![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Recent edits by Melroross have fairly radically changed the way Portugal is presented in the article, without adding any citations.
Even if the obvious errors are corrected (eg changing the order of Spain and Portugal to not match the quoted source being translated), it seems to me there's a pretty big axe being ground here (eg the removal of Category:Islam in Portugal from the article, when manifestly Al-Andalus is one of the most significant events in the history of Islam in Portugal; the dating of the end of the Portuguese Reconquista to military conquest, but the Spanish Reconquista to a final expulsion of Moriscos...).
I'd like to invite them to explain their edits in more detail, referring to specific citations. Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Att.
Pinkbeast:
Al Andalus influence in Spain versus Portugal
Dear fellow "Pinkbeast" user: We will both agree that Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual and accurate virtual encyclopedia. I am afraid to say your continual reversals appear to reflect a biased opinion on this topic. I am not trying to re-write History unlike you appear to insinuate; and rather let the facts speak for themselves. Should you however feel the need to find reliable sources/quotes, there are plenty of documents on the subject. Your corrections/views paint both Portugal and Spain under "the same brush". That is simplistic and inaccurate. The mere fact that there has been a border/cultural divide between Portugal and Spain for almost 1,000 years is more than enough reason not to place the 2 countries under the same category. Plus here are some facts which make ALL the difference on the Muslim influence topic:
Portugal:
Spain:
Best regards, ( talk) Melroross ( talk) 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Melroross
Fact.
Period.
Finally I might ask- are you familiar with Spain and Portugal and what authority do you have on this topic for that matter too? I am familiar enough to know what I am writing here. You are kindly requested to stop reverting my entries. Thank you. Melroross ( talk) 07:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pinkbeast. I've taken a look at Melroross's proposed changes, and they are poorly worded and misleading. In particular, statements like "Portugal was the first fully Christian country in Iberia" are profoundly wrong at several levels. "Fully Christian"? Muslims and Jews continued to live there for centuries. "First on the Iberian Peninsula? What is then Navarre, or Aragon or even Castile-Leon? Since he seems to be harking on 1249, then by the same token I assert the boundaries of Castile-Leon were "set" in 1248 and remained unchanged. Granada was not incorporated into it, but remained a separate entity. If you're going to be elastic with definitions of what constitutes a country, then what criteria is being applied? Portugal never saw its boundaries "finalized", and would continue expanding and carving out enclaves in Morocco well through the end of the 16th C. These were considered part of the country itself at the time. However you parse it, there is no way of making that statement even vaguely accurate without severely anachronistic acrobatics. I don't see the point of such statements. They add nothing and simply detract value and accuracy from the article. Walrasiad ( talk) 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Both: There were separate cultural identities in what is today Portugal, Galicia and Asturias way before the Visigoths and Muslims- those were even Pre-Roman, highly Celticized or Celtic. Portugal and Spain were formed as result of the Reconquista yes, but the differences were already there for many centuries. And yes, Portugal as a nation was formed not out of mere land-grabbing by the Christians but mainly out of identity awareness. Finally on the Moors & Jews figures: those populations were mainly European, native converts to Judaism during the late Roman period and to Islam after the Muslim invasions. Those numbers again were (and remain to this day) much higher in Spain... for the simple fact that Spain borders with North Africa. Try and "keep in the mix" as much as you want, the facts are undeniable either with quotes or no quotes on Wikipedia. Think the moral of the story here is quite simple: we agree to disagree. Melroross ( talk) 08:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Walrasiad now you have shown your true colours my friend: a Spaniard or Hispanic with a serious historical hangover, like many of your peer.
Portugal, Galicia and Asturias have for many centuries been pretty much the same culture and race and they still are. No matter how many "reliable sources" you and your mate (or alias Pinkbeast) try to invoke and distort here on Wikipedia.
I thank you for your message above- just proves what I noticed a couple of weeks ago: this article is Spanish propaganda trying to rid of the uncomfortable North African and Muslim heritage. What a load of nonsense you wrote just now. No further comment, thank you for the answer which speaks a thousand words
Melroross (
talk)
15:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Walrasiad Indeed, you take your delusions elsewhere my friend and rather contain them within your sphere of interest- no one who is educated enough will take your absurd rambling and comments here seriously anyway. And just to enlighten you I am neither a Portuguese nationalist, let alone Portuguese in case you assumed I was. And stop reversing my posts as politely requested before. Not trying to re-write History, but will not allow obscure, biased political agendas here. End of topic. Melroross ( talk) 07:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"Al-Andalus" was the name used for the larger Islamic polity in the Iberian peninsula:
I was unaware that the word "polity" had been used by anyone in regard to al-Andalus. In that regard, I was wrong. I learned something.
