Talk:Islamic influences on Western art

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 6 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icotton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I think you are tending to overstate things here. The pointed arch seems first to have appeared in Syriac churches, and Armenian & Georgian churches have a number of innovations more closely related to later European architecture than any mosques are. The horseshoe arch was I think prevalent in Visigothic Spain before Islam arrived, & very likely a Christian influence on Moslem architecture rather than the other way round. Have you seen the section in Medieval art? You don't say which of several William Hamilton's you are quoting, but the remarks of an 18th century (?) gentleman-amateur should not be given this prominence. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. First off, Islam conquered North Africa (800 AD?), the people in NA already had culture, art, etc when the Muslims got there (Ever heard of Carthage?). Islam doensn't get to claim this as "Islamic". Turkey was Eastern Rome (Bynzantium), there was more art and architecture there than anywhere in the Muslim world 500 years before for there was Islam. If anything, the Muslims took theirs from the Romans (East and West) and then grew. This is all Muslim propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpbrown21 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing some problems here after a preliminary reading. For example, this sentence "the Rose window may also have Islamic origins since the first known instance is from the Ummayad palace at Khirbat al-Mafjar, north of Jericho, but the route of transmission is unclear and independent development remains a possibility." is cited to Oleg Grabar, implying that he endorses this view, when in fact he states clearly that "this conclusion seems highly suspect to me, for the means of transmission of the motif have not been made clear." (He offers other arguments as well; I've included this as the most succinct but will provide more if necessary). Kafka Liz (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From my preliminary reading: The horseshoe arch appears in Christian Byzantine architecture from the 5th century, such as at Alahan and in churches in Syria, and also in Armenian architecture from same period. Mozarabic architecture is not Islamic architecture, it is Christian architecture. Who says rib vaults were derived from Islamic architecture? A rib vault in Gothic architecture is a very different form of structural element than the ribbed-dome vaults of Toledo and elsewhere in Andalusia. Stained glass was used in Byzantine churches before the Islamic period. Why are the obsolete opinions of scholars of the 18–19th used to make claims for Islamic origins of Gothic architecture? Pseudo-Kufic actually originated in the Islamic world. Oriental carpets are not necessarily Islamic carpets and their weavers were not necessarily Muslims - only if the carpets performed a specific function in the Islamic religion could they be called "Islamic", unless the article's subject and title is to be changed to "Islamic world". Same for "Islamic costumes", they are actually "Oriental costumes" - Christians in the Middle East dressed the same as Muslims, and wore turbans! The claim that Byzantine Iconoclasm was related to the Islamic intolerance of images is a bit of modern Islamic fundamentalist dogma - loads of Islamic images, and even statues of humans, existed in the Islamic World at the time the Byzantines were hacking up their mosaics and icons. Reformation iconoclasm had no connection to Islamic beliefs; if there was even a small connection it would be that the unchecked Ottoman Turkish conquests had dented the prestige of Rome. Meowy 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mozarabic architecture is Christian architecture from an Islamic-ruled society, but Visigothic architecture is just Christian. The links between Islamic & Byzantine iconoclasm are an old theme in Byzantine studies, but the weight given to them varies a lot - dismissed by some, given some credence by others. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mozarabic architecture is a term used for Visigothic architecture constructed under Islamic domination - but it still isn't Islamic architecture so why are its horseshoe arches being used as a claim for Islamic influences in Europe? I think the "un-iconoclastic" nature of early Islam is only now being properly explored, perhaps as a reaction against current Islamic extremism. Meowy 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it has been said that the little minaret-like bell towers on the Church of San Giorgio Maggiore were derived from Ottoman architecture. Meowy 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not directly. San Marco's, Sant'Antonio's, Padova etc etc. Amandajm (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have adjusted the caption to the Cordoba/Aachen picture - only the lower Cordoba ones are horseshoe arches, which are pinched in at the bottom. However they were begun only 10 years apart, & share round arches with alternating colour. However I think this is a Byzantine or Roman style, so the picture may not be relevant here at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Overstated

The alternating stripes of red brick plus pale stone/mortar at Cordoba come from Rome via Byzantine architecture, but there it was applied to walls, while the arches were generally brick only. Byzantine Christian churches in Constantinople, Greece and elsewhere are often in bands (sometimes irregular) of different materials.

The arches at Aachen are not structurally of two different materials. That black and white is a marble veneer. As we know, black and white or green and white stripes were to become enormously popular in Italy- Siena Cathedral, Florence Baptistry etc. I do not think that all this black and white marble originates with the red and white stripy arches. There was already extensive marble veneering in San Vitale in Ravenna. I think it's the product of an availability of marble rather than copying the style of a predominantly brick and tile architecture.I spose one ought not be surprised that scuds of Black Belgian marble were used to ornament the the cathedral. What else would they use?

