Talk:Court of the Lions#rfc 11EE12E

The poem, widely found in the internet under various translations, can be found here (The Alhambra Patronate Official Webpage) in English and Spanish, [http://www.alhambra.org/esp/index.asp?secc=/alhambra/alhambra_poemas], and a little excerpt of it here [http://www.alhambra.org/esp/index.asp?secc=/alhambra/guia_de_la_alhambra/palacio_de_los_leones], in the same webpage, using the translation by the eminent arabist Emilio García Gómez, which is the translation that I took as a base for my own translation. My translation is accurate to the one of García Gómez, and unless some Arabic native speaker translates it directly to English from the original, all we can find are indirect translations from Spanish. I can speak and read a little bit of Arabic and have checked some of the most "variable" terms in the various translations, so that the word used sticks to the original meaning. As I have written 95% of the article as it is show today, I pledge not to delete some supposedly unsourced part without asking before. Everything there is in the sources noted below in the article. Thanks. Garcilaso (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:The complete poem in García Gómez translation can be found here [http://www.alhambra-patronato.es/ria/bitstream/handle/10514/129/th%EF%BF%BDse%20finale%20aout%2008.pdf?sequence=7], and by the way, also at Rafael Manzano's book referenced in the article from the beginning. Garcilaso (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added "part of the UNESCO World Heritage List." and a reference to the World Heritage list Spain, but can't make it come up in the reference list in a nice way. Don't understand. Pls help & thy. --SvenAERTS (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Description, quality and state of conservation of the lions pictured fit the 2015 year mentioned on the commons image, not 1999. jynus (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

:Yes, changed Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

MISTAKE IN ONE attribution in the last paragraph "Possible influences and symbolism":

There is a serious attribution error in this paragraph, since what Robert Irwin did in his book is pick up the idea written by Juan Carlos Ruiz Souza in 2001, three years before his book. The idea that the palace of the lions could be a madrasa is Ruiz Souza's AND NOT IRWIN'S. THIS IS A SERIOUS ERROR THAT MUST BE CORRECTED. I HAVE PROVIDED THE CORRESPONDING REFERENCES.

PLEASE IT MUST BE CHANGED

https://al-qantara.revistas.csic.es/index.php/al-qantara/article/view/227/220 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:D17F:FAB0:905D:B2FF:1C4A:DFBE (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

:Stop yelling through all caps. The text explicitly says it is the theory of Juan Carlos Ruiz Souza, the citation is to Irwin because that's where it was reported in the sources consulted to write this part (see also WP:SAYWHERE); and unfortunately Irwin mentions Souza but doesn't give the exact reference(s). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_the_Lions&diff=1120176078&oldid=1119102505 Your edit] completely messed with the citation formats and also misrepresented what some of the other authors say. I've noted the bibliographical details of the sources you added at the bottom and I'll check another day if I can access them, verify, and integrate them into this article if appropriate. R Prazeres (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

::Thank you for your kind response.

::Sorry, I am not yelling but underlying. I only propose: if the Irwin paragraph says the name of the responsible of the theory, why not explain this in the page or mention in the note, or why not ask for properly citation as usually? this would respect ideas copyright.

::You are wrong, I didn't misrepresented at all what some others authors say, quite the contrary, I proposed instead to underline the works of Irwin, Robinson and Ruiz Souza altogether.