However, a polity is a "state" or a subordinate entity to a state (per the Wikipedia definition). If it was a province of the Umayyad-Damascus empire, so be it, I don't know much about that period. But in what sense was independent al-Andalus a state, or a part of a state? It didn't have: a government, a ruler or ruling body, a set of laws, an army. What aspects of a state or country did al-Andalus have?
By the way, Sepharad wasn't a polity either, and to my knowledge no one has said it was, and that even though it had laws and (rabbinical) courts. I mention this because of Corfis's title.
It was the caliphate of _Córdoba_, the emirate of whatever. What was al-Andalus if it wasn't a caliphate or an emirate? Not a kingdom or democracy or theocracy. There was no Andalusian government, was there?
So I stand on my statement that the name al-Andalus was a cultural or geographical term. Al-Andalus had no legal existence, that I am aware of, and the sources cited don't claim that it did.
Corfis (she's the editor, the author is Brann) links to a page that talks about a polity, but doesn't say that al-Andalus was that polity.
Arnold is talking about a polity, and it could have been better worded, but it is clear he is talking about the caliphate of Córdoba as the polity.
Remensnyder does clearly say that al-Andalus is a polity, but I think she's just ignorant.
I'd be glad to learn more if someone has any other evidence. deisenbe ( talk) 17:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
References
(Continuing the above...)
In the article es:El yihadismo en España (Jihadism in Spain) there's surprisingly little on the Muslim desire, or alleged Muslim desire, or desire of some Muslims, to re-Islamicize al-Andalus. There is a bit, but not much. And you'd think it would be there if it's anywhere. BTW, has anyone looked at the article in the Arabic WP? My Arabic's not up to that.
It's also not in es:Osama bin Laden or in es:Portal:al-Ándalus, that I can find anyway. It is in es:El Islam en España, but there's nothing new.
But in my humble opinion it deserves at least a casual mention somewhere in this article. There's a posting today on an ISIS video (without reference). That's it, and no doubt it'll be gone within a day. Currently Osama bin Laden is not even mentioned, and to the best of my fallible knowledge, he did talk about it. That alone deserves at least a mention.
Also BTW, I'm the one that started this whole topic, by writing the original paragraphs 28 Aug. 2014. If anyone's interested, this will show you what I originally wrote (which probably would not be what I would write today): [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Al-Andalus&type=revision&diff=623210860&oldid=623209515]. deisenbe ( talk) 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Today there is a medium long article in the Spanish newspaper 20minutos on this question: "Estado Islámico amenaza que España volverá a ser Al Andalus" (The Islamic State [ISIS or ISIL] threatens that Spain will again become al-Andalus). Within five years. The thrust of the article is that this is not a serious threat, it is really directed at internal propaganda and personnel needs, and it doesn't cost anything to put things out on the Internet or make videos. It talks of a second video (one of the deleted references in the WP article talks about the first one) in which they also threaten to conquer Rome. No comment needed, I hope. [1] deisenbe ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
My perspective it is still essentially the same as above. Though I'm still somewhat skeptical in general whether those desires are notable for this article, I might ok with it if the addition is based carefully worded (without being incorrect or misleading in detail) and based on high quality (preferably scholarly sources). The old text suggestions and sources however did not pass that threshold for reasons I've already explained in detail further up.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I figured out how to get the Arabic article on al-Andalus translated: [2]
There's nothing in it on any modern desire to reconquer al-Andalus. In fact parts of it are translations of the English article. There is a section on this desire under the Ottomans, but this is from the sixteenth century, is known today only by specialists, and is related to the moriscos. deisenbe ( talk) 23:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, if anyone else wants to pick this up later, I wasn't convinced by the "well, I don't like these sources" argument, I just don't have the time. Pinkbeast ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
While it obviously correct that none of the content was directly sourced via footnotes, it nevertheless was roughly correct as far as I can tell. The following sources might be helpful to re-add a new sourced version of it.