The implication of the two photos is that Aachen is somehow based upon the mosque of Cordoba. It isn't. It is based on the Basilica of San Vitale.

As for the business about the ribbed vaulting- yes, the earliest structures that one could call ribbed vaults are in the Islamic architecture in Spain. But what are they specifically? Do they indicate a connection with the ribbed vaults that appeared in France, England and elsewhere? The answer is probably no.

The reason is that the Islamic vaults are used in a very specific manner. At the time that these buildings were constructed, even though Christian architecture generally supported domes on pendentives (Hagia Sophia etc) Islamic architecture generally used the more basic technique of squinches, which formed little arched bridges over the corner of a square, turning it into an octagon. Putting a big dome over an octagon required a lot of skill, but building more and larger squinches just meant building arches. The so-called ribbed vault is in fact a series of squinches which create a star pattern. The technique was also adapted to cover rectangular compartments. But these arrangements of arches do not represent the ribbed vault developed in France and England, in which a wide vault of the same profile as a groin vault is supported by a quadripartite or sexpartite ribbed vault.

What I want to see is the companion article that states that the hypostyle form of mosque was based directlly on the hypostyle underground cisterns created by Christian Emperors in Canstantinople. I want to see acknowledgement that the technique of building domes on squinches was already in use in numerous Byzantine churches, and that Hagia Sophia and other such large church provided the inspiration for the domed mosque. I want to see, not a statement that the courtyard came from Islamic architecture (What absolute cheek!), but that it derived from the houses of ancient times and was used as a forecourt or atrium in Early Christian churches (not to mention the court in a synagogue). While I am prepared to believe that the large vaulted arches in Norman Churches in Sicily may well have been influence by Islamic architecture, on the other hand, once ribbed vaulting had been developed, there became a need to find a way to vault rectangular, and irregular spaces. And when building a vault on a square compartment, if the transverse and longitudinal ribs spring at the same angle as the diagonal ribs, then a pointed arch will naturally occur.

The thing that strikes me, when I read how much Gothic architecture owes to Islam is, if this is really the case, then why doesn't it strike one as similar? Then there is Autun Cathedral. Built with pointed arches. But nothing like a mosque. On the other hand, the form of its decoration etc is very like the ancient churches of Syria. Amandajm (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PHG, the creator, has not edited the article since last December, or responded here. I would just make your edits. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama quote

I don't mean this as a political statement, but must we cite a man who, after all, is a lawyer by profession? How about an art historian like this one?

Also, I'd like to see more on Spain ([1], [2], [3]) and the Copts ([4]). - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Obama section altogether. Ridiculous to quote a career politician pandering to his Arab audience to make a point on Art History. --RCS (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne

"Charlemagne himself attempted to follow the iconoclastic precepts of the East Roman Emperor Leo Syrus, but this was stopped by Pope Hadrian I" is very far from the case, whatever Arnold J. Toynbee thought. See Libri Carolini - he was not a great fan of images himself, but his court did much to promote their use in the West, including the decisive introduction of large statues into religious art. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh

What an interesting and beautifully illustrated article. Well done, and thank-you. 86.133.51.201 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, considering, a lot of Biblic characters were copied to compile the verses in the main holy book, a lot of people will find this page amusing. Should be deleted.Sub40Hz (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian influences on Islamic art

Indeed this is a visually appealing page. However, shouldn't there also be a page like the title of this section? And perhaps a Jewish influence on Christian art and Islamic influence on Jewish art and Jewish influence on Islamic art and so on... --NightMonkey (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is missing from this little list is Christian influence on Islamic art. How did you miss that?Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pagan influences on Christian art - which might need to be split into Pagan Roman influences on Christian art and Pagan Celtic influences on Christian art. Kemitic influences on Christian art. I could go on (and I could source all those articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Syriac and Byzantine influences

This article is full of OR. All Islamic art is a hybrid of Syriac Monasteries and Byzantine churches. Therefore, this article isn't really about Islamic influences on Christian art, as much as Western Christian Art being influenced by Western Christian Art (Greek Orthodox) and Eastern Christian Art (Syriac Christianity)

