Talk:Mosque

message: The list in the section on Frequency of attendance is surprising, to me at least - the top of the list is dominated by African states and Saudi Arabia (27%) is just above Denmark (25%), and way below many Western countries. How accurate is the list, or are Islamic states less religiously observant than they are often perceived? JezGrove (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of attendance 

message: The history section attempts to misrepresent sources. The view that Islam predates Muhammad, is not supported by historians (secular). Apart from the Quran being cited, the following quote cites some sources that reference Islam's ties to other Abrahamic prophets, although it does not ouright mention that Islam is predated by Muhammad (Not in the way that it is being represented here).
Other scholars, referring to passages of the Quran,[9][10][11] state that Islam as a religion preceded Muhammad,[12][13][14] and includes previous prophets such as Abraham.[15]
The source:
•Peters, F.E. (2003). Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-691-11553-5.
The following source, seems to also be misrepresented. As the source aims to provide an academic description of Islam, and mentions Muhammad being a reformer and not founding a new religion, as the intention was to restore the alleged original faith. The source says "For Muhammad, Islam was not a new faith but the restoration of the true faith" (Esposito 1998, Page 12). It does not claim Islam predates Muhammad, it mentions and explains the Islamic view of Islam not being a new faith, thus the claim of "Islam predating Muhammad" is the Islamic view (Muhammad's view). 
Therefore, the sentence structure is misleading, as it abuses the sources by referencing scholars that reference the Quran. At best, it is still the Islamic view.
The claim that Kaaba was built by Abraham is another disputed topic, that is the Islamic, not scholarly view. Just because a source elabroates or explores Islam, does not signify it is an academic source that supports the Islamic view, it is merely explaining it in its own religious context. This section is in regards to the History of a mosque, I do not see how the prophet thing is relevant, for the Islamic view of Kaaba, this is relevant although it should be clearly presented as the Muslim interpretation. At best the claim is disputed, look at the Kaaba article for more information regarding the scholarly view vs the muslim historical view.
The solution which I will do as of now, is to reword these sections as clearly Muslim historical/religious interpretations. Although I welcome others to add on sources, relevant to the claims of the first mosque, that mention the scholarly- not Muslim, view. ChaoticTexan (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Misrepresentation 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article has fulfilled the criteria to be nominated as a good (GA) article as it firmly fits under the criteria provided by Wikipedia. Nomination is requested. Gsnubao = (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Istiqlal Mosque Eid ul Fitr Jamaah 2.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Arabic script in the article has been just changed in this edit by inserting a "Script" template, but at least on my display the new version of the script is actually harder to read than it was previously with the just the bare lang template, which displayed the Arabic script just fine. Is this just me? And is there generally a good reason to use this template in this context? Asking not just for this article but also to know what might work best for other articles with Arabic script. This could be for  to explain or just anyone else with thoughts/opinions. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lang/script templates 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: When hovering over a link to this page, you get an image of the flag of Israel which is clearly not appropriate here. This is a screenshot if you need it: https://i.imgur.com/8xWh3Or.png. RisingTzar (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious, I see it too, but I'm not sure where it's coming from, since it's not in the article as far as I can tell (minus a mini-flag icon in one of the tables). And it's not in the associated Wikimedia pages (like Wikidata), in case it was somehow being pulled from there. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of how previews work can clarify? R Prazeres (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

text: PS: I assume this can be overridden by adding a lead image. But it would be good to know what's causing this. R Prazeres (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I am confused by this as well. I initially assumed this was clear-cut vandalism but doesn't appear to be the case which makes this all the more interesting. RisingTzar (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

text: This also happens with Waqf which has absolutely no direct reference to flag of Israel images. RisingTzar (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I've posted a question about this to Talk:Reading/Web at MediaWiki, which seems to be the place to ask about issues with page previews. R Prazeres (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pages hacked by israiyl flag, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#I can't access some pages. I've purged the page cache so it should be fixed now. Nardog (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you! I believe I've successfully purged the cache Waqf as well (I had to look it up how at Help:Purge). R Prazeres (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Image On Hover 

message: Just a further explanatory note to my edit here. The Mosque of the Companions in Eritrea is not securely dated, isn't mentioned as the "first mosque" by most (if any) reliable sources, and the source provided for this (Reid 2012 p.106) doesn't make this claim either. At best, this could be mentioned as one of the many mosques out there for which there are claims of a very early date, though at the moment there seem to be few sources giving details about this mosque anyways (see Talk:Mosque of the Companions). (If relevant, see also a similar comment I left at Talk:List of the oldest mosques.) R Prazeres (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First mosque" claims 

message: There is a significant amount of topic overlap between the "Diffusion and evolution" section (under "History") and the "Styles" section (under "Architecture"). Both of them effectively talk about the development or characteristics of mosque architecture in different regions, in some cases even restating the same things a second time. I presume we should move all the architecture-related content to the actual "Architecture" ("Styles") section, and perhaps keep the "Diffusion" section about the spread of mosques as places of worship (rather than as building styles). This is beyond what I can do at the moment, but certainly a needed improvement in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap between sections