Talk:Islamic architecture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Randheli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Snmisras.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Yeminite
This section of the article needs a lot more information and description as it's section has significantly less information than any other country's section. In addition, there are two sentences included in this section that lack a citation, which decreases the credibility of the article and wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdubes827 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

New section
Can i create a new section that lists all the architectural features of islamic architecture that was invented during medieval islamic world or architectural inventions that are also found in other architecture but has origin in islamic architecture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:1484:A219:D2DC:4ABA:C0A2:76B6 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yemeni Architecture
is it true that the first Skyscraper's in the world was built in Yemen ?. PilpelShata (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Excessive use of images in the lead
Oncemore, there seems to be an excessive use of images in the lead, and it is very unnecessary to include an abudance of images, especially when there is examples of architectonic principles displayed such as domes and arches, and adding more is redundant. Secondly, Hindu temple architecture has 3 images in the lead, how does that validate using 7 for islamic architecture? List of other religious architecture articles and the # of images in leads
 * Hindu temple architecture
 * 3 images
 * Hindu Temple
 * 5 images, although this is relating specifically to Hindu temples, not generalized and shows different examples
 * Church architecture
 * 1 image
 * Architecture of cathedrals and great churches
 * 5 images with different architectural styles (no repeats) relating specifically to the title and lead shows different examples
 * Synagogue architecture
 * 2 images
 * Sikh architecture
 * 6 images, there is a lack of other subsections in the article, and the images are notable in the Sikh religion, so it makes sense
 * Buddhist architecture
 * no images
 * Mosque
 * 1 image

The lead for Islamic architecture mentions "New architectural elements like cylindrical minarets, muqarnas, arabesque, multifoil were invented. The principal Islamic architectural types for large or public buildings are: the mosque, the tomb, the palace, and the fort. From these four types, the vocabulary of Islamic architecture is derived and used for other buildings such as public baths, fountains and domestic architecture." Thus it makes sense to display images that encompass many of these as they follow the lead. Secondly, there is already an example of Moorish architecture in one of the images, there is no need to add more hence why moving it to the Gallery makes more sense. I would be okay with keeping the example of Umayyad architecture, I did not read the description when I moved it. So there would be an example of Isfahani, Ottoman, Umayyad, Moorish and Abbasid architecture.

Furthermore, there is already an image of the same arches in the article under Characteristics > Spain (al-Andalus): File:Córdoba 2014.25.jpg|Arcades of the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba

Most sections already have an abudance of images, the images should either be removed, moved under Gallery, or moved under the related examples within the article. To recap, the lead has more images than many religious architecture articles, some of the images are already within the article, and the images are redundant of Moorish architecture in the lead. ChaoticTexan (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we disagree about this. WP:OSE isn't a very strong argument on WP, especially as none of the articles you mention are really very good models. Obviously what is "excessive" is in the eye of the beholder. We can always discuss the choice and placement of individual images, but your version left big imageless stretches at the top of the article, which isn't right in such a visual subject. This is a long article, with a very long TOC, which should have images alongside. I've moved some down, so there are now only 4 images in the lead.  Let's see what other editors think. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just leave the five images reflective of different Islamic architectural styles? I agree that this needs more input from other editors, although once again, the arches on top already exist within the article and are thus redudant. I will say that image is better than the currently existing image of the same thing under Characteristics > Spain. I forget that not everyone is on mobile, so I can see how this is a subjective dispute. I guess the arches also bother me due to the length of it on mobile, which personally, it does not look visually well. The response is appreciated! ChaoticTexan (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 08:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Masjid Raya Sumbar 2018 taman.jpg

General revisions: questions about "history" content and layout
The page needs a lot of long-term attention for improvements which I feel needs some collective input. But one issue I feel could be discussed sooner than later is how to treat the subject of the history of Islamic architecture on this page. Here are some suggestions/questions where I'd be interested to hear from other editors:

1. Move the "Early history" section to the beginning of the article? History sections, when they exist, usually come early in the article so as to provide the historical context for the rest (e.g. Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture, Art Nouveau, etc). Currently the "Early history" section is stranded halfway in the article, which to me seems to undermine its purpose. 2. Expand the history section to cover the whole history of Islamic architecture? The "Early history" section currently covers topics up to the 10th century or so, plus an extra mention of Mamluk architecture for no clear reason, but then the rest of Islamic architecture history is left out. Maybe the "Regional styles" section implicitly covers later periods, but there's nothing explicit on the page which makes that clear to readers or editors. There are also important gaps in the article at the moment, such as Levantine architecture overall (e.g. Ayyubid, provincial Mamluk and Ottoman monuments, and other regional dynasties) – and until today, Seljuk architecture was missing too. This might be at least partly fixed by extending the history section so it covers all periods. (At which point the "Regional styles" section can presumably be used to focus and expand on specific styles without overburdening the history section, but that could be discussed too.)
 * Note: The same could be said of the "Influences" section, although I could imagine an argument that this topic is academically more controversial (i.e. scholars don't always agree on what influences are relevant in various contexts) and more theoretical, and therefore might be better left until later in the page.

3. Alternative: merge "history" and "regional styles" into several sections divided into broad historical periods? An alternative to having a separate stand-alone "history" section is to reorganize most of the information in "Early history" and "Regional styles" into new sections that cover different regional styles according to major periods. (E.g. the early period would cover mostly Umayyad and Abbasid architecture, while later periods would have subsections for Ottoman, Mughal, Iranian, Indonesian, Moroccan, etc.) This is a fairly traditional type of presentation used in some architecture articles (e.g. you can see what I mean at Baroque architecture, Modern architecture, Architecture of India, etc) and in many published overview books (e.g. Ettinghausen et al 2001, Blair and Bloom 1994, among many others).
 * This might have advantages and disadvantages: I'm just bringing it up as an option for consideration in the long-term, not necessarily a recommendation. One advantage might be that it would reduce overlap between sections that focus regions versus those that focus on periods, as these divisions are not always independent of each other. At the same time it might also reduce uncertainty for editors about where to add information about specific areas and monuments, because there would only be one obvious place to put it. One disadvantage might be that the sections could get much more complex. There are also other sections which are not organized by specific region/style (e.g. "Characteristics"), which might create inconsistencies in how certain topics are treated. Either way, there would be a lot to discuss.

