Talk:Moorish architecture

Untitled

it is a very nice place{| class="wikitable" |Small Text |} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.94.222 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Info Box

Is there any reason why the info box is colored that way? I had thought that info boxes were meant to be more simplistic on article pages. KatCheez 13:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moorish architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409211457/http://www.archnet.org/lobby/ to http://www.archnet.org/lobby/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

General revisions

Hey all, I've revised the intro section to reduce some of the unnecessary overlap with the other section and provide a more comprehensive interview of the topic; even if the rest of the page doesn't actually cover all these aspects of the subject yet. I've removed the maintenance tag as I think this addresses the issue reasonably well, especially relative to the current size of the article.
The rest of the page also needs some revision and expansion, and I'll help with that when/if I have the time. The "architecture" section isn't very developped yet and is a bit vague in its references, and some details there probably aren't accurate. In particular, though, I'll try to add a "history" section to give a framework and timeline of major developments in this architectural style. I've been doing similar work on the Moroccan architecture page, which in theory should be more or less a sub-topic of this subject. Further feedback/suggestions welcome. Cheers, Robert Prazeres (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change title name to “Western Islamic Architecture” or “Andalusi Architecture” or “Andalusian and North African Islamic Architecture”

The term “Moor” is outdated. Most historians who study the history of Al Andalus do not like this term because it originates from the ignorance of the northern Christian kingdoms who used the term as a catch-all for “Muslim”. Later the English and French corrupted this term even further, making it seem like “Moor” referred to Sub-Saharan Africans. In fact, most of the Islamic-era architecture of Spain and Portugal uniquely developed in Al-Andalus and was not the result of “Moors” (Africans). To call this architecture “Moorish” is like calling Ottoman architecture “Central Asian Architecture”. TheNewLetters (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• We don't create knowledge here, TheNewLetters. The title of the article relfects the phraseology that the sources use. Moorish architecture has been referred to as Moorish architecture for centuries. Frankly, this seems like some sort of misguided PC thing. 174.212.222.125 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with the underlying sentiment but I think you might be exaggerating the connotations a little. The term Moors simply isn't well-defined to begin with so it's used somewhat erratically in different contexts. As for the page name, I don't think it's ideal either and I've given thought about that but there would be two potential problems in changing it:

1. Even if the term "Moors" is no longer used academically for the people of the region, the term "Moorish architecture" has still stuck around and is used by some (but definitely not all) academic authors when publishing general reference books that are aimed at least partly at the general public (e.g. see Barrucand's book cited frequently on this page, or see some of the titles in the "Discover Islamic Art - Museum Without Frontiers" series). It's probably the term people are most familiar with and it's still the term that is most recognizable by general readers. That said, "Moorish art/architecture" is admittedly rarely or never used (as far as I can see) in more strictly academic publications, where scholars inevitably refer to the "west" or "western regions" of the Islamic world to denote this topic, which is less catchy but is clearer and more precise. So there is an argument for changing it if editors want to discuss this seriously. As per WP:COMMONNAME, the page title does not need to be the "vernacular" name for the topic, but the name/term used most commonly in reliable sources.
2. A potential ambiguity with "Western Islamic architecture" is that many readers may assume this means Islamic architecture in the Western world, rather than the western Mediterranean. Again, the lead section can clarify this but it might be more trouble than it's worth.

Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:R Prazeres. I think this is still the WP:COMMONNAME, & the nom does nothing to pursuade me otherwise. Next time please use the proper WP:RM process. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose' While "moor" is an outdated term to refer to people, "Moorish" is by no means an outdated term to refer to the historical culture. Its inaccurate to call Italians as Romans, but by no means wrong to talk about Roman architecture. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Terminology in lead

I've been meaning to update the lead to reflect the issue of terminology more clearly and explicitly. I've started with this, though I think this could be revised further to be less distracting from the main topic. Possibly the alternate terms could be mentioned all in the first sentence (as is usual elsewhere) and the whole discussion of terminology could be moved into a large footnote (joining the material already in a footnote currently). Suggestions and discussion welcome.

