Talk:Mosque/Archive 1

Adding the Islam template
Other topics in this area have the "Islam" template applied (such as Mihrab). When I tried inserting the template here the preview screen showed the picture layout being messed up. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to add the sidebar and keep the picture layout the same. Can someone do this? RishiAggarwal

Small mosques' influence
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)

Vandalism
Keep this IP 217.17.132.42 on this page for future reference; ban the user at this IP if he/she vandalizes this page again. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 16:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Looks: masjid do not need to look most appealing/modern/beautiful- remember how masjid al nabwih (Madina) was initially constructed. - it was most simple in design. The decorations and adornments seen now in the masjid were not present from day one, these have come about from the different architects etc after the time of our Prophet - PEACE BE UPON HIM. This is a kind of innovation, and disliked by many muslim scholars- Because it is a place for offering prayer- not to get pleased just by looking at it! So much money is spent on such expensive projects, this money could be used to spread islam, and given to the charities- could help children etc. -- If I am wrong in this, please edit/delete-- Jazakallah (naeem- London)

Shoes?
Isn't it customary to remove one's shoes before entering a Mosque? I'm not sure on the protoco, but a lot of places that you visit in the world seem to require removing ones shoes.

It is obligatory.

If they are dirty: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/hadith/had08.htm http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus1_08.html

Recent Major Changes
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)

Men and women in the mosque
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 coder  Talk 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move
Talk:Mosque — Mosque → Masjid – Masjid is the correct term to use to refer to the Muslim's place of worship. The main article should be Masjid and we should redirect it from Mosque (Mystic 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Vote

 * Oppose as "mosque" is the correct English word. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Propose as "mosque" is derived from the wrong spanish word..(Mystic 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Opppose why is there a vote. This isn't going to go anywhere. The only people who seem to be for moving to masjid as of yet is an anonymous user with one edit and Mystic, who despite not being a sysop, placed a protected tag on this article. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't make much difference, since there is already a redirect from masjid to mosque. Mosque is the English language word for Masjid, try changing English language rather than name of this article. -- Soft coder   Talk 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think that is not necessary, this is english wikipedia and mosque is more popular word in english than masjid. Anyway there is a redirect already from masjid to mosque. -- Soft coder  Talk 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with soft coder. Masjid has not been assimilated into English. Mosque is what is used, Masjid al-Haram is the Sacred Mosque, Masjid an-Nabawi is the Prophet's Mosque, etc. Pepsidrinka 05:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; masjid is only used in English (by non-Muslims) when referring to specific mosques in the Arab-speaking world, such as the two mentioned above. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "mosque" is offensive to muslims, agreeing with user Mystic it should be Masjid and we should redirect it from Mosque. Heres proof: "Mosquito is a Spanish word meaning "little fly", with its use dates back to about 1583. Before then, they were called "biting flies" in English, but the term "mosquito" was adopted to prevent confusion with the house fly. The word derives from Sanskrit maksh (fly) via the Latin word musca (fly) and the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique." "Mosquito." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Mar 2006, 20:50 UTC. 8 Mar 2006, 16:32 .
 * Furthermore, as this article states, "In the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, variations of the word began to be used. Moseak, muskey, moschy, and mos'keh were just some of the variations that came into use until it was decided that mosquee, imitating Middle French, Italian, and Old Spanish, would become the standard," that the word is derived from the same languages that spell mosquito in a similar conspiracy. This correlation with respect to time, since "mosquito" was adherred to just prior to the term "mosque" was established, is offensive to muslims.72.139.239.123 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Fayez
 * The word "mosque" offensive to Muslims? Speak for yourself; it's the English word despite the origins of the word. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To see this in a different light, I will provide an analogy. "Pizza" is an Italian word, but instead of it being called such, it was termed "Puke"; now, when anyone from the English world would want to eat this "Puke" do you not agree they would be disgusted?72.139.239.123 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Fayez


