Talk:List of mosques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of mosques article.
Article policies
  • i believe this article needs more accuracy. there were just two samples for irans mosques whic none of them were mosques indeed.(like Ribat-i Sharaf in Iran which is a carvansarai not a mosque). please cheak all places. many of them are not mosques and not famous at all ! --Babakgh 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


It hardly needs to be said that List of famous mosques is the better title. Wetman 03:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

agreed, because I looked at the title and added the Tsar's Mosque because the page was List of mosques... if it's not famous enough feel free to remove it and/or move this page to List of famous mosques. (I say this because there is a difference between famous mosques and mosques and both are valid pages.) gren

You have to speek about the great mosque of Damas.

We have to decide between “list of mosques” worldwide and “list of famous mosques”? It seems we would be doubling the work if we maintain two lists. I’m building a list of all mosques worldwide that do not necessarily include ‘famous’ mosques, you can view the ‘work in progress’ under my page here *NEWUSER Page this information will be moved to “list of mosques” or “list of famous mosques” once I verified them by date of construction, to be developed.
We also need to create a Category for “list of mosques” or “list of famous mosques” that can be used on all mosques’ pages for navigational purposes.
ps: same applies to my list of Frank Lloyd Wrights work.
Please share your ideas, thx! NEWUSER 18:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Category:Mosques will be fine for categorization, we don't need a category for lists of mosques... I think it should be all mosques for now....famous is very subjective... plus, I don't think people are going to start adding pages for random small town mosques any time soon. I have uploaded three pictures of small mosques but I'm not going to make pages for them... So, even though London Central Mosque probably isn't truly famous like Al-Aqsa... it does deserve to be there since it is marginally famous at least... so... I'd say be inclusive until people start adding "Mosque of Lancaster, Pennsylvania" which, if there even is one is pretty insignificant. gren 19:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I do agree with your point gren; I just wanted to note that I’m personally developing a list of all mosques worldwide and that’s why I only keep them here before I move any well-known mosques to the main page on Wikipedia for further development by others. If an admin can merge the List of famous mosques with List of mosques would be great - since as you noted, the list currently contain mosques that are not necessarily ‘famous’ --NEWUSER 17:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
To-do list for List of mosques: edit · history · watch · refresh

Please help make a proper sorted list.

Contents

[edit] Duplicate article

The article List of Mosques (capital 'M') should be merged into this one (the only entries not found here are links to mosques without an article) and then deleted. 80.202.25.17 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

This should be in a category I think should be called see below on category list. Category:Muslim Religion. --User:Michael Simpson--

[edit] Factual Error

I saw that there is a factual error when there was a list under the name Palestine/Israel. First pointing out the fact that no such country (Palestine) exists, none of the mosques listed are even located in the occupied territories. Until the future status of Jerusalem is resolved, I wish to change the title from "Palestine/Israel" to simply "Israel". I will proceed with the change in two days, if no sufficient well-put argument is presented.--Brad M. 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to the section is added. Cheers -- Szvest 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

[edit] Not Factual Error

There is a State of Palestine that is recognized by over 3/4 of the world, Wikipedidia is trying to maintain neutrality, and about 15 or so countries don't even recognize Israel. If the palestinians control the land the al-aqsa mosque is on, then it is technically in Palestine. User:Talib 72 12/19/06 15:39

[edit] Mosques in the Philippines and Brunei

We need to also add mosques in Brunei and the Philippines. There is even new version of a well-known existing mosque in Sulu, Philippines under construction.

[edit] Red links

This article has way too many red links. Is there any evidence that all the mosques posted here are important/notable/famous?

If there isn't, and no other editor has a valid objection, then I'll be removing all dead links soon.

xCentaur |  talk  15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure they are notable. There is no reason to remove red links only because articles aren't created yet. Your proposal isn't solution, it's destruction. - Darwinek 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I assume good faith, Darwinek. How do you propose to sort out the ones that are not notable? Rather, to avoid destruction, whats your solution to the large number of red links? xCentaur |  talk  20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the best solution will be to get through all these links by checking each in cooperation with Google. After all, it is open Wikipedia and sooner or later most of red links would appear again added by other users or IPs. :) - Darwinek 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Lord. *sigh* Thats what I thought,too... Take a look at this. There's a whole list of mosques in Singapore thats gonna come in soon. But again, is it neccessary to add all of them? I mean, I'm in Mumbai and we have mosques and temples all over, but that doesn't make all of them automatically important. xCentaur |  talk  20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Unfortunately User CarpeDiem had left Wikipedia long time ago protesting against behaviour of some users who compared mosques to mosquitos. :( - Darwinek 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Just read the whole thing. Ridiculous, the things we squabble over... xCentaur |  talk  21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

