Jump to content

Talk:Stucco decoration in Islamic architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Yeseria)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ah133, BriCrockett.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

[edit]

I've added a maintenance template because the article title and its content largely deals with Spain, however stucco carving of this type goes well beyond Granada and the Alhambra. Essentially the exact same style is found in present-day Morocco (e.g. the Marinid madrasas), and stucco decoration of the same type (though with more differences) is an important part of Islamic architecture further east as far Iran at least. There are some peculiarities to Nasrid art as always, but the scope of the article is currently not set as being limited to Granada, so the article needs to cover the broader topic accordingly. At the very least this article should deal with the Maghreb (North Africa), which shares the same tradition as al-Andalus. For more sources (mostly general references) and background see Moorish architecture. As it so happens, an article dealing with stucco decoration more generally would be helpful, as we have main articles already for things like Zellij and Arabesque, which cover certain types of decoration in a broader way, but no other article deals with stucco decoration specifically. Eventually it should probably have a more neutral (non-Spanish) title as well, since the term "Yeseria" is not usually used by scholars outside the context of Spain. R Prazeres (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some broader coverage in the history section, but this is just a start to give more context and suggest the right direction. The lead itself is not well-supported, as even the sources don't state what it says (or what it implies) there, but I feel like fixing that is really going to need a page move, because it's awkward to try to define "yeseria", a Spanish term, in terms actually supported by English-language reliable sources. In fact I'm having a hard time even finding useful English references that mention this term at all; even the cited sources on this page don't use it. The article will probably require a generic title like "Islamic stucco decoration" or along those lines, to match the language used in Islamic architecture references in English (e.g. the Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture is a good resource). R Prazeres (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article

[edit]

Seeing as this article isn't watched by many editors, there's been only one major contributor (a student on assignment in 2020 who did some good initial work but hasn't edited since then), and there's currently a backlog at WP:RM, I'm just going to do a bold move of this page from Yeseria to Islamic stucco and plaster decoration. If there is disagreement or objection to this, it can be reverted or moved back and we can go through a full "Request move" process instead.

The motivation is already explained above, but to summarize:

  1. "Yeseria" is a Spanish term and rarely used in reliable English sources, which generally just refer to "stucco" or "plaster" decoration (very easy to verify by consulting numerous references);
  2. When "yeseria" is used in English at all, it's generally limited to a Spanish/Hispanic context;
  3. There's no principled reason to have an article on Spanish/Iberian stuccowork only, when the same styles and techniques are widely used outside this area and there's currently no other article covering stuccowork in Islamic architecture.

See WP:ENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:WORLDVIEW for relevant policies/recommendations.

