Talk:Dar Aziza

June 2017

What two authors who have nothing to do with either architecture or its history have to say (in passing, while getting the dates wrong) about this palace is irrelevant. I removed the unreliable source and added reliably sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Deborah Cherry source since it only mentioned the palace in passing before talking about religion, etc. The author who doesn't pretend to be a specialist on the subject specifically asked the reader who's interested in this palace to check the Lucien Govin book on page 622 (On Dar Aziza, see Golvin, Palais et demeures, 30-45). M.Bitton (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Deborah Cherry's source because what Deborah Cherry says (in passing) about this palace is not encyclopaedic.

I removed the Archnet's source because the editor seems to confuse "style period" with "architectural style". Besides, having access to all the reliable secondary sources we need, I see no reason to pay attention to a tertiary source that publishes content that wouldn't even make it in Wikipedia, as well as utter nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliability

The book Islam: Art and Architecture, edited by Markus Hattstein and ‎Peter Delius, is a very respected publication used by Islamic Art historians and students. It has been reprinted on several occations, including editions 2000 [1], 2007 [2], 2013 [3], 2015 [4]. It has also been published into numerous other languages including French [5], German [6], Italian [7], Spanish [8]), and Turkish [9].

The book is often listed in the reading lists of many respected institutions, including the Oxford University’s course on “Aspects of Islamic Art, Architecture and Archaeology” [10], and the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Islamic art & medieval Europe reading list [11].

The book is also cited by many academic books, including:

• Julio Bermudez & Julio Cesar Bermúdez (2015) Transcending Architecture, CUA Press, pages 274, 300
• Jocelyne Cesari (2007) Encyclopedia of Islam in the United States, Greenwood Press, page 89
• Linda Komaroff & Stefano Carboni (2002)The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353, Metropolitan Museum of Art, page 297
• Gülru Neci̇poğlu & Julia Bailey (2008) Frontiers of Islamic Art and Architecture, BRILL, pages ix & 146
• Lawrence Nees (2015) Perspectives on Early Islamic Art in Jerusalem, BRILL, pages 102, 172
• Ziauddin Sardar (2011) Reading the Qur'an: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, Oxford University Press,
• Helaine Selin (2008) Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, Springer, page 198
• Susan Sinclair (2012) Bibliography of Art and Architecture in the Islamic World, BRILL, pages 4, 7, 194, 202
• Tarek Swelim (2015) Ibn Tulun: His Lost City and Great Mosque, British Academic Press, pages 22, 270, 278
• Christopher Tadgell (2008) Islam: From Medina to the Magreb and from the Indies to Istanbul, Routledge, page 652

Furthermore, it is also used in several other wikipedia articles including: Baghdad, Basil Al Bayati, History of architecture, Iranian architecture, Mosque of las Tornerías, Round city of Baghdad.

Thus, there is no indication to suggest that it is an unreliable source. On the contrary, it is a core book for many academics/students studying Islamic Art. O.celebi (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RSCONTEXT. The reliability of a source depends on context. Here we have erroneous information provided in passing:

1. Dar Mustapha Pacha was built between 1798 (not 1789 as the book states) and 1799.
2. Dar Mustapha Pacha hasn't been a national library since the 1950s (the book states that it was still a library in 2000).
3. Dar Aziza was first mentioned in 1721 (not 1712). The fact that it doesn't say by whom and in what context makes it worse.

Clearly, this source is unreliable for the statement made.

M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

UNESCO: Kasbah of Algiers

UNESCO states the palaces of the Kasbah of Algiers to be "Ottoman palaces" under Criterion (v).[12] O.celebi (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• The source is irrelevant since it doesn't say anything about the primary topic. No other explanation is needed to keep it out of the article.
• The source does not state that the palaces of Casbah are Ottoman palaces (once again, you're misrepresenting the sources).

M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu source

Prof Dr. Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu is a Archaeology and History of Art faculty member at Turkey's highest ranked Koç University [13]. She is a respected academic who has been awarded numerous awards including the Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Arts et des Letters (French Ministry of Culture, 1991), the Adelaide Ristori award (Rome, 1992), and the "Europa Nostra Diploma" award (EU, 2006).[14][15] Moreover, she is consistently cited by many respected art historians, and Ottoman historians in general, including John Freely [16] and Suraiya Faroqhi [17], to name a few. I can provide many examples if anyone wishes. O.celebi (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Since she doesn't say anything about the primary topic, her CV is irelevant.
• Please, familiarize yourself with MOS:FORLANG and stop introducing irelevant foreign equivalents in the lead sentence.

M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The chapter is called Cezayir/Algeria. Removing the sources and replacing the word "Ottoman" with "Moorish" does not change historical fact. You have also removed the ArchNet source as well as Deborah Cherry (published by Wiley-Blackwell). O.celebi (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between not knowing the rules and deliberately breaking them. I urged you to familiarize yourself with MOS:FORLANG, the least you could do is at least read it. The rest has been addressed in the June 2017 section. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Hi M.Bitton, the whole point of this edit (and similar edits you manually reverted elsewhere) is that it's already embedded under Category:Moorish architecture. It's pointless to embed under a general parent category when it should be embedded under the most specific category per WP:CATSPECIFIC; all this is doing is crowding the parent category, which is still in need of further clean-up. I've explained the relation between these two categories at Category talk:Moorish architecture (where I also noted I would prefer another name for Ottoman architecture in Algeria). Most of the other similar structures from the same period (not counting my recent edits) are already categorized under Category:Ottoman architecture in Algeria. R Prazeres (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: The sources describe them as such, so I'm not really sure what other specific category they can be under. "Ottoman architecture" is unsourced and misleading. How about "Moorish architecture in Algeria"? M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I regret making a potentially redundant discussion here: let me reply in support of this suggestion at Category talk:Moorish architecture, that way we can consolidate discussion in one place, if you don't mind. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)