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 |
Well, now that you have achieved a consensus about some of the parts of the title of this article, let me introduce another question: There is no reason for calling Iberia the lands conquered by the Moorish in 711, for several reasons:
Therefore, I think that the title should be changed to Umayyad Conquest of Hispania, if we prefer a historical emphasis in the title, or the longer Umayyad Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, if we prefer a geographical emphasis. I rather prefer the former, that gives more information about the historical moment. any opinion?-- Garcilaso 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are objections. I'm removing the sentence(s) about Charles Martel. This article is about the Umayyad invasion of Hispania, whereby the Battle of Poitiers is extraneous. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The article now states:
What are available are a number of stories that might more properly be described as legends. The manner of King Roderic's ascent to the throne is unclear; there are accounts of dispute with the son of his predecessor Wittiza, and accounts that Wittiza's family fled to Tangier and solicited help from there. Numismatic evidence suggests some division of royal authority, with several coinages being struck. There is also a story of one Julian, count of Ceuta, whose wife or daughter was raped by Roderic and who also sought help from Tangier. However, these stories are legendary and not included in the earliest accounts of the conquest.[2]
I think Julian is dismissed way too lightly here. He is mentioned in the earliest Arab sources as far as I know. He also has a separate detailed page of his on wikipedia. Any ideas how to rewrite this? Bazuz ( talk) 21:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
My comment is in regards to the angle of this section. In my surface scratching research (I'm just familiarizing myself with this), I came across this text on the Julian, Count of Ceuta page (under the Rift with Roderic section) itself: "...Later ballads and chronicles inflated this tale, Muslims making her out an innocent virgin who was ravished, Christians making her a seductress. In Spanish she came to be known as la Cava Rumía....". Even though the page indicates that it is merely one story, it fails to acknowledge what the other stories are. I do see that sources are lacking so in any event, these two pages need to be reconciled to avoid conflicting with each other. Saltybalty ( talk) 06:53, 8 June 2015
Here are some quotations from the section that motivated me to insert the tag:
— Boruch Baum ( talk) 09:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"Islamic invasion of Iberia" gets 16 Google hits. "Islamic conquest of Iberia" gets 213. Please move the page back. Furthermore, the new title doesn't go in according to WP:NPOV, not matter how true you think it is. — Khoikhoi 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Threshold 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an invasion because Moorish occupied the Iberian peninsula, killing a great part of the population and subjugated the natives for 7 centuries.
Do you prefer to call it invitation to drink a cup of tea? You are not entitled to distort the history of a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 ( talk) 18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 ( talk) 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Umayyad conquest of Hispania. 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.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you do not even try to check the source I posted, you immediately deleted my sources.
Several Arab-Muslim historians mention that Tariq would have decided by himself (which would cause the anger of his superiors) to land in Spain, and this must be taken into account
See here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad
the French wikipedia article is completely sourced.
Sorry for my bad English, I am Portuguese.
Marcel Baron 14 January 2018 13:57 (UTC)
@ Iñaki LL: your edit summery 'Rv fully sourced info...' is strange since I only added further referenced content and did not remove the sourced info added by Marcel. Is there a specific reason for your removal of the sourced content I added? Regards - Swazzo ( talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Iñaki LL: I also took a look at the source added by Marcel and it does not say anything about any Caliphs. It instead refers to his wali. Don't get me wrong, Collins is well-respected historian, but I think it's fair to include differing information from other reliable sources. Swazzo ( talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What about Was a Time When... the Moors Ruled Spain, p.17? or Past and Present, Chapter 7. The Islamic World, 800-1300, Tariq ibn Ziyad? Swazzo ( talk) 02:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition. I was referring to the location of the info since the ebook does not provide any page numbers. Swazzo ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
A slip on my part, I thought that a "Berber army under Arab leadership" would suffice. Can we cite Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition? Swazzo ( talk) 08:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Iñaki LL: please tell me, what do you find faulty in the sentence:
During the caliphate of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad disembarked in early 711 in Gibraltar at the head of an army consisting of Berbers (north-western Africa).
