Talk:Umayyad Mosque

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ummayad mosque in Damascus is not damaged due to the civil war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not the third most important mosque to muslims! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article from a Shia perspective 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TODO list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Referencing

message: 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)
thread_title: Copy edits

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that makes sense. Also, check this one, . Yazan (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  
Just some info from Necipoglu
 Important info to add 

message: 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)
thread_title: Architecture

message: 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)
thread_title: File:Ummayid Mosque-Map.GIF Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Previous temple - recent edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation needed for "This is considered holy by the Muslims because Muhammed recited passages from the Quran at this site." 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clean-up - separate the temple history 

message: :: 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?
::::  You are right, there should be entries in the bibliography, well spotted! With some quick searching I found Burns 2005 must be:  and Darke 2010 must be  I'll add them to the bibliography! GPinkerton (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   It turns out Burns 2005 was already in the article, listed in the bibliography! GPinkerton (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moughera (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  See Help:Shortened footnotes. Thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  sidebar: old city map 

message: this mosque is most commonly known in Arabic as  (), not as  (): see 105 hits for the former vs. 21 hits for the latter. Meanwhile, "Great Mosque of Damascus" in Arabic would be , while  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)
thread_title:  Common Arabic name 

message: 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  and  who seemed to be the ones working on it then, in case it helps.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks . 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Improvements toward GA or higher 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image of the old mihrab 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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: , , ), 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  reverts