Talk:Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Emir not Caliph[edit]

Abd Al Rahman I was erroneously referred to as a Caliph many times. He only declared himself an Emir and it was Abd Al Rahman III who first declared Al Andalus an independent Caliphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

expropriated or bought[edit]

Hello Guys, I am bilingual (spanish/english). The english version says " After the Islamic conquest of the visigothic kingdom the Emir Add ar-Rahaman bought the church ..." with reference [3] Medieval Islamic Civilization Josef W. Meri et. al. published by Routledge, 2005 p176 ff. The spanish version says (this is my translation) "...[the cathedral] was expropriated from the christians and destroyed for building a mosque" I can't believe that in the six century a conqueror will pay for something conquered!? is reference [3] a good reference. There exist evidence or a similar event of the Roman church selling a cathedral to the Arabs? best regards, Jose Marti —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not Cordoba Cathedral?[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move --Antonio Basto (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I came to find information on Cordoba Cathedral, this building is a Catholic cathedral, why then is wikipedia calling it a mosque? Granted historically it was a mosque, but that should be a part of the entry (and if necessary a redirect). It looks like the entry has been nobbled? (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Cathedral is only a part of the whole building. When considered as a touristic sight, the building is called "mosque" (mezquita) even in Spain itself. --Jotamar (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Even so, the Spanish Wikipedia calls this article "Mezquita-Catedral," not just "Mesquita." Why not follow suit? (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is something very strange about this title, I agree. First, it is not a mosque. It hasn't been a mosque for 774 years. Also, according to the article itself, it was only a mosque in its middle period. It was first a church from 600 to 784 (184 years), then it was a mosque from 784 to 1236 (452 years), then a cathedral from 1236 to the present (774 years). Thus it has been a church for nearly a thousand years (968 years) and was a mosque for only 452 years. So identifying the building as a mosque in the title is misleading to the say the least.

Spanish usage aside, the building is more referred to in English as the Cathedral than by mosque. Some google searches in English: Cordoba Mosque: 2,080,000 results. Cordoba Cathedral -argentina: 2,650,000 results.

In Spanish google searches produce these results: Cordoba Mezquita: 5,720,000. Cordoba Catedral -argentina: 5,260,000.

While the Spanish nomenclature is interesting, it does not determine the use in English, e.g. Florence is not titles Fiorenza. EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Even more oddly, friends, the google search: Great Mosque of Cordoba has a puny result figure of only 288,000. So, whatever this article might be called, the present title is probably the worst possible one in English.EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all those who think this is misnamed. It was built as a Christian church, was turned into a mosque, and then back into a church. It is currently a church. So why is this article called "the great mosque of cordoba"? Muslims aren't allowed to pray in there; just recently there was a violent incident when a group of them tried; police had to be called. It is not a mosque. It wasn't a mosque originally. This article is biased toward Islamic sensibilities. (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this definitely needs to be an article rename or move, to "Cathedral of Cordoba". I think the votes are obvious. The article for Istanbul uses the current name of the city, not the previous name of Constantinople. The same goes for New York vs New Amsterdam. Joetheguy (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. I support the name change. The building is no longer a mosque and hasn't been a mosque for the last eight centuries. So, the current article name is misleading. The building is now the Cathedral of Cordoba. So, the article must be renamed as "Cordoba Cathedral". Also, it is false that in Spanish the name "Mesquita de Córdoba" is more prevalent. Spaniards use the term "Mezquita Catedral" (Mosque-Cathedral). Furthermore, the site was a Christian basilica before being destroyed to give way to a Mosque, and, upon the Christian reconquista of Córdoba in the 13th century, the building again became a Church. For the stated reasons, I support the move.--Antonio Basto (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roman Temple[edit]

The pillars of the mezquita are Roman. This part of the building's history should be included in the article.-- (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No longer a muslim place of worship[edit]

I think it should be noted somewhere that this is no longer a muslim place of worship as it is the property of the Roman Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would question the above. It is a fact that a Christian Cathedral built within a Mosque would not allow Muslims to pray here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, and the same applies to churches which have been conquered by islamic countries such as Hagia Sofia in Istanbul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Or the St. Nicholas Cathedral in Nicosia, Cyprus which is now the Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque. If I'm not mistaken, Muslims just can't have a congragrated prayer and have sermons there but they can just pray in small numbers. I remember this one Indian/Pakistani man (forgot his name) in the past that prayed in the Mezquita and he didn't mention about anyone stopping him. Yeah, I do think it's still strange though calling a cathedral "Mosque" - Muslims don't ring the bell to summon people to prayer but rather have muezzins to call out to others to congregrate and pray. During my visit to Cordoba, Spain, I remember seeing the Mezquita from far and was saying to a Muslim friend that he can pray there, thinking it was a mosque. However, as we approach closer, we notice that a church bell on the Giralda Tower (which was once a minaret) was calling out people to prayer, and when we got into "mosque" we notice that people were singing hymns and there was a crucifix. We were like - what is going on here? We felt tricked. It reminds me of the Mosque Church in Hungary, after seeing that Cordoban cathedral. --Fantastic4boy 05:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope Hagia Sofia is a museum and not a mosque anymore. Mayeb you can find better examples but this one is not pertinent. --Sugaar (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Muslims can worship wherever we want; almost literally anywhere which is reasonably clean - so the "mosque/mezquita" easily satisfies that generic requirement. Secondly, by definition, Muslims are the ones that perform "Muslim prayers" - no one else. Hence, it is only the Muslims' view that matters as to where they can pray, and they believe that once a place has been declared a mosque, regardless of what you do to it, it can never be anything else. Others may well argue that it is not a mosque any longer, and you/they are free to do so - but it will not have any affect upon a Muslim's belief as to whether a place is a house of prayer or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-pessimist (talkcontribs) 00:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever (that's POV if anything is). The fact is that the Cordoba Mosque belongs to the Catholic Church since many centuries ago and they actually forbid Muslim (or any non-Catholic) rites inside, we like it or not. (Note: don't take me wrong, I think it should be a secular historical building, public property, and not belong to any religious entity nor be anymore used for cult of any sort. The example of Hagia Sofia/Aya Sofia is the way to go, in my opinion). --Sugaar (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I today moved the article, renaming it from Great Mosque of Córdoba to Cordoba Cathedral in accordance with a discussion that thas been going on for a while. See entry to that discussion (on the name change to Cordoba Cathedral) above. --Antonio Basto (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