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al-Andalus. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al-Andalus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, beyond the fact that homosexuality was severely persecuted in Muslim Spain, as it was in Christian Spain, I would like to know where on earth there is an article on a civilization or political entity lasting many centuries which has an actual section devoted to homosexuality. Not even Ancient Greece article has it for gods sake. In what way was homosexuality a defining feature of Al Andalus, as compared to the rest of the Muslim world? It wasn't. Do we have a section on homosexuality in the article on Safavid Persia for example? No. It is non notable and does not merit a section. Its the equivalent of having a section on "olive oil" because people in Al Andalus consumed it. In no way, did homosexuality occur in Al Andalus in any way differently to the rest of the Muslim world. By the way, I note someone has reverted me accusing me of "homophobia" here, which is not cool at all. Asilah1981 ( talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is sharp practice at best, after an inconclusive talk page discussion, for an editor (back after a one week block for personal attacks, incidentally) to remove the section with the edit summary 'this should be transferred to a separate new article "Homosexuality in Al Andalus" WP:DUE', when in fact they appear to have no intention of actually transferring it to such a new article. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Carlstak, I disagree somewhat. The argument "there is a dearth of coverage of x" sounds a lot like online activism. I´m all for having an article and agree it is an interesting topic, but it´s an eyesore in the Al Andalus article. Wikipedia articles on political entities should be aligned on contents and, tbh, stories of homosexuality in Al Andalus were vastly exaggerated by Almoravid and Almohad rule as a justification of their conquest of the independent Taifas and contrasting their piety. It was further exaggerated by Christian reconquerors and. later on, during the orientalist imagery of Muslim Spain by more modern western authors. It does not feel serious if this article lays emphasis on these myths as a defining feature of Al Andalus when there is SO MUCH to cover in terms of culture, arts, poetry, science, language etc... Homosexuality is pervasive in every single society in the world. It was not "brought to the west" by Muslims/Africans/Middle Easterners - this is an old western myth which is bolstered by this section. Asilah1981 ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Carlstak, yeah look I´m not an expert on this topic, but linking homosexuality to culture tends to have political and/or orientalist undertones. There is no society without homosexuality, not Uganda, not Russia. I can see this homosexuality section being leveraged for a range of things. All I´m saying is extreme caution is required. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Since the discussion has restarted i'd like to reiterate my earlier point, that is the current version (although being better than earlier attempts) still looks a bit like cherry picking. There is nothing wrong with covering homosexual customs and attitudes inn Al-Andalus, but this should (ideally) be done as part of a section covering sexuality in Al Andalus overall, just covering the aspect of homosexuality does raise the question of cherry picking and WP:DUE.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like for the user Carlstak to kindly fix any mistake they find without reverting to later versions and removing useful information they deem as "Not improvements". Tarook97 ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Andalus. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://libro.uca.edu/ics/emspain.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So, so far the title of this section has been:
I don't really care about the leading "The" and personally would regard versions with and without it as interchangeable (so would gladly go along with Carlstak's desire to remove it).
I much prefer the versions that actually say explicitly what it's the fall _of_ - no. 3, 4, 6, and 8 in the list above. No. 2 leaves one wondering at first if it's a list of three separate things.
I don't really agree (per an edit summary) that this "Section discuss and covers background information on the emirate, not just its fall". Four sentences in it's paying tribute, and next sentence leads up to a "final assault"; in my view the section is about the fall and the preceding information is there only so we know what's falling. Hence I prefer no. 6 or no. 3, and by making the title pertain to (the) fall of the Emirate of Granada we avoid the issue in the previous pararaph.
I welcome comments from other editors.
I also think in view of the section being about the fall that the image actually depicting something related to the fall was superior. The edit summary saying it was "moved" to another article seemed slightly surreal - it's not as if we have only one copy of it. Pinkbeast ( talk) 14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I added more information about the emirate, making the section solely about its fall and disregarding its 250+ years of rule is inequitable and preposterous. The title as it is now is fine with me. Tarook97 ( talk) 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
An image of the Alhambra and a description of its background are much more felicitous and informative than González's painting as the section covers the reign of the emirate far more than its fall since the last additions. Tarook97 ( talk) 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you know what consensus means, and by 'your position' I'm assuming you mean what I posted less than 2 hours ago? Stop reverting or be reported, your choice. Tarook97 ( talk) 02:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The painting placed where it currently is works well as the accompanying text is on the fall of Granada. It is odd, however, that there is no good image of the Alhambra included. The page is at its limit of images without resorting to a gallery, though. I would suggest placing the image that Tarook97 has been adding in the Culture section, replacing the detail of the arabesque, which is not as useful, especially since arabesques are not discussed in the text. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The Culture section has a "needs expansion" tag for good reason. I am adding a brief section on Art and architecture, focusing on Alhambra. This text is copied and/or adapted from the Alhambra article ( edit history here), and sourced to EB1911. The "needs expansion" tag remains, and better sourcing is needed as well, but at least we now include a cursory summary of the main article. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Andalus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see how an alternative spelling of of an Anglicized word can be a reason to remove the map, considering the map we have currently is misdated (states the date as circa 1000 AD, while showing the Banu Qasi territory) and duplicated (identical to the one in this section). An alternative form of the word "Caliphate" is not a really an issue, since the spelling of words of Arabic origin is often arbitrary e.g. Hezbollah (see Romanization of Arabic). Swazzo ( talk) 17:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear
Kansas Bear thank you for your advice, and I really hope that we can discus with each others. I do not want to start an edit war as you said, and if my edits are useless you should explain why. I think it's important to point out that that the caliphate of Cordoba, Emirates of Cordoba and Umayyad caliphate are Arabs, and they are considered arab and no need to mention sources since other articles of Wikipedia say that too, not to mention the last dynasty that ruled Al Andalus was also Arab which is the Nasrid dynasty, so there is nothing wrong in what I said.