Obviously I'll be happy to help with any changes if there's agreement on any of these issues. (PS: And I have other questions about minor elements of the page, but I'll put them in separate talk sections to avoid getting messy.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine the article is still being expanded, so this may not be the best moment to start such a discussion. If it comes to a choice between a regional and chronologcal approach, I think I favour the regional one, after the first few centuries.  I agree the early period should come earlier, and should be pan-Islamic.  Is Levantine architecture really distinctive enough to require its own sections?  I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards #3 above, yeah I think it'll be more of a question if editors eventually want to reach for a GA or Featured article status. The current article can still be expanded without radical reorganization. For the first two points, though, I think it's useful to hear input about it now, as much of that could be done right away and set the stage for further expansion in the meantime. For Levantine architecture I'm not sure it merits a section in "regional styles" either, but in an expanded chronological section, for example, the Ayyubids, Mamluks, and other dynasties (if significant enough) would be covered in their respective periods, which by default would allow general coverage of many major monuments in cities like Damascus and Aleppo. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is now surely getting too long, by WP:LENGTH guidelines. The lead is too short, but everything else.... I don't mind the "characteristics" being after the lead, but maybe then the "early history" should follow, then the regional styles. If something needs to be split off, "Town and city" might be a candidate. Do we really have nothing on Architecture of Yemen?  The section now doesn't even mention the tower houses (nor does the article at the end of that link)!   But thanks for your efforts here, and those of others.   Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with the suggestion that "Towns and cities" could be split off into its own article, and that could be justified even if we move or don't move the history section. It's the section that least requires reference to Islamic architecture in the narrow sense, as urban morphology can be discussed as a topic in its own right. I'm just not sure what the name of that new article should be in order to properly define its scope. R Prazeres (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections in the meantime, I will move the "Early history" section to the beginning of the article. I think it will help general readers by introducing historical and geographic contexts in an ordered manner (instead of having periods/regions show up incidentally in other sections). Some adjustements to links may be needed.
 * On how to organize the rest of the page's content, I leave that up to further discussion as needed. One more suggestion from me in the meantime is that if the "Regional styles" section is also designed to cover later periods, some precision should be added to the section titles to make that clear to readers. I'll keep thinking about that. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I'll add, at least as a suggestion, the clarification "(up to 10th century)" to the title of the Early history section, as this reflects the content of that section as it stands. It also seems like a reasonable upper chronological limit for such a section, since Seljuk architecture (11th century) figures in the regional styles section and things do get more complicated and diversified after this period. Likewise, I'll add "(after 10th century)" to the Regional styles section, to clarify where readers should look for later periods. The subsections on Iran and the Maghreb/Al-Andalus don't technically limit themselves to post-10th century content, but it seems reasonable for those subsections and I don't think it negates the general focus of the section as a whole. Anyhow, feel free to further discuss. R Prazeres (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Architectural forms
This sub-article under Characteristics seems unnecessary, and it does not add any thing new to the article. Should it be merge/remove? Indusstar (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my suggestion when I added the tags there. Personally I think it can simply be removed without any loss to the wider article. R Prazeres (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I actually took another look at it and moved two pieces of information to more relevant sections elsewhere. So I think what's left in this section can now definitely be removed. R Prazeres (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved the Architectural forms under Regional styles and one about specific elements to the top of Characteristics. Although they are not in perfect location, but probably better than the previous. Regards. Indusstar (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think the "Architectural forms" just gets in the way under "Regional styles", because it's more inconsistent with the rest of that section. I'm just going to remove it at this point, as the topics in it are (and should be) covered elsewhere, and the article is long enough that we should avoid repetitive material. Editors are still free raise objections if they disagree. Thanks for your help! R Prazeres (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with the section removal; and thank you too for giving your time on this article :) Regards. Indusstar (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gallery picture size?
Do editors have a preference or an opinion on what size the pictures of galleries should be set at by default? Most of the previous galleries on this page have their pictures set to 180px. I've added some galleries since then but I've left them at the default size (120px or unspecified). I don't think there's a particular policy for this elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong). For galleries with lots of pictures, 180px seems to take up a lot of space (depending on your screen/display size), but also makes thumbnails easier to see. So if editors have a preference, I can standardize the new and old galleries accordingly. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 180-ish is about right; the default is way too small. It's often good to put both parameters in, and have different galleries for portrait & landscape format pics, adjusted accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'll adjust the smaller ones then, and obviously folks are welcome to further revise. R Prazeres (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Four types" in lead
The lead needs more work but I want to note that this statement looks doubtful or not clearly supported: "The principal Islamic architectural types for large or public buildings are: the mosque, the tomb, the palace, and the fort. From these four types, the vocabulary of Islamic architecture is derived and used for other buildings such as public baths, fountains and domestic architecture." Of the two sources that come after, one is incomplete (it has a last name, a page number, and nothing else) and the other is not a reliable source and doesn't say this in particular. I think a claim that there are only 4 basic types of buildings and that other building types are derived from them is the kind of thing that needs more serious support from sources, and shouldn't be in the lead until then. I personally doubt that this is a mainstream academic view. So instead, I'm going to replace this statement with a suggested simpler outline of the general building types relevant to Islamic architecture. We don't quite have this information spelled out anywhere else in the page yet either, so that may something to consider adding in the main body of the article. In the meantime, the lead can at least link readers to these other relevant pages so that some of the important terminology (e.g. madrasa, hammam, etc) is established at the start of the article. R Prazeres (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arabia context
The reference to Arabia in the lead did not require a source because it is discussed in detail with sources elsewhere in the article. Why does "Arabian" uniquely require more sources in the lead but the references to Roman, Mesopotamian influence etc do not!? That’s why it was a “minor edit”. Because it didn’t add anything new! Of course I could just provide the sources and move on but there is a deeper issue here and if we don't address it now it will derail any progress we can make on improving this article.