That said, the new title can be considered provisional, as there are other similar titles that could be considered (e.g. "Islamic plasterwork", "Islamic stucco decoration", etc). As the Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture (cited in article) explains, the terms "stucco" and "plaster" are used interchangeably in scholarly sources (indeed, I've seen both terms used about the same examples, sometimes even by the same authors), so I've chosen to go with this slightly less concise title for now to remain neutral and clear. (My impression though is that "stucco" is a little more common as a general term, e.g. the relevant entry in the Dictionary of Islamic Architecture is simply "stucco".) Also, maybe some would prefer not to have the term "Islamic", but this is practically unavoidable and follows common practice for this topic (both in scholarly sources and on Wikipedia), in which "Islamic" refers to Islamic civilization generally, not exclusively to religion; hence the article titles of Islamic art, Islamic architecture, Islamic ornament, Islamic geometric patterns, etc, all of which are also applicable to examples from non-Muslim patrons and builders. Any further discussion on the article title is welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a casual observer, I can't help but wonder if the title truly need both synonyms, or the 'decoration' for that matter - couldn't it just stop at "Islamic stucco"? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I didn't want to presume what the preferences would be beyond that. If there's even one or a few editors who'd prefer something like "Islamic stuccowork" I would support that (assuming there's no opposition to the change more generally). I'd be happy to make the move again accordingly. R Prazeres (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The conciseness angle seems compelling. I did casually plug it into Ngrams and Islamic stucco was the only term it seems willing to countenance. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me! Would you be ok with waiting a day or two to see if anyone else has an opinion? (Just to avoid moving more than once if it turns out there's more discussion to be had.) If no one else suggests otherwise, I'll move it to that. In the meantime, a quick technical/linguistic question: "stucco" to me refers mostly to the material itself, whereas "stuccowork" (and plasterwork) would refer to the art/craftsmanship more specifically. I don't think there would be a real confusion either way, but wondering if the wording strikes you the same way? Thanks for the feedback, R Prazeres (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. I was just reading my thoughts aloud. While stucco is indeed the material, I think the term is often understood to mean both. Stuccowork is currently just a redirect to stucco, where both are discussed. I would imagine anyone clicking on "Islamic stucco" would expect an article on the architectural form, not the plaster mix. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've moved the article one more time to Islamic stucco, per the reasons discussed above. I'll also make a few redirect pages for similar names. Further discussion is still welcome but I think the article is on reasonably good footing. Now that there's a recognizable English name and clearer general scope, I'd also encourage anyone to add more links to this article where appropriate in other relevant articles. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an old contributor to this article. I'd prefer not to use the term "Islamic stucco", for reasons I'll try to explain. Apologies for the belated response.
Firstly, that term could just as well apply to tadelakt or qadad. Secondly, construction finishing techniques are not commonly defined by religion; we do not call pargetting "Anglican stucco" nor "Insular Christian plasterwork". Thirdly, the cultural entity we are describing is not, in history, naturally bounded by religion. While pargetting is artistically, culturally, and geographically distinct from the school of decorative platerwork covered in this article, there is no such difference between the plasterwork decorating, say, the (Muslim-commissioned) Alhambra and the (Christian-commissioned) Alcázar of Seville:
Supporting imagery
These artistic techniques are more naturally defined by geography, being used across North Africa and Iberia (like some other architectural elements; see the lede of the "Moorish architecture" article for some debates on what to call this architectural culture). But artistically similar techniques are also used in the Middle East and India. Including those in the scope of this article is reasonable; where we divide the stylistic continuum, in time and space, is an interesting problem, but I guess we just follow RS. We might also want a broad concept article defining by technique only (any molded and carved plaster relief) with main-article-linked subsections for artistic traditions, to show the whole stylistic range.
These artistic techniques were mostly used in Muslim-ruled states; this area was mostly Muslim-ruled states. But the techiques were also used in Christian-ruled states in the region, and shows no marked historic break when a state changes its religious affiliation (as seen above); styles usually change gradually. States lead by Hindus and Sikhs show similar continuity. Within states, these techniques were used by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The people carving this stucco would not have thought of it as religion-specific. They'd just have thought of it as fancy plastering.
While many articles have "Islamic ___"-type titles, RS have noted that these ontologies have problems (see Islamic_art#Terminology). It also violates the consistency principle of wp:commonname. Christian architecture redirects to Church architecture, while Islamic architecture includes secular buildings in its scope. Jewish architecture is a stub that throws up its hands in despair at anything past tautologies and an assertion of diversity. Hindu architecture asserts that it includes secular buildings in scope, but actually covers statements about architecture in Sanskrit texts, and Hindu religious buildings. In a religiously pluralistic society where people of different religions build and modify and transfer-ownership-of private buildings, and public buildings are used by all religions, dividing secular architecture by religion is problematic. I would not like to assign any of the secular buildings I commonly use to a religion.