The Arabic Script was derived from the cursive Syriac script as well. I seriously recommend we get some editors and professionals to look at this page. I don't see a single reference that is actually titled in a way that suggests there is even a link between Western Christian Art and Islamic art. Furthermore, Islamic Art is confined to non-living images, so any influence here seems to be over exaggerated. 98.176.10.168 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is indeed full of OR, and distortions, and a good many down-and-out-lies, but there is no need to go to the other extreme! To claim that "All Islamic art is a hybrid of Syriac Monasteries and Byzantine churches" is plainly wrong. Meowy 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I wasn't aware until this article that carpets held religious designations! I wonder what religion my carpet is. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Most carpets are sheep worshipers, except for the man-made-fibre ones - they consider themselves humanists. :)
But seriously, a difficulty is that there is no hard definition about what constitutes "Islamic art" or Christian art". I suppose for this article we could take the title to mean "Influences from the Islamic World on the Christian world", but not everything in the "Islamic world" is Islamic and not everthing in the "Chrisitian world" is Christian! And when did that "Christian world" stop being the "Christian World"? Is 19th c Europe still the "Christian World" even though it is by then mostly secular in all its scientific, judicial and political institutions. What about the 19th century European romanticised fascination about the Orient and the resulting use of Islamic motifs in the European art and architecture of that period? Should that be here? And if not here, then where? And if there is a "where", maybe the whole content of this article should be merged with that "where". Meowy 23:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Culture cross polinates. Islamic art was influenced by Christian art, christian art in some cases influenced by islamic art in turn. This article is a joke as is. It's one vast synthesis of original research, much of it clearly ridiculous even to a none specialist like me. The lede said something like "most christian art is influenced by islamic art." Leaving all other considerations aside, there was 600 years of christian art before Islam came to be.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess and should exist at all in its current state

It makes so many points that are either completely uncited - or the opposite of what the citations say! The subject is a vast subject (diffusion theories are notoriously hard to substantiate). It is perhaps not an article suitable to an encyclopedia (this is what entire monographs and highly researched journal articles are for).LeValley 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, the very first paragraph (which starts rather abruptly) makes a claim apparently based on citation 2 - whereas that citation merely establishes that a Spaniard came up to St. Germigny des Pres as part of Charlemagne's entourage, where he did his best to imitiate Charlemagne's already existing castle. No where at St-G-d-Pres do specifically Spanish (much less Spanish-earlier-influenced-by-Moorish) architectural bits occur. The Wiki on the church mentions the Greek cross and Byzantine influence, but nothing about Spain or Moors. Indeed, many architectural historians have pointed out that this building is so simple (or pure) in its design - it's a square with barrel vaults, very common - that the ideas for it could have been created on the spot. The horseshoe arches are attributed by most art historians to

Visigothic influence (and before that - from north of Spain, obviously). I think the St.G-d-P article needs work (the idea that because Theodulf had seen Visigothic structures introduced into Spain that those were his only inspiration flies in the face of common sense - since as Theodulf followed Charlemagne all the way to Aachen, at least, he would have seen more and more of the same architecture). At any rate, the influence is Visigothic, not Moorish. So until a better citation is produced, that sentence is leaving this article. Merely proving Theodulf is from Spain is not enough to secure the idea that his architectural notions are influenced by either Spain or by the Moors - when he is clearly trying to emulate what he sees in the already-established Gothic tradition.LeValley 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to summarize: the footnote was the same for Carolingian and Sicilian architecture, whereas the article cited seems to refer only to the Pallantine Chapel. So the Pallantine Chapel section is not OR, it is properly cited. It can stay. The Caroligian images should probably go - those horseshoe arches appear many places and have their own complex history, they cannot be attributed purely to Islamic influence. For one thing, Rome used them and they occur in the pre-Islamic near east as well. At this point, there would need to be several citations to support the claim that Islam is responsible for inventing the horseshoe arch or its dissemination.LeValley 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I left the section in (as it has redirects I haven't checked out yet), but it's likely the whole section should go (Carolingian section). Also, this article on Islamic influence on the Carolingians completely avoids contemporary research on where Carolingian architecture really got its inspiration - future editors should try looking more deeply at the history of architecture. Churches and Cathedrals from Italy - such as the ones contemporary to the still-existing cathedral at Ravenna - are considered to be actual resources for Carolingian changes in architecture (although parallel and distinctive invention is still an idea strongly supported by many scholarly resources).LeValley 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

When I went to edit, I found that even the article itself agrees with me (it's circular - it says that the Mozarabic churches got the arch from Gothic influences - so it's the other way around!LeValley 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You can tell when editors are venting their emotional frustrations rather than attempting to be honest scholars when their edited submissions are filled with typos. Slow down and try to get in touch with your anger about Islam. Where did that originate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.116.22.37 (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This article delete delete