the mihrab?[edit]

the article mentions that the mihrab doesn't point towards mecca; where does it point? Kit 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If I remember well, to the City of Damascus, where the Omeya dinasty came from. All the mosques in the Muslim Spain were oriented the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It does point to mecca, however without scientific measuring equipment it would have been a guestimate. NB —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn´t point to Mecca. It does point to South. There several theories to explain that, but according to the fact that muslim were used to find the right direction for praying, the right one seems to be the former visigothic temple -It can´t be found any roman remains-, or the idea of showing mecca´s direction by showing the way to pilgrim. Anyway, there were just two mosque in Spain no-pointed to Mecca, both the Cordoba and Seville Alhama. All the rest, included those which were really close to the Major one were rightly pointed. -- (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


What is the meaning of the word "Mezquita"? I have heard it is derived from the word mosquito nest , and that muslims of the time should be swatted like mosquitos? worth looking into? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Mezquita means mosque. You've been talking to the wrong people. Chaikney 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL Probably they were just joking with you. Mezquita does mean Mosque in Spanish. --Fantastic4boy 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That is actually correct, in terms of the etymology of the word, but in modern day Spanish it merely means a mosque (incidentally, the English word was also derived from this mosquito swatting mentality the Christians had in that era towards the Muslims). The-pessimist (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you document that "mosquito" pseudo-etymology? I sincerely doubt it. For me it's obvious (Arabic) Mazjid > (Spanish) Mezquita > (English) Mosque (with possible intermediate words maybe in Mozarabic, Occitan, French and whatever). --Sugaar (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to correct myself re. the English origin of the word. It would seem it comes from French "mosquée" and this one from Italian "moschea" and Sicilian "muschea". Still they seem to be mere deformations of "masjid".
In Spanish hardly any word can end in "-t" or "-d" naturally so the addition of an "-a" (treated as femenine) is only natural (masjid > mezquit + a).
It's different, it seems to me, from "mosquito" that is the Spanish masculine for "little fly" ("mosca" = fly + "-ito" = masc. diminutive; "little fly" is actually said "mosquita", fem., as in the expression "mosquita muerta": a woman without character). --Sugaar (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The "mosquito" pseudo-etymology is pure nonsense. According to Joan Corominas (in his Breve diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana; 'Brief etymological dictionary of the Spanish language'; Gredos, Madrid, 1996, p. 395) the word mezquita is derived from the Arabic masjid ('place of worship'), and it is first attested in the year 1098. – He also mentions a possible incorportation through the Armenian mzkit, brought from Levant by the Crusaders. Which would be rather odd, since at the time the Iberian peninsula had been dotted by mosques for almost four centuries.
See also Mosque#Etymology. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant comment[edit]

"... the Christian cathedral was surpressed, an occurence common during muslim occupations of Christian lands (e.g. Hagia Sophia and the Basillica of St. John in Syria, and numerous churches in Kosovo, Cyprus, Palestine, and Irag in mordern times)."

It's a pity people use Wikipedia as a soapbox for political remarks. I do not think many people would agree with calling Istanbul, Syria, Palestine or Iraq "Christian lands". What about the use of the Giralda in Sevilla by Christians after the 13th century ? But more importantly: is this relevant ? I know Islamophobia is all the fashion right now but please, could Wikipedia remain a neutral reference work ? 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, is there some specific meaning to "was surpressed"? It seems like a poor choice of words. Was it forbidden to enter? Was it razed to the ground? Something else? A cathedral can't really be supressed. I don't know the answer, so I won't edit it, but someone should.
-- (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article name: "Mezquita" or "Cordoba mosque"?[edit]

Note: Lady Byron created the article as "Mezquita" at 18:47, 6 July 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by the article's name. "Mezquita" is just the Spanish term for "mosque" and therefore there are as many "mezquitas" as "mosques" are in the World. In Spanish the building is termed "la mezquita de Córdoba" (i.e. "Cordoba mosque"). Shouldn't this phrase "Cordoba mosque" be used in English as well? --Sugaar (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can call it "the Mezquita (Mosque) with a church bell and crucifix". Does that sound contradictory or inflammatory or is it okay? -- (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume that's a provocation that doesn't deserve any reply but anyhow, I noticed in French is called "Great Cordoba Mosque". In any case "Mezquita" alone seems meaningless because it just says "Mosque". --Sugaar (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It would probably not please certain people if the Great Mosque of Cordoba was named as such (or similar) on Wikipedia; as they will probably be questioning why is it still so popular in the hearts of people all over the world as a Mosque, although it is has been in Christian hands for 800 of its 1200 year existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-pessimist (talkcontribs) 00:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much wether it's popular or not, I think. What matters is WP:NAME and the reality. We can't build an encyclopedia based on what is popular, that would not be serious. In any case, "Mezquita" alone is misleading. --Sugaar (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment. The title of this article is wrong. The "mezquita of cordoba" means simply the mosque of cordoba, it is not called "Mezquita" as such.--Guzman ramirez (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Guzman ramirez moved the article from "Mezquita" to "Mezquita de Córdoba" at 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not "Mezquita (Córdoba)"? The bracket scheme is in accordance with WP rules to disambiguate the place, and, even more importantly, this is actually the name of the structure used by most people all over the world: Mezquita. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


This is the opening sentence: "The construction of the wigwam started in approximately sixth century B.C" What is a wigwam doing in early medieval Europe? I thought wigwams were a structure specific to the indigenous people of North America —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur (talkcontribs) 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The current name violates Wikipedia policy. This is an English language dictionary. The common English name is Great Mosque of Cordoba. We do have policies. We ought to apply them.Historicist (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)historicist


The closest parallel is probably Hagia Sophia. These are difficult issues, but although the mosque is now a cathedral, the great interest in it is generated by its magnificent architecture, and it was built as a mosque.Historicist (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist.