The sentence does not mention or imply that the Umayyad conquest was a premeditated plan in any way, shape, or form, it simply states that it took place during the reign of Al Walid I. Also, a source has to actually support its adjacent claim and far more than 'Forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad' is cited and quoted. I moved the source to a relevant section where the event is discussed in detail. Regards - Swazzo ( talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not remove the source. I only moved it to the invasion section and added the quoted material. Placing it next to 'forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad' seems flawed since the source covers far more than just that. Swazzo ( talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Even though this is WP:BLUE and WP:POPE, I have added a source stating that the Umayyad conquest took place during the reign of Al-Walid I. Swazzo ( talk) 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The policies you keep citing do not apply. Considering the article is titled the Umayyad Conquest of Hispania, it's only appropriate to list the Umayyad caliph whose reign saw the conquest occur in the lead section. Every single claim in the sentence is referenced and nothing collides. I added a reliable source yet you removed it. This is a simple case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Swazzo ( talk) 09:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I've discussed the edits with the user for more than enough. I've been accused for removing sources when I only moved them, meanwhile, Iñaki LL actually removes a source and nothing is said about that. Swazzo ( talk) 12:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
User Robert McClenon, may I kindly have your opinion on the matter? User NeilN asked me to provide a quote from the source which I did on my talk page. Swazzo ( talk) 22:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Here is the quote from the source:
User Iñaki LL claims the cited sentence "During the caliphate of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad disembarked in early 711 in Gibraltar at the head of an army consisting of Berbers (north-western Africa). [1] [2]" is causing colliding and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Swazzo ( talk) 00:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Swazzo - I do not entirely understand, but I think that you are avoiding constructive discussion, and I am not sure why you are asking me at all. I was not involved in the discussion about edits to this article until a request was made at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The volunteers at that noticeboard and other editors waited for you to make a statement, and then that thread was closed. I have not been editing this article and am not familiar with the dispute. (I am aware that the invasion began a 750-year war, the Reconquista.) I am not sure what matter I am being asked my opinion about, and I am not sure that I have an opinion, and I am not sure why I am being asked for my opinion. You say that you provided a quote on your talk page. As User:NeilN reminds you, the place to discuss the article is here, the article talk page, and providing a quote on your talk page is a diversion. If you wish to edit this article, discuss the edits here, not somewhere else, and discuss them with other editors who are familiar with the discussion here. It should not be necessary to ask me for my opinion, but my opinion at this time is that you are wasting my time, the time of the other editors, and the time of NeilN. If you engage in any more distracting or diversionary tactics, I will file a report at WP:ANI to ask that you be topic-banned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
Re this edit: [8]
The text before you edited read: " The last wave of expulsions from Spain of the native population of Muslim descent took place in 1614." As the link makes clear, this refers to expulsion of established ("native") denizens of Spain who were of Moorish descent ("moriscos"). These were Christians who had lived for generations in Spain. They were native in the same sense that any other long-standing population of Spain (Basques, Celts, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Goths, Jews) were native. You are native of a place if you are born there, certainly if your ancestors have lived there for generations.
Your replacement text: " The last wave of expulsions of Muslims from Spain by native population took place in 1614." This refers to Muslims, though the moriscos were not Muslim but Christian, and implies that they were not themselves "native". This is incorrect. Indeed, the moriscos included many who were descended from the pre-Muslim population, and in any event, the rulers who promulgated the expulsion had ancestry of far more recent Spanish origin than the moriscos.
I agree that the original text is awkward, but my replacement text (" The last wave of expulsions of Spaniards of Muslim descent took place in 1614.") reflects the sense of the original, while yours does not.
-- Elphion ( talk) 16:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I intend to rework this page substantially. The problem is that the detailed accounts of the invasion are essential legends written hundreds of years later. None of the the stuff about Julian is remotely contemporary, for example. I propose to start by talking about what we actually know, and then split off the later inventions and describe them as such. We also need to talk about the analysis of whether the invasion was intentional, or just an unusually large raid that got lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bge20 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment. Even though my class assignment does not require me to go beyond editing in my sandbox, I will continue to engage with this page intellectually. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dramkis (
talk •
contribs)
04:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions the Muslim population not being taxed under Umayyad rule.
Moreover, al-Hurr restored lands to their previous Christian landowners, which may have added greatly to the revenue of the Umayyad governors and the caliph of Damascus, since only non-Muslims were subject to taxation.