::I appreciate your interest to solve the mistake. 2601:182:D17F:FAB0:905D:B2FF:1C4A:DFBE (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi {{u|Hamamat32}}, I'm letting you know here that I'm reverting your recent good-faith edits to Comares Palace and Partal Palace, and removing the equivalent information here at Court of the Lions, because they're unintentional WP:OR (i.e. they're not based on reliable sources). The present-day names of the Alhambra palaces, including "Palace of the Lions", are all Spanish in origin. Unfortunately, we know almost none of the names these specific buildings originally had in Arabic, as is explained in some of the cited sources (e.g. [https://books.google.com/books?id=M64VYn8Qq-QC&pg=PA203&dq=irwin+alhambra+names&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGpvXxhLL_AhWXlIkEHfDQD6wQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=know%20names&f=false Irwin 2004], pp.6-7). Some of the possible names recorded in sources (like Qasr al-Riyad for the Palace of the Lions) don't have much to do with the modern Spanish names either. So these Arabic names are just translations of the English/Spanish names, which is not what the MOS:ALTNAME policy is about. Readers can refer to the Arabic Wikipedia for a translation if they want it. I didn't notice the Arabic name in the article here prior to your edit, but now that I've seen it I believe it should be removed like the others. More detailed information on the names is also found in the first sections of each article. I hope that makes sense to you, we can discuss further if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah I guess it does, but are all of the Arabic names translations? Some of them, like Court of the Myrtles, do have completely different meanings, so that was kind of confusing lol. I added them on the basis that it's the other way around, my bad. Hamamat32 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::No worries at all, I figured it wouldn't be intuitive, which is why I wrote an explanation. I'm not even sure about the probable exception of Mexuar either, now that I think of it again. (For Court of the Myrtles, I'm not sure what you mean, where did you get "فناء الريحان" if it's not a translation?) R Prazeres (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::From [https://www.alhambradegranada.org/ar/ here], it has everything regarding Alhambra and its areas. I removed the Arabic name from the infobox as the court had multiple Arabic names so it seems more fitting to have them in the history section where they are elaborated. Hamamat32 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Ah ok. Yes it's a little different, so I don't know if it's intended as something else, but in any case it's not a recorded historical name, as far as I've read. I agree with the additional removal you mentioned, thanks. Now that this has come up, I'll also move some stuff around to make a new "Name" section here too, to make things clearer for readers. R Prazeres (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::Hey again {{u|R Prazeres}}. Come to think of it, I really feel like the Arabic names, even if translations, should be added. In MOS:ALTNAME, it is stated that names can be "significant names in other languages", which they are in Arabic, as the Alhambra is regarded as the single most cherished and renowned Arabic architectural, arguably even artistic, achievement of all time, and often as the poster child of Arabic culture and civilization as a whole, both in Arabic and other sources. The source I showed above is definitely an official one, as it is a Spanish government-run website, but I can add more reliable sources if you like. Hamamat32 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::I disagree, I think it just leads readers to assume, in this context, that these are official or historical names. My experience with other Wikipedia articles generally is that editors usually avoid including non-English names if they fulfill no technical purpose other than a translation. The situation is similar to Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba, where the Arabic name is not provided. Compare also with city articles like Córdoba, Spain and Granada, where Arabic names are not provided even though they are obviously significant to Arab and Islamic culture. By contrast, the Arabic names are provided at Alhambra and Madinat al-Zahra because reliable sources confirm that these are their historical names, so they're informative to the topic. They don't fulfill that purpose here. R Prazeres (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::{{yo|R Prazeres}} as the Partal Palace's name is of Arabic origin, adding it in the lead would be fine, right? Hamamat32 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

::::::::It's still only a Spanish name, the word itself has a (presumed) Arabic etymology via Old Castilian, but that doesn't say what the historic Arabic name was. So in my opinion, no, it's the same situation, i.e. merely a translation/transliteration of the current Spanish name, as mentioned above. R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Snowstormfigorion I expect a better reason for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_the_Lions&diff=prev&oldid=1259454700 this] otherwise pointless revert, including the revert of brief and reliably sourced information that explain the poem's source. The translation as revised [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_the_Lions&diff=prev&oldid=1259350063 here] comes directly from the already cited source, there is no justification for using an unattested and unsourced translation. R Prazeres (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:Prazeres, as per the policies and guidelines cited in the edit summaries, the level of details added go into unnecessary specifics that aren't needed here. Also, there's no need for the line breaks in the verse translation template. Regardless, seeing that it's in the cited source, I didn't undo the translation. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

::I'm fine with or without the line breaks, though it's easier for non-Arabic readers to understand the translation if the corresponding verses are aligned in both languages. Feel free to tinker with the format accordingly, the line breaks are just one option.

::As for WP:DETAIL, it is irrelevant here, as that guideline is about summary style, which is not applicable here as this is the specific main article about the topic, not a summary in an overview article (like Alhambra). There is no subarticle where this information would go instead, so all you're doing is deleting information that readers could have. An addition of barely two sentences, not to mention a necessary clarification about which part of the quoted poem is actually quoted below, is most certainly not an issue for an article of this length. Unless you have a valid reason for reverting sourced and relevant information that you haven't explained yet, I expect you to restore what you've removed or I will; I expect no other experienced editor would support stonewalling this addition if you insist on this and it goes to a community consultation. R Prazeres (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:::A bit soon for stonewalling accusations, per WP:AOBF. The fountain section serves the same position as the section for this article does in that of Alhambra, thus WP:DETAIL is applicable here. Furthermore, as per WP:UNDUE, which states that undue weight can be given by way of "{{tq|[...] depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements [...]}}", the inserted details are excessive in the scope of the section. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tq|The fountain section serves the same position as the section for this article does in that of Alhambra}}. Is there a separate article about the fountain? R Prazeres (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::It is in that such level of detail would be placed in said article, as per WP:SS; "{{tq|A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own.}}" Snowstormfigorion (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::So in other words: no, there isn't. As we both know. Therefore WP:SUMMARYSTYLE doesn't apply. If you think there should be a separate article about the fountain, then please propose one per the process at WP:SPLIT. Until then, the fact that you are now invoking a non-existent hypothetical article to justify blocking minor additions to this article (well below WP:LENGTH limits) means that you have no content-related objections and are indeed WP:STONEWALLING. (If you think that's violating WP:AGF, please report me to WP:ANI and I will be happy to explain this and other examples there.)