  • Weak support, because Cordoba Cathedral is equally English and may well be more common. But there is no particular reason to use Spanish here; this should be moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, because in Spain itself there are other mosques, and other places called Mezquita. --Jotamar (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Although not entirely sure of what the best title would be, the current one is clearly inappropriate, and "Great Mosque of Cordoba" is a marked improvement. - Ev (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Reasons in previous section. --Sugaar (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong name[edit]

In fact, the city is not "Cordoba", but "Cordova". So, please, move to "Great Mosque of Cordova". -- (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an English language Encyclopedia. Cordoba has been the English name of this city for hundreds of years.Historicist (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
This is indeed an English language encyclopedia; and the English for the city is Cordova. Thank you for inspiring me with the energy to fix this nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What is "the English for the city" is what is used in English language publications. The sources for this article, the English language external links, Encarta (1), (2), Britannica and Columbia all use Cordoba or Córdoba, just as they (and we) do for the city. Any move would require evidence and should go through WP:RM. Knepflerle (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here. Since this was not a WP:RM discussion, it seems a strange coincidence. I would see no reason to respect the opinions of an WP:STALKer; I trust there is some other explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for a diff of a comment you made at the Poliziano page in your contributions when I noticed the move. This is a simple case of BRD - you made a bold move, I reverted it as I feel it was incorrect and backed this up with evidence. Now is time for discussion, not moving it back again with no reason based on policy or English usage given. If you want more people to be involved in the discussion, list it at WP:RM, but there is no consensus or evidence for a move from the established title yet. Knepflerle (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Our sources and the other cited references are not writing in unEnglish, so using Cordoba is not unEnglish. Such edits as my last one are not vandalism, so please do not refer to them as such. English is defined by usage, not your dictat. Knepflerle (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
English is determined by usage, and Cordova is English; what language does Knepferle imagine it to be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My copy of the Times Atlas has Córdoba. Google search seems to show a changeover to using the -b- in English. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen Cordova in a single modern English source, at least in British English, the other side of the Atlantic, I can't talk about. To me it has a rather archaic sound like calling Argentina "the Argentine".If the proper English name is Cordova, at least in the 21st century, this is something hasn't filtered through to a large part of the English speaking world. I think it would take some very good evidence that Cordova is still in sufficient use to warrant a change. English is as English does. Reynardthefox (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Move? (2009)[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was casting vote move to Great Mosque of Córdoba. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Great Mosque of CordovaGreat Mosque of Cordoba — Or to Great Mosque of Córdoba. See previous sections in this talk page. Please try to get this dispute sorted out. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I prefer Cordova, having moved it here. The usage of atlases should not be unconditionally followed in text; many atlases use Roma or Firenze, because the local signage will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe Anthony Appleyard has found one of Google Books' flaws: It doesn't select for English well. Forcing English by searching for city also shows that Cordova is still somewhat more common than Cordoba; the latter includes accented forms, as checking the results will show. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move. Britannica, Encarta and Columbia all use "Córdoba" (see Knepflerle's evidence above). The sources used in this article use "Cordova" in some instances, but "Cordoba" or "Córdoba" are far more common: [1][2] (there's a third book that's used as a reference, but it has no preview available at Google Books). None of the external links use "Cordova". The evidence seems to be strongly in favour of "Córdoba", either with or without the accent. Jafeluv (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reconquista/United Spain[edit]

I had changed Reconquista - which is a politically charged name, however present it might be in Spanish historiography - to conquest, while still keeping the link to the 'Reconquista' article, in the first paragraph. I had also removed the epithet "King of United Spain" from the passage alluding to Charles V as the idea of a "United Spain" is also a modern construct, Charles V being sovereign over many different kingdoms, duchies and feuds throughout Europe and there being no institutional unification of even his Iberian territories.

Those changes have been undone by ShadowRangerRIT as can be seen. I should like to see them redone so as to actually make the article more neutral.

His excuse for rolling-back my changes is that the term "conquest" should imply questioning Spain's legitimity over Andalusian territory, which is pathetic, but completely understandable giving his own apparent national sympathies themselves constructed on land claims by people who didn't actually live on the land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My note on your talk page was relating to your addition of a paragraph to Reconquista that questioned the legitimacy of the current state of Spain. I rolled back your changes here for a similar reason, but I wasn't claiming that, in and of itself, "conquest" constituted a knock on the current Spanish government. "Conquest" vs. "Reconquista" was less of a problem, but it still sacrificed clarity in favor of your particular POV, and editors repeatedly inserting the same POV into multiple articles tend to get reverted in bulk. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I'm somehow biased on the issue of "land claims by people who didn't actually live on the land." I suppose I do live in the U.S., which was originally constructed in a similar way, but then, if you go back far enough, virtually every modern country was the product of repeated invasions by non-native forces.
If you disagree, or feel I am somehow biased on this question, feel free to take it to WP:NPOVN. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Mosque-Cathedral"?[edit]

The Spanish and Portuguese names of this article translate as "Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba." That may be the fairest solution. To call it the "Great Mosque" is to choose one of two sides (and it's the side that lost out 700 years ago, no less). (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. I do agree that "Cathedral" needs to at least be part of the title, since it's now a Christian church (and no longer a mosque). Funnyhat (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This structure should not be referred to as a Mosque at all. It is a Catholic Cathedral and no longer functions as a Mosque. As a matter of fact, a group of rogue Muslim tourists tried to pray at this Cathedral recently until they were expelled by security. --Scipio-62 08:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

The name should be changed, it isn't used as a mosque anymore, it isn't used as a pagan temple anymore, it isn't used as a church dedicated to St. Vincent, it is used as Roman-Catholic Cathedral. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The outstanding tie of this building is its mosque architecture. Most visitors come there to see that, and not in order to pray.
The lemma "Mezquita-Catedral" has a balance of Moslem past and Christian use.
Denying the architectonical aspect in the lemma causes suspicion of Christian fundamentalism--Ulamm (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The facts are the facts. At the present time it is a Catholic Cathedral and not a Mosque. Stating that it was once a mosque is legitimate, but it should not be call a mosque any more than the Great Mosque of Istanbul is now called a as such and not a Cathedral like it was originally meant to be.--Scipio-62 21:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