Is there a source for this ? What about Zakat ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.235.43 ( talk) 01:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Just taking a cursory look at this article, I noticed that it does not discuss the formation of the Marca Hispanica. That seems an oversight, yes? I would have thought the formation of Marca Hispanica, would be the significant event marking the end of the Umayyad expansion. At the very least a "See also" would seem warranted? Bdushaw ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The background section as of right now moves from a paragraph discussing the lack of contemporary sources for the conquest to the fact that King Roderic's ascension to the Visigothic throne was contentious and chronicled poorly. In terms of a linking paragraph, how much detail should be given? Presumably, a basic mention that Hispania was, prior to the conquest, controlled by Visigothic tribes (including King Roderic), but beyond that, what is necessary? Is a description of problems within the Visigothic kingdom also necessary?
-- Apkrishel ( talk) 01:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Apkrishel.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit [9] reverted the substition of "Flag of Umayyad.svg" for "White flag 3 to 2.svg". The former seems preferable, as it has a light border indicating that there is something there, while the latter results in a patch of blank white space. With the former it's much clearer what is going on, and no reason was given for the reversion. -- Elphion ( talk) 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Dramkis/sandbox (marked bold/italic), incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed - with a caveat. There were two separate issues that both supporters and opposers seemed to tackle distinctly and independently: who did the conquering, and who got conquered.
1. Consensus to use "Muslim" over "Umayyad" was emphatically found per common name, recognizability, consistency, etc. The NGrams offered were decisive, as well. Other possibilities (well, basically just "Arab") were considered, but the consistently preferred title was "Muslim", which was the most-attested in reliable sources. "Arab" remains a reasonable alternative to this title, however.
2. The more interesting and difficult question was the final word of the article title. "Spain" was preferred by a mild majority, but many reasonable objections were held. It's true that we follow the sources and it's true that we tend to title historical articles based on how the area was called at the time, and there was a fierce (though quite polite) discussion about what exactly that common name for the landmass at that time is or was. Even some of the people who opposed "Muslim" thought that "Hispania" was not quite the right object of the prepositional phrase. While a weak consensus for "Spain" was found, I recommend a further move request to specifically examine the possibility of "Iberia", which was suggested by a few and which encountered only a small amount of resistance, but which also didn't enjoy widespread acceptance. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Vacated former close; see related discussion on closer's talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. First and foremost, I'll mention: a variety of different title permutations were discussed in this RM, but the only proposals to receive any significant degree of support were (1) the proposed title and (2) the existing article title. Thus, my closure summary will focus on arguments that pertain to the elements "Umayyad", "Muslim", "Hispania", and "Spain". A variety of arguments were leveled throughout this RM, and the main points of discussion were as follows:
On the whole, most of the disputes around different facets of titling proved to be intractable. I ultimately find that this discussion resulted in no consensus for any title. The title that would come closest to achieving consensus would probably be "Muslim conquest of Hispania", but I don't feel that the weight of argument would justify a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS move to that title. Instead, the best way to handle this lack of consensus is to remain at the long-term stable title of Umayyad conquest of Hispania. ( non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Umayyad conquest of Hispania → Muslim conquest of Spain – This is easily the most WP:COMMONNAME in book sources for this event in history. According to Ngram viewer it is more than twice as common as "Arab conquest of Spain", "Muslim conquest of Iberia" or "Moorish conquest of Spain", whereas the current title does not register at all on Ngram Viewer - not once - and there's nothing on Google Books either. I've also scanned in other names such as "Moorish conquest of Iberia" or "Arab conquest of Iberia" - they are recorded as uncommon - while all the other options including those with "Hispania" also fail to register. As an encyclopaedia we should follow the majority of WP:RS, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning other names commonly used in the literature as well. But this one appears to be quite obscure. Bermicourt ( talk) 09:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Here are the relative stats:
"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."Spain is simply not correct. Using Muslim and Spain here is like calling the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire the 'Tengrist invasion of Kazakhstan', even though Kazakhstan didn't exist back then, and invasions are conducted by polities, groups or political powers, not religious demographics. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
And on Google Scholar the results are:
So the proposed title is still way more common than the current one and one cannot cry "POV" because this is not anyone's opinion, but factually what WP:RELIABLESOURCES mostly use. What is POV is unsourced argument that the majority of reliable sources must be wrong. Bermicourt ( talk) 21:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
So "Spain" is used nearly 2,000 times more often than "Hispania" in the sources. And "Umayyad Hispania" doesn't even register. I'm afraid all the counterarguments ignore the overwhelming evidence of scholarly sources. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
"Spain" is the historical name of the peninsular region and most commonly used name for it, both in history and by historians.in English-language literature, that would be Hispania, not Spain.
