Jump to content

Talk:Al-Andalus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Spain and Portugal

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:

  • The Kingdom of the Algarve (a tiny strip of land in the southernmost tip of Portugal) was conquered by Afonso III in 1249, making him the first Christian "Rex Portugalliae et Al-Gharb". The Portuguese borders have hardly changed since.
  • It took Spain another 300 years to expel the Moors and settle her own borders.
  • There are no intact/unaltered buildings in Portugal dating back to the Muslim period, let alone entire cities or monuments such as the Great Alhambra etc, etc.
  • There are some architectural influences in the South, namely the Algarve traditional houses and chimneys and the famous "azulejos" tiles.
  • There are under 1,000 Arabic-derived words in Portuguese

Spain:

  • Isabella I of Castille and Ferdinand II of Aragon took the keys of Granada in 1492 and until 1507 forced Muslims to convert to Catholicism.
  • This whole exercise would in fact only culminate in 1727 with the last trial by the Inquisition of the "secret Muslims" of Granada.
  • Countless monuments, buildings, towns and villages from the Muslim period exist in Spain to this day; again with incidence in the South and Southeast
  • There are at least 4,000 Arabic-derived words in Spanish (Castilian) which officially make up 8% of the lexicon, probably more than that in the Andalucian and Valencian dialects
  • A number of traditional dishes, folklore music and dance from Spain are of Arabic/Muslim origin, not to mention the Andalucian architecture or the "azulejos" too
  • To this day, Spain still has enclaves in Morocco

Best regards, (talk)Melroross (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Melroross

You have provided absolutely no citations for this, let alone any explanation of why it is so vitally important to reflect these facts. Your recent edits have (once again) reversed the order of the countries in a source; it is never appropriate to change what sources say to suit yourself. Your earlier edits took more drastic action; for example, you have not explained the removal of the category "Islam in Portugal". Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You are clearly missing the point- no citations are needed to revert what was added here incorrectly in the first place. Your point seems to be "prove to Wikipedia with citations which Wikipedia "approves" to prove that History happened in a way otherwise entered here or else I will revert your entries again". That is the point. Wikipedia MUST NOT be used as a biased, distorted source of information. Your actions are proving my point- your behaviour is illogical, apart from wrong.
  • Portugal ended the Muslim occupation in 1249.
  • Spain ended the Muslim occupation in 1492.

Fact.

  • Portugal is one country and culture.
  • Spain is another country and has different cultures within her borders. Any attempt to mix the history and culture of these two countries and peoples is inaccurate and does NOT require any citation- that is absurd.

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)

First, please do not change the wording of quoted material, per MOS:QUOTE. Second, all content on Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, not the knowledge or opinions of editors (WP:RS). Citing your personal familiarity with the subject is pushing WP:OR. Please find reliable sources for the changes you propose and to establish notability. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems fairly clear this is just nationalist axe-grinding. This focus on separating Spain and Portugal does not seem appropriate; at the time of the Muslim conquest they didn't even exist, nor did the divisions of Visigothic Iberia correspond closely to them. They are states that arose from the Reconquista; the division between them is based on what they could grab at the time. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
eg, it's not that the last bit of the Reconquista was Granada "in Spain", as Melroross would have it. Granada was in Spain once it had been Reconquisted. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:52, 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)

Now I call BS. Not only Portugal, but the very concept of a Portuguese "nationality", was an artificial construction, a happenstance of Afonso Henriques's direction of conquests. There was no pre-existing identity, nothing tribal about it. Afonso Henriques wasn't some native chieftan - he was the son of a Burgundian immigrant. And the Portucalese nobility of Douro-Minho weren't of original native stock either - they all stemmed from a small group of about fifty Astur-Leonese knights that invaded the area a century or so earlier. The area north of the Douro had nothing in common with the areas south of Douro - the county of Coimbra had a distinct and separate Mozarab cultural area with different religious rites, and south of the Tagus was largely Moorish. There was nothing natural about this construction, there was no pre-existing Portuguese nation, no religious or cultural unity between the peoples Afonso brought under his sceptre - Galicians, Leonese, Mozarabs, Moors, Jews - which, if anything, he separated and cut off from their natural co-nationals outside his borders. Even the church dioceses were anomously partitioned, with most of the suffragans of the Archdiocese of Braga being left inside the kingdom of Leon-Castile, and most dioceses inside Portugal owing obedience to a Leonese-Castilian archbishop, an overlapping cross-border ecclesiastical configuration that, despite multiple attempts at rectification, continued to contradict political boundaries until the Great Schism of 14-15th C. As for "Spain borders with North Africa", that's rather funny, since Portuguese were actually in North Africa, holding numerous enclaves and cities on the Moroccan coast, from Ceuta down to Agadir, well before any Spaniards crossed the straits. Walrasiad (talk) 14:20, 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)

