talk 09:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be resolved now.  BhaiSaab  talk 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * The sentence is not incomplete; that is a complete sentence. You can re-write it if you believe it's poorly written. joturner 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ahh, I see: the phrase "and the courtyard they surround" is inserted between the subject and the verb, hardly the greatest way of constructing a sentence. But the issue persists: inverted "T" mosques were a minor style variation during a short time span. Again, that's the problem of poor sources, which is endemic to the article. Pecher Talk 09:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These types of mosques are also called "Bursa style." It's discussed as a disctinctive type of mosque on various sites.  BhaiSaab  talk 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * You can add that if you want. joturner 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the "Styles" section 

message: It appears to me that the article is somewhat unbalanced at the moment. There is too much attention given to the issue of social conflict for the main article on mosques, and far too much to the issue of Saudi Arabia building/funding mosques. The social and political role of mosques is disproportionately focussed on current events and goes on about these at disproportionate length relative to the article as a whole; mosques have played a major social and political role throughout Islamic history and there is little mention of this here.  Palmiro | Talk 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignite world war? Perhaps... But about the other issues, I don't think the section would be too long if the whole section regarding the social and political role of the mosque were moved to a daughter article. joturner 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, what is a mosque.  I'd agree that first and foremost, it is a place for Muslims to pray, regardless of the type of building it's in.  And would add that it is often the center of the Muslim community.  Architecture is incidental at the same time that it's universally acknowledged to be fascinating on its own.  I might even suggest a merger of this section with Islamic architecture, a desultory treatment of its topic which could use some help.  Your work here is a lot better than what currently exists over there.Timothy Usher 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article may look unbalanced largely because the "History" section, which, ideally, should have branched into at least one support article, is so pitiful now. Pecher Talk 13:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  balance problem? 

message: Surely this article is now comprehensive enough and sufficiently worthy to feature on the main page? Richardbooth 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature on the main page?