Likewise historians frequently refer to "Germany" even though there was no German Empire until 1871 - they were just collections of states in the Holy Roman Empire. And Spain was just a collection of states too.Germany is if anything, used for all those states and regions that ended up being part of the modern country of Germany (and maybe to some lands it "recently" lost). It is not applied to other countries of the area such as Austria even though it is culturally, ethically and historically interrelated to the rest of Germany, because historians understand it is nonsense to refer to a country with the name of another. But this is anyway WP:OTHERSTUFF, because "Spain" is not used to refer to Portugal, ever. Those Middle Ages names are only the Roman name "Hispania" evolving into the modern English "Spain". I am not sure why should we adapt a name starting in "Span" such as "Spania" to "Spain" instead of "Hispania", that's your preference.
I don't have to prove why scholars mostly use "Spain"you're the starter of a requested move, you are quite literally required to do so. Super Ψ Dro 13:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I only have to prove that scholars mostly use "Spain"you still haven't done that. Please prove that "Spain" in most sources is used for the whole of Iberia including Portugal. Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
were never the core of the invading force or tip of the spearis inaccurate, as the commander who initiated the invasion, Tariq, was a Berber. Out of the six listed commanders in the infobox, two were Berbers, and one might have been an Arab or a Berber. And two of those six Arab commanders were under the lead of Tariq. "Arab" is simply not an appropriate term here. Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Note @ Iskandar323 is at it again, starting more related RMs before this one is even finished. He's now opened RMs on Early Muslim conquests and Muslim conquest of Armenia, trying to get their titles changed from "Muslim" to "Arab". He has also has created a new page he titled Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. And once again, he has not notified editors here or on any other on-going discussions that he opened related RMs, forcing them to scramble across pages and repeat the same arguments again. Walrasiad ( talk) 01:13, 25 March 2023 (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 |
Well, now that you have achieved a consensus about some of the parts of the title of this article, let me introduce another question: There is no reason for calling Iberia the lands conquered by the Moorish in 711, for several reasons:
Therefore, I think that the title should be changed to Umayyad Conquest of Hispania, if we prefer a historical emphasis in the title, or the longer Umayyad Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, if we prefer a geographical emphasis. I rather prefer the former, that gives more information about the historical moment. any opinion?-- Garcilaso 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are objections. I'm removing the sentence(s) about Charles Martel. This article is about the Umayyad invasion of Hispania, whereby the Battle of Poitiers is extraneous. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The article now states:
What are available are a number of stories that might more properly be described as legends. The manner of King Roderic's ascent to the throne is unclear; there are accounts of dispute with the son of his predecessor Wittiza, and accounts that Wittiza's family fled to Tangier and solicited help from there. Numismatic evidence suggests some division of royal authority, with several coinages being struck. There is also a story of one Julian, count of Ceuta, whose wife or daughter was raped by Roderic and who also sought help from Tangier. However, these stories are legendary and not included in the earliest accounts of the conquest.[2]
I think Julian is dismissed way too lightly here. He is mentioned in the earliest Arab sources as far as I know. He also has a separate detailed page of his on wikipedia. Any ideas how to rewrite this? Bazuz ( talk) 21:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
My comment is in regards to the angle of this section. In my surface scratching research (I'm just familiarizing myself with this), I came across this text on the Julian, Count of Ceuta page (under the Rift with Roderic section) itself: "...Later ballads and chronicles inflated this tale, Muslims making her out an innocent virgin who was ravished, Christians making her a seductress. In Spanish she came to be known as la Cava Rumía....". Even though the page indicates that it is merely one story, it fails to acknowledge what the other stories are. I do see that sources are lacking so in any event, these two pages need to be reconciled to avoid conflicting with each other. Saltybalty ( talk) 06:53, 8 June 2015
Here are some quotations from the section that motivated me to insert the tag:
— Boruch Baum ( talk) 09:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"Islamic invasion of Iberia" gets 16 Google hits. "Islamic conquest of Iberia" gets 213. Please move the page back. Furthermore, the new title doesn't go in according to WP:NPOV, not matter how true you think it is. — Khoikhoi 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Threshold 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an invasion because Moorish occupied the Iberian peninsula, killing a great part of the population and subjugated the natives for 7 centuries.