Melroross: please refrain from speculations about my person or background. You do know not who I am or where I'm from. Nor is it pertinent for this discussion. But since an attack on what you imagine is my nationality is the only argument you supply in defense of your conjectures, you have not only shown you have no evidence or basis for your assertions, you have also sufficiently exposed your motives here. Please take your misguided nationalist nonsense elsewhere. Walrasiad (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll thank you to retract that accusation of sock-puppetry. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:02, 2 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)

Removal of uncited assertion on polity of al-Andalus

"Al-Andalus" was the name used for the larger Islamic polity in the Iberian peninsula:

"...chipped away at al-Andalus' bulk, the Islamic polity would continue to dominate the Iberian Peninsula geographically and politically until the collapse of its ruling dynasty, the Umayyads..."[1]
" When al-Andalus...came of age in the ninth and tenth centuries as a center of urban culture, prosperous economic power and independent polity ruling most of the Iberian Peninsula..."[2]
"Just beyond the porous frontiers of these frontier kindoms lay the Islamic realm of al-Andalus, a polity as often admired by Christians..."[3] Carlstak (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree this unsourced addition made no sense to me either. Moreover at first glance it even looks "obviously" wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Deisenbe, you have a history of adding contentious assertions like this to the article without offering citations. Your say-so, or telling us what you think, doesn't do the job. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Right now I don't even understand, what he is traying to say. I can't make really sense of the posting above. Al-Andalus being just a cultural term whereas the political term was caliphate/emirat of Cordoba? I'm not aware of such distinction in literature nor does it make much sense to me. Of course did the caliphate/emirat of Cordoba have the features of "state" or "polity" and it is and was referenced to as Al Andalus. Note that the same word can (and in practice often does) be used for different but usually related concepts. For instance the word English can refer to the English culture, people, language, etc. and the state England. Nobody would claim England is not a state, just because English is used for different concepts as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course England is a state: it has an army, a government, a ruler. Al-Andalus had none of these, unless you equate al-Andalus with the Caliphate of Córdoba. deisenbe (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
As I already stated above the caliphate/emirate of Cordoba is commonly referred to as Al-Andalus (as well).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John H. Arnold (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Christianity. Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-19-958213-6.
  2. ^ Ivy A. Corfis (2009). Al-Andalus, Sepharad and Medieval Iberia: Cultural Contact and Diffusion. BRILL. p. 152. ISBN 90-04-17919-4.
  3. ^ Amy G. Remensnyder (March 2014). La Conquistadora: The Virgin Mary at War and Peace in the Old and New Worlds. Oxford University Press USA. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-19-989300-3.

Desire, or alleged desire, of some Muslims to "reconquer" al-Andalus

(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/w/index.php?title=Al-Andalus&type=revision&diff=623210860&oldid=623209515]. deisenbe (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think it belongs in, I just haven't had the time for another round of talk page wrestling. As far as I can see the objection is that someone doesn't like the sources (although describing them as "a mediocre newspaper article" in spite of DeCausa's extensive list) and feels that this doesn't belong under "legacy" - of course, it wasn't when you wrote it and I don't much care if the section heading is "Bacon sandwich". Pinkbeast (talk) 13:40, 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)