"Yeseria", plural "yeserias", is a loanword from the Spanish wiktionary:yesería, which means "plasterwork" ("yeso" means "plaster"). In English, "yeserias" is used in art history books to refer specifically to this plasterwork style. The use of a Spanish loanword is a consequence of history; English-speakers initially mostly encountered this style of art in Spain. But all of the other-language articles on this topic seem to use cognates of "yesaria" as titles, including the Arabic one, which calls them "yasariyya" and then gives the original Spanish. This suggests that it is an endonym.
I favour the term "yeseria" as unambiguous, neutral, accurate, and concise; per WP:Commonname, these are acceptable motives for using a less-common name. It is a way to avoid referring to plasterwork commissioned for a synogogue, or anti-Islam genocidaires, as "Islamic stucco", or "Islamic-style Jewish stucco" or "Islamic-style pre-Reformation Catholic stucco" or something. It would also let us skip debating the religion of plasterwork. The article currently contains a photo of the tomb of Akbar, which is also arguably not Islamic. I'd rather not have to have such debates! HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HLHJ. If desired, we can revert the article to a much earlier state before I expanded its content (this version) and make a WP:RM. However, given the above, that may be less productive than hoped for, so let me try to clarify some things first and see what you think after. You've mixed some very different arguments together but most of it is already answered in my comments above. You've also added some arguments that are inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia (e.g. other WikiMedia pages are not reliable sources nor are they relevant to this discussion; the Arabic page you mentioned, for example, is merely a direct conversion of this article's original stub state and nothing more). I'm going to try to sort some of this out and get to what seem to me the important questions below.
  • To re-clarify the reasons for my recent edits: The earlier versions of this article (before 15 October 2022) were limited to discussing Islamic architecture, with mentions of Mudéjar architecture (which is within the topic of Islamic architecture as well), except that it was almost solely focused on the Alhambra. There was no reasonable indication that the content of the article was geared towards anything significant beyond this scope. Since there is no good reason why a topic of Islamic architecture would be focused on the Alhambra only (since that's what Alhambra is for), it needed to be expanded (hence why I initially tagged it). Likewise, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there's no basis for having a page about the word yeseria itself. Therefore, these changes are to make the scope of the article clearer and more precise as a subtopic of Islamic architecture. (If you object to that scope, then ok, I'll get to that question below.)
  • To the extent that other techniques/styles of plasterwork beyond this scope could be discussed, they can still be discussed at the plasterwork main article or any other relevant articles, including potentially new articles. So when you suggested possibly "a broad concept article defining by technique only", that article already exists. Plasterwork related to Islamic architectural tradition can be discussed here, including examples (such as Mudéjar or later imitations) that are relevant for discussion but that, on their own, may not be simplistically called "Islamic" and could easily be discussed in other articles too. Currently there's few of those in the article, but one could easily make a section along the lines of "Influence on stuccowork in Spain", "Legacy of (...)", etc, which would also clarify their context within the main topic.
  • Your main objection seems to be that the term "Islamic" has a religious meaning and therefore cannot or should not apply to secular architecture or to buildings with the same style that are not built/commissioned by Muslims. I'm afraid that contradicts the overwhelming body of scholarly literature which uses the terms Islamic art/architecture/etc to in fact encompass all of these meanings, as is easily verified by consulting almost any scholarly reference on the subject. There are certainly academic discussions about whether another terminology should be used (though for different reasons than what you're arguing), but no consensus has developed around any alternatives and this original terminology remains standard today, including in recent publications that explicitly address this question at the start (e.g. this). As Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and follows the mainstream of such sources, there is no basis for arguing that we cannot use the term "Islamic" in this way. I'm not personally going to entertain discussion around this, because per WP:FORUM Wikipedia is not the place for debating what reliable sources should do, only for reporting what they do.
  • An article with a scope within Islamic architecture should not be named "yeseria" because that term does not even come close to being the WP:COMMONNAME in English reliable sources, at all, as I already pointed out above. It is only used occasionally when referring to architecture in Spain (due to it being the word used in Spanish), and not beyond it, not even about North Africa. I have looked repeatedly and struggled to find it being used even in English-language discussions of the Alhambra, and even when it's mentioned it's often in passing, with authors using "stucco" or "plaster" the rest of the time. If the article were to return to the title "yeseria" indefinitely, then quite frankly I would remove and transfer all of the content I added since 15 October to a new article with a clearer scope like the current version of this article, and leave editors to do what they wish with the original title.
