Talk:Prayer rug

Significance

What is the story or meaning behind the prayer mat that gives it significance?

Is it acceptable to use the prayer mat for non-prayer related purposes? Is it permitted to use the mat at times other than prayer?Tdomine 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you use the Prayer Mat for prayer, you cannot use it for any other purpose without performing wudu, even then there are restrictions on what you use it for. Once you use it for another purpose like a floor rug in front of your front door, you cannot use it to pray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.12.94 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Following the discussion below, consensus was established, and the suggested move was made. JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Janamaz → Prayer mat — The page was moved from Prayer mat to Janamaz without consultation. Janamaz is the Persian word (as stated in the article). The move ignores the other names for a prayer mat, most importantly that the English name for it is "Prayer mat", and pushes a Persian POV to the neglect of the other Islamic traditions.
This discussion has been through RfD, where G6 was recommended. G6 was tried, and rejected on the basis that Wayiran (talk · contribs), having moved the article, will presumably object. — Bazj (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Prayer mat. That is what most people call it in English. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to prayer mat: I see no reason to prefer the Persian over the Arabic, Turkish, English or any other word for it, whereas there is a very obvious reason to prefer the English. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd say that Prayer mat (or prayer rug) is a term better known to an average English speaker than "Janamaz" (even if the latter is more "correct" in some way). Vmenkov (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support a move. Don't see a strong reason to choose between prayer rug and prayer mat except that perhaps prayer mat is a broader term; prayer mat is more likely to encompass prayer rug than the other way around. This subject might benefit from someone with expertise; if such rugs/mats are generally manufactured in a rug style, then perhaps prayer rug is better descriptive. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose "Janamaz" is it's name in it's main language (Persian), with a very old usage. "Prayer mat" is a kind of newly made word. --Wayiran (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGLISH, the article should be titled according to the most commonly used name in English, regardless of the culture from which the subject originated. Unless you can demonstrate that Janamaz is the most commonly used term in English, it's not a viable title. I see you oppose Prayer mat; do you think Prayer rug would be better? Baileypalblue (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely "prayer rug" is better than "prayer mat", and I will support for "prayer rug", if I have to chose between these two. But "janamaz" is it's name, whereas "prayer mat" is a kind of descriptive title and according to wiki naming rules for descriptive titles we should not necessarily see it's frequency of repetition in sources, but to chose better matched title. When there is a discussion between "prayer mat" and "prayer rug", it means that non of them can stand as accurate as "janamaz". --Wayiran (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite your preference for "Janamaz" or "Prayer rug" over "Prayer mat" you've made no effort to change the text of the article since moving it. This smacks more of hit-and-run POV editing than a serious change. How would you have felt if another editor had imposed "musallah" or "sajjāda" to impose their cultural POV? Bazj (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Prayer mat is fine. However, because this page is exclusively about the Islamic prayer mat, Sajjada, or Sajjadah (the Arabic word which is used in the whole Islamic world) is better and more precise. Janamaz is only used in Persian language and is rather informal. Even in the classic Persian literature, Sajjadah is much more common. Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to prayer mat Why is this even being discussed? In English Wikipedia we use English words. The fact that the Persian name is older (if true) is irrelevant: Wikipedia would rapidly become unreadable if that principle were applied generally. As for the argument that '"janamaz" is it's [sic] name, whereas "prayer mat" is a kind of descriptive title',: "janamaz" is its name in Persian: "prayer mat" is its name in English. By all means the English name for the object accurately describes the object: does that somehow make it not a name? As for "rug" v "mat", there is not a lot to choose, but "mat" is rather more commonly used. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Prayer mat, per WP:English. --Ankimai (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Prayer rug (1290 Google Scholar hits) is slightly more common than prayer mat (938 hits) in reliable English-language sources. Either term is much more common than Janamaz (4 hits). Prayer rug would be best, prayer mat a close second, and Janamaz should not be used. Eubulides (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Move to Prayer mat After several days there is a very clear consensus in favour of moving to either Prayer mat or Prayer rug. the one editor preferring Janamaz has not justified it in terms of WP policy. There does not seem to be much to choose between rug and mat, with arguments for both. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Obvious support per WP:ENGLISH but clearly prayer rug over prayer mat as it is is significantly more common on every index: almost double the number of news hits (2,140 vs. 1,140); significantly more book hits (1,022 vs. 867); web shows the same (109000 vs. 86,200); almost double the number of images found, same for shoping results, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have restored the chronological order of the above comments, which for some unspecified reason was changed by Fuhghettaboutit. Keeping these comments in order makes it clearer that the comment above was posted after the move had been made.

Content loss

• Look at this old edit! Apparently a few months ago an anon editor removed most of the content of the article (perhaps accidentally, or as vanadlism). The edit, however, has never been reverted, and since then the article has "grown" back to a respectable size, but without the lost content ever being restored. Anyone cares to bring back the old content and to merge it into the current article? Vmenkov (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I messed up the page rename

I badly screwed up the rename of this page as discussed above, which I intended to be "Prayer rug", and can't fix it without administrative help, which I've just now requested. Sorry about that. Eubulides (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Insignificant series affiliation

The addition of this article to the Arab Culture series is irrelevant; it does not reflect the importance or greatness of the Prayer Mat and instead demotes it to, what could be construed as, just an insignificant traditional item. The article should be first and foremost a part of the Islam series.

Wording and Citation

Parts of this article should be re-written to reflect professional standards. For example, let's look at this paragraph:

"We remain challenged by the question of why so many rugs have survived in the Lutheran Churches of the Saxons of Transylvania, who for centuries have shared the region with the Romanian (Orthodox and Catholic) and the Hungarian (Catholic and Calvinist) population. Trade was however the means by which people in Transylvania came into contact with the rich textile production of a foreign culture. The extent of this trade can be judged from the much quoted Braşov vigesimal register of 1503, which states that over 500 Turkish rugs entered the town during the year! Rugs represented one of Turkey’s most significant exports and were especially favoured by local Saxon and Hungarian communities but many travelled further to North, to Lvov and other centres. Neighbouring areas south and north of the Danube were also involved in these trading activities and rugs were highly appreciated as well. Nevertheless nothing comparable to the Transylvanian ‘miracle’ took place in any of those areas."

The term "we" is never used in encyclopedic scholarly articles. The wording is awkward, and the use of the exclamation point is a demonstration of the lack of neutrality. No citation exists. I question the professionalism of the article for these and similar reasons.

It reads to me like it has been copied and pasted from a book. 131.217.255.204 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prayer rug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224195249/http://www.liu.edu/CWIS/CWP/library/workshop/citmla.htm to http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citmla.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)