The study of Islamic architecture was heavily influenced by the work of K. A. C. Creswell in his book Early Muslim architecture (1932). You can read about how his extremist view was not only wrong and premature but had long-lasting effects on the entire field: King, G. R. D. (1990). CRESWELL'S APPRECIATION OF ARABIAN ARCHITECTURE, Muqarnas Online, 8(1), 94-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/22118993-90000268

Some important quotes to highlight:

“Despite a growing body of knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabian architecture in the 1960’s, Creswell nevertheless summarized his assessment of Arabia in an immoderate subheading, “Architecture non-existent in Arabia at this time,” by which he meant the time of the Prophet muhammad.” “Creswell was far too extreme on this issue. He was in no position to make such a definitive statement, however, and was premature in reaching such a judgment. It is all the more regrettable because his work has become the core for the study of early Islamic architecture, and his views about the genesis of Islamic art and architecture has developed into a canon of basic knowledge on the subject.”

“The overwhelmingly influential position of Creswell’s work and opinions has affected subsequent writing to a profound extent.”

“If Creswell does not deserve criticism for his neglect of the largely unrecorded Islamic monuments of Arabia, his failure to consider the literature on pre-Islamic buildings in the peninsula is quite extraordinary.”

Another excellent article dealing with this specific issue begins with: "The influence of Creswell’s teaching is, however, so far-reaching and still shapes opinions to such a degree that it will be some time before the significance of the Arabian Peninsula as a cultural zone in pre-Islamic and Islamic times will be appreciated. We find this theory repeated in other areas of research, too, that it was only with the coming of Islam and “new” contacts to neighboring advanced civilizations that culture began to take hold in the Arabian Peninsula."

And it concludes:

"[Arabian] Urban architecture and religious buildings remained true to their existing traditions, that is to say, that evidently the whole culture remained independent and was merely influenced in certain forms by exchanges of ideas and by imports. The picture of the Arabian Peninsula traditionally drawn by Orientalist history can be seen to require re-examination in many respects. In order to understand Islam, however, it is necessary to be acquainted with its place of origin and to grasp its history." Finster, B. (2009). " Arabia In Late Antiquity: An Outline Of The Cultural Situation In The Peninsula At The Time Of Muhammad". In The Qurʾan in Context. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004176881.i-864.21 "Mosque (Masjid) is a pre-Islamic Arabian word. It is attested in inscriptions at least hundreds of years before Islam. Mihrab is also an Arabian word with Islamic mihrabs being a unique development in their design and significance. The word mihrab itself has a complex pre-islamic and folk history. These and other examples show that many of the forms and terms developed by Islam with precise connotations in the new faith and the new civilization ahead existed in pre-Islamic Arabia." Ettinghausen, R., Grabar, O., & Jenkins, M. (2001). Islamic art and architecture 650-1250. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 5.

South Arabian influence, Ghassanid influence and west Arabian influence on “early Islamic architecture” is already discussed in this article with all the necessary sources. So there was no need for more anyway.

In Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires, the author states: "…subsequent historians have been equally and less excusably islamocentric. An academic disconnect between Islamic and pre-Islamic studies has meant that most scholars do not see the dots that make the bigger picture, let alone try to join them up. When we do take that longer, wider view, we find that Islam was not something that shot up suddenly in Mecca; it is a vast, slow growth whose roots lie deep in time and all over the peninsula." MACKINTOSH-SMITH, T. (2019). Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires. NEW HAVEN; LONDON: Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvd1c99p. p. 54.