 * Comment I agree with what the user fayez has said here.. Now is the time to correct the English word. Just Because its used in English doesn't have to be the correct thing. Lets correct this mistake. At least in wikipedia. (Mystic 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Featured
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

pics
China and Japan mosques: http://www.answering-christianity.com/shia_mosques_response1.htm

--Striver 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Minarets
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. joturn e r 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Improvements
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. joturn e r 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Jame'
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)

Yes alot of arabs call a mosque jame', which basically means a place where people group. I my self use both masjid and jame'--Kenbei 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is already mentioned in the opening paragraph under a different transliteration. joturn e r 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

About.com - Dubious Source?
About.com defintely is not a "dubious source" and especially not in the instance mentioned by User:Tickle me. The article in question is written by About.com writer Huda, who on her own biography page states that she is a "Muslim educator and writer with over a decade of experience researching and writing about Islam." She is also "the author of The Everything Understanding Islam Book", which you can find at almost any major bookstore. As a result, I have removed the reference to About.com in the text as this treatment is only reserved for dubious sources. joturn e r 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt that About.com qualifies as reliable source per WP:RS. Reliable_sources says: "All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them." Articles in About.com are not peer-reviewed or cross-checked, correct me if I'm wrong, so a minus to it. The article in question is not referenced to anything as is required in academic writing, so its claims are impossible to verify. The author of the article is also not an academic and we don't know much about her, even the real name, I suppose, and what we do know is not inspiring: a B.S. in Child Development and a M.Ed. in Montessori Education have hardly prepared her for study of Islam. Just writing popular books about Islam is not sufficient for an author to qualify as reliable per Wikipedia standards. The problem of sourcing, as I have observed, is not unique to this particular instance, but is characteristic of the article as a whole. Pecher Talk 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to me as though WP:RS is establishing a scale of reliability, from major newspapers on one end to personal websites on the other. As to where this article fits in to that scale, I'd put it on the higher end. Not every item has to be from a top-notch source and in article of this nature, where Islamic practices that could easily be verified in reality are mentioned, that simple is not feasible nor, in my opinion, necessary. For instance, the Ramadan section is relatively unsourced, but if you were to ask any Muslim (that observes Ramadan), he or she could attest to that, no problem. Now finding a "reliable" source that specifically states what is mentioned in the article... not so easy. joturn e r 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "About.com writer Huda ... states that she is a "Muslim educator and writer with ...": For good reasons I discourage caring about what people write about themselves to evaluate their expertise.


 * "She is also "the author of 'The Everything Understanding Islam Book', which you can find at almost any major bookstore": Availability or the assuming allure of a books' title is no argument for its relevancy at all. Checking her qualifications we find that she has none of those required: "[do] not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics".


 * "Now finding a 'reliable' source that specifically states what is mentioned in the article... not so easy": wikipedia is all about "reliable" sources, which may require some effort: "If you can't find a good source on the web, try a local library or bookstore".


 * "but if you were to ask any Muslim...": in my understanding we are supposed to rely on sources or authoritative evaluations - the "man on the street" doesn't qualify as such.


 * An article relying extensivly on sources such as about.com, Enyclopedia of the Orient (run by a Norwegian programmer), IslamOnline or no source at all is not a good article, and it shouldn't be a featured article unless quality sources are provided. Frankly, e.g. the funeral prayer should be an important element of Muslim ritual. Thus, it is highly unlikely that proper sources can't be found. Until then, "edits relying on inappropriate sources, may be challenged at any time" and "edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor" (WP:RS) - which I haven't done so far. I amended according to WP:V, suggesting improvements regarding this detail, as the whole article needs it badly. I fail to understand the rationale of not complying. An articles' reader shouldn't need an observant Muslim at his side for clarifications, as articles on socialism shouldn't require a dedicated follower of marxism for explanation - assuming beforehand his advice would be authoritative and impartial. "but if you were to ask any Muslim (that observes Ramadan), he or she could attest to that, no problem": it is a problem and no procedure for writing a good article - or any. --tickle me 00:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds very compelling and probably sufficient for the article to be delisted from good articles. Pecher Talk 09:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam Template at Top
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? joturn e r 14:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. joturn e r 14:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it looks fine at the top. It only pushes one picture down. BhaiSaab talk 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and activity in mosques
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)