::::::I'm going to wait a while, maybe a week or less, in case other editors comment on the content issue, but if you do not restore the additions by then, I will start an RfC. R Prazeres (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Further, you seem to have completely ignored the above WP:UNDUE portion. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::@Snowstormfigorion It's been two weeks now and you still haven't provided a valid reason for your revert. Are you planning to continue blocking edits on this article? If yes, then I'll start an RfC. R Prazeres (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Blocking edits? If you see the above as invalid, then feel free to do so. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

{{closed rfc top|result= Consensus was to support the proposed addition. R Prazeres (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC) }}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736892071}}

Should the following revision/expansion be accepted or rejected?

It concerns the paragraph introducing the quoted excerpt in the section currently titled "Excerpt of Ibn Zamrak's poem on the basin" (about an inscription carved into the courtyard's fountain). It currently reads as:

{{blockquote|The poet and minister Ibn Zamrak wrote a poem to describe the beauty of the courtyard. It also describes the fountain's hydraulic system.{{sfn|Irwin|2004|p=52}}{{sfn|López|2011|p=134}} It is carved around the rim of the basin:{{Sfn|Puerta Vílchez|2015|p=169}}}}

The proposed expansion would read as:

{{blockquote|Carved around the rim of the basin is a poem of twelve verses by the vizier and poet Ibn Zamrak. Six of the verses originate, with minor modifications, from a longer qasida of 146 verses that Ibn Zamrak composed for the banquet honoring the circumcision of Muhammad V's son, Abd Allah.{{Sfn|Puerta Vílchez|2015|p=168}} Verses from the same qasida are also included in the Hall of the Two Sisters.{{Sfn|Puerta Vílchez|2015|p=168}} The first part of the poem refers specifically to the fountain{{Sfn|Puerta Vílchez|2015|p=169}} and alludes to how its hydraulic system functioned.{{sfn|Irwin|2004|p=52}}{{sfn|López|2011|p=134}} Below is an excerpt (verses 3 to 7):{{Sfn|Puerta Vílchez|2015|p=169}}}}

If accepted, further copy-edits or suggestions about wording are also welcome. If relevant for context, the reasons for starting this RfC are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_the_Lions&diff=prev&oldid=1259353924 this edit] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Court_of_the_Lions&diff=next&oldid=1259353924 this revert], along with the discussion above. R Prazeres (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:Notifications about this RfC have been posted at WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Spain, and Talk:Alhambra. R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support The text is well-written and informative. Carlstak (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, I think. I'm not quite sure what the issues are. I don't think it is WP:UNDUE or too much detail anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - First, a comment on the increasing trend for editors to think that citing their interpretations of policy/guidance is a substitute for actually having a discussion. Above we have; WP:DETAIL, Wikipedia:Summary style, WP:UNDUE, WP:SS again, WP:SPLIT, WP:LENGTH; and on behaviours; WP:AOBF, WP:STONEWALLING, WP:AGF and WP:ANI. I am very unsure that this appeal to policy approach actually facilitates a constructive dialogue on the content. On the substance, Court of the Lions is currently the lowest-level article we have on the structure. As such, a small addition which gives context and explanation to the reader regarding the inscribed verses on the fountain seems uncontroversial. KJP1 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support Unless there are factual inaccuracies, then there is a good amount of additional detail added here. I mean, I guess I see why some might consider part of that to be TMI, but it is still historically informative. Ender and Peter 22:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Sources cited:

• {{Cite book|last=Irwin|first=Robert|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M64VYn8Qq-QC&dq=robert+irwin+alhambra&pg=PP1|title=The Alhambra|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2004|isbn=9780674063600|location=|pages=}}
• {{Cite book|last=López|first=Jesús Bermúdez|title=The Alhambra and the Generalife: Official Guide|publisher=TF Editores|year=2011|isbn=9788492441129|location=|pages=}}
• {{Cite book |last=Puerta Vílchez |first=José Miguel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uYYMZV9fZd8C |title=Reading the Alhambra: A Visual Guide to the Alhambra Through Its Inscriptions |date=2015 |publisher=Edilux |isbn=978-84-95856-30-2 |language=en |translator-last=Trout |translator-first=Jon |orig-date=2010}}

{{closed rfc bottom}}