My perspective is essentially the same as Kmhkmh's. Weave a context (including "the gap" in between the historical period and those claims) based on what scholarly sources have written about it. If not posible, I think we are better staying away from sensationalist recentism and/or crappy WP:SYNT.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "weave a context". Also "the gap in between the historical period (which period?) and those claims (which claims?)." Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Which claims? Contemporary ISIS/jihaddist claims. Weave a context? (Carefully) create a text putting in context those claims. Where to find that context? I would try to find it on what scholarly secondary sources have written about it (contemporary jihaddist rethorics) in connection to the main topic of this Wikipedia entry. Which period? Al-Andalus. Which gap? 17th 18th 19th 20th centuries. An important part of the so-called context is a trustworthy secondary source mentioning what happened in relation to people desiring the Iberian peninsula being "reconquered by muslims" during the mentioned gap (or the analysis for the absence of them).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:37, 18 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)

Kmhkmh has yet to explain what is wrong with DeCausa's list of sources - besides ignoring its existence completely and claiming the content is sourced to one newspaper article. Not liking them is not a reason not to use them.
I think the invocation of the "gap" is spurious. Suppose Bin Laden woke up one day and thought "I know, I think we'll reconquer Al-Andalus", completely out of the blue. It would still belong in the article. If someone else wants to do research into the "gap" and write some more content, be my guest; that doesn't make it compulsory for a mention of what's happening right now. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it is true that not every addition on its own necessarily needs to create a "complete" treatment of the subject. However there are issues with with due/bias/notability. Introducing a rather minor aspect very prominently immediately creates due issue into an article, that otherwise was roughly ok. So why creating a quality problem if there is no real need to.
But more importantly I'm still not convinced of the notability of that information for this article at all (in particular based on the used sources). Not everything that is written or opined in some in press outlet is notable for the wikipedia article on that subject. So far I see neither scholarly literature on al Andalus paying any attention to terrorism/islamism aspect whatsoever nor any scholarly works on islamism arguing the notion of Al Andalus plays an important role or is influencing islamist movement to a larger degree. All we have is some (islamist) individuals mentioning al anadalus in some context and some of them entertaining the wish reconquer it. The latter also often just being part of a more general meme to reconquer all territories once ruled by the caliphate/muslim empires of the past (so in a way not even particularly specific to al Andalus). From my perspective that is in this form way below a notability threshold for this article.
As far as the sources are concerned I already explained that in detail further up. That is why the currently used sources where not appropriated. And with regard to the scholarly works DaCausa listed on the discussion page, I responded to that further up as well but more importantly we yet have to see any text suggestion based on those sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:56, 19 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)

Whether it personally convinces you or not, there was no "I don't like these sources"-argument, but an argument about the inappropriate use of non-scholarly sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with this assessment. DeCausa listed several scholarly sources, as you yourself acknowledged just above, notwithstanding you using the expression "a mediocre newspaper article" well after they were listed.
I also disagree with the argument that these sources are not about Al-Andalus, but instead about recent developments in militant Islam. This seems true but irrelevant, and it's obviously the case that the overwhelming majority of sources about Al-Andalus cannot possibly mention very recent developments because they hadn't happened when those sources were published. If I wish to source a statement on cheese about the sort of cows normally involved, I can cite a source about cows that mentions cheese.
I also disagree that no text has been suggested based on those sources; indeed, it is specifically the case that I had a stab at it, inserting some text which you or Khestwol then reverted out rather than attempting to improve it or suggesting any change to it. Furthermore I have attempted to suggest other revisions to this portion of the article; you have not.
And finally, I disagree with the argument that it is undue to mention it at all, or the related argument that it is too minor an issue to present as a significant element of Al-Andalus's legacy (which can easily be resolved by putting it somewhere other than under the legacy heading).
Since you yourself have admitted that scholarly sources have been presented and advanced the argument that "there rest seems mostly scholarly work on islamism and/or islamic terrorism where al Andalus at some point is mentioned on the side" as justification for not using them, I think the characterisation of your position as "I don't like these sources" is entirely accurate. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There was never any text suggestion based in the scholarly sources deCausa listed on the discussion (or any usage whatsoever other claiming the phrase al andalus appears in them).
The "stab" you took, was slight rewrite or "improvement" of the older inappropriate text still based on the same inappropriate sources. Why those sources and the text based on them were inappropriate and didn't meet WP standard was explained in detail further up.
If you had actually compiled a text suggestion based on deCausa sources then (despite my personal skeptical assessment on the subject in general), you might actually have a leg to stand on. But since you didn't, this discussion looks rather pointless to me. Compiling a questionable text based on inappropriate sources and justifying that by other (scholarly) sources out there possibly stating the same content, is not going to fly. Either you compile a text based directly on those scholarly sources or you don't and in the latter case there isn't really anything to discuss.--18:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it was with reference to the DeCausa sources. I know that because, unlike you, I was sitting at my computer watching what I was doing at the time.
So, once again, while your strategy of reverting and saying things that are factually incorrect (eg "one mediocre newspaper article") has destroyed my will to continue, if anyone wants to pick this up later, they know where to start. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Admittingly I have no idea what you did or didn't do do on your computer or desk, but I do know which text you ultimately submitted to WP, which is what matters here. You submitted [3], which doesn't seem to use even one of the scholarly sources deCausa listed further up on the discussion page. In fact it seems to be nothing than a slight rewrite of the original disputed content using essentially the exact same sources (see [4]). There is nothing wrong with having a different assessment of the appropriateness of that content, but claiming or insinuating your "stab" at the content was based on deCausa's scholarly sources is simply not true.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's a clever dodge. You like _some_ of the sources, which by a happy coincidence are none of the ones I used. I am enlightened. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