 * 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)


 * 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. joturn e r 21:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note What is a featured article?: It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail joturn e r 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly Wikipedia NPOV policy is also important for a "featured article" Zeq 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tahara link
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)
 * 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)
 * Mea culpa, I meant Taharah. Pecher Talk 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image caption
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)


 * 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. joturn e r 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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. joturn e r 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Some comments
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)

Ownership
I can't help but be impressed at the amount of honest work joturner has put into this article. However, I'm not clear on the protocol we should be observing at this point. In most cases, articles are collaborative endeavors. Rather than object and get a response, I'd much rather be editting as with any other article. Many changes I'm likely to make are quite minor, for points of elegance and style (although joturner is a fine writer as WP editors go), which scarcely merit mention in a formal procedure. I want to be on the right side of policy. Please let me know if there is an exception to WP:OWN which occurs when there is a FAC poll.Timothy Usher 10:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For some reason, when a peer review active for a featured article nomination active, many editors seem to forget and just tell the other editors who are actively editing this article to fix it. I guess its a matter of preference. You're correct though. This is still part of the wiki and anyone can still edit it. And as far as I've seen, Joturner has made no attempts to own this aricle. He is merely more determined than the other editors to get this featured and thus, seems to work ASAP on any of the issues addressed at the FAC. Pepsidrinka 11:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to appear as though I owned the article. I took care of a lot of objections because I really wanted the article to become featured, but I never interfered with the edits of others unless I just thought they were wrong. However, it did seem as though other editors were leaving things up to me. That may have been because they felt they weren't knowledgeable enough about the subject or it may have been for the reason you brought up Tim: they thought I owned the article. That is especially clear in one of Zeq's comments:


 * Thank you but it is not enough. It is also using words like "small number" without any sources for that statement. There is areal anti-Jewish anti-west incitment that goes on. Since you "took ownership" of this article I leave it to you to practice NPOV and write the facts as they are. If you wish me to step in I'll be glad to. Zeq 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was ready to post to his/her talk page that he/she can go ahead and step in if he/she wants. But since I didn't quite agree with Zeq that the article violated NPOV, I didn't bother to correct him/her (as then Zeq most likely would have begun editing, although he/she could have done that anyway). Instead, I simply stated that I'd wait to see what others thought about the POV or lack thereof. If others had begun to bring up the NPOV, I most certainly would have told Zeq to go ahead and take care of the issue to his/her liking, guaged the community's response to that, and made additional changes in response to further comments.


 * I would also like to say that I did end up taking upon the role of owner as it seemed as though others (a lá Zeq) expected me to play that role. joturn e r 15:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues with the article
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)


 * 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. joturn e r 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article looks great now. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Social conflict
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)


 * 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. joturn e r 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Two things are conspicuously absent:

1) The role of Mosques not just as targets of terrorist attack, but as bases of insurgent activity - I'm writing this up now.