Do you prefer to call it invitation to drink a cup of tea? You are not entitled to distort the history of a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 ( talk) 18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 ( talk) 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Umayyad conquest of Hispania. 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.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you do not even try to check the source I posted, you immediately deleted my sources.
Several Arab-Muslim historians mention that Tariq would have decided by himself (which would cause the anger of his superiors) to land in Spain, and this must be taken into account
See here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad
the French wikipedia article is completely sourced.
Sorry for my bad English, I am Portuguese.
Marcel Baron 14 January 2018 13:57 (UTC)
@ Iñaki LL: your edit summery 'Rv fully sourced info...' is strange since I only added further referenced content and did not remove the sourced info added by Marcel. Is there a specific reason for your removal of the sourced content I added? Regards - Swazzo ( talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Iñaki LL: I also took a look at the source added by Marcel and it does not say anything about any Caliphs. It instead refers to his wali. Don't get me wrong, Collins is well-respected historian, but I think it's fair to include differing information from other reliable sources. Swazzo ( talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What about Was a Time When... the Moors Ruled Spain, p.17? or Past and Present, Chapter 7. The Islamic World, 800-1300, Tariq ibn Ziyad? Swazzo ( talk) 02:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition. I was referring to the location of the info since the ebook does not provide any page numbers. Swazzo ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
A slip on my part, I thought that a "Berber army under Arab leadership" would suffice. Can we cite Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition? Swazzo ( talk) 08:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Iñaki LL: please tell me, what do you find faulty in the sentence:
During the caliphate of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad disembarked in early 711 in Gibraltar at the head of an army consisting of Berbers (north-western Africa).
The sentence does not mention or imply that the Umayyad conquest was a premeditated plan in any way, shape, or form, it simply states that it took place during the reign of Al Walid I. Also, a source has to actually support its adjacent claim and far more than 'Forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad' is cited and quoted. I moved the source to a relevant section where the event is discussed in detail. Regards - Swazzo ( talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not remove the source. I only moved it to the invasion section and added the quoted material. Placing it next to 'forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad' seems flawed since the source covers far more than just that. Swazzo ( talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Even though this is WP:BLUE and WP:POPE, I have added a source stating that the Umayyad conquest took place during the reign of Al-Walid I. Swazzo ( talk) 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The policies you keep citing do not apply. Considering the article is titled the Umayyad Conquest of Hispania, it's only appropriate to list the Umayyad caliph whose reign saw the conquest occur in the lead section. Every single claim in the sentence is referenced and nothing collides. I added a reliable source yet you removed it. This is a simple case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Swazzo ( talk) 09:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I've discussed the edits with the user for more than enough. I've been accused for removing sources when I only moved them, meanwhile, Iñaki LL actually removes a source and nothing is said about that. Swazzo ( talk) 12:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
User Robert McClenon, may I kindly have your opinion on the matter? User NeilN asked me to provide a quote from the source which I did on my talk page. Swazzo ( talk) 22:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Here is the quote from the source:
User Iñaki LL claims the cited sentence "During the caliphate of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad disembarked in early 711 in Gibraltar at the head of an army consisting of Berbers (north-western Africa). [1] [2]" is causing colliding and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Swazzo ( talk) 00:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Swazzo - I do not entirely understand, but I think that you are avoiding constructive discussion, and I am not sure why you are asking me at all. I was not involved in the discussion about edits to this article until a request was made at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The volunteers at that noticeboard and other editors waited for you to make a statement, and then that thread was closed. I have not been editing this article and am not familiar with the dispute. (I am aware that the invasion began a 750-year war, the Reconquista.) I am not sure what matter I am being asked my opinion about, and I am not sure that I have an opinion, and I am not sure why I am being asked for my opinion. You say that you provided a quote on your talk page. As User:NeilN reminds you, the place to discuss the article is here, the article talk page, and providing a quote on your talk page is a diversion. If you wish to edit this article, discuss the edits here, not somewhere else, and discuss them with other editors who are familiar with the discussion here. It should not be necessary to ask me for my opinion, but my opinion at this time is that you are wasting my time, the time of the other editors, and the time of NeilN. If you engage in any more distracting or diversionary tactics, I will file a report at WP:ANI to ask that you be topic-banned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
Re this edit: [8]
The text before you edited read: " The last wave of expulsions from Spain of the native population of Muslim descent took place in 1614." As the link makes clear, this refers to expulsion of established ("native") denizens of Spain who were of Moorish descent ("moriscos"). These were Christians who had lived for generations in Spain. They were native in the same sense that any other long-standing population of Spain (Basques, Celts, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Goths, Jews) were native. You are native of a place if you are born there, certainly if your ancestors have lived there for generations.