last deletion in the legacy section

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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality???

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)

The edit seems to be well cited so I'm not really sure what the complaint is. I moved it to the back of the Culture section since it seemed inappropriately prominent; the real difficulty is that the rest of that section is woefully short and could do with being expanded.
I also think there's a certain irony in you complaining about a personal attack. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
He has a point. This recent addition is a bit odd and off topic and it is far from being well sourced either. Picking a single aspect from it encylopedia on medieval provides no real measure on how important that subject is/was within writing on al andalus. Also it does little more than stating explicitly that homosexuality existed, which is almost pointless. Now if we had section on sexuality and sexual customs of al Andalus, then summarizing what is known about homosexuality in Andalus makes sense. But in current form it should be indeed deleted at least it isn't an improvement from the article in my perspective.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm totally in favor of the existence of an article on Homosexuality in Al Andalus, as long as it is well sourced. It just doesn't seem notable enough a topic to be a section in the main article. For the same reason we don't have a section on homosexuality in the article on the United States or the Roman Empire or any other similar political entity. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the issue here is with "randomly" mentioning homosexuality in the main article. There is nothing wrong with a separate article on homosexuality in al andalus or homosexuality in medieval spain or having those as section in an article on sexuality in al andalus or similar. But this "drive by" edit in the current form is as i said above no improvement and feels alien in the article. By the way here is the original source being used for the edit, it contains much more information, so the current edit is hardly summarizing it appropriately. Moreover it actually contains enough information for its own article:
--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's notable enough to be its own article, it's certainly notable enough to be included in the main article. And yes, additional information on a notable subject is improvement, regardless of whether some users subjectively consider it to "feel alien". Rwenonah (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Aside from that being not true (not all notable material for individual articles is notable enough to be mention in main/overview/survey articles), it is imho in this form not an improvement. In fact it is a sign of well written articles not to have "random" bits of information added, that are somehow related to the topic. In addition the added is hardly a proper summary of the cited source either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think a mention to homoerotic themes in poetry within a Literature (in Al-Andalus) cultural sub-section (which does not exist so far) could improve the entry. Also a mention to the description of homosexual sexual practices within a "Sexual practices (in Al-Andalus)" cultural sub-section (which does not exist so far). A single section in the main article devoted to state homosexual practices existed seems to be a bit silly. PD: In this case we have the very same cited author active in this talk page, so we can ask him.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:16, 19 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)

In my opinion, there is a dearth of coverage throughout Wikipedia of the role homosexuality played in various civilizations in their respective articles, to the point that the subject is in effect suppressed. I see no reason why this sourced information should be removed from the al-Andalus article, given that al-Andalus was tolerant of homosexuality and homosexual prostitution, and gay erotic poetry flourished there from soon after the Muslim invasion of Iberia; in fact, the section should be expanded with appropriate references. Carlstak (talk) 14:03, 21 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)