And for the taifa part, I think I wanted to expand this part more in order to give the reader a general view about this period since it is very complicated and some readers can not or do not want to read the whole article about taifa so they want to know general information about it, and I mentioned that there are two major taifa during this period and I talked about the major dynasties as well. Actually there are also Berber taifa and dynasties I wanted to talk about since two berber dynasties were influential during this period but I was shocked to see my previous edits deleted for no reason.
so please let's discus together and let you know that I do not want to go into edit war but you also should discuss with me in order to not make any troubles.
Kansas Bear <---
CU blocked
sock, see
SPI Ehsan iq
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
As of 2017-07-23, the second paragraph begins, "Following the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, al-Andalus, then at its greatest extent, was divided into five administrative units," and then proceeds to list nine geographical regions each with its own article. Worse, one of these nine ( Galicia) looks like a subset of another ( León). If I had to guess right now, I would group the nine as follows:
I don't know if this is correct. I think it would be easier to read if someone who knew would put it in a form like this. (Of course, it would be even better if it were accompanied by a map. However, preparing such a map could easily be more work than it's worth.)
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a little misleading the way it is phrased. They have nothing to do with the later partitions by the Christian states. But the original poster's guess is not too far off. The original five administrative regions (rasatiq) of 711 correspond to
But the administrative structure was revised and changed repeatedly. At one point there was a division into ten "climates" (iqlim). In the late 9th & 10th C., the administrative divisions were in some fifteen or so districts (kura, pl. kuwar, or "cora" in Spanish), plus three or four vast marches. Wiki Commons has some maps of the various provinces that we could use Maps of al-Andalus (although some of these maps are conjectural - my lists of 9th/10th C. kuwar do not correspond exactly to some of those depicted on these maps. But there are myriad of lists of provinces depending on the source) Here is another external map map that could be replicated. Walrasiad ( talk) 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Elizium23 You have just reverted my addition of Jews as important cultural group in al- Andalus, along with Christians and Muslims. As there is ample evidence of this in all serious sources, I don't understand why you don't want to mention them here. Munfarid1 ([[User talk:Munfarid1|talk] 09:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
"Glick 1999" occurs twice in the footnotes but what this publication actually is is never clarified. It does not occur in the bibliography. Jay Schro ( talk) 22:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The gallery provides an important resource to this article. Al-Andalus is an excellent venue for showing the wide range of superb moorish architecture in the region. I reverted the edit that removed it, and am bringing the matter here for more discussion. Pinging David notMD. If there is a specific policy on appropriate number of photos, please post a link here. Thank you. Netherzone ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The footprint of 800 years is not invisible, but I have questions over the presentation of the gushing legacy section. Great generalisations and weasel words are backed up by a BBC page, encyclopedia Britannica and the Amazon listing of a whole book. Is al Andalus really held up as an example for a country 1300-700 years later to be like? By whom? Does anyone seriously say we should be like ancient countries, do even classics professors think we should live like the Romans did? The cite bombing of vague sources does not seem to justify these audacious statements Unknown Temptation ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence about it being held up as an example for modern countries due to the vagueness of who's suggesting this Unknown Temptation ( talk) 04:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noted that User:SirFleimingtonz, in addition to writing the problematic "Legacy" section from the previous post, is also behind a large edit to the history section which now makes it read like either a tabloid newspaper's sports report or the TV guide summary of a kids' adventure show ("Inspired by this unheard of action, Abd al Rahman joined in the fun and declared himself caliph in 929", "As things looked bad, they were about to get worse, because around this time multiple local arab lords began to revolt, including one Kurayb ibn Khaldun who ended up conquering Seville", "When Muhammad died, he would be succeeded by the worst emir in the history of Al Andalus, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi whos power barely reached outside of the city of Cordoba", using pop history and blog sources. I'm just amazed that this edit on an important era of history has been able to stand for so long. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 14:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mc1917.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jvaughan219. Peer reviewers:
Tul13791.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Albr6394.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, Granada wasn’t always a vassalage, as Muley Hacen and his successor rejected tribute. Also Musa bin Nusayr conquered Asturias in the north in 714. The whole north was conquered and Munuza (Umayyad leader) was appointed its governor. Only MANY years later was the kingdom of Asturias founded. The Arabs conquered the whole of Iberia. 2A04:4A43:4DAF:C3D6:917:85E4:D44D:E687 ( talk) 14:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Recent edits by Melroross have fairly radically changed the way Portugal is presented in the article, without adding any citations.
