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)

After looking at this for a few years, I've tried to streamline the lead a bit to reduce inline clutter and keep it more focused on the architecture (). I moved all the material about the terminology problem into the footnote (as I suggested above), while moving the footnote up to right after the bolded term in the lead sentence. I'm hoping this makes it easier for the average reader, while also keeping the footnote fairly prominent so that anyone curious or concerned about the term "Moorish" will be able clearly see this and read more. As always, other suggestions welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2025 (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 (), 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 (), though it may benefit from further condensing. R Prazeres (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing the word Arab

@R Prazeres why was the word Arabic before "Arabic" Islamic Middle East removed? The Umayyad / Arabs had the biggest influence on Spain / Alandalus, and early Islamic architecture Prosnu (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Because the influences in question are about the wider Islamic Middle East, not about the Arabic-speaking part of it specifically, which you added for no apparent reason with no citations to reliable sources or reference to the existing citations. R Prazeres (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This is Arabic heritage not just Islamic, so heritage from Arabs is Islamic but North African Heritage is Berber? Prosnu (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Prosnu I agree with your point. The Arab dimension of early Islamic architecture, especially in al-Andalus and the Umayyad period, is historically documented and shouldn’t be generalized away. Could you please cite a few academic sources explicitly describing the architectural influence as Arab or Arabic to reinforce the statement? This seems like unnecessary stonewalling given the existing historiography. --~2025-39712-41 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I did add one by Sharron Gu (2013-10-17) from A Cultural History of the Arabic Language but it was removed, this is the text "Moorish architecture has its roots deeply established in the Arab tradition of architecture and design established during the era of the first Caliphate of the Umayyad in the Levant, circa 660 AD"

The whole article does not make sense, since it pushes a Westernized narrative of "the Moors" and that the architecture of Kairouan mosque is the same as the Cordoba Mosque and the same as the Qarawiyyin Mosque, even though they are clearly from different architectural eras

Prosnu (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that source, except that it’s a book about language and I have no idea whether the author is a historian. Still, there are plenty of sources that describe Maghrebi, Moorish, or Andalusi architecture as having an Arab Umayyad foundation and that deserves more credit in the introduction. I will share my findings later. --~2025-39712-41 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Great, that would be appreciated Prosnu (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prosnu: Wikipedia is not a forum, stop using it to make personal points. We do not improve Wikipedia content based on personal opinions. These recent edits (, ) have no basis in serving the topic; this is not an account of the whole Muslim conquest, it's a brief mention of the most basic chronology and context to introduce the discussion of architecture. Your only motivation for changing this appears to be not liking the mention of non-Arab ethnicities. You've now done this type of thing many times in multiple articles. I'm tired of explaining why it's non-constructive behavour. If it continues, it may be a case for consideration at WP:ANI. R Prazeres (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Personally I have no problem with the article being generally about Islamic architecture of the Maghreb and Al-Andalus region which it should be, but there seems to be no mention about the continuity between the Umayyad-Eastern influence on the Moorish architecture, especially in early Cordoba architecture as if these two nations had no relation to each other

The information regarding the army being largely Berber (zero relevance to the article) when early Islamic caliphates pushed for an inclusive Muslims identity rather than Berber or Arabic, and I wanted to add the other general Musa Ibn Nusayr

not to mention that the article's title itself is derogatory and has no connotation to the culture that existed in that part of the world, it's like calling Aztec Architecture (Redskin or Indian Architecture) Prosnu (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is "Arab" omitted from the lead of Moorish architecture?

Per WP:LEAD and WP:DUE, I propose we update the first paragraph to reflect what reliable sources state about the Arab foundations of Moorish architecture. In the literature, Moorish architecture in al-Andalus and the Maghreb is consistently situated as the western extension of early Arab Islamic architectural traditions that developed in Syria and Iraq under the Umayyads and were transmitted across North Africa into Iberia. Our current lead emphasizes regional labels and avoids the term Arab even though the term Moor historically denotes Arab and Berber Muslims, and major overviews explicitly describe the tradition as Arab influenced. This omission looks intentional at some point for style reasons and underplays a core origin. --~2025-39712-41 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I aggree. Ibn maliks (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ibn maliks: do not make disruptive edits like this again, which are barely one step removed from vandalism. The article is based on reliable sources and sticks to a neutral point of view; we do not edit on the basis of "I don't like it" or on ethnicity-based arguments, which is what the above comments and the aforementioned edits clearly boil down to.

Also, I doubt very much that you are a different person from the previous temp account above (~2025-39712-41), yet your "I agree" comment seems designed to suggest you are. Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for the future.