This article must be deleted, it is not at all seriuos its just a person who wants to alter the past so its fits in this persons world image, i hope some one will delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.28 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Architecture not Art

This article is almost entirely about architecture. Christian Art is based on figurative depiction, especially the icon, which is forbidden in Islam. IAC-62 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Now the page is finally improving somewhat, isn't it time to rename it Islamic influences on Western art, or "European". With the possible exception of architecture, most influences have been in the decorative arts & affected secular art as much as, or more than, religious art. It seems silly to call Turquerie or Indo-Saracenic architecture "Christian art". Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. Architecture is anyway a more difficult subject. --Anneyh (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait a few days for more comments & just move it if no one objects. I marginally prefer "Western". Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's not a revolution but it make it easier to do something on non-liturgical objects and themes. --Anneyh (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I just did the move. --Anneyh (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Some ideas on how to go forward

Some ideas I have in mind... late here, tired, I would welcome an opinion (feel free to act too):

1. Have separate 1st level sections for Arab-Norman culture and Mudejar Art, and a last section about architecture (pointed arch and gothic),
2. Have some dates and/or maps (a table with key dates x geography = Spain, Italy, Byzantium, General?),

--Anneyh (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I can't do maps I'm afraid. We also need, especially with the new title, stuff on post-Renaissance styles & "revivals". Some can be largely copied from Orientalism & other articles. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually we need to find out when we should stop, I wrote "19th century" when "early 19th century" would have been more appropriate. I'd rather keep Orientalism separate because it is not the same artistic process.

For the maps, there is a set of homogeneous maps on commons Europe 814 in commons (from the first map click on the dates). There is also [:File:Late_Medieval_Trade_Routes.jpg] a trade routes map that could be good... If we select dates and elements to e on maps, we can ask the graphic workshop for support. --Anneyh (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the first level into medieval/renaissance, that introduces a timeline. This may not be the best split, as Oleg Grabar sees a time frontier in 1300 and that Mudejar goes until the 16th century, but I'd propose we try to get some content in the sub-sections and see if the lead section need adjustment/splits.

Maybe a level 1 Historiography section could be useful to summarize past approaches. --Anneyh (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that was the right move. By all means add historiography. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To look at

• Dodd Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Transylvania

I couldn't find the proper place for this, but it is still interesting:

Rich Protestant Transylvanian Saxon merchants traded with the Ottoman Empire and often donated Anatolian rugs to their churches as a vertical decoration more according to their iconoclastic beliefs than the images of the saints used by the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Churches like the Black Church of Brasov still hold collections of rugs.

--Error (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We have there "as well as a rich collection of Anatolian carpets (donated in the Middle Ages by Transylvanian Saxon merchants)", but that is before the Reformation. Churches also used carpets for the floor of the sanctuary, in fact depictions of such use is the main evidence for very early oriental rugs. See Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting. But you may be right, as very few carpets strictly "from the Middle Ages" are documented - do you have any references? Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I picked up the Reformation thing from the information panels at Biserica din Deal in Sighisoara/Schassburg. Looking around I find Honterus Gemeinde in Romanian and German, which claims

Cum au ajuns de fapt acolo? Răspunsul la aceste întrebări nu este unul ușor pentru că nu există surse istorice. S-a pregătit astfel drumul pentru un "folclor istoric."

There are not historical sources for the origin of the carpets.

deja la începutul secolului al XVI-lea numeroase mențiuni referitoare la covoarele turcești în registrele de vamă ale orașului Brașov

Brasov was already importing Turkish carpets from the 16th century.

Summarizing:

Protestant Hungarian [in Transylvania] churches also had carpets but lost them in the 19th century.

The number of carpets in the Black Church went from 39 to 110 in the 19th century but there are no records of provenance.

Perioada în care au fost ţesute se întinde până în sec. al XV-lea, majoritatea provenind din sec. XVII şi XVIII, iar sec. al XIX-lea nemafiind reprezentat.

The period of production goes from 15th cnetury, most of them from 17th and 18th.

As a bibliography two works are mentioned, both entitled "Covoare anatolice în Transilvania" (Anatolic carpets in Transylvania), one by Ştefan Ionescu and another by Emil Schmutzler (1933)

--Error (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't think it belongs here, but there are other articles. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the most patronising, badly expressed verbage on Wikipedia

Despite these Romanesque and Islamic precedents however, Gothic architecture, called Opus Francigenum i.e. "French Work" in the Middle Ages and born in the area Ile-de-France around Paris in the 1130s, still represents a significant architectural breakthrough in itself, which succeeded in bringing astounding lightness to religious structures.