Even if the obvious errors are corrected (eg changing the order of Spain and Portugal to not match the quoted source being translated), it seems to me there's a pretty big axe being ground here (eg the removal of Category:Islam in Portugal from the article, when manifestly Al-Andalus is one of the most significant events in the history of Islam in Portugal; the dating of the end of the Portuguese Reconquista to military conquest, but the Spanish Reconquista to a final expulsion of Moriscos...).
I'd like to invite them to explain their edits in more detail, referring to specific citations. Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Att.
Pinkbeast:
Al Andalus influence in Spain versus Portugal
Dear fellow "Pinkbeast" user: We will both agree that Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual and accurate virtual encyclopedia. I am afraid to say your continual reversals appear to reflect a biased opinion on this topic. I am not trying to re-write History unlike you appear to insinuate; and rather let the facts speak for themselves. Should you however feel the need to find reliable sources/quotes, there are plenty of documents on the subject. Your corrections/views paint both Portugal and Spain under "the same brush". That is simplistic and inaccurate. The mere fact that there has been a border/cultural divide between Portugal and Spain for almost 1,000 years is more than enough reason not to place the 2 countries under the same category. Plus here are some facts which make ALL the difference on the Muslim influence topic:
Portugal:
Spain:
Best regards, ( talk) Melroross ( talk) 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Melroross
Fact.
Period.
Finally I might ask- are you familiar with Spain and Portugal and what authority do you have on this topic for that matter too? I am familiar enough to know what I am writing here. You are kindly requested to stop reverting my entries. Thank you. Melroross ( talk) 07:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pinkbeast. I've taken a look at Melroross's proposed changes, and they are poorly worded and misleading. In particular, statements like "Portugal was the first fully Christian country in Iberia" are profoundly wrong at several levels. "Fully Christian"? Muslims and Jews continued to live there for centuries. "First on the Iberian Peninsula? What is then Navarre, or Aragon or even Castile-Leon? Since he seems to be harking on 1249, then by the same token I assert the boundaries of Castile-Leon were "set" in 1248 and remained unchanged. Granada was not incorporated into it, but remained a separate entity. If you're going to be elastic with definitions of what constitutes a country, then what criteria is being applied? Portugal never saw its boundaries "finalized", and would continue expanding and carving out enclaves in Morocco well through the end of the 16th C. These were considered part of the country itself at the time. However you parse it, there is no way of making that statement even vaguely accurate without severely anachronistic acrobatics. I don't see the point of such statements. They add nothing and simply detract value and accuracy from the article. Walrasiad ( talk) 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Both: There were separate cultural identities in what is today Portugal, Galicia and Asturias way before the Visigoths and Muslims- those were even Pre-Roman, highly Celticized or Celtic. Portugal and Spain were formed as result of the Reconquista yes, but the differences were already there for many centuries. And yes, Portugal as a nation was formed not out of mere land-grabbing by the Christians but mainly out of identity awareness. Finally on the Moors & Jews figures: those populations were mainly European, native converts to Judaism during the late Roman period and to Islam after the Muslim invasions. Those numbers again were (and remain to this day) much higher in Spain... for the simple fact that Spain borders with North Africa. Try and "keep in the mix" as much as you want, the facts are undeniable either with quotes or no quotes on Wikipedia. Think the moral of the story here is quite simple: we agree to disagree. Melroross ( talk) 08:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Walrasiad now you have shown your true colours my friend: a Spaniard or Hispanic with a serious historical hangover, like many of your peer.
Portugal, Galicia and Asturias have for many centuries been pretty much the same culture and race and they still are. No matter how many "reliable sources" you and your mate (or alias Pinkbeast) try to invoke and distort here on Wikipedia.
I thank you for your message above- just proves what I noticed a couple of weeks ago: this article is Spanish propaganda trying to rid of the uncomfortable North African and Muslim heritage. What a load of nonsense you wrote just now. No further comment, thank you for the answer which speaks a thousand words
Melroross (
talk)
15:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Walrasiad Indeed, you take your delusions elsewhere my friend and rather contain them within your sphere of interest- no one who is educated enough will take your absurd rambling and comments here seriously anyway. And just to enlighten you I am neither a Portuguese nationalist, let alone Portuguese in case you assumed I was. And stop reversing my posts as politely requested before. Not trying to re-write History, but will not allow obscure, biased political agendas here. End of topic. Melroross ( talk) 07:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"Al-Andalus" was the name used for the larger Islamic polity in the Iberian peninsula:
I was unaware that the word "polity" had been used by anyone in regard to al-Andalus. In that regard, I was wrong. I learned something.