For people on the other side (pre-Islamic studies/Arabists) this disconnect is very bizarre. It’s like removing references to Greece in an article about Hellenistic culture... and then demanding more sources at every (((redundant))) mention of the word “Greece”! SHM616 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi SHM616, nowhere in the sources you've cited here does it say something to the effect that Islamic architecture in general was strongly influenced by the architecture of pre-Islamic Arabia. You have lots of quotes about how pre-Islamic Arabia has been neglected by scholarship in various ways, but that is not the point. The sources you added in the lead (this edit) also do not support your point, the first one is about the Umayyad dynasty (which was post-Islamic and based outside Arabia) and the second one is taken out of context because the quote is an excerpt from a paragraph talking about specifically Medina and the Arabian Peninsula during the early Islamic era. And lastly: no, the rest of the page does not discuss and support this claim (definitely not in the terms that your are framing it), so it cannot be added in the lead as part of a summary.
 * By contrast, the relationships between Islamic architecture and pre-Islamic Roman/Byzantine and Persian/Sassanian architecture is very widely established in reliable sources and discussed many times on this page. This also means that not only must you respect Verifiability, but even if you manage to find one or two sources that actually support your claim, that is still not necessarily good enough, as it clearly does not enjoy consensus among scholars. As per WP:WEIGHT (and the wider neutral point of view policy), such a claim would need to be treated with caution and properly contextualized alongside what other sources say.
 * This is at least the third time you've tried to insert this claim either without sources or with citations that don't support it. If there is proper support for the claim in reliable sources then I suggest you add a discussion of that in the "Influences" section on this page with proper citations. In the meantime, there is no excuse for continuously attempting to add and re-add this claim in the lead. R Prazeres (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

1. The Umayyad dynasty adpoted the Medina mosque plan, it just so happens that my sources doesn’t say that precisely.

"As far as later architecture is concerned, the major contribution of early Islam in Arabia was the development of a specifically Muslim masjid" Ettinghausen, R., Grabar, O., & Jenkins, M. (2001). Islamic art and architecture 650-1250. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

"it is clear that many subsequent mosques, including the early great Umayyad mosque of Damascus that was first to reproduce the Prophet’s model at a monumental scale, reveal similar planning and spatial characteristics." Cosmology and architecture in premodern islam an architectural reading of mystical ideas Akkach, Samer. State University of New York Press, Albany. P 194-195.

"When used in large numbers, the colonnaded grid created a powerful effect resulting from the direction less occupied by columns. The plan originated from the house and mosque that the Prophet Muhammad built in Medina" Museum With No Frontiers. (2000). The Umayyads: The rise of Islamic art. Beirut, Lebanon: Arab Institute for Research and Publishing. Again there is no need for an exhaustive list here.

2. The second quote is an unambiguous statement from a reliable modern authoritative sources and you cannot somehow separate “early Islamic era” from early Islam.

3. This page doesn’t discuss and support my claim because this page is of a questionable quality and contains many unsourced claims and original research and reflects the old outdated orientalist views that have been overturned, so yes it should change.

4. The relationship between Islamic architecture and Byzantine/Persian has no effect here. Again you must take in consideration that all modern scholars emphasize the previously unrecognized Arabian influences, There is (again) a shocking disconnect between Islamic studies and Arabian studies and if I need an exhaustive list of sources and direct quotes for that I will provide it.