  • If, based on that, you object to the exact formulation currently used ("Islamic stucco"), then as I said above I welcome any suggestions for something more neutral or clearer, even if slightly less concise. "Stucco in Islamic architecture", for example, may be clearer than applying the adjective "Islamic" directly to "stucco". Maybe. In any case, the word "Islamic" here is merely to define the article's scope as a subarticle/subtopic of Islamic architecture, and so use of the term "Islamic" is essentially inevitable here, as there's no other reasonable way to refer to that architectural style.
That brings me finally to what I think is the important questions:
  • Given the above, do you object to the scope of this article as a subtopic of Islamic architecture?
  • If yes, what alternative scope are you proposing?
Based on that, either the term yeseria will be appropriate (e.g. for stuccowork in the Spanish-speaking world, if warranted) or another term would be, and we can decide whether to move new content off this article or not, etc. (PS: Please don't post another large gallery of images like that, we're all familiar with the relevant examples here already and having all these images makes it harder to browse this thread.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the likely confusion with tadelakt or qadad, as these both refer to types of plastering but not the rendering of plastering into designs - one caption of the qadad page references the use of qadad in creating yeseria. However, I do appreciate the religious connotation concern. One way out of that might be to use the term Islamicate instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I tried to give a detailed arguments, and it seems I came off as needlessly hostile, as long text arguements tend to. Worse, I managed to simultaneouly not be precise enough. I agree with much of what R Prazeres said in counterarguement to me.
I also agree that qadad and tadelakt are quite distinct from the work discussed in this article; I mentioned them as types of plasterwork that might be described as Islamic, but I didn't mean to imply that they were in-scope. Apologies.
I don't agree that the pre-15th-October version of this article] was "limited to discussing Islamic architecture, with mentions of Mudéjar architecture (which is within the topic of Islamic architecture as well), except that it was almost solely focused on the Alhambra." The illustrations were mostly and unrepresentatively Alhambra, but the lede text began "Yesería is a term that refers to decoratively carved or molded stucco and plaster. Used widely throughout the Mediterranean region...", and explicitly mentioned use by the Christian kingdoms of Iberia, and mentioned use in Latin America, and the ancient world. I agree that was very inadequate. The much-expanded article expands these, especially pre-Islamic modelled plaster, as well.
When I spoke of a broader-concept article, I wasn't thinking of anything quite as broad as plasterwork. I had a hunt for a term, and pro-tem I'm going with modelled plasterwork, as a non-style-specific term widely used in RS that clearly includes molding, carving, interior plaster, and exterior plaster/stucco (excluding flat, boring wallboard, roughcast, etc.). So pargetting and the Court of Lions and the Court of Dolls and the City Palace of Udaipur are all modelled plasterwork. The plasterwork article mentions modelled plasterwork repeatedly, but it's a minor (if notable) subtopic. At the other end of the scale, I entirely agree that Modelled plasterwork of the Alhambra (or whatever we'd call that scope) should be a separate, narrower-concept article from this one. Hypothetical articles dealing specifically with, say, this tradition in Iran, or Baroque modelled plasterwork, would also be clearly defined. You take "yeserias", as a loanword, to mean "modelled plasterwork of Iberia"; that scope might also in theory be subdivided, say to the the Umayyad part of the tradition, or the Taifa part. But we want something in-between.
I think you are looking for a scope that is smaller than "modelled plasterwork", but larger than the modelled plasterwork in a single polity or architectural style. There's good motivation for that. I see there's a stylistic continuum, with styles used in Iberia being very similar to styles in Morocco, less similar to styles in Cairo, quite noticeably different from styles in Iran, and even more distinct from styles in India. And of course all these areas show changes in style over time, too.
"Your main objection seems to be that the term "Islamic" has a religious meaning and therefore cannot or should not apply"; not quite. I'm wanting a term that will clearly and unambiguously designate the modelled plasterwork style in question. I can see article scopes like Alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world. This is a reasonably well-bounded academic culture; it has natural coherence and a clear meaning. "Islamic stucco" does not. It makes it sound like there are rules for halal stucco or something. And to speak of "Islamic stucco" in a synogogue/chapel to Saint X/church/palace of a Hindu ruler... is unexpected. I don't find that scope clear.
This matters because this is a descriptive article title, the type that is used in the absence of a common name, as this discussion makes clear. "Islamic stucco" isn't consistently or predominantly used by RS, which often use generic terms like "plasterworks". I'm not suggesting anything uncompromisingly descriptive like "Modelled plasterwork of the medieval Islamic world and nearby and successor states of various religious affiliations and other influenced areas and some syngeographic and remote revivals", that's silly. "Islamicate modelled plasterwork" would be much better, (thank you to Iskandar323 for the "Islamicate" suggestion). But it is still a bit wordy, and still a description than a name. My preference is for endonym loanwords: what the people doing this art style called it, the "original terminology" (partly as it is often succinct). Do we know any of those endonyms, apart from "yeseria"?