However, a polity is a "state" or a subordinate entity to a state (per the Wikipedia definition). If it was a province of the Umayyad-Damascus empire, so be it, I don't know much about that period. But in what sense was independent al-Andalus a state, or a part of a state? It didn't have: a government, a ruler or ruling body, a set of laws, an army. What aspects of a state or country did al-Andalus have?
By the way, Sepharad wasn't a polity either, and to my knowledge no one has said it was, and that even though it had laws and (rabbinical) courts. I mention this because of Corfis's title.
It was the caliphate of _Córdoba_, the emirate of whatever. What was al-Andalus if it wasn't a caliphate or an emirate? Not a kingdom or democracy or theocracy. There was no Andalusian government, was there?
So I stand on my statement that the name al-Andalus was a cultural or geographical term. Al-Andalus had no legal existence, that I am aware of, and the sources cited don't claim that it did.
Corfis (she's the editor, the author is Brann) links to a page that talks about a polity, but doesn't say that al-Andalus was that polity.
Arnold is talking about a polity, and it could have been better worded, but it is clear he is talking about the caliphate of Córdoba as the polity.
Remensnyder does clearly say that al-Andalus is a polity, but I think she's just ignorant.
I'd be glad to learn more if someone has any other evidence. deisenbe ( talk) 17:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
References
(Continuing the above...)
In the article es:El yihadismo en España (Jihadism in Spain) there's surprisingly little on the Muslim desire, or alleged Muslim desire, or desire of some Muslims, to re-Islamicize al-Andalus. There is a bit, but not much. And you'd think it would be there if it's anywhere. BTW, has anyone looked at the article in the Arabic WP? My Arabic's not up to that.
It's also not in es:Osama bin Laden or in es:Portal:al-Ándalus, that I can find anyway. It is in es:El Islam en España, but there's nothing new.
But in my humble opinion it deserves at least a casual mention somewhere in this article. There's a posting today on an ISIS video (without reference). That's it, and no doubt it'll be gone within a day. Currently Osama bin Laden is not even mentioned, and to the best of my fallible knowledge, he did talk about it. That alone deserves at least a mention.
Also BTW, I'm the one that started this whole topic, by writing the original paragraphs 28 Aug. 2014. If anyone's interested, this will show you what I originally wrote (which probably would not be what I would write today): [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Al-Andalus&type=revision&diff=623210860&oldid=623209515]. deisenbe ( talk) 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Today there is a medium long article in the Spanish newspaper 20minutos on this question: "Estado Islámico amenaza que España volverá a ser Al Andalus" (The Islamic State [ISIS or ISIL] threatens that Spain will again become al-Andalus). Within five years. The thrust of the article is that this is not a serious threat, it is really directed at internal propaganda and personnel needs, and it doesn't cost anything to put things out on the Internet or make videos. It talks of a second video (one of the deleted references in the WP article talks about the first one) in which they also threaten to conquer Rome. No comment needed, I hope. [1] deisenbe ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
My perspective it is still essentially the same as above. Though I'm still somewhat skeptical in general whether those desires are notable for this article, I might ok with it if the addition is based carefully worded (without being incorrect or misleading in detail) and based on high quality (preferably scholarly sources). The old text suggestions and sources however did not pass that threshold for reasons I've already explained in detail further up.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I figured out how to get the Arabic article on al-Andalus translated: [2]
There's nothing in it on any modern desire to reconquer al-Andalus. In fact parts of it are translations of the English article. There is a section on this desire under the Ottomans, but this is from the sixteenth century, is known today only by specialists, and is related to the moriscos. deisenbe ( talk) 23:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, if anyone else wants to pick this up later, I wasn't convinced by the "well, I don't like these sources" argument, I just don't have the time. Pinkbeast ( talk) 14:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
While it obviously correct that none of the content was directly sourced via footnotes, it nevertheless was roughly correct as far as I can tell. The following sources might be helpful to re-add a new sourced version of it.