So, to be clear, you reject the overwhelming historical evidence that homosexuality was uniquely prominent and accepted in the society of Al-Andalus, relative to other contemporary societies?Rwenonah (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
"Overwhelming"? "Uniquely prevalent"? "Accepted"? "Relative to other contemporary societies"? But none of those statements are true! Walrasiad (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Stories? Myths? You seem to have made up your mind, Asilah1981, and the evidence be damned. What are the sources for your assertions? The homoerotic poetry of Abu Nuwas was influential in early al-Andalus. "It was also a society in which scarcely any distinction was made between the true love of a man for a woman and that of a man for another man..." "Almost any collection of Hispano-Arabic poetry yields a plethora of love poems by men to or about other males." "Despite the official disapproval of same-sex love in Muslim Spain, there is no doubt that homosexuality was widely practiced." For clarification, I did not say "brought to the west", as your quotation marks might give readers the impression that you are quoting me, and mentioning a historically relevant aspect of Andalusi culture is not laying undue emphasis on the subject in what should be an inclusive article on al-Andalus. Carlstak (talk) 05:35, 23 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)

What? Obviously some societies are more accepting of homosexuality than others. It's weird that you think this could have "orientalist" undertones and be used to justify Western cultural superiority, because that rests on the false assumption that societies more accepting of homosexuality are somehow inferior. Rwenonah (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Well people believing that may try to push exactly that point. But no matter whether you view homosexuality as "bad" or "good", the article should not be subject to activism from either side and a selective, "cherry picking" description of sexuality in Al Andalus may be perceived as "activism" (from whatever side).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2017 (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)

Fixing specific errors and not reverting to later versions

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)

The first substantive change seems to be the removal of Geber with the edit summary "Geber was not Andalusian nor has he ever been to al-Andalus". It seems well cited that he was from Seville, so unless I'm missing something, the first thing I know about your edits is that they are in error. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The removal of Geber was a mistake on my part. I removed it at a quick glance thinking it was this Geber. Tarook97 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, you keep adjusting the default px values of thumbnail images arbitrarily and unnecessarily. As I said in my last edit summary, writing "175x175px" is redundant, and it serves no purpose since the first "175x" will be ignored when image is rendered. Making such niggling changes to px values as changing the default value of an image to "318px", for example, is rather silly, anyway. Carlstak (talk) 14:24, 21 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Emirate of Granada

So, so far the title of this section has been:

  1. The Emirate of Granada, fall and aftermath
  2. The Emirate of Granada, fall, and aftermath
  3. The fall of the Emirate of Granada and subsequent history
  4. The Emirate of Granada: fall and aftermath
  5. Emirate of Granada, including fall and aftermath
  6. Fall of Emirate of Granada and its aftermath
  7. Emirate of Granada, fall, and aftermath
  8. Emirate of Granada, its fall, and aftermath

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)

Personally, I prefer No. 6. I agree with Pinkbeast's other points, especially regarding the superiority of the Salida de la familia de Boabdil de la Alhambra.jpg image. Carlstak (talk) 14:52, 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 felicitous means what you think it means, and Carlstak supported my changing the image back, whereas no-one supported your position - so leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:36, 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)

There's even less consensus for your favoured image - it's just you - so I fail to see how you can possibly be justified in repeatedly inserting it.
Report away. A serial edit warrior like you isn't going to get any joy at ANEW at all; please do it now so you can earn yourself another block.
Your edit summary ("Your change is challenged, gain general aggremant for the change.") is also absurd. You changed the image and were challenged. Where's the "general aggremant" (sic) for that change? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, this started when you replaced an image that had been in the article quite a while, and were then reverted. It is incumbent on you to seek consensus on the talk page, not those who reverted you. You do not have a consensus, so suggested practice would be to ask for WP:Requests for comment, not to edit war. See also: WP:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocol. Carlstak (talk) 05:33, 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)

I heartily endorse Laszlo Panaflex's suggestion. The image added by Tarook97 is an excellent, high-quality photo of the sublime Alhambra, and I agree it deserves a place in the article. Carlstak (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Either of you might go ahead; no objection to that. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alhambra attribution