The familiar term in Córdoba itself is Mezquita-Catedrál. And Spain is very Catholic. Wikipedia ought to be cosmopolitan. Any religious fundamentalism ha to be avoided – as I've already written few lines above :)--Ulamm (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Absurd article title must be changed[edit]

Yes, this is Wikipedia, where unpopular, un-P.C. opinions are squashed quickly, but the title of this article must be changed pronto. The Spanish language article is entitled, "Mezquita-catedral de Córdoba". Yes, it is informally known as "La Mequita" but is usually referred to in the media as a Cathedral. The title is actually confusing: search for "Great Mosque" and you get a list of other mosques in Arabic countries. I presume there is an actual Islamic Mosque in Cordoba itself? What's the title of that article? Great Mosque of Cordoba No.2? The title must be changed. It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talkcontribs) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

UNESCO uses the article title's name in their World Heritage Site listing as: "the Great Mosque of Córdoba, a 7th century mosque converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral in 13th century by Ferdinand III."
The landmark-heritage architecture is the Moorish mosque, the spiritual domain is the Christian cathedral and archdiocese. Its importance in the world context is as the historic Great Mosque of Córdoba, perhaps as the Alhambra, and not Charles' palace, is in Granada.---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia should indeed use titles that reflect current usage of names. And this is a Spanish landmark, so the translation of the Spanish designation is to be used. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The opinions of the individuals involved with UNESCO aren't all-important, definitive pronouncements. In Spain, it is usually called the Cathedral of Cordóba and informally, La Mezquita. It's importance in the Spanish context is as a Catholic Cathedral. It is not an historic site: it is a routinely-used Catholic Cathedral with historic Muslim origins. See the difference?Martan32 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked up this item because as I was looking through my son's 7th grade history book, there was a picture of "this mosque in Cordoba, Spain ...." It was an interior picture and I thought it looked just like the Cordoba Cathedral which I had visited some years ago. So I looked it up, pictures and Wikipedia, sure enough, it is the Cathedral, but lots of sources are calling it a mosque. But it isn't a mosque, it's a Christian Cathedral and the name of this article should so reflect. Boy, the Muslims have really got the west cowed, haven't they? Corsair1944 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The building is a mosque, with a cathedral inside. If somebody built a cathedral and then Muslims prayed inside, it would still be a cathedral. There's more to a building than what goes on inside it, there are architectural definitions to consider. (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I've been there in 1999, and I've rarely heard or read anything that refers to it other then "The Mezquita" (with "in Cordoba" or "of Cordoba" added when the context was not clear) . On the German Wikipedia, it's at de: Mezquita de Córdoba, in Dutch it's at nl: Mezquita, and on Simple it's simple:Mezquita de Córdoba. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


I strongly object to the recent move. It's not compatible with WP:COMMONNAME, and it does not have consensus on the talk page. The building is knows as "Mezquita", which is used, in English, as a proper name, not as a functional description of the building. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't given much consideration to the underlying merits of the issue, but as a process matter you're absolutely right that, in light of the failed votes for renaming above, this move should have been preceded by a good-faith effort to obtain consensus. If you move it back you would be entirely justified. At the absolute minimum, due consideration needs to be given to what a proper new title would be. Córdoba Cathedral already exists (it's in Argentina), so we could parenthetically disambiguate, we could use Catedral de Córdoba, whatever -- but "Cordoba Cathedral," without the diacritic, is just lame.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It is extremely confusing, if the cathedrals of two cities named Córdoba are discriminated by writig one lemma with acute and the other one without.
It is much better to make the differencs between that building being only a cathedral and that building first of all known for ist mosque architecture.--Ulamm (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to move it to "Mezquita de Córdoba". That name, with or without quotes, has more hits than the corresponding "Cordoba Cathedral", and it is, as far as I can tell, what the building is really known as. Several other Wikis, including the English language simple Wikipedia, use this. Both "Cathedral" and "Mosque" are functional descriptions in English. But the building is not know for either of its religious functions, it's known as an architectural masterpiece. As I wrote above, "Mezquita" is not strongly associated with its English equivalent "Mosque", but serves as a proper noun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I've chosen a shorter one, I wouldn't object against re-establishing the lemma "Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba".
Personally I don't consider "Mezquita de Córdoba" to be wrong. But we must take care of sensibilities. Therefore I think, it is wiser to use a balanced title in English WP.--Ulamm (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it yet again to something which I could find in reliable English sources, but if anybody wants it moved somewhere else please request it, instead of just doing it. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Do as I say, not as I do? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange southern direction of the mihrab[edit]

Has it been investigated, where and in which direction the apse of the Visigothe cathedral had been?--Ulamm (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples and imitations[edit]

  • Aachen Cathedral was built overlapping with the first phase of Aljama Mosque, but started a bit later. Therefore ist is doubtful if the Córdoban architecture could be inspired by Aachen.
  • It is more probable that the Dome of the Rock had been visited by the builders of the Córdoban Mosque than by the builders of Aachen Cathedral.
  • Surely, early Moslem architecture as well as the architecture of Visigoths and Franks was influenced by Byzantine architecture.--Ulamm (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Prayer Hall: 9 by 11 Aisles[edit]

  • When I looked at this wiki article before, it described plan view of prayer hall as having 9 by 11 aisles. I noticed that this part was removed and no reason given here. Does the plan view of the aisles, in fact, consist of 9 by 11 aisles or was this written in erroneously.
  • Also is there a plan view of the prayer hall which can be posted?

Jeorne (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AD dates in this article[edit]

WP:MOS says CE dates are the more common modern designation for dates. These common-era date designations are neutral as to religion. While consistency dictates a certain style should be carried throughout the article, and no preference is give to either AD or CE, the preferred approach in a situation such as this is to remove the designators altogether. If this article used dates BCE, there would be a problem. However, since all dates are in the common era, there is no need for either designator, AD or CE, in the article. Aquib (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing them sounds like the best solution. I don't see how they could be ambiguous. Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine with me and preferred by WP:MOS#Dates. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's get things in perspective[edit]

There was a lead sentence that stated that:

In April 2010, two Muslim tourists were arrested at the Cathedral, after half a dozen Austrian Muslims knelt to pray at the same time.