4. You accuse me of only having one or two sources which is false.

"The roots of of monumental architectural tradition during the Early Islamic period were firmly grounded in the architectural, religious, socio-political and cultural precedents in the region of his birth (Muʿāwiya) and early life in the Ḥijāz and South" -	St. Laurent, B. (2020). From Arabia to Bil?d al-Sh?m: : Mu??wiya’s Development of an Infrastructure and Monumental Architecture of Early Umayyad Statehood. Journal of Islamic Archaeology, 6(2), 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1558/jia.40700

"The foundations of the “new” Islamic art were painting, sculpture, and above all architecture, and all of these were well established in the cultural life of the peninsula." Flood, Finbarr Barry; Necipoğlu, Gülru (2017). A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 84. ISBN 9781119068662

This isn’t confined to Arabia and its a unequivocal general statement about early Islamic architecture.

"the “Arab plan,” with court and hypostyle prayer hall, became a dominant functional type" A Cultural History of the Arabic Language. By Sharron Gu. p. 166.

"A particularly rich repertoire of Arab myths and memories, as well as architecture preceded the appearance of the first Islamic monument." Nuha N. N. Khoury. (1993). The Dome of the Rock, the Kaʿba, and Ghumdan: Arab Myths and Umayyad Monuments. Muqarnas, 10, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1523172

"J. Allan's revised edition of K.A.C. Creswell's A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture first characterized pre-Islamic Arabian architecture as consisting largely of mud huts, a point that he later revoked. Other colleagues were quick to join the criticism of this controversial, wide-spread but obsolete teaching opinion" The consensus you are insisting on is obsolete!

"Such was the perspective power of the “Arab plan” that its influence permeated mosque architecture in the non-Arab lands too. It would therefore be an artificial exercise to consider the development of the Iranian mosque in isolation, the more so as many early mosques in Iran (Bishapur, Siraf, Susa, Yazd) were of Arab plan. Some also had the square minarets which were an early feature of that plan (Damghan, Siraf)." Baer, Eva. Ayyubid Metalwork with Christian Images. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.

"four basic types of mosques have arisen in western and central Asia and in North Africa: the Arab hypostyle mosque, the Persian four-iwan mosque, the Indian three dome mosque and the Turkish central-dome mosque." Stegers, R. (2008). Sacred buildings: A design manual. Basel: Birkhäuser.

"The first palaces built in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia under Islamic rule combined elements drawn from the earlier palatine traditions of pre-Islamic Arabia, Sassanian Iran and the Late Antique Mediterranean world." (2009). Bloom, J., & Blair, S. (Eds.), The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 14 Sep. 2021

"Extensive use of stucco decoration is a distinguishing feature of Arab architecture." Perrot, G., & Chipiez, C. (1892). History of art in Persia. London: Chapman and Hall.

5. There are many unsourced claims in this article and undue weight is given to minority opinions which I will change with sources but they permeate this highly biased article.