I would be happy to add this article to Category:Islamic architecture, but I think it would probably be better to add it to more-specific subcats, like Category:Islamic architectural elements (currently done). I am also worried by the non-parallel use of "[religion] architecture" categories; I don't think Wikipedia should treat different religions differently, though obviously English-language historical RS do, due to systemic bias. Especially given the history of this area, I am also wary of seeing everything in terms of religious affiliation, and specifically through the lens of 19th-cen nationalism (which invented a surprising proportion of the terms that have been used to describe the culture of medieval Iberia).
I'd also be happy to have an article called something like Modelled plaster in Islamic architecture. Parallel to, say, Christian architecture, I think such an article should focus on religious buildings, not palaces etc.. But that would not restrict the scope in a way that would prevent a good coverage of developments, and the aforementioned stylistic continuum, specifically with reference to Islam.
You have vastly improved the section on materials; the impression that it's all made of gypsum was a terrible, misleading feature of the old article. I would be surprised if some of it isn't all lime. Though it may be sarooj, lime and clay. It seems to be painted using fresco-secco technique, which would be interesting to add to both articles if RS can be found. I entirely agree on this article needing expansion! I'll try to add some material. HLHJ (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modelled stucco in the Islamic world? But Islamic art specifically covers all art produced within the Islamic world - see the lead. Several of the very attractive photos show stonework imo. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an unexpectedly contentious page! "Stucco(work) in Islamic architecture", as suggested above by @R Prazeres, is particularly unambiguous. If a descriptive title is the want here, and the feeling is that "stucco" needs elaborating to emphasis the worked or modelled nature of the art form, Ngrams advocates "stuccowork" over "modelled stucco". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HLHJ: to clarify, I didn't interpret your comment as hostile (maybe my response made it seem so, I hope I can chalk that up to trying to write a full answer late at night). What I'm taking issue with at the moment is a lack of clarity and what feels like grasping at academic thin air (albeit with good intentions) by trying to define a topic in a rather personalized way that appears uncalled for by RS or by the structure of Wikipedia. The scope of the current article is clear according to the terms and concepts used by reliable sources, but it's still unclear what alternative scope is being proposed, because you've answered my questions with suggestions that raise more questions in various directions. We really need to focus and narrow this down to the topic/content at hand right now. The more I read, the more this looks like a discussion about what other articles should or could exist, which is a discussion that doesn't need to be here.
  • Please note that there is a shared history and context of artistic influences and developments that characterize stucco decoration in "Islamic architecture". There are already two cited sources on this page which are about "stucco (and plaster)" in Islamic architecture specifically (see Bloom & Blair (eds.) 2009, "Stucco and plasterwork" in The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture; and Petersen 1996, "stucco" in Dictionary of Islamic architecture), which provide the relevant information, summarized in the article. There is no pretense in any of these sources – and none intended in the article itself – that the technique of stucco carving itself is unique to "Islamic" architecture, and there is explicit description of how styles of stucco decoration became regionalized within the Islamic world. What these sources do show is that you can most certainly have a reliable, encyclopedic article with exactly the type of scope I've proposed: a discussion of the role and history of this type of decoration within Islamic architecture.
    • Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from creating additional articles to focus on something broader or narrower. E.g. a truly full discussion of Iranian stucco could easily be its own article, but that is not an argument against having an article with a clear wider scope, it's just an argument for creating that particular article. If you want an article on "modelled plasterwork" cross-culturally, you can make one, and link to this one if needed. Note that the name "yeseria" doesn't even need to redirect here if that's an issue (or the content of this topic could be moved to a new article if preferred, with the same result).
  • You do seem to be getting hung up on the religious connotation of "Islamic" because you repeated more or less the same views, again entirely your own. In the lower part of your comment you argued again about what Wikipedia "should" do, but the only policy is: follow reliable sources (also per WP:COMMONNAME). You keep comparing to the use of the term "Christian" in other articles and saying that the term "Islamic" should "parallel" that usage in the context of architecture/art. Please let go of that line of argument. It's incompatible with all the other general Islamic art/architecture articles that already exist, there's no Wikipedia policy requiring that articles on one scholarly subfield be modelled according to practices in another topic, and it deviates from the example of relevant scholarship and reliable sources. To be clear, I'm not saying your views are intellectually invalid etc, only that trying to argue for some kind of meta-policy on religion and history topics on Wikipedia, to be decided by us editors here, is truly WP:OR territory. If that's what we're going to debate here, I've already said I won't spend my time on it. This aspect of the question really needs to be laid to rest or debated elsewhere, otherwise it will indefinitely derail this discussion.