Besides Islamic influences however, Gothic art also benefited from other influences such as Roman architectural techniques.

So, despite these....precedents however Gothic architecture...... still represents a significant breakthrough in itself which succeeded in bringing astounding lightness to religious structures.

And not only that, besides Islamic influences, it also benefited.

The way in which this apologises for one of the greatest architectural movements in the history of humanity is an utterly disgusting and humiliating cringe. Despite, however, still, besides and in itself even!

The pointed arch

Church builders in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East used it. It was adopted by early Mosque builders, and became a significant feature. The Islamic style, including the use of the pointed arch had influence on the Western architecture of several areas where there was extensive contact, Spain and Sicily. In Sicily the pointed arch appears significantly in a number of Christian buildings almost certainly deriving its use from Islamic architecture. The pointed arch also appears structurally, used in an entirely different manner to its application in Islamic architecture, in Durham Cathedral and several other places. In these instances, it appears to have developed individually.

• The second section that I have copied here should be reworded as:

Gothic architecture has its roots in Romanesque architecture, but the introduction of the pointed arch, in part stemming directly from Islamic architecture, led Gothic architecture in a new direction.

Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

See me to you above 3 years ago: "PHG, the creator, has not edited the article since last December, or responded here. I would just make your edits. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)". He hasn't edited at all since March 11 so I'd just do what you like. He was a native French-speaker which accounts for some style & tone issues. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnbod. Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

References

The pointed arch in Gothic architecture is not introduced from Islamic architecture, it is developed in Cistercian architecture as a result of the process of structures becoming more and more vertical, so the semicircular arch evolved into a pointed arch as an adaptation to better distribute the weight of higher walls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.152.130.213 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

IP edit

An IP 202.142.79.196 has added, and re-added in edit-warring style, the following to the article:

"As an architectonic principle, pointed arch is completely alien to pre-islamic world."

I suggest that the statement is unencyclopedic in tone, and insofar as it has content, basically adds nothing to the cited material in the paragraph to which it was added. I have not been able to check whether the statement is a copyvio from the citation given; I do not think the statement is required; the IP's comment was 'they weren't in the article' -- indeed not, but as they added nothing I could see to be useful, that doesn't say much. I'd welcome the thoughts of other users on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've found it. It is a Copyright Violation, a direct copy without attribution, word-for-word, from a copyrighted source. This is of course forbidden on Wikipedia (and everywhere else). The source may be cited, but text must be paraphrased into an encyclopedic description. I've removed it without prejudice to correct use of the source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP has reverted the deletion and has ignored requests to come here to discuss the matter. Here is what is wrong with the addition:

1) The sentence is lifted almost word-for-word from the cited source. That is prima facie a violation of copyright since the words are certainly in copyright, the sentence is not framed as a quotation (nor would one be appropriate, we should use our own words), and the source is not attributed.

2) The sentence does not fit at all well into the context. The paragraph made sense before the addition, and makes worse sense after the addition. This says, in a word, that the addition is redundant and undesirable, itself a sufficient reason to remove it.

3) The sentence contradicts the cited facts, namely that the motifs discussed in the paragraph certainly derived from the pre-Islamic sources which are described, cited, and indeed illustrated in that section of the article. In this context, the sentence not only makes no sense, it is actually and visibly wrong. I have no idea what the author of the book intended by the sentence, but in its plain sense it just doesn't work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As there has been no reply, I shall remove the mentioned text as an unambiguous copyright violation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

apse is being translated as pointed arches

some claims that pointed arches were employed by byzantine churches and sassanian architecture seem very dubious since these are really elliptical or apse not pointed, the example of a bridge provided do seem pointed from a certain angle but this is just an illusion, since from front angle it seems typical elliptical arch and not a pointed arch. For instance Karamaara bridge arch looks eliptical and not pointed arch. This conclusion is also made here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.211.98.231 (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I did some rewriting as a result of your message. Amandajm (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes and subsequent reversions.

1. My removal of pic of Abbey of Saint Denis and replacement with Monreale.

Reason:We know Monreale was influenced by Islamic architecture. Saint Denis is a primary example of Gothic, but not necessarily of direct Islamic influence.

2. The Bridge. There is a statement that it is a true pointed arch. It is not. It is eliptical.

3. The discussion of the ponted arch in Gothic is not pertinent here. What is pertinent is its relationsship to Islamic architecture. The details of the development of the pointed arch should be found under Gothic architecture

Amandajm (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)