6. You cannot keep referring to the outdated “consensus” that is at best highly questionable in current research.

7. Isn’t disregarding Arabia as an important region in the history of Islam in violation of NPOV? Other parts of this article contain shockingly inaccurate unsourced claims and clearly pushing POV that directly goes against the actual science. SHM616 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again SHM616. You seem to be changing your point; first you were promoting the influence of "pre-Islamic Arabia", now you're saying "Early Islamic", which is confusing the issue you're trying to present. I'll try to respond to your points (according to the numbers you've given them), since I think some of it deserve a response. Other than that, unless you make any further problematic edits, I don't see anything else to address.
 * 1. The medina mosque plan and its influence is already discussed in the main text in the Early History section. I put some of the information there myself.
 * 2. Nowhere in my response did I "separate “early Islamic era” from early Islam" as you claim I did. That statement would be absurd.
 * 3. The fact that this page requires work and improvement, something which is true and which I've said many times already on this page, makes it even more important that all new edits and changes be well-sourced, verifiable, neutral, or in line with other relevant Wikipedia policies. Otherwise the page will simply turn into more of a mess. It does not mean that your view (or mine for that matter), deserves free rein on the page, no matter how well-read you are. You've already added some information in the "influences" section, which is what I recommended you do earlier. I suspect it will need someone else to look over it in the future, but I don't see any other immediate problems related to your point.
 * 4. "all modern scholars emphasize the previously unrecognized Arabian influences": It's up to you to demonstrate that this is a majority view among published scholarly references relevant to this topic. Simply citing general claims about the obvious cultural and historical importance of Arabia does not mean that it had that role in architecture specifically. And just to warn you in advance: at no point should you be filling in the blanks, so to speak, with your own views or interpretations – as you seem to have been doing when you previously cited sources that were only vaguely relevant and did not support the statement you added. Please consult the "No original research" policy.
 * 4b. I didn't accuse you of having only one or two sources in general. You used two citations in your edit on the main page and I addressed the problems with those directly. I even linked to your edit directly to make it clear. Please do not misrepresent my comments.
 * 5-7. Like I said in response to 3, it's your job to show that your edits are verifiable and that they merit inclusion in the article you're editing. I suggest you refrain from dismissing everything you disagree with as "biased", as that's exactly what people say when they're trying to push their own POV at the expense of everything else, and that's how it will be perceived here. Again, Wikipedia is meant to represent all major scholarly points of view, even those you disagree with, and to give them their due weight within the scope of each article. At the moment, I don't see many "outdated orientalist", "minority opinions", or "shockingly inaccurate unsourced claims" in the sections of this article that have been recently revised and well-sourced, so make sure you are improving the article and not simply replacing what you don't like with what you like. If there are disagreements (with myself or anyone else), it's up to you to solicit consensus (see Consensus and also WP:ONUS), and you can use this talk page to do that.
 * Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Masjid Raya Sumbar 2018 taman.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mevlana Museum Interior.jpg

POV edits on Arabian/Arab influence (again)
Hi, your edits are well-intentioned and could be more useful elsewhere, but they conflict with WP:NPOV (the neutral point of view policy) for this article. They're aimed at promoting the role of pre-Islamic Arabian/Arab influences in one way or another, despite the fact that most experts of Islamic architecture agree and in many cases explicitly state that this role was very limited by comparison with other influences. I won't repeat them here, but you can read the sources cited (with quotes) more than once already in this article.

Regarding your more architecture-specific edits, the latest ones you made in this edit are again overstating the point without good reason: the Hira palaces you mention, for example, are based on Sasanian models, as Shahid (the cited author) also explains, though you've omitted this context. Even if you added this context, it therefore doesn't say anything that isn't already said directly. Most summaries on Islamic architecture or even on Abbasid architecture (for example) barely mention Lakhmid influence, if at all. Also, your point in the same edit about South Arabian architecture being the "immediate predecessor of early Umayyad architecture" is not supported by the source you cited, which does not in fact say this, and is disproportionate to the minor relevant observations that the author does make in that chapter. So even adding "according to some scholars" is misleading. It doesn't respect WP:NPOV, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or WP:FRINGE (all roughly related policies around presenting balanced and verifiable information).

I've already used the gist of your first additions and sources to add an entire paragraph (in this edit) about the Lakhmids and Ghassanids and their potential contributions relevant to this topic, with more context. By comparison, far more important influences on Islamic architecture are still only very briefly summarized in the history section. We could chose to expand the history section as a whole to make room for more, but this article is already very long (as mentioned in another discussion above), there is already a separate section on "Influences" further below, AND there are separate sub-articles for most of these topics (e.g. Umayyad architecture, Abbasid architecture, not to mention the Lakhmids article itself, etc). The text of the article is always subject to revision of course, but as an overview article it needs to be balanced and not become a repository for arguments and examples in favour of one POV at the expense of mainstream scholarship. Detail and wording revisions aside, this particular issue is now well-covered already.