That being said: if the first sentence of the second lead paragraph (about influences) is truly a problem, I may agree to simply removing it. But I would only consider that if other experienced editors believe we should do so as well and give valid reasons; removing it because a couple of editors dislike the mention of multiple influences (something easily verifiable in academic literature and mentioned throughout the article) in favour of undue emphasis on Arabness is not a constructive option. R Prazeres (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres I have read your comment carefully and I gonnz respond substantively,

First, I strongly object to characterizing my good-faith content work as “barely one step from vandalism”. I understand why you reverted (the scope of the change was large and I should have discussed a lead rewrite first) i wanted to update and restructure this page with recent and secondary sources WP:RS

If you believe an edit is POV, the correct approach is to identify the specific sentences that fail WP:V, explain why, and seek consensus on the talk page. Labeling that automatitcly as “vandalism-adjacent” and speculating about my identity on the talk page is an unnecessary escalation and a distraction from improving the article.

My attempt was to update/replace outdated or weakly framed material with bad structure and above all, the lead section was excessively long and repetitive, restructure the introduction by moving background material into a dedicated “Historical context” section, and expand with mainstream secondary literature (published specialists/historians) from the french Wikipédia.

There is nothing inherently “ethnicity-based” about disputing lead framing or asking that the lead reflect what a bunch of great scholarship actually emphasizes. The lead is a summary of the literature, not a place for editorial insinuations about other editors’ motives. When you said " in favour of undue emphasis on Arabness" the fact is there is an historical consensus among most historian about the fact that this architecture is mainly "arab" or most likely i would say "ummayad" with of course other influences.

I used french page as a baseline because it is structured and anchored in secondary scholarship; the intent was to port the underlying published sources into enwiki with proper bibliographic detail. I will post the different diffs below.

I also have a little problem with the phrase “experienced editors” is not a policy standard and it is not a substitute for WP:CONSENSUS. Content is decided by the strength and relevance of reliable sources and policy-based arguments, not by status claims or gatekeeping actually 3 peoples in this talk page have same view so for me it can lead to an consensus.

For transparency, I also contribute on frwiki (i'm myself helper), but credentials are not the point here.

Finally, regarding your suggestion to remove the first sentence of the second lead paragraph (“influences”): removal is not a default solution. If that sentence is reliably sourced and reflects the literature, it belongs in the lead. If you believe it is undue or unsourced, demonstrate that with sources and policy. “I’ll remove it if experienced editors agree” is not a content argument; a source-based rationale is.

On the French Wikipedia page, we rely on five secondary sources, mainly the book "What Culture Owes to the Arabs of Spain" by Juan Vernet :

