This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Umayyad Mosque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Umayyad Mosque was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 26, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kathouis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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
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).
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.
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).
It should be mentioned that the church was bought by the Caliph or rather there was sort of a deal of exchange of states. The site of the chruch being in the centre of the old city made so important for the muslim to build there mosque there, since the city was the capital of their kingdom. Demolishing mosques, churches, synagouges, or any building that Allah's (GOD's) name is mention in for worship is not to be destroyed according to the Quraan.
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)
This is a proposal for a TODO list, in the GA collaboration for the Umayyad Mosque:
Feel free to add/expand. Yazan ( talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
More useful information:
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 04:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on that? I think having a section on this would be useful since in almost every source I use the author stresses its social significance. I think we would have a lot of information available for it. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 05:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In a recently published eyewitness account of the fire of 1479, most of the money and efforts for reconstructing the mosque came from Damascenes themselves (Behrens-Abouseif 2004). What emerged from this tragic event was proof of a civic consciousness, illustrating how much the identity of Damascus was tied to this mosque. While it remained an important monument for all Muslims, it was, however, no longer a financial priority for the state. Moreover, its image among civilians had been transformed. The largest part of the brilliant mosaics, which had captured the imagination of earlier generations of Muslims, had either been destroyed or had been previously plastered over and, according to Behrens-Abouseif, "no longer characterized the image of the mosque in the mind of the Damascene population" (Behrens-Abouseif 2004: 283). Thus, the political and aesthetic memory of this monument had changed from one of state power to one of local pride. While the Ummayad mosque continued, for medieval Muslims, to be one of the wonders of the world, this was the case for different aesthetic and social reasons than for earlier generations.
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)
![]() |
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
I don't have access to that piece right now, but the passage can be found here with similar wordings [2] page 14. Yaḥyā ( talk) 18:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help) I'll add them to the bibliography!
GPinkerton (
talk)
08:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)The result of the move request was: Consensus is leaning against this move ( non-admin closure) b uidh e 22:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Umayyad Mosque →
Great Mosque of Damascus –
These are just a few of most authoritative tertiary sources of the past 25 years that deal specifically with the mosque. In sum, it should be clear that scholarly literature does not use "Umayyad Mosque" anything like so often as "Great Mosque of Damascus". GPinkerton ( talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
the evidence here is weak ...GPinkerton ( talk) 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Maybe you can point out where you think the basilica is in the famous Roman forum of Jerash ... or the "main temple" ... GPinkerton ( talk) 02:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ MullahBalawar: this mosque is most commonly known in Arabic as الجامع الأموي (al-Jāmiʿ al-Umawī), not as المسجد الأموي (al-Masjid al-Umawī): see 105 hits for the former vs. 21 hits for the latter. Meanwhile, "Great Mosque of Damascus" in Arabic would be Jāmiʿ Dimašq al-Kabīr, while Jāmiʿ Banī Dimašq al-Kabīr 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)
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 Al Ameer son and Zozo2kx who seemed to be the ones working on it then, in case it helps.) Thanks, R Prazeres ( talk) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@ R Prazeres: 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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ahendra ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
credit for Al Ameer Son for curating and maintaining the improvement of the page, please contact him for suggestions and inputs or question Ahendra ( talk) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
No, this is not a valid review, you can't be nominator and reviewer at the same time. This is closed, the count can be incremented to /GA2. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Umayyad Mosque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Umayyad Mosque was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 26, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kathouis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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
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).
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.
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).
It should be mentioned that the church was bought by the Caliph or rather there was sort of a deal of exchange of states. The site of the chruch being in the centre of the old city made so important for the muslim to build there mosque there, since the city was the capital of their kingdom. Demolishing mosques, churches, synagouges, or any building that Allah's (GOD's) name is mention in for worship is not to be destroyed according to the Quraan.
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)
This is a proposal for a TODO list, in the GA collaboration for the Umayyad Mosque:
Feel free to add/expand. Yazan ( talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
More useful information:
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 04:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on that? I think having a section on this would be useful since in almost every source I use the author stresses its social significance. I think we would have a lot of information available for it. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 05:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In a recently published eyewitness account of the fire of 1479, most of the money and efforts for reconstructing the mosque came from Damascenes themselves (Behrens-Abouseif 2004). What emerged from this tragic event was proof of a civic consciousness, illustrating how much the identity of Damascus was tied to this mosque. While it remained an important monument for all Muslims, it was, however, no longer a financial priority for the state. Moreover, its image among civilians had been transformed. The largest part of the brilliant mosaics, which had captured the imagination of earlier generations of Muslims, had either been destroyed or had been previously plastered over and, according to Behrens-Abouseif, "no longer characterized the image of the mosque in the mind of the Damascene population" (Behrens-Abouseif 2004: 283). Thus, the political and aesthetic memory of this monument had changed from one of state power to one of local pride. While the Ummayad mosque continued, for medieval Muslims, to be one of the wonders of the world, this was the case for different aesthetic and social reasons than for earlier generations.
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)
![]() |
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
I don't have access to that piece right now, but the passage can be found here with similar wordings [2] page 14. Yaḥyā ( talk) 18:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help) I'll add them to the bibliography!
GPinkerton (
talk)
08:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)The result of the move request was: Consensus is leaning against this move ( non-admin closure) b uidh e 22:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Umayyad Mosque →
Great Mosque of Damascus –
These are just a few of most authoritative tertiary sources of the past 25 years that deal specifically with the mosque. In sum, it should be clear that scholarly literature does not use "Umayyad Mosque" anything like so often as "Great Mosque of Damascus". GPinkerton ( talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
the evidence here is weak ...GPinkerton ( talk) 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Maybe you can point out where you think the basilica is in the famous Roman forum of Jerash ... or the "main temple" ... GPinkerton ( talk) 02:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ MullahBalawar: this mosque is most commonly known in Arabic as الجامع الأموي (al-Jāmiʿ al-Umawī), not as المسجد الأموي (al-Masjid al-Umawī): see 105 hits for the former vs. 21 hits for the latter. Meanwhile, "Great Mosque of Damascus" in Arabic would be Jāmiʿ Dimašq al-Kabīr, while Jāmiʿ Banī Dimašq al-Kabīr 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)
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 Al Ameer son and Zozo2kx who seemed to be the ones working on it then, in case it helps.) Thanks, R Prazeres ( talk) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@ R Prazeres: 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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ahendra ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
credit for Al Ameer Son for curating and maintaining the improvement of the page, please contact him for suggestions and inputs or question Ahendra ( talk) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
No, this is not a valid review, you can't be nominator and reviewer at the same time. This is closed, the count can be incremented to /GA2. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)