  • You said you want a "term that will clearly and unambiguously designate the modelled plasterwork style in question". I don't think there is such a term in the sense you're talking about, and looking for one is likely to lead us to WP:OR too. There are general terms like stucco, stuccowork, plasterwork, etc, as already said, but beyond that any further differentiation is generally discussed via context, not via special terminology. If we're speaking very technically, there's no single technique in question here to begin with; as the current sourced content already shows, there are actually multiple techniques, materials, and variations used even within the same context (like the Alhambra). What the "styles" currently discussed in the article do share is a certain history, geography, and an identifiable repertoire of decorative motifs in Islamic art; further notable differences notwithstanding. And to be clear, we should not use endonyms that are not used by English RS (and which are not "loanwords" by the way). Not only does it go against WP:USEENGLISH, but in my experience it's just asking for more OR, as you're unlikely to find an "endonym" that fits multiple languages and periods and that will have a clear meaning to everyone. This is a problem that already affects some problematic, less-developed articles elsewhere that unnecessarily have a non-English title. The original stub of this page was precisely such an example.
  • So a descriptive title of some kind is indeed what this needs, and what I was aiming for. As I've said before, I'm in no way married to the title "Islamic stucco", which is merely one suggestion for conciseness. "Stucco(work) in Islamic architecture" is fine by me. "Modelled plaster in Islamic architecture" is also fine, if there's more consensus around that (but it will still deal with secular architecture, as already explained). The term "Islamicate" is also fair, as it has currency in scholarly sources, although it is less familiar and maybe more jargon-y to general readers. And so on. I will also remind everyone that part of what the lead is for is to help define the scope and topic of the article; especially when there's no perfect title to choose from.
I would like to try to simplify the question even further, in the hope of moving this forward: In principle, do editors agree or disagree with the existence of an article focused on stucco decoration in Islamic architecture? Either answer does not necessarily entail only one solution, but we can discuss next steps based on this. R Prazeres (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto my comment above, "Stuccowork" seems like the best term to go with for conciseness. It's definition seems perfectly clear, e.g.: [1] Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, stuccowork in Islamic architecture seems like a perfectly clear topic outline, and one which reflects the material as it stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "stuccowork" is nearly clear enough - the definition you link to correctly says in the 1st para "In modern parlance, the term is most often applied exclusively, especially in the United States, to the rougher plaster coating of exterior walls." - ie, plain or slighly textured surfaces. That is not what we are talking about here, and makes the ngram useless. There is in fact no difference between finished "stucco" and "stuccowork". Another suggestion: Stucco decoration in the Islamic world. This talk page is now 40k bytes long - far too long to actually read. Can people please cultivate terseness? You know who you are. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Stucco decoration (in the Islamic world)" sounds fine too to me. Johnbod, should I conclude that you agree then on the current scope of the article (per my question in bold)? Also I take your very valid point on terseness. HLHJ, let's please keep our further comments concise and to the point. I've explained everything I have to explain more than once by now, and I hope you have too. R Prazeres (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Refinements re Iberia (and Sicily?) can be dealt with in the text. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Stucco decoration", in the US, will cause many people to think of pebbledash stucco. Only a mild preference for "plaster" over "stucco"; the etymological connection with plastic arts is nice, and at first glance "plasterwork" seems more common in RS, but I have not looked systematically. "Modelled" or "shaped" or similar seems more precisely descriptive than "decorative" (but searching "modelled plaster" gets mostly Brit sources). For clarity, the scope does not include flat smoothish plaster, or stuff just decorated with rough trowel marks, or flat decorations like fresco, but carved and/or molded stuff only, right? HLHJ (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the focus should be on sculpted stucco; I think smooth plaster covering doesn't play an equivalent role and is certainly not given emphasis in sources. Frescoes exist but, minus a peripheral mention for context, I would prefer having that info elsewhere. I think "stucco decoration" is pretty neutral either way; as a North American I don't see why it would make me think of pebbledash stucco specifically if I was coming to an article like this, and published RS don't seem to have any hesitation against "stucco decoration", "carved stucco", etc. But I'm fine with most of these new suggestions, as I can't imagine a major ambiguity in context. Just for confirmation though: HLHJ, what's your answer now to my question in bold above? R Prazeres (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no frescos; that's totally different. "Carved" is a problem, as much is actually moulded. In English (UK) art history there is a slight tendency to use "plasterwork" describing work in the UK (obviously the native and traditional term), and "stuccowork" for stuff abroad. "Decoration" might be better than "decorative". Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title Stucco decoration in Arab-Islamic architecture from this scholarly source is quite instructive. It shows an instance of academic usage of both 'stucco decoration' and the compound adjective 'Arab-Islamic' to sum up the cultural context without preference to either religion nor ethnicity. That's an observation, not necessarily a suggestion. Regardless of US usage, the support for 'stucco decoration' in academic papers is considerable (leaning on Iran). See: The Stucco Decoration in Early Periods of Islamic Architecture in Iran (7th to 11th centuries AD), Stucco Decoration in the Architecture of Iran and Neighbouring Lands, The Historic Significance of Stucco Decoration in Persian Architecture, A Short Survey of Stucco Decoration in the Mahabat Khan Mosque, Peshawar , and Classification and Analyze Stucco Decorations in Qajar Houses, Tehran, Iran. It's also the term of preference for the article devoted to the topic in the Encyclopedia Iranica. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're starting to narrow it down. How would everyone feel about the title "Stucco decoration in Islamic architecture"? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "decoration" adequately communicates the scope of "carved and/or molded decoration". Pebbledash is the most common way to decorate stucco in much of North America.
Does anyone else have opinions on the (RS) use of "modelled" to mean "carved and/or molded"?
An article focused on (modelled) stucco decoration in Islamic architecture would still be fine by me, still with my previous caveat against inconsistent use of "[Religion] architecture" names. I see the "modelled stucco in Islamic architecture" scope as a (large) subtopic/narrower-concept article to this article. I thought of the "Yeseria" article as being about a specific modelled plasterwork style, not about the use of it in a specific type of architecture. The lede sentence was "Yesería is a term that refers to decoratively carved or molded stucco and plaster"; now it's "Islamic stucco decoration refers to carved or molded stucco and plaster in Islamic architecture". See the section below on why I don't favour this scope.
If others disagree, fair enough. Wrapping up this discussion would be good. HLHJ (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would suggest, as I did above, that you can redirect the old name Yeseria to something else if you want. The Spanish word yeseria translates as "plasterwork" ([2], [3]), so it would be reasonable to redirect it there in the meantime as a neutral destination, with the creation of other articles being a separate issue. There is more than enough material and reliable sources to warrant an article of the current scope, and HLHJ has said above that they're fine with it, so this article would exist no matter what at this point. I invite everyone to keep focusing on deciding the title. R Prazeres (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Stucco decoration in Islamic architecture, or modelled. That is more precise, but probably less clear. I think Yeseria should redirect to Islamic_stucco#Western_Islamic_lands, pending a more specific article. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this section redirect suggestion, pending a dedicated article on the specific subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish sources use "yeso" for plaster and "yeserias" for sculpted plasterworks, for "techniques used to sculpt in plaster",[4] and even for "plaster factory". I think a redir to "Islamic_stucco#Western_Islamic_lands, pending a more specific article" would be more useful (I'm assuming that's what the source I can't read says). But the status quo additionaly works for the broader sense Iskandar323 mentioned below, "influenced by the Spanish plasterwork tradition" sense, so I'd favour that. HLHJ (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pebbledash is a fairly self-contained concept, and I don't think 'stucco decoration' would naturally lead most readers in that direction. Regarding the term 'modelled', this means molded to me in the context, whereas 'decoration' covers both modelled/molded and carved. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also incline to that connotation of "modelled"; it's not a common English use. "Sculptured stucco" or "sculptural stucco" (Sculpture, wiktionary:sculpture#Noun)? I think we are not including similarly-manufactured muqarnas or the freestanding statues shown in stucco, making the scope just sculptural wall stucco. Frieze, except it's the whole wall; the stucco article uses "wall panel". HLHJ (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stucco/plaster muqarnas is included in the current content because the relevant sources discuss it and there's no reason not to mention it. Now, please: the title does not need to be a thesaurus. The cited sources, and many other relevant sources, use the wording "stucco decoration" regularly with no lack of clarity; if published scholars have no problem with this wording, it is surely good enough for Wikipedia. And there's already some support from the others above. Given the unusual discussion, shall I just propose "Stucco decoration in Islamic architecture" via a WP:RM? If there's a better option, let me know, but please no more tangents. R Prazeres (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, putting muqarnas in-scope makes sense, and as I'd read the article text which covers them just the other day I don't know why I made that stupid assumption. Apologies. I'll leave further suggestions to others; I should obviously take a break. HLHJ (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some religious and ethnic terms fit guidelines poorly