diff : there is initially 17 diffs but other are dead link.

~~~~ Ibn maliks (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Ibn maliks' edits were not neutral—they removed most mentions of Berber influence, and placed undue emphasis on Arab influence. However, I don't see that Arab influence shouldn't be mentioned in that sentence. One problem with the article is that too many of the refs give no page numbers, including the paragraph being discussed here, making it unnecessarily difficult to verify the information; this is a burden on editors. Carlstak (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

On that last part I agree. The reason page numbers are not specified in some of the lead citations is that they refer to information scattered or spread across the books in question, such that citing individual page numbers or a page range seemed impractical (per WP:PAGENUM: "Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole."). But in the case of the "influences" sentence (starting with "This architectural tradition integrated influences [...]"), I do think that this poses more of a problem: it covers many potentially complicated details, it's not really a major aspect of the current article, and at least one of its sub-statements ("North African" influence) is potentially circular. Hence, removing it, at least for now, may be easier on everyone. Where notions of influence or origins are relevant, they are mentioned and cited more clearly in the body of the article.

As for inserting "Arab" into that sentence, I see no way to do so credibly or neutrally, for the same reason that "Iranian" or other ethnic-based labels aren't mentioned there either, despite influences from "Iran" being mentioned in the article (as well as later Ottoman influences): the point is that influences were transmitted from the eastern Islamic world, broadly, hence "Islamic Middle East" (or any equivalent wording if preferred). R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

An article is one thing, but a whole book is quite another. You don't mention the part of WP:PAGENUM that says, "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number, the section title, or the specific headword." Editors can't be expected to read a whole book to find explicit mentions relevant to the WP text, especially if there are no online versions of the source where editors can do a control-F or command-F search. You say, "The reason page numbers are not specified in some of the lead citations is that they refer to information scattered or spread across the books in question." Then why can't all such pages be cited as "pp. 11, 17, 34", for example? I specialize in fact-checking articles, and too many editors deliberately fail to add the relevant page number or numbers because they know very well that the source they're citing doesn't actually support the text. Carlstak (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware and again, I agree. To be clear: that was the original reason I left them as such, I'm not inclined to accept that now with the benefit of more editing experience. For the specific sentence that provoked the discussion above: the citations can probably still be revised accordingly, but my suggestion is that since the sentence is already flawed/vague anyways (in addition to the imprecise citations), it may independently merit removal anyways, making the rest moot for this specific issue.

PS: There are some more citations in the body of the article (especially the lower half or so) that are missing page numbers: those can and should be fixed, and I would like to do so in the future (perhaps also converting them to an sfn format for good measure). But this is a separate problem to the discussion above. R Prazeres (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've revised the citations in that sentence with some (likely not all) relevant page numbers and a few quotes where convenient (). I've also gone ahead and changed the third part of the sentence from "and from North African Berber traditions" to "and from the interaction between the cultures of al-Andalus and North Africa". As mentioned, the former wording strikes me nowadays as vague and a little circular (i.e., since the article is equally about Maghrebi architecture, it sounds a bit like saying "North African architecture is influenced by North Africa"), while the latter is more relevant to the point that reliable sources are actually making and to what the body of the article mentions clearly below.

This revision probably satisfies my own concerns expressed above, but I'm open to what other exeprienced editors think. R Prazeres (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead is a joke and even Grokipedia is more neutral

The lead mentions Ottoman, Visigothic, and other influences.

It does not mention the emergence of the style following the Moors (Arab and Berber)conquest of Iberia, nor does it reference the Umayyad or Nasrid dynasties, which are most commonly cited in scholarship as central to what is described as Moorish architecture. Key examples frequently used by architectural historians, such as the Alhambra palace and the Umayyad Mosque of Córdoba, are directly associated with these periods.

Until this is addressed, the article gives a misleading impression of the origins of the style. Scholarly discussions of this architecture consistently highlight Arab, Berber, Umayyad, and Nasrid influences, yet the lead currently mentions Ottoman influences instead of these foundational contexts. This is a complete joke. I don’t mean to offend anyone with this. ~2026-70098-9 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Invasion of Al Andalus wording

@R Prazeres: I do not think calling this an "obvious POV edit" is fair.

The problem is that the current wording is too simplified. If the sentence wants to mention ethnic makeup, then it also needs to reflect the command structure properly. Academic sources do not treat the 711 invasion as a simple one-line matter. They describe a more mixed picture: Ṭariq's initial force is often described as mainly Berber, but under Umayyad authority and under Musa ibn Nuṣayr, who later crossed with reinforcements and played a major role in consolidating the conquest.

The Cambridge History of Judaism likewise describes the invading force as composed of "Arabs and Berbers".

Brill also states that the invaders from North Africa were both Berbers and Arabs.

So this is exactly why I removed the ethnic wording in that form. If the text is going to specify ethnic makeup, then it should also reflect that Ṭariq was acting under Musa and that Mus'a's later campaign was decisive in consolidating Umayyad control in Iberia. Otherwise it gives only part of the picture.

If the article does not want to explain all that in this sentence, then the cleaner and safer wording is simply to keep it as Umayyad. That is not POV. That is avoiding a partial summary.

Also, the article should stay consistent with Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, where the fuller context of the invasion, its leadership, and the composition of the forces can actually be explained in proper detail instead of being reduced too much in one sentence here. --~2026-18605-94 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I am already very familiar with the scholarly literature on the topic and this has been explained above (). I'm willing to entertain the removal of specifically the words "(largely Berber)" from that sentence for no other reason than it's not essential information either way (and if it discourages future tendentious editing in the process, I'll count that as a bonus). But I'm not going to support further editorializing or substantive additions to an already overly-long article that are almost certainly for POV reasons (see below) and that are of no notable importance to the topic of architecture. If you agree to the removal I suggested, let me know and I'll be happy to delete the two words.

I will add this side note both for context and for caution to any other future editors:

I am keenly aware, as are other experienced editors around these topics, that ethnicity and specifically "Arab" and "Berber" identities are a recurrent focus of disruptive edits and disputes, which is an obstacle to improving Wikipedia. I am also keenly aware that this has been almost entirely a non-issue in this article, for which ethnicity is at most a tangential element of the historical context, until one editor brought it up months ago and that the pattern of activity since then strongly suggests some level of either sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or off-Wiki canvassing. Further edits that fit this pattern are not likely to be constructive edits and are not likely to be accepted by consensus; so please take this into account before editing and consider using the talk page first (and definitely use it as soon as you are reverted once, as explained at WP:BRD). R Prazeres (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

That sounds good I’m for removal of the wording because it serves no purpose and many sources will argue otherwise.

Anyways I want to raise another issue why is Umayyad hidden from lead when they ruled Andalus for 300 years and their architecture is visible? Even academics don’t hide this, yet the article hides it. Even Nasrid dynasty isn’t mentioned in lead. Can you explain why?

Moorish architecture book ~2026-20798-85 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the wording as we agree on that (). I've also made a minor adjustment to explicitly mention the Umayyads in the lead (); it's not necessary given that it already explicitly mentions the role of Cordoba, but there's no harm in shoring up that same sentence accordingly.

The rest of your comment makes no sense since nothing is "hidden" in this article, which explicitly covers over 1100 years' worth of monuments built by a large number of dynasties across multiple regions. The lead can only be a summary of the main overall developments within that very large scope. Again, I'll refer other editors to my preceding comment (). R Prazeres (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)