2) Al-Aqsa, the most disputed site of all. I'll get to this if no one else does first.Timothy Usher 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Charity section title
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)
 * Nowadays, zakat is generally a purely voluntary charitable donation. Palmiro | Talk 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's Additions
I really don't think this change is necessary. It's not very relevant to mosques and in my opinion inserts an anti-Muslim point of view. I know it's a direct quote from somebody, but it's more about not liking Muslims. It especially does not belong in the lead section, but I don't believe it belongs anywhere in the article. joturn e r 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Timothy Usher 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You fail to understand how people view mousques. The quote is sourced and relevant. If you want to describe what goes on around mousques ("around" as in the phisical and meta-phisical sense) please do so but ignoring all together is wrong. Guardian is a very liberla paper, if they wrote what they did there is something to it. Zeq 05:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There might be a better place in the article. Find one, then we can discuss it from there.  There's no sense in handicapping your edit by placing it in the intro.Timothy Usher 05:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is a better place ? If you think it should be moved oe change just move/change it - this is the colborative process. Zeq 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The material is, of course, germane and must be included into the article. Logically, it belongs to the non-existing subsection "Mosques in the contemporary world" of the "History" section or to the section on conflicts around mosques (these conflicts are largely religious, BTW, not social as the section title implies. On a related note, the whole "History" section requires overhaul: etymology has nothing to do with history, but must be a separate section and "Mosques as focal points" will be probably better placed in the "Functions". Pecher Talk 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The source for this claim is Neil Albert Walker, an election candidate for the notoriously racist British National Party. That is not adequate. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources indicates that extremist groups are not to be used as sources except with regard to themselves. I am surprised that even you, Pecher, would regard this as an acceptable addition to the article about mosques. I am taking it out. Palmiro | Talk 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the wider issue, there are of course lots of questions which could - with a sense of proportion regarding the balance of the article as a whole - be addressed here, such as the continuous provocative (or seen-as-provocative) mosque building in the vicinity of Coptic churches in Egypt (where the building of churches is subject to regulation and administrative obstruction that does not apply to the building of mosques, as is to a lesser extent the case in Turkey) and occasionally elsewhere as in the celebrated case of Nazareth, and the situation in many European countries where the building of mosques is obstructed by public authorities with a variety of admninistrative pretexts. Palmiro | Talk 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Guardian thought the issue to be noteworthy enough to be reported, so I don't why it should be left out of the article. On the other hand, this problem is obvious and has been, of course, described by people other than BNP members. Pecher Talk 09:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the source appears to be as good as most sources used in this article, so I don't see much of a problem here. Pecher Talk 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: is it any more off-topic than anti-Muslim hate crimes recounted in the next paragraph? Remember, we are talking about social conflict, not social mutual adoration.Timothy Usher 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That the Guardian thought the BNP candidate's views were worthy of being reported does not mean that those views were factually correct, nor even that the Guardian thought they were factually correct. And Pecher, I don't care what the other sources used in this article are, I am still not going to let you use the rantings of fascists as a source for the insertion of anti-Islamic hatred in Wikipedia. The sentence about this sort of source in Reliable sources is perfectly clear:
 * Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.
 * While this deals explicitly with websites belinging to such organizations, it seems reasonable to assume that the same caution should be used with regard to contentions by extremist organizations and their proponents deriving from other sources. [Palmiro]] | Talk 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the "Styles" section

 * "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). joturn e r 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * <--- I think these two sources agree with the current way the article presents hypostyle mosques. BhaiSaab talk 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Abbasids and Umayyads were the pioneers of the hypostyle mosque." That's illogical: the Umayyads ruled before the Abbasids, so both these dynasties cannot be pioneers; something pioneered by the Umayyads cannot be pioneered again by the Abbasids.
 * The item is sourced from a website through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. joturn e r 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I think this should be resolved now. BhaiSaab talk 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Inverted "T" mosques get their name from the shape the iwans, and the courtyard they surround, make." The sentence is incomplete, and I cannot tell for sure what its author meant. Also, the reference provided seems to talk about the Hudavendigar Mosque, and I cannot find much there on the inverted "T" mosques in general. I have never seen inverted "T" mosques being discussed as a certain distinct type: it's just a specific type of the layout, which was used in the early Ottoman Empire, but which has not been used for many centuries.
 * The sentence is not incomplete; that is a complete sentence. You can re-write it if you believe it's poorly written. joturn e r 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * The discussion of the influence of the Byzantine and Sassanid architecture on central dome and iwan mosques respectively is strangely missing.
 * You can add that if you want. joturn e r 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Pecher Talk 12:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

balance problem?
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)

Agreed. We need more discussion of mosque's social and political roles throughout Islamic history. This is more important that features of design. However, I don't think the contemporary treatment is too long - there's still no mention of the most obvious issue of all, one which could conceivably ignite world war, that of Al Aqsa on the Temple Mount. I'll add something some day, if someone doesn't get to it first.

Re the overall length of the article, and possible daughter articles, I reiterate my earlier comments on the featured article nomination.Timothy Usher 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. joturn e r 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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