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Al-Andalus. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al-Andalus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, beyond the fact that homosexuality was severely persecuted in Muslim Spain, as it was in Christian Spain, I would like to know where on earth there is an article on a civilization or political entity lasting many centuries which has an actual section devoted to homosexuality. Not even Ancient Greece article has it for gods sake. In what way was homosexuality a defining feature of Al Andalus, as compared to the rest of the Muslim world? It wasn't. Do we have a section on homosexuality in the article on Safavid Persia for example? No. It is non notable and does not merit a section. Its the equivalent of having a section on "olive oil" because people in Al Andalus consumed it. In no way, did homosexuality occur in Al Andalus in any way differently to the rest of the Muslim world. By the way, I note someone has reverted me accusing me of "homophobia" here, which is not cool at all. Asilah1981 ( talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is sharp practice at best, after an inconclusive talk page discussion, for an editor (back after a one week block for personal attacks, incidentally) to remove the section with the edit summary 'this should be transferred to a separate new article "Homosexuality in Al Andalus" WP:DUE', when in fact they appear to have no intention of actually transferring it to such a new article. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Carlstak, I disagree somewhat. The argument "there is a dearth of coverage of x" sounds a lot like online activism. I´m all for having an article and agree it is an interesting topic, but it´s an eyesore in the Al Andalus article. Wikipedia articles on political entities should be aligned on contents and, tbh, stories of homosexuality in Al Andalus were vastly exaggerated by Almoravid and Almohad rule as a justification of their conquest of the independent Taifas and contrasting their piety. It was further exaggerated by Christian reconquerors and. later on, during the orientalist imagery of Muslim Spain by more modern western authors. It does not feel serious if this article lays emphasis on these myths as a defining feature of Al Andalus when there is SO MUCH to cover in terms of culture, arts, poetry, science, language etc... Homosexuality is pervasive in every single society in the world. It was not "brought to the west" by Muslims/Africans/Middle Easterners - this is an old western myth which is bolstered by this section. Asilah1981 ( talk) 16:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Carlstak, yeah look I´m not an expert on this topic, but linking homosexuality to culture tends to have political and/or orientalist undertones. There is no society without homosexuality, not Uganda, not Russia. I can see this homosexuality section being leveraged for a range of things. All I´m saying is extreme caution is required. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Since the discussion has restarted i'd like to reiterate my earlier point, that is the current version (although being better than earlier attempts) still looks a bit like cherry picking. There is nothing wrong with covering homosexual customs and attitudes inn Al-Andalus, but this should (ideally) be done as part of a section covering sexuality in Al Andalus overall, just covering the aspect of homosexuality does raise the question of cherry picking and WP:DUE.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like for the user Carlstak to kindly fix any mistake they find without reverting to later versions and removing useful information they deem as "Not improvements". Tarook97 ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Andalus. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://libro.uca.edu/ics/emspain.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So, so far the title of this section has been:
I don't really care about the leading "The" and personally would regard versions with and without it as interchangeable (so would gladly go along with Carlstak's desire to remove it).
I much prefer the versions that actually say explicitly what it's the fall _of_ - no. 3, 4, 6, and 8 in the list above. No. 2 leaves one wondering at first if it's a list of three separate things.
I don't really agree (per an edit summary) that this "Section discuss and covers background information on the emirate, not just its fall". Four sentences in it's paying tribute, and next sentence leads up to a "final assault"; in my view the section is about the fall and the preceding information is there only so we know what's falling. Hence I prefer no. 6 or no. 3, and by making the title pertain to (the) fall of the Emirate of Granada we avoid the issue in the previous pararaph.
I welcome comments from other editors.
I also think in view of the section being about the fall that the image actually depicting something related to the fall was superior. The edit summary saying it was "moved" to another article seemed slightly surreal - it's not as if we have only one copy of it. Pinkbeast ( talk) 14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I added more information about the emirate, making the section solely about its fall and disregarding its 250+ years of rule is inequitable and preposterous. The title as it is now is fine with me. Tarook97 ( talk) 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
An image of the Alhambra and a description of its background are much more felicitous and informative than González's painting as the section covers the reign of the emirate far more than its fall since the last additions. Tarook97 ( talk) 00:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you know what consensus means, and by 'your position' I'm assuming you mean what I posted less than 2 hours ago? Stop reverting or be reported, your choice. Tarook97 ( talk) 02:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The painting placed where it currently is works well as the accompanying text is on the fall of Granada. It is odd, however, that there is no good image of the Alhambra included. The page is at its limit of images without resorting to a gallery, though. I would suggest placing the image that Tarook97 has been adding in the Culture section, replacing the detail of the arabesque, which is not as useful, especially since arabesques are not discussed in the text. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The Culture section has a "needs expansion" tag for good reason. I am adding a brief section on Art and architecture, focusing on Alhambra. This text is copied and/or adapted from the Alhambra article ( edit history here), and sourced to EB1911. The "needs expansion" tag remains, and better sourcing is needed as well, but at least we now include a cursory summary of the main article. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Andalus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see how an alternative spelling of of an Anglicized word can be a reason to remove the map, considering the map we have currently is misdated (states the date as circa 1000 AD, while showing the Banu Qasi territory) and duplicated (identical to the one in this section). An alternative form of the word "Caliphate" is not a really an issue, since the spelling of words of Arabic origin is often arbitrary e.g. Hezbollah (see Romanization of Arabic). Swazzo ( talk) 17:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear
Kansas Bear thank you for your advice, and I really hope that we can discus with each others. I do not want to start an edit war as you said, and if my edits are useless you should explain why. I think it's important to point out that that the caliphate of Cordoba, Emirates of Cordoba and Umayyad caliphate are Arabs, and they are considered arab and no need to mention sources since other articles of Wikipedia say that too, not to mention the last dynasty that ruled Al Andalus was also Arab which is the Nasrid dynasty, so there is nothing wrong in what I said.