I hate this sort of white-washing. While it is fashionable and politically correct to turn the Christian Church into the "bad guys" and the Muslims into "victims" of "phobia", what I want to see is a bit of respectable, dare-I-say "Christian" honesty about this matter.

Here is the re-write that puts it in perspective:

In April 2010, two Muslim tourists were arrested at the Cathedral, after an incident in which two security guards were seriously injured. The incident occurred when the building was filled with tourists visiting the cathedral during Holy Week.[6][5]

For "tourists" read "pilgrims". For "pilgrims" read "families, kids, aged, invalid". For "holy Week" read most sacred time of the Church Year. Combine that with attacking someone because you've been offended, and then it is in perspective. Keep in mind that Pope Benedict was instructed not to pray while visiting Hagia Sophia.

On the other hand, I feel deep sympathy for all those Muslim people who visit this wonderful site and feel drawn to pray there. The men who seriously injured two guards have done their bit to make this possibility even less likely to become a reality. Amandajm (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi what's your source? Do you have a source for the knife, the instructions to the Pope, your version. I'd like to look at it. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
According to this BBC article, the Pope prayed silently with senior Muslim clerics at the Hagia Sophia in 2006. [3]
According to the Times, it was reported one of the students had a knife and 2 security officers were seriously injured. The article does not actually state the officers were stabbed. The organization which sponsored the student trip apologized. The cathedral is allegedly promoted as a mosque, although Muslims are not permitted to pray when they enter. In the past, notorious, famous and influential Muslims have been permitted to pray, but there is a new Bishop who is strictly enforcing the ban.[4]
If I recall the circumstances, there was originally a church there which was shared with the Muslims until the Caliph bought the site from the Christians so a new, larger mosque could be constructed.
Aquib (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The "knife" is sourced in the references to the article. You are right. The article doesn't state that the security officers were knifed. It states precisely what was said in the referenced source, that "one of the men was carrying a knife". The fact that two officers were "seriously injured" suggests more than a few punches. However, I will alter my comment.
  • Regarding the Pope at Hagia Sophia: I watched film of him walking around and it was clearly stated that he had been instructed that he was "not permitted" to pray. I will look at the source you have given.
  • Personally, I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that the church should discriminate between famous and influential people and ordinary people. It is the height of hypocrisy. There was only one class of people that Jesus totally condemned and appeared to see no hope for: Hypocrits!

Given that the area of the mosque that is not taken up by the later cathedral building is quite large, it does seem as if it ought to be possible to set aside an area for prayer, that is out of the tourist traffic route. Amandajm (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia, Just as I thought! The Pope was forbidden to pray in Hagia Sophia, because they didn't want him staking a claim on it. It is a church, after all, and was the greatest church of Christendom for many hundreds of years.
The place where he prayed for two minutes, while standing next to the Iman and Mufti was the Blue Mosque. They didn't tell him that he wasn't to pray there, so he did. The fact that he prayed in a place that has always been a mosque indicates his acceptance of it as a "place of prayer and worship". It was a gesture of reconciliation on his part. Amandajm (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
OK yes. Reading the BBC article more closely, I see the Pope was warned by demonstrators outside the mosque not to pray in the Hagia Sophia. I personally find that repugnant. I believe there was a statement regarding Islam, made at an earlier time by the Pope, that the demonstrators were angry about. I would point out the difference between official positions and the demands of demonstrators. I would also acknowledge the Pope's wishes to be respectful in this matter.
I am not aware of any spiritual reason why a Christian cannot pray in a mosque. I am not an expert. I have a modern translation of one important 13th century Islamic scholars work (Reliance of the Traveler, Al-Misri) that simply states Muslims and Christians cannot enter each other's places of worship without permission.
I find the whole subject unfortunate, but noteworthy in the article. The details are complex, involving how to (or if you can/should) sort out religion from politics, who rightfully owns certain properties, when is it appropriate for people of one religion to pray in places of worship for others, who speaks for their religions, on and on. As the details are in many respects unclear and debatable, the treatment in the lede of this article needs to be short and balanced. A mention and a link seem appropriate. Readers can learn more if they wish. Not sure where this leaves us in regards to the point of the discussion.
Your thoughts? -Aquib (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This subject is straying from the topic of the talk page, so I will move to your talk page. Amandajm (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Poem: "The Mosque of Cordoba"[edit]

I have just reduced the size of the paragraph on Muhammad Iqbal's poem, removing the "peacocky" language and the opinion. I have removed the section Popular culture down to where one would normally find it, and dot-pointed the info as usual.

However, since this is a really famous work of literature inspired by the mosque, it would be good to use a direct quotation from Iqbal's poen within the context of the article. There should be a sentence that says:

Muhammad Iqbal, in his poem The Mosque of Cordoba says " quote quote quote quote quote".
Can someone provide the appropriate quote, in English?
And could someone who knows more about it than I do, write an article on this famous poem.