Your replacement text: " The last wave of expulsions of Muslims from Spain by native population took place in 1614." This refers to Muslims, though the moriscos were not Muslim but Christian, and implies that they were not themselves "native". This is incorrect. Indeed, the moriscos included many who were descended from the pre-Muslim population, and in any event, the rulers who promulgated the expulsion had ancestry of far more recent Spanish origin than the moriscos.
I agree that the original text is awkward, but my replacement text (" The last wave of expulsions of Spaniards of Muslim descent took place in 1614.") reflects the sense of the original, while yours does not.
-- Elphion ( talk) 16:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I intend to rework this page substantially. The problem is that the detailed accounts of the invasion are essential legends written hundreds of years later. None of the the stuff about Julian is remotely contemporary, for example. I propose to start by talking about what we actually know, and then split off the later inventions and describe them as such. We also need to talk about the analysis of whether the invasion was intentional, or just an unusually large raid that got lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bge20 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment. Even though my class assignment does not require me to go beyond editing in my sandbox, I will continue to engage with this page intellectually. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dramkis (
talk •
contribs)
04:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions the Muslim population not being taxed under Umayyad rule.
Moreover, al-Hurr restored lands to their previous Christian landowners, which may have added greatly to the revenue of the Umayyad governors and the caliph of Damascus, since only non-Muslims were subject to taxation.
Is there a source for this ? What about Zakat ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.235.43 ( talk) 01:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Just taking a cursory look at this article, I noticed that it does not discuss the formation of the Marca Hispanica. That seems an oversight, yes? I would have thought the formation of Marca Hispanica, would be the significant event marking the end of the Umayyad expansion. At the very least a "See also" would seem warranted? Bdushaw ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The background section as of right now moves from a paragraph discussing the lack of contemporary sources for the conquest to the fact that King Roderic's ascension to the Visigothic throne was contentious and chronicled poorly. In terms of a linking paragraph, how much detail should be given? Presumably, a basic mention that Hispania was, prior to the conquest, controlled by Visigothic tribes (including King Roderic), but beyond that, what is necessary? Is a description of problems within the Visigothic kingdom also necessary?
-- Apkrishel ( talk) 01:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Apkrishel.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit [9] reverted the substition of "Flag of Umayyad.svg" for "White flag 3 to 2.svg". The former seems preferable, as it has a light border indicating that there is something there, while the latter results in a patch of blank white space. With the former it's much clearer what is going on, and no reason was given for the reversion. -- Elphion ( talk) 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Dramkis/sandbox (marked bold/italic), incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed - with a caveat. There were two separate issues that both supporters and opposers seemed to tackle distinctly and independently: who did the conquering, and who got conquered.
1. Consensus to use "Muslim" over "Umayyad" was emphatically found per common name, recognizability, consistency, etc. The NGrams offered were decisive, as well. Other possibilities (well, basically just "Arab") were considered, but the consistently preferred title was "Muslim", which was the most-attested in reliable sources. "Arab" remains a reasonable alternative to this title, however.