My recommendations to you, if you want to continue: you could bring this kind of information to some of the relevant subarticles I mentioned above, where there's plenty of room to expand, or you could add them in a new subsection in the "Influences" section further down in the article. You still need to place your claims in context and provide sources that support them directly (not indirectly), as always. R Prazeres (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 20:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque (13).jpg

Remove "Influences" section?
I've been wondering what to do about this section for a while and I think we should consider removing it altogether, with the caveat that we can move any useful sourced content to either other sections or other appropriate articles. Here are some of the issues that stand out to me:


 * Context/scope: A general section on "influences" is awkward in this overview article because nearly every influence suggested in reliable sources is usually specific to a certain time, place, and/or architectural element, rather than applicable to all of Islamic architecture. Having a compilation-style section makes it harder to contextualize every point. It also leaves the scope open-ended, which encourages editors to just list possible influences here indiscriminately. And it's unfeasible to cover every potentially example here, much less to summarize the scholarly debates that often accompany questions of origins/influence.
 * Repetition/overlap: For early Islamic architecture, relevant influences are already mentioned in the "Early history" section and at relevant sub-articles like Umayyad architecture and Abbasid architecture. For later Islamic architecture, which is divided into regional styles, influences are mentioned in the relevant subsections in this article or at their corresponding main articles (e.g. Byzantine influence on Ottoman architecture, indigenous Indian influence on Mughal architecture, etc). Other sections/articles also explain the influences of regional Islamic styles on other regional Islamic styles. Questions of influence on specific architectural elements like minarets, horseshoe arches, and so on are likewise covered in detail at their respective articles. Same again with specific buildings like the Dome of the Rock. As a result, any reliable information that can be mentioned in the "influences" section is pretty much covered elsewhere with better context and relevance.
 * Content problems:
 * The first part of the section currently still lacks citations for verification and contains what looks like original research; in particular, the meta-commentary on the evolution of scholarship in this section does not cite recent publications that could be the source of that commentary, so it is potential WP:OR, even if well-intentioned.
 * The second part, on "Arabian" influence, was written to promote a specific POV (see earlier discussion on this page), though I've tried to add some balance since then. The only point there that's actually widely supported by reliable sources is the influence of the early hypostyle Medina mosque, and this is mentioned in the history section already. The rest is mostly a compilation of remarks cherry-picked to promote the POV: some are vague, some only cite sources with passing mentions of the word "Arab" or "Arabian" without proper context, and some are tangential or hardly relevant to the topic of this article (e.g. urbanism and etymology).
 * Article length: This article is also getting on the long side of WP:LENGTH, and this would be one way to trim it down and keep a more overview format. (There was also a suggestion in an earlier discussion to move the "Towns and cities" section to its own article, which I think is another good idea in the long-term.)

I'm leaving this as an open question to everyone for feedback. I may try to keep revising some of the material in the meantime. R Prazeres (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined not to do that, although I agree the current sections are unsatisfactory. That the same points are covered in more detail in more specific articles is not in itself a reason to remove them from here - that is how summary style is supposed to work. I'd favour a drastic slimming and rewriting of the present text, with additions relating to Central Asia, China and India, barely mentioned at present. I hope a mention of the wacky Indo-Saracenic architecture of British Malaya and the Wrenaissance mosques there can be squeezed in. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds good too. So in short, condense the present content and then review a wider range of topics instead? R Prazeres (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I've gone ahead and moved or removed various things from this section, in WP:BOLD fashion, one at at time . To be clear, these edits are not based on the idea of eliminating the section entirely, but just on removing poor-quality content, addressing POV problems, and eliminating unnecessary repetition within this article. I've retained the most central points that should be easily verifiable, and merged more specific points with other sections where they were already mentioned. If anyone has questions about these edits, feel free to ask here.
 * This should reduce the immediate content problems I noted above, leaving room for this section to be re-expanded with a wider scope (per Johnbod's sugestion above), further revised, or dissolved entirely (per my original suggestion) if editors really want that. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll take a look later. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)