Amandajm (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start on the same (The Mosque of Cordoba (poem), though since my editing experience is still very limited this has been a bit of an effort; still, I'll try and grow it when I get the chance. Lackingdirection (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move - August 2012[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Cathedral–Mosque of CórdobaMezquita – The common name in English-language guidebooks and other publications. Nobody refers to it as the "Cathedral–Mosque of Córdoba" and it is rarely even called "Córdoba Cathedral". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, "mezquita" is simply the generic Spanish word for "mosque" (any mosque), so this cannot be the common name in Spanish for this one particular famous building. Some references are needed to justify the claim that this is the unambiguous common name in English, especially with no need to even mention Córdoba in the title. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, this is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia, and "Mezquita" in non-Spanish-speaking countries invariably means this building. In any case, Mezquita already redirects here. I have no problem with the title being Mezquita, Córdoba if considered necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The building is a cathedral. Regardless of whether it is architecturally part-mosque, and the mosque part is duly famous for its architecture, the building is a cathedral. Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody said it wasn't. But the fact remains that it is commonly referred to as "the Mezquita", not as "the Cathedral–Mosque of Córdoba" or even as "Córdoba Cathedral". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Response. I have looked at the examples given in WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing there quite covers this sort of case.
The building belongs to an organisation, the Catholic Church, who would under no circumstance refer to it as "the Mezquita". The function of the building as a Christian church is not seen by its owners as compatible with its being a mosque, regardless of what its past use was.
The term "the Mezquita" is certainly in commonplace use in Córdoba, as a description for the building, but not as a description for the function of the building, which is a different thing.
The term is also used in tourist brochures.
However, it is not used at all in art historical writing. When dealing with a building from a perspective that is purely historical, then the building is described in relation to that part of the building which is relevant in context. e.g.: "The Great Mosque of Cordoba has double rows of polychrome arches." "The Pantheon has a coffered dome."' In each of these cases the original purpose is entirely relevant to the structure, and the current use of the building is not. In the case of the Great Mosque of Cordoba, it is understood that the comment pertains to that part of the building which still represents the mosque, as against that part which has been rebuilt in another style, just as one might write "The portals at Lincoln are the finest of any Norman Church in Britain" even though the rest of the building was rebuilt in a later style, and the portals are virtually all that remain of the Norman Church. It has to do with context.
In the context of architectural history, the building would be referred to as "The Great Mosque of Cordoba". In the context of tourism the building might well be referred to as "The Mezquita of Cordoba". In the context of the fact that the Catholic Church returned the site to its Christian use nearly 700 years ago, and does not refer to it as "the Mezquita", then I think we ought to respect this.
The article needs some more work done on it.
Amandajm (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, our naming policy is WP:COMMONNAME and not "official name" or "name the Catholic Church wants it to be known by"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Having checked this out a bit further, it appears that within Cordoba it is known officially as the "Cathedral-Mosque" and the Bishop has been trying to get them to drop the word "mosque' but it hasn't happened.
Under those circumstances, it ought to remain as it is, if the current name is the correct one. It identifies it affectively for all purposes, and changing what is a cathedral to a name that indicates something quite different isn't appropriate.
Amandajm (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I repeat, WP:COMMONNAME! You're still arguing from the point of view of what you consider is (formally) "correct" or "appropriate". That's not how we name things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose at the risk of getting involved in what I confess I consider a debate that has been conducted too many times already...I think I understand the genuine motivations behind the proposed name change, but I'm not sure that guide books constitute the most appropriate source for determining common name. Having looked at the guidelines, ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.") I think we should be looking at architectural and historical sources for the appropriate usages. If we allow that, Mezquita doesn't have much traction in good English language sources as far as I can see - Lapunzina, for instance (cited in the article - another component of WP:COMMONNAME) uses Great Mosque of Cordoba within the Cathedral of San Vincente. I feel the current title, with appropriate redirects in place, covers both the current status of the cathedral, and its previous historical incarnations. I think Amandajm's suggestion may have merit, but that's a separate conversation (and I agree - it needs work, and better sources). Lackingdirection (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move - November 2012[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: no dissent. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral–Mosque of CórdobaMosque–Cathedral of Córdoba – Most sources refer to it as "Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba", "Great Mosque of Córdoba", or "Mezquita–Catedral de Córdoba" etc. (see e.g. Britannica). But, fewer sources refer to it as "Cathedral–Mosque of Córdoba", so the current name should be moved to the more common name "Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba". (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: the more common English name and the accurate translation from the local name Mezquita–Catedral de Córdoba. (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article is Spain-related (and Iberian-rerated), and in the Spanish and Portuguese versions of this article of Wikipedia, the titles are Mezquita-catedral de Córdoba and Mesquita-Catedral de Córdova which translates to "Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba" in English. So it should be easy to move the article to the better name "Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba" (in my opinion, it's a neutral name, so acceptable for all members). As already mentioned, the Encyclopædia Britannica ([5]), regarded as one of the most scholarly of English language encyclopaedias, corroborates the proposed name too. Other scholarly sources agree too ([6], etc). (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I suport Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, by the same reasons as told abve.--Ulamm (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move June 2013[edit]

I think this page should be moved to Cordoba Cathedral, because it was originally a church, and is currently a church. It is not a mosque, and the Muslims have no claim to the land. --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Why Mosque-Cathedral anyway if the Mosque was built over a Visigothic Catholic Cathedral? The article and links at Muslim campaign at Córdoba Cathedral seem to agree with this common sense proposal. You may as well rename the India article British Raj because that's what it used to be for an interlude between being India. Indiasummer95 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


This is possibly the most incoherent Wikipedia article I have encountered in some time. From the first paragraph, I was completely lost. The subject is of very high importance, and I hope a qualified person will give it a thorough edit, or even a re-write, soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV discussion[edit]

I reviewed @Anupam:'s edits and found no violation of WP:NPOV. In fact it is very necessary to explain the Cathedral's current Roman Catholic status and name in a prominent place. It is likewise good to retain adequately sourced information about its storied Islamic history in Al-Andalus. But the current reality cannot be denied or hidden. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A review of article history and contributions leads me to dismay. Salvaeditor (talk · contribs) who also edits from the IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been systematically removing content from articles, many instances of changing "Mosque–Cathedral" to "Mosque". This contravenes the neutrality policy as well as consensus for this article to use its current name "Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba". Further attempts to delete information from Wikipedia will be met with sanctions. Consider yourself adequately warned. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Elizium23, thank you for your kind comments. When I first came across the article, I was surprised to see no mention of the cathedral's current name or affiliation in the lede. I was able to correct it and I appreciate your efforts to ensure that this article meets WP:NPOV. I just recently copied the information about the Church of Saint Vincent from the lede to the "Origins" section. Perhaps you could check to see that the link to Saint Vincent is correct? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cathedral-Mosque without question[edit]

I don't regard myself as either Muslim or Christian, but I can certainly see the sensitivities of Christians, who see this site as a Cathedral, and thus a place of worship. I believe that that current state of the 'building', as a Christian place of worship needs to be recognized.

However, there is another point of view. There are those many of us who visited the site mostly to see the astounding mosque that was built there, not because of the cathedral that came later. It would be unfair to characterize the cathedral as a desecration, and as a largely political one rather than a religious effort, since it would be equally fair to suggest that the mosque, in turn desecrated the Visigoth church that preceded it. (Note that the assertion at the beginning of the article that this church was the 'original' is contradicted further down by recognition that the original building was likely a Roman temple.).