[edit]

We'd never say "The Louvre is a complex of Caucasian buildings housing many Christian works of art, like the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo". Defining such works by religion or ethnicity or both is odd. But we refer to works in the Middle East and Africa in parallel ways, with terms like Moorish architecture and Islamic architecture. Many more specific terms for this architecture are religious and ethnic pejoratives.

Further, we readily call the Sainte-Chapelle Christian architecture.[1] The Eiffel Tower is not considered "Christian architecture", but we call the Burj Khalifa "Islamic Architecture". Buckingham Palace, despite being the residence of the head of the Anglican Church, is not "Christian architecture", but Nasarid palaces are "Islamic architecture". We had a consensus against putting religion in biography articles of non-religious figures, but we still do it for "non-Christian" objects.

Some less-reputable newspapers run "stories" and a small minority of "foreign stories". Some divide authors into "authors" and "female authors". Consensus has tended against such marking. Even if every single RS mentioning a person calls her an "actress", Wikipedia calls her an "actor". I think this use of "Islamic" is similarly a form of markedness; an implication that the default society, and most especially its subset secular society, is Christian.

A tendency to use "plasterwork" for work in the UK, and "stuccowork" for stuff abroad (or "expat"/"immigrant"), seems similarly undesirable.

Such marking forces unnatural conceptual boundaries. Here we have a style and technique that clearly has strong, close roots in Islam, and is most common in the Maghreb and Middle East, but has never been restricted to one religion and has spread until it is widely used in New-World public buildings and Category:Moorish Revival synagogues. This is typical of art culture; the Hagia Sophia was inspired by concepts of Jewish temple architecture and in turn inspired mosques.

Of the five wp:commonname principles, marking violates three. It forces inconsistency, imprecision and inconcision; the descriptive titles being proposed suffer from these. Calling synagogue decoration Islamic isn't a very natural use of English, either. We can't do much about a lack of a widely-recognized term. But it would be nice to have a term like qadad, tadelakt, or sarooj, succinct and specific only to the style, and capable of being naturally used in the titles of related articles.

Given the requirement to balance the five criteria, these grounds seem strong enough to retain the uncommon term "yeseria", since it is found in RS. One source (which explicitly includes discussion of synagogue and church work) defines it with: "Yesería (ancient Greek γύψος, Latin gypsum and yeso in Spanish) is a term that describes carved or molded plasterwork used for decorative purposes."[5] The article currently says "The Spanish term yesería is also used to refer to Andalusi plaster decoration.[2]"; I can't read the source, and I'm not sure if it just describes "yesaria" as Spanish word or uses it in English text. HLHJ (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeseria appears to be just the basic Spanish word for plasterwork. Scholarly hits for the term also return mainly Spanish results. In English scholarship it may have a more precise meaning, or be used to mean more specifically Spanish-Moorish or Andalusi modelled plasterwork, but that certainly doesn't jump out at you. I can also see references to 'yeseria' in Mexico and Cyprus - making me think it is being used more as just a byword for plasterwork influenced by the Spanish plasterwork tradition (regardless of its ultimate derivation from Moorish or Islamic tradition). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323 is correct. An article on "Yeseria" would basically be an article on stucco decoration in the Spanish-speaking world, as I pointed out earlier. Even the (possibly non-academic) source cited by HLHJ above is from a Spanish NGO and refers only to examples in Spain. R Prazeres (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to some of this above. "of Islamic origin" is broader than "in the Islamic world", which is broader than "Islamic" or "in Islam". If "in Islamic architecture" is taken to mean "in architecture of Islamic origin", then both avoid putting the scope border right through the opus of individual artists. If it is taken to mean "in Islam", the border gets even less natural. The question is how readers will take it. HLHJ (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic architecture is very widely used and, in my mind, well understood terminology, but for readers who don't know, that page explains it fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (well, "13th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in France" and "Roman Catholic chapels in Paris" and "Roman Catholic churches in the 1st arrondissement of Paris" and "Churches completed in 1248")
  2. ^ Boloix-Gallardo, Bárbara, ed. (2021). A Companion to Islamic Granada. Brill. p. 458. ISBN 978-90-04-42581-1.

Requested move 6 November 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic stucco → Stucco decoration in Islamic architecture – For a clearer and more descriptive name for the topic, covering carved/molded/etc stucco decoration as described in the currently cited sources. There is already a lengthy discussion about this above (Talk:Islamic stucco#Moving article), in which there was some agreement on this proposed title or something close to it. I'm hoping a WP:RM will ascertain a more definitive consensus either way. The proposed wording ("stucco decoration" and "Islamic architecture") reflects the kind of wording used by the cited scholarly sources cited (see e.g. [6] and [7]) and by other potentially relevant sources, again as discussed above. (PS: The Yeseria redirect can be still directed anywhere according to what editors want, this is just to decide the title of the article itself.) R Prazeres (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Arts of the Islamic World

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emily.850, Falldel24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jcwagner6, Dressytea, Mzus 300.

— Assignment last updated by ProfTern (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am also editing this article feel free to check out my sandbox! Falldel24 (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To all new editors: please ensure that all additions are clearly supported by citations to relevant reliable sources. And please do not remove or modify existing sourced material, unless you are making a minor clarification or other superficial improvement. This edit, for example, did the opposite and I've reverted it as a result. R Prazeres (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stucco_decoration_in_Islamic_architecture&oldid=1222068144"