2. The more interesting and difficult question was the final word of the article title. "Spain" was preferred by a mild majority, but many reasonable objections were held. It's true that we follow the sources and it's true that we tend to title historical articles based on how the area was called at the time, and there was a fierce (though quite polite) discussion about what exactly that common name for the landmass at that time is or was. Even some of the people who opposed "Muslim" thought that "Hispania" was not quite the right object of the prepositional phrase. While a weak consensus for "Spain" was found, I recommend a further move request to specifically examine the possibility of "Iberia", which was suggested by a few and which encountered only a small amount of resistance, but which also didn't enjoy widespread acceptance. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Vacated former close; see related discussion on closer's talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. First and foremost, I'll mention: a variety of different title permutations were discussed in this RM, but the only proposals to receive any significant degree of support were (1) the proposed title and (2) the existing article title. Thus, my closure summary will focus on arguments that pertain to the elements "Umayyad", "Muslim", "Hispania", and "Spain". A variety of arguments were leveled throughout this RM, and the main points of discussion were as follows:
On the whole, most of the disputes around different facets of titling proved to be intractable. I ultimately find that this discussion resulted in no consensus for any title. The title that would come closest to achieving consensus would probably be "Muslim conquest of Hispania", but I don't feel that the weight of argument would justify a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS move to that title. Instead, the best way to handle this lack of consensus is to remain at the long-term stable title of Umayyad conquest of Hispania. ( non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Umayyad conquest of Hispania → Muslim conquest of Spain – This is easily the most WP:COMMONNAME in book sources for this event in history. According to Ngram viewer it is more than twice as common as "Arab conquest of Spain", "Muslim conquest of Iberia" or "Moorish conquest of Spain", whereas the current title does not register at all on Ngram Viewer - not once - and there's nothing on Google Books either. I've also scanned in other names such as "Moorish conquest of Iberia" or "Arab conquest of Iberia" - they are recorded as uncommon - while all the other options including those with "Hispania" also fail to register. As an encyclopaedia we should follow the majority of WP:RS, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning other names commonly used in the literature as well. But this one appears to be quite obscure. Bermicourt ( talk) 09:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Here are the relative stats:
"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."Spain is simply not correct. Using Muslim and Spain here is like calling the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire the 'Tengrist invasion of Kazakhstan', even though Kazakhstan didn't exist back then, and invasions are conducted by polities, groups or political powers, not religious demographics. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
And on Google Scholar the results are:
So the proposed title is still way more common than the current one and one cannot cry "POV" because this is not anyone's opinion, but factually what WP:RELIABLESOURCES mostly use. What is POV is unsourced argument that the majority of reliable sources must be wrong. Bermicourt ( talk) 21:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
So "Spain" is used nearly 2,000 times more often than "Hispania" in the sources. And "Umayyad Hispania" doesn't even register. I'm afraid all the counterarguments ignore the overwhelming evidence of scholarly sources. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
"Spain" is the historical name of the peninsular region and most commonly used name for it, both in history and by historians.in English-language literature, that would be Hispania, not Spain.
Likewise historians frequently refer to "Germany" even though there was no German Empire until 1871 - they were just collections of states in the Holy Roman Empire. And Spain was just a collection of states too.Germany is if anything, used for all those states and regions that ended up being part of the modern country of Germany (and maybe to some lands it "recently" lost). It is not applied to other countries of the area such as Austria even though it is culturally, ethically and historically interrelated to the rest of Germany, because historians understand it is nonsense to refer to a country with the name of another. But this is anyway WP:OTHERSTUFF, because "Spain" is not used to refer to Portugal, ever. Those Middle Ages names are only the Roman name "Hispania" evolving into the modern English "Spain". I am not sure why should we adapt a name starting in "Span" such as "Spania" to "Spain" instead of "Hispania", that's your preference.
I don't have to prove why scholars mostly use "Spain"you're the starter of a requested move, you are quite literally required to do so. Super Ψ Dro 13:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I only have to prove that scholars mostly use "Spain"you still haven't done that. Please prove that "Spain" in most sources is used for the whole of Iberia including Portugal. Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
were never the core of the invading force or tip of the spearis inaccurate, as the commander who initiated the invasion, Tariq, was a Berber. Out of the six listed commanders in the infobox, two were Berbers, and one might have been an Arab or a Berber. And two of those six Arab commanders were under the lead of Tariq. "Arab" is simply not an appropriate term here. Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Note @ Iskandar323 is at it again, starting more related RMs before this one is even finished. He's now opened RMs on Early Muslim conquests and Muslim conquest of Armenia, trying to get their titles changed from "Muslim" to "Arab". He has also has created a new page he titled Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. And once again, he has not notified editors here or on any other on-going discussions that he opened related RMs, forcing them to scramble across pages and repeat the same arguments again. Walrasiad ( talk) 01:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)