I detect by the tone of many of the comments from some Christians here that their concerns are proprietary, rather than religious. I suspect that these persons might feel that the interests of mere tourists should count for no more than the Muslims. This is sad. Many other Christians surely recognize and have always recognized that the mosque is an astounding work of both art and architecture. Perhaps many, like me, tend to think that such magnificence speaks to a higher realm that is beyond the bickering of individuals over their personal view of which god is the best.

"Cathedral-mosque", to my mind, is fair to all sides. Let us even hope for a day when Muslims will be allowed to pray at the Mezquita and when Christians will practice the charity they lay claim to, and pray peacefully alongside them. -- (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have same dream for Santa Sofia or Christians go to the Meca? Surreal Madrid (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cathedral without question[edit]

A building is named by its owner. Upon change of title, the new owner can change the name to whatever it wants. That's the way naming works. The Sears Tower in Chicago was purchased by Willis Insurance and renamed "The Willis Tower", and that is how it is found in Wikipedia. This cathedral is properly named "Catedral de Nuestra Señora de la Asunción" - in English, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption. Anything other than its correct Spanish name can be dealt with by redirects, just as The Sears Tower is redirected to "The Willis Tower". Those arguing for bastardised names such as "Cathedral-mosque" or "Mesquita" are actually pushing a political agenda, even while trying to justify their preference as artistic or historical. This building is not a great architectural masterpiece. It's significant because it was recaptured from the Muslims and an indelible Christian cathedral was stamped right in the middle of it. At the same time, its new name was carved into stone: "Catedral de Nuestra Señora de la Asunción". Until it's recaptured by some other faction, it should be known by the name given to it by its present owners, helped along by masses of WP redirects if necessary. Santamoly (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. What the present "owner" calls it is entirely irrelevant (as is the concept of owner for such historic landmarks - which legal system do you use to ascertain ownership? Does e.g. ISIS "own" the ancient sites they just blew up?). See WP:COMMONNAME. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're showing a particular personal philosophical bias. I'm not going to guess where you're coming from, other than to say that it's obvious you're viewing this from a personal, highly disrespectful, outlook. FWIW, ISIS is not the owner of the stuff they're blowing up. ISIS is irrelevant to this discussion. In this case, like the Willis Tower, the owner has the right to name the tower. And you don't, regardless of how important you think your opinions are. And, by the way, what prompted you to remove my edit in the lede, and label it as "not an improvement"? If you view Catholics as a cultural enemy, then nothing would be an improvement, would it? With that POV, how could you be a judge of what is an improvement, and what isn't? Since my edit contained useful information, you could be a gentleman and admit that you were briefly overcome by your personal agenda and removed my edit in the midst of a transitory panic attack. And then offered a graceful apology to all concerned. If you don't, then we all will know what kind of man you really are. Santamoly (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at WP:NPA, and stop thinking about "where I'm coming from". Wikipedia policy is to go by the most common name, not by the owner's choice. See e.g. St. Peter's Basilica, not "The Papal Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican". I removed your edit because a) it did not fit into the lede and b) it was unsourced. The lede is there to summarise the most important parts of the article, not to make unsourced judgements ("significant", "enormous") that are technically wrong (the whole Mesquita is the cathedral, not just the renaissance addition). I have no problem with mentioning the addition in a neutral language - indeed, I'll make a suggestion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"I have no problem with mentioning the addition in a neutral language - indeed, I'll make a suggestion" -SS. Good idea, get on with it then so we can move on to other topics. The renaiisance addition is the most interesting feature of this otherwise typically dull Islamic edifice, yet it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Santamoly (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion on architecture seems to be at odds with e.g. the one of Charles V. Have you ever been there? Typically dull? Anyways, my suggestion has been in the article since yesterday [7], and the nave has been mention in Mosque–Cathedral_of_Córdoba#The_Reconquista since roughly forever. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
SS asked:"Have you ever been there?" Well since you asked, yes indeed, I have been there several times. I was obviously more thrilled by the Reconquista overlay than the dreary mosque that seems to have impressed you no end. For example, the lively stained-glass clerestories in the middle of this otherwise dull barn of a mosque. And then there's the seating. The Christians brought in seats to sit on while listening to something useful from the pulpit. Very thoughtful. If I was king, I would have knocked down the mosque and built a cathedral on the rubble, but the creative winners of this little tussle thought it would be more amusing to stick their Christian addition right in the middle of the mosque grid. Very amusing! Very triumphant! An excellent response to Hagia Sophia! But regardless, I'm pleased that you made a tentative note of this triumphant bit of one-upmanship, a little bit of drama in this otherwise unexciting article. Santamoly (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I do get the feeling that other than architectonical points influence your position. But nevertheless, if two people with as different outlooks as you and me can agree that the addition is ok, that give me hope for Wikipedia and for mankind. If you have access to good sources and personal experience, would you care to improve the description of the renaissance addition in the Reconquista section? All I have is the 1999 edition of the Lonely Planet, and that's more concerned with survival and cheap accommodation... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no sense calling Cathedral-Mosque. Is confusing to reader that the Cathedral-Mosque only is Christian, Muslims are banned praying. It was first church, then mosque, then church more. In North Korea there is stadium that was first stadium, then torture place, then stadium more. We call it stadium or torture place? Exist users that have own ideas and are not balance. Surreal Madrid (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed unoffical website from the infobox[edit]

I removed from the infobox, since it is not an offical site of the Mosque-Cathedral but a commercial website of tourist guides of Cordoba trying to sell their services. I replaced it with the actual official website, which is *gasp* catholic. Gugganij (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Archeological evidence edit[edit]