Due to the unresolved dispute whether to enlist the Dome of the Rock mosque under Israel or Palestine, it is better to enlist the mosque under Jerusalem. --24.211.239.204 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel/Palestine

The land of Palestine is not rightfully Israel's. Muslims know it as Palestine. This is a muslim article. We should say palestine --Danny 17 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2c worth "We" shouldn't say anything. "We" say what reliable sources say. In the strickest sense of "where" something is, it is normal practise to use the actual country name. Rightly or wrongly Israel is a recognised country. It is POV otherwise. Shot info 10:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Israeli annexation of Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. In fact, since there is no clear definition of Israeli borders (they're always changing), it is very controversial to designate East Jerusalem as part of Israel.Bless sins 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Yes" = you agree with me, or "Yes" your are acknowledging the edit and in fact you disagree with me? Rather than editwar to enforce your POV, I suggest that you back up your edits with reliable sources. Shot info (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see East_Jerusalem#Status for the debate over the status of East Jerusalem.Bless sins (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that Israel's boundaries are not clear, (and the boundaries of the State of Palestine are even more ambiguous), as well as the disputed status of Jerusalem, I have suggested (and actually edited) the title "Israel and Israeli-occupied territories". This is the most neutral was to put it.Bless sins (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

'Israel/Palestine' is the best heading in this case. Claims over this land overlap each other, however, the two most important sites lie within East Jerusalem, an area which is occupied by Israel but this occupation is not recognized neither by UN nor the majority of sovereign states. A far larger of states do recognize the State of Palestine. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All I see in this talkback subject is blatant bias, thus making the edits unfactual. Before trying to undo my edits, please provide a factual basis. Until then, be curtious and stop enforcing edits that go contrary to your POV.--Brad M. (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad M. can you please take a look at this: East_Jerusalem#Status? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to point to a RS that says which nation Jerusalem "belongs" to. Shot info (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You've hit the heart of the problem. Reliable sources, depending on which way they lean, can say Jerusalem belongs to the Israelis or the Palestinians. Thus we put a neutral title over it.Bless sins (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nation, last time I looked, both in WP and elsewhere, Palestinians are not a nation...a people yes, probably with a real claim, a nation, no. Simply put, the RS' tell us that either it belongs to Israel or Jordan. And Jordan pulled out a little while back. Perhaps in the very near future the nation of Palestine will exist but at the moment it doesn't. Unfortunate, but factual. Shot info (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually your logic implies that Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah as well as the Gaza city all belong to Israel. This is something no one will agree on.
Also, who says Palestinians aren't a nation? They have a NATIONAL authority , NATIONAL constitution, a flag, NATIONAL anthem and coat of arms. Now you may be wondering, what is the geography of the Palestinian nation? Well the Palestinian nation is situated in the Palestinian territories.Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not my logic, but the logic from RS'. In saying that, I'm not interested in an argument with you. I don't mind how the article stands although I would prefer the word "Occupied" is removed only as it is POV. Palestian Territories is satisfactory and Neutralish enough for an encyclopedia's purposes. Shot info (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your constant efforts to enforce your POV has demonstrated that you lack common courtesy. I am not interested in an edit war, and I even offered to discuss this in a calm and collected manner seeing as it is obviously a cause of tension for you. I only ask that the section remain in it's original format until this issue is resolved. And no amount of agressivness on your part is going to change facts. First off, the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosques are located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. That section has been formally annexed by Israel, thus making it a part of the State of Israel. You, as well as some nations, may not like it but that is reality until perhaps a future peace deal or other circumstances takes place. Until that time, those mosques are currently in Israel. BTW, please don't put words in my mouth to make a petty point. You claim that by my logic "implies that Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah as well as the Gaza city all belong to Israel." Israel never formally annexed these places, thus making that statement an entirely different subject altogether. What point are you trying to make?--Brad M. (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse anyone of lacking courtesy. You have reverted atleast as many times as others.
"That section has been formally annexed by Israel, thus making it a part of the State of Israel." And that annexation is not recognized by almost the entire world. This encyclopedia cannot solely present the views of one country at the exclusion of all others. Its not in accordance with NPOV.
BTW, just as Israel claims East Jerusalem and part of Israel, the Palestinians also claim it for themselves. Thus there are conflicting claims. One could could the opposite way and categorize East Jerusalem as part of "Palestine", but that's not right either.Bless sins (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is just one alternative option, and that would be to split the Israel and Palestinian section in two, thus putting the sites in Jerusalem in the Palestinian territories section. I personally feel that would be a step in the wrong direction, as in terms of Islamic religious practice, the Green Line doesn't really function as a separation in terms of Islamic history and the composition of the Islamic community. The Muslims on both sides of the Green Line are Palestinian Muslims (leaving aside that there might be a few Cherkess, etc.), and it makes more sense to keep it to one section. --Soman (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. You say that because I reverted your erroneous edits, as well as from various vandals in the past, that I am in the same boat as you? If that is what you're saying, please don't insult me. "BTW, just as Israel claims East Jerusalem and part of Israel, the Palestinians also claim it for themselves." There's a pretty big difference though, Israel formally annexed e. Jerusalem making the Israeli argument more than a simple claim, it is factual that e. Jerusalem is legally part of Israel. I also like to know where you got your data, it is irrelevent to this topic, but I was unaware that almost the entire world does not recognize this annexation. Keep working on your argument.--Brad M. (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just a bit more confused. You seem to answer mine and bless sins' comments in one, and I cannot really distinguish the points. Your comment 'is legally part of Israel' is of course flawed, as this is only true according to Israeli law. Perhaps you should read the intro of the Positions on Jerusalem page:

"Israel has de facto control over all of Jerusalem. However, there are many differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem.[1]

   * Others claim part or all of Jerusalem as Al Quds, the capital of a future Palestinian state.
   * Many United Nations General Assembly members including most Arab states, support the Palestinian claim.
   * De jure, the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, nor Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Embassies are generally located in Tel Aviv, which served as the temporary capital of Israel during the Arab blockade of Jerusalem in 1948.

* Within Israeli jurisprudence, Jerusalem is the de jure capital of the State of Israel.[2]"

Your argument is simply that might is right, that military violence makes any territorial claim legitimate. Lebensraum anyone? --Soman (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Only true according to Israeli law? I suggest you check this site and perhaps you will learn something about law. I'd elaborate on this subject further but I am currently pressed for time. [1] Again, countries are free to take any position they please with regard to the annexation, it is irrelevent. Fact is fact. BTW, if you can't really distinguish the points I suggest you make more of an effort and pay closer attention.--Brad M. (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact is fact, and the fact is that the world doesn't recognize Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, nor approves of the Israeli occupation of territories acquired in the 1967 war. Soman and I have tried to compromise that instead of "Palestine", let's have "Israel and the Palestinian territories".Bless sins (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try and fake generosity. For the time being there is no such thing as a Palestinian state eliminating any factual use of the term "Palestine" from this article. Second, the other territories acquired in the 1967 war, excluding E. Jerusalem, is a totally different subject. Israel never formally annexed the rest of the West Bank, putting it on a different level than what we are talking about. The final status of that land has not yet been decided, but probably will be soon as the result of a negotiation. I suggest you and Soman come up with a clear argument because it is not clear at all. Is it that you believe Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem is not valid because of legality, or international recognition issues? In your next post, I suggest you take this oppurtunity to add any other angles you might have. BS, you demonstrate how this is necessary because of your constant efforts to divert from the subject of discussion at hand. That is a game I am not willing to play. We will tackle this issue part by part.--Brad M. (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a list of countries which recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem. I'm not saying that the list would be a 0, but it should be compared with the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine (a recognition, that would at least indirectly be seen as an endorsment to the Palestinian positions on Jerusalem). What should be said is that this is not the only case of territorial disputes that wikipedia has to deal with. Nor is it the only case where one state excerts de facto control over a territory, whilst other countries might hold very different views on the issue of recognition. See for example the article on El Aaiún. In cases were there are territorial disputes, all notable arguments should be presented. If one guy claims to be president of the Republic of Texas that can be ignored, but when a majority of countries refuse to recognize a territorial annexation, then de facto control is not enough to disperse mentions of other claims. The important issue there remains, namely that in this context, any separation between Israel proper and the territories occupied in 1967 would be highly artificial, considering the ethnic composition of the Muslim community in this area. I suggest having one unified section for 'Israel/Palestinian territories', and leaving out 'x City, Israel' or 'y City, Palestine'. --Soman (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"Is it that you believe Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem is not valid because of legality, or international recognition issues?" Because of international recognition issues. That East Jerusalem is part of Israel is a purely Israeli view (with some exceptions). Most of the world doesn't see it as that.Bless sins (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