And for the taifa part, I think I wanted to expand this part more in order to give the reader a general view about this period since it is very complicated and some readers can not or do not want to read the whole article about taifa so they want to know general information about it, and I mentioned that there are two major taifa during this period and I talked about the major dynasties as well. Actually there are also Berber taifa and dynasties I wanted to talk about since two berber dynasties were influential during this period but I was shocked to see my previous edits deleted for no reason.
so please let's discus together and let you know that I do not want to go into edit war but you also should discuss with me in order to not make any troubles.
Kansas Bear <---
CU blocked
sock, see
SPI Ehsan iq
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
As of 2017-07-23, the second paragraph begins, "Following the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, al-Andalus, then at its greatest extent, was divided into five administrative units," and then proceeds to list nine geographical regions each with its own article. Worse, one of these nine ( Galicia) looks like a subset of another ( León). If I had to guess right now, I would group the nine as follows:
I don't know if this is correct. I think it would be easier to read if someone who knew would put it in a form like this. (Of course, it would be even better if it were accompanied by a map. However, preparing such a map could easily be more work than it's worth.)
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a little misleading the way it is phrased. They have nothing to do with the later partitions by the Christian states. But the original poster's guess is not too far off. The original five administrative regions (rasatiq) of 711 correspond to
But the administrative structure was revised and changed repeatedly. At one point there was a division into ten "climates" (iqlim). In the late 9th & 10th C., the administrative divisions were in some fifteen or so districts (kura, pl. kuwar, or "cora" in Spanish), plus three or four vast marches. Wiki Commons has some maps of the various provinces that we could use Maps of al-Andalus (although some of these maps are conjectural - my lists of 9th/10th C. kuwar do not correspond exactly to some of those depicted on these maps. But there are myriad of lists of provinces depending on the source) Here is another external map map that could be replicated. Walrasiad ( talk) 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Elizium23 You have just reverted my addition of Jews as important cultural group in al- Andalus, along with Christians and Muslims. As there is ample evidence of this in all serious sources, I don't understand why you don't want to mention them here. Munfarid1 ([[User talk:Munfarid1|talk] 09:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
"Glick 1999" occurs twice in the footnotes but what this publication actually is is never clarified. It does not occur in the bibliography. Jay Schro ( talk) 22:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The gallery provides an important resource to this article. Al-Andalus is an excellent venue for showing the wide range of superb moorish architecture in the region. I reverted the edit that removed it, and am bringing the matter here for more discussion. Pinging David notMD. If there is a specific policy on appropriate number of photos, please post a link here. Thank you. Netherzone ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The footprint of 800 years is not invisible, but I have questions over the presentation of the gushing legacy section. Great generalisations and weasel words are backed up by a BBC page, encyclopedia Britannica and the Amazon listing of a whole book. Is al Andalus really held up as an example for a country 1300-700 years later to be like? By whom? Does anyone seriously say we should be like ancient countries, do even classics professors think we should live like the Romans did? The cite bombing of vague sources does not seem to justify these audacious statements Unknown Temptation ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence about it being held up as an example for modern countries due to the vagueness of who's suggesting this Unknown Temptation ( talk) 04:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noted that User:SirFleimingtonz, in addition to writing the problematic "Legacy" section from the previous post, is also behind a large edit to the history section which now makes it read like either a tabloid newspaper's sports report or the TV guide summary of a kids' adventure show ("Inspired by this unheard of action, Abd al Rahman joined in the fun and declared himself caliph in 929", "As things looked bad, they were about to get worse, because around this time multiple local arab lords began to revolt, including one Kurayb ibn Khaldun who ended up conquering Seville", "When Muhammad died, he would be succeeded by the worst emir in the history of Al Andalus, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi whos power barely reached outside of the city of Cordoba", using pop history and blog sources. I'm just amazed that this edit on an important era of history has been able to stand for so long. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 14:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mc1917.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jvaughan219. Peer reviewers:
Tul13791.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Albr6394.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, Granada wasn’t always a vassalage, as Muley Hacen and his successor rejected tribute. Also Musa bin Nusayr conquered Asturias in the north in 714. The whole north was conquered and Munuza (Umayyad leader) was appointed its governor. Only MANY years later was the kingdom of Asturias founded. The Arabs conquered the whole of Iberia. 2A04:4A43:4DAF:C3D6:917:85E4:D44D:E687 ( talk) 14:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)