There are at least two things wrong with the proposed edit by (talk · contribs). (1) It is a close paraphrase of the source given in the edit. This is a WP:COPYVIO and cannot be tolerated. (2) It is a very WP:FRINGE opinion. I doubt it carries any actual weight of scholarship. There is ample historical evidence that a church existed on this site. Plenty of sources attest to it. I don't see how a contrary position is tenable. In addition, our guest is edit-warring and has gone far beyond the WP:3RR so it is, if nothing else, a technical violation that is worthy of a block. Nobody up until this point has bothered to open a discussion here. Discussion on the IP's talk page is fruitless and he keeps issuing threats to me, ha ha. The next venue for resolution will be WP:EWN where a 3RR report will be made against the editor. Elizium23 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous WP:FRINGE claim with about as much legitimacy as claiming that Tenochtitlan or Carthage never existed. I'm not sure what reason there is for someone to know of, and relentlessly push such an obscure view, apart from some sort of nostalgic historical fantasy. Any source from any angle, all throughout history, mentions a church. The source's own source was a speech on a YouTube video. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is fringe or not is irrelevant: the 'fringe' view is not coming from some crazy conspiracy theorist, it is coming from a "leading" specialist. Therefore, just like countless other wiki articles, an opposing view should be allowed to be voiced. Just because something doesn't agree with your sectarian-driven agenda and worldview doesn't mean you have a right to expunge it and gather fellow established editors to help you in your endevour. Wikipedia doesn't belong to any Christian sect or a cadre of editors. It is open to all and voices all opinions that are backed by reputable sources--which is exactly what my edit is. If you desire to blackout my info and then block me, i am more than happy to challenge your actions and bring attention to the weakness of your arguments. -- (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I have rephrased it - I haven't seen the source, but would doubt it was that close a paraphrase as the English was not native. I don't find it at all surprising that no traces have yet been found of what would presumably have been a pretty small building (like most Visigothic churches) underneath the existing very large building. How much of the site has actually been excavated under archaeological conditions? Precious little I'd imagine. This is the case for many other cathedrals, in England and other parts of Europe, built over small predecessor buildings. I have, I hope, removed the implication that this factoid throws doubt on the existence of an earlier church. Now can you all calm down. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod. My edit's purpose was never to throw doubt about anything. It was simply an edit that wiki precedent shows has every right to exist. I see plenty of opposing views/theories expressed in the same paragraphs of other wiki articles and i don't see why my edit seems to be an exception. Instead, what i see is an attempt to import the methods of the inquisition into wikipedia i.e. eliminate any views that disagree with the Catholic position. First, i had to contend with editors that rejected my edit based upon perceived grammatical errors. Next, plagiarism (while proven) was used to remove my edit. In response, i rewrote my edit. Finally, having failed with that excuse, certain editors accused the edit of voicing a fringe opinion, despite the fact that that opinion was voiced by a specialist and reported by a reputable news source. If they were worried that it is a fringe view, why didn't they argue such originally? One can only wonder what excuse this cadre of editors will use next to enforce their agenda! Either way i wont be intimidated by such editors and will stand for my right to oppose their monopolist worldview. -- (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Johnbod it was a near-identical copy of the original English source, whose link was given in the edit, and your edit moving around a few words really didn't ameliorate the fact that it was a clear WP:COPYVIO. (talk · contribs) has now been reported to WP:EWN for flagrantly and excessively violating the WP:3RR, so all other issues aside, nobody should be reinserting this edit without WP:CONSENSUS developing here. Additionally, the IP should be admonished per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Elizium23 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense - my edit was drastic enough to remove any copyvio. Haven't you broken 3RR yourself? If you dispute the actual assertion, please provide links to the archaeological evidence that has been found. That there are references in early written accounts to such a church is a completely different thing. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the basis for labeling the added view as fringe? The author supporting it is a specialist in the field with dozens of scholarly publications [8], while the current statement is sourced by a book about modern Spanish politics and another one from "Avalon Travel Publishing". I'm not familiar with the scholarly literature on the subject, but so far we have no policy-based rationale for excluding the proposed addition. Eperoton (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The source says there is an absence of archeological evidence. Is there a claim of evidence of absence, or are we just going to construct one in this article? Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Elizium23: you are just using any desperate excuse to stifle views that oppose your inquisitorial spirit. This is evident for all to see through the evolution of your arguments against the edit. You run from one excuse to another whenever you are shown to be standing on weak foundations. Your last resort seems to be to remove me from the equation altogether (at least temporarily) by having me blocked or preventing me from editing the page by having it protected. Your latest 'absence of evidence' excuse is simply indefensible. As Johnbod and Eperoton have argued, there is no reason why the edit should be removed. Hence, it shall be restored. This is Wikipedia—not medieval Europe; you can't get away with theocratical authoritarianisn for too long. -- (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to bring this back to the original discussion a bit, I think there are two misleading statements in this article, and for the sake of correctness that means that either one or both are incorrect, or incomplete. In the Design section the article states: "In planning the mosque, the architects incorporated a number of Roman columns with choice capitals. Some of the columns were already in the Gothic structure..." Indicating that there is architectural evidence. In the Origins section, the article states: "The cathedral was originally a Catholic church dedicated to Saint Vincent the third, although according to Susana Calvo Capilla, a specialist on the history of the Mosque–Cathedral, no clear archaeological evidence has been found of an earlier church on the site". These seem to contradict each other. I'm very new to editing wikipedia, so don't have the solution, but this makes for a bad encyclopaedic article in my mind. I would also point out that the Mosque-Cathedral website itself says the following "Between 1931 and 1936, the architect Félix Hernández carried out excavations in search of the ancient Christian temple. The excavations helped recover mosaics, capitals and pillars. Currently, some of the archaeological findings are on display "in situ". Others can be seen at the Saint Clement Museum." So at a minimum if the statement in the Origins section is left in it should mention the direct contradiction that a person would see upon walking into the Mosque-Cathedral (I'm not saying either is right, just that the contradiction is glaring and should be recognized). All my sources for this are the article or already linked in the article. Perhaps a further discussion on the topic is warranted?Cspierce (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a contradiction, since the other passage doesn't specify whether it's based on archeological evidence. This article certainly needs more work, though, especially in reflecting the current state of research and the apparent contradictory evidence that you mention. The paragraph you're referring to is copied verbatim from a 1907 book (p. 47). Eperoton (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a cathedral not a mosque[edit]

This article reads like a virtue signalling wet dream. If we are going to call this a mosque then I want all of the Scandinavian churches built upon Pagan shrines labeled as Hof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CF:8201:7BB5:3171:C4B7:8F0A:C045 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect usage found in reliable sources, according to policy (WP:NPOV), and on this point it reflects the sources cited in the article. Eperoton (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)