To Soman: Overlapping claims regarding any territory is not a new occurence. Your example only proves how human beings can hold different views, some cases leading to a conflict. Despite countries holding different views regarding the annexation, the fact is that it is annexed barring any future occurrence. Also, your argument about the majority of nations is greatly flawed. This does not take into consideration when different politicians take power, resulting in different viewpoints taking place. You might as well be taking statements from political leaders that share your opinion. To BS: You change from saying "the world" to stating that there are "some exceptions." It seems you don't like that the title the way it is simply because it goes against your POV. I suggest you get your facts straight and leave your political sentiments out of this.--Brad M. (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop accusing both Soman and I of political motives. We have both provided sources for you. Aside form that your editing is disrupting style of the article (it appears you care only about the term 'Palestinian territories', not about other issues).Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BS, what exactly should I respond to? After reviewing our past discourses, it becomes clear that you have invalid data to back your POV. There is a frequency in your comments to type just for the sake of making it look like a substantive argument. And recently, you have resorted to personal attacks against me that have no relation to the issue at hand. Comments like I care only about the term Palestinian Territories, is not only erroneous, but has absolutly nothing to do with what we are discussing. I have particular interest in the comment you made when you reverted my edit yet again. Did you take a poll when you wrote that statement?--Brad M. (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks like you care only about a particular version. That is why you are disrupting the article. If look at the entire article, you will see that a country's name is mentioned only once, yet you insist on mentioning "Israel" several times in the same section. It appears you're only try to make a point. I urge to accept consensus, formed by myself, Soman and Darwinek.Bless sins (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though Jerusalem is legally part of Israel, the insertion of the Gaza and Hebron mosques makes the current title accurate. For my mentioning of Israel several times, it frankly makes no difference either way. It was only put that way because I thought it was better, presentation wise. If the title is left the way it is, I would have no further objections. It amazes me however, to see how much time and effort you put into this seemingly insignificant matter.--Brad M. (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Every clap require two palms, every war requires two parties. I put in just as much time as you did. What's more is that, upon taking a look at your contributions, the majority of your edits during the past 6 months have been dedicated to this "seemingly insignificant matter".
In anycase, it brings me joy that we have reached compromise and agreement.Bless sins (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable mosques

Guys, let's keep this article to NOTABLE mosques only. This means mosques that have an article on them. It's nice that you want to share your local mosque with us, but please don't list it, if its not notable. Please see WP:NOT#DIR for further guidance on this issue.Bless sins (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Arab States Category"

I honestly do not see the purpose or logic in creating such a category that is up now. All the other mosques are grouped based on continental geography (Africa, Europe, etc...) and the creation of such a category based on ethnicity is illogical. I request to whoever made this edit to either discuss the reasons behind it, or revert it back the way it was before.--Brad M. (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The change was made in [2] by User:Arab League (who may have a problem with Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names). Is such grouping of Arab states over continents done in other articles and has it been discussed somewhere? It seems questionable to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

From my time at Wikipedia, I have not seen such grouping of Arab states over continents. Almost every list I have seen has the subjects grouped according to geography. It has not been discussed in these other articles to my knowlege. Do you perhaps know of any cases I might be missing?--Brad M. (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to take out the Arab states category because of its questionable political nature, the lack of logic in having such a category, and my recent review of other similar architectural lists. All these lists are based on geography for a good reason. If the buildings were to be classified based on ethnicity, then a whole mess of classifications could arise. Feel free to contribute to this discussion.--Brad M. (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brad M. that we don't need the Arab states categorization.Bless sins (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)