I thought I should also introduce here what may be a general problem for the long-term: the term "Moorish" is very common (in popular usage) in the context of Spain (and Portugal), and quite normal in the context of discussing 19th-century Historicism (for the "neo-Moorish" style), but it's very much uncommon in the context of North Africa. Referring to North Africans as "Moors" would be a little like referring to Middle Easterners as "Saracens", so this is likely to leave some readers with discomfort even if the term is explained in the lead. As the article describes, the architecture of al-Andalus and the Maghreb are largely inseparable (as explicitly stated or otherwise assumed in reliable sources). Another part of the problem, however, is that while in reliable sources there is consistency in the scope of the topic (i.e. the Maghreb and Al-Andalus), there is no formal, straightforward label for this architectural tradition. As I tried to explain more clearly in this latest edit, scholarly references (both introductory books and more specialist publications) usually use some kind of geographic or cultural classification, variously referring to architecture in the "Islamic West" or "Western Islamic lands" (or in another example, a book by Arnold Felix is entitled "Islamic Palace Architecture in the Western Mediterranean"). The term "Hispano-Moorish" is sometimes seen, but mostly restricted to French authors ("Hispano-mauresque" in French), and I'm not even sure if it's still common in recent French sources. Even Barrucand and Bednorz's 1992 book titled "Moorish Architecture in Andalusia" (cited in article) devotes a paragraph or two in its intro to mentioning issues of terminology. I'm not proposing a page move at the moment, for the reasons I already stated in the discussion above, but this is something to keep in mind if the article title comes up for discussion again. R Prazeres (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Examples by country" list section?

To keep the article's length reasonable and focused on the more substantial content, I'd like to propose removing the "Examples by country" section. The introductory paragraph to it might still be useful elsewhere, but the long lists below it take up a lot of space without adding much to what is already said above. This list (or earlier versions of it) dates from a time before the article had much substance ([1]), but that's no longer the case now.

In particular:

• I'd like to potentially convert the Spain and Portugal subsections into a separate list article, perhaps something like "List of Moorish monuments in Spain and Portugal", though the title may need some further thinking. In the context of the Iberian Peninsula, Moorish monuments are limited in number and belong to a specific identifiable period. They also remain a subject of interest to many (by tourists, scholars, laymen interested in history, etc). So a list of them would be both easy to define and useful to readers. No existing list article (to my knowledge) serves this purpose.
• By contrast, I think the list for North African countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) can be deleted altogether with no real loss. All important monuments are already named and linked in the sections above. For the rest: because the Moorish style never disappeared in these countries (it merely evolved or remained in use), a full list of "Moorish" monuments would practically cover everything built since the beginning of the Islamic period, which would be way too long and not very useful. Instead, this can be covered via existing list articles like List of mosques in Morocco, List of mosques in Algeria, List of cultural assets of Algeria, List of mosques in Tunisia, those under Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Morocco, etc.

Any thoughts or objections? R Prazeres (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a late reminder of this proposal for any concerned editors. If no objections are forthcoming, I'll try to implement this proposal in the near future, as soon as I have the time. R Prazeres (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. The new list article proposed above can currently be found at List of Moorish structures in Spain and Portugal. R Prazeres (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Measures to reduce article length

Following the split I explained above, I'm looking for more ways to reduce length. The area that I think can most easily be trimmed is the "Building types" section. Some of the content there, written at an earlier phase of this article, covers very basic general info that goes beyond architecture and is already covered (or perhaps could be) in other relevant articles. I'll have a go at trimming these when I can, but anyone is free to also have a go at it (i.e. trimming unnecessary details or moving them elsewhere).

In particular, I'd like to split off the long "Fortifications" section. This was added here semi-provisionally because I felt that the topic deserved some coverage but I couldn't think of where else to put it. I think splitting it to a new article makes sense now, but any suggestions on how to title it are welcome. ("Fortifications of al-Andalus and the Maghreb" is precise but seems rather long, "Moorish fortifications" seems too vague/outdated.) R Prazeres (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now transferred the "Fortifications" material to new articles: Fortifications of al-Andalus and Fortifications of the Maghreb, where I'm hoping to make further improvements in the future. I've condensed the section here accordingly ([2]), though it may benefit from further condensing. R Prazeres (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)