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Córdoba map

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)

I think it is fairly clear that the spelling on that map is not so much alternative as wrong. While some Arabic words are spelled in more than one way in English (although not perhaps in ways that simply drop a prominent vowel sound overboard), "caliphate" is not one of them; it is practically never spelled "calphate", or often in any fashion other than "caliphate". I've suggested at Caliphate of Córdoba that the original uploader fix it; or you could do so yourself. (So could I, but I have no particular preference for which map appears there...) Pinkbeast (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
How can I fix it? Swazzo (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You can download it from Commons, edit it with an SVG editor like Inkscape, and upload a new version (you'll need a Commons account). Pinkbeast (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size, which I linked you to already, says "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width". It says it in bold, in case you missed it. A "very good reason" is not "I couldn't bother to read the link I was pointed to to see how to sort this out properly", nor is it "it's been like that for years", especially when it's not actually true that it's been like that for years because the current image has only been there for a week, even counting the repeated attempts to add a version of it with the single biggest word on the map misspelled.
If you want to change the size of the image, please read the instructions at that link to find out how to do it correctly. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done Size changed. Swazzo (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Andalus

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

You have been reverted by two editors, now you have to get consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems completely unnecessary to crowbar "Arab" into the article at all points. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It's overkill to an extreme. Not to mention the absurd overlinking. Carlstak (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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)

Five administrative units?

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)

DavidMCEddy I think the current content means the first division created those units roughly corresponding in terms of territory to those (future) delimitations (strangely including Castile (historical region), which up to this date I do not know what it is supposed to mean territory wise). I do not know if the sourced information is true (although explaining past things using future constructs is not good history), but I think that it is a moot point... I suspect the content is not suitable for the lead as I think the enduring division of the emirate&caliphate was in coras and borderland marks (see, f.e.: es:Cora (división territorial).--Asqueladd (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Especially if it's confusing -- and possibly not even correct -- it certainly should not be in the lead. However, I'm not qualified to do more with this than I've already done. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:52, 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

  • (1) Andalusia (which included the districts (kura) of Cordoba, Seville, Malaga, Ecija, Jaen),
  • (2) Central Spain (Toledo, Segovia, Guadalajara, Valencia, Murcia, Lorca, Baeza),
  • (3) Galicia & Lusitania (Merida, Beja, Lisbon, Lugo, Zamora & Salamanca),
  • (4) the Ebro (Zaragoza, Tortosa, Tarragona, Barcelona, Gerona, Pamplona)
  • (5) Septimania (Narbonne, Nimes, Carcassone, Lodeve).

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)

--91.190.225.196 (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Jews as important cultural group in Al-Andalus

@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

"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)

Jay Schro, a full bibliographical citation is listed under the "Further reading" heading. Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That's Glick 2005, Elizium23. Jay Schro (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Ooops, yes, my bad. I have rescued Glick 1999 citation from a 2011 revision of the article. It's essentially the same as Glick 2005. Perhaps the references could just be updated. Elizium23 (talk) 22:37, 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)

Gain consensus first. A bunch of pictures, without captions or links is not very informative. Besides, we do have an article on Moorish architecture. This is linked to in the section “art and architecture”, which also includes images. Kleuske (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
General history articles are not excellent venues for showcasing pics of buildings en masse. Articles about architecture are better venues for such purpose. At best it is a case of Wikipedia:Main article fixation. At worst, a way to stray out of topic. Given than the entire collection of pics are taken in Spain (none apparently in Portugal): Moorish architecture in Spain or Islamic architecture in Spain are possible targets for a specific article, if anyone is willing to bluelink it. Conversely, general articles such as Moorish architecture or Architecture of Spain may or may not improve with more illustrations.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: There are plenty of sources dealing with the architecture of Al-Andalus. If anyone needs help with recent Muslim-influenced ("Neo-Islamic") architecture to complete the former in order to create something more comprehensive, here is a source published under CC BY 4.0 license about contemporary Islamic architecture.Asqueladd (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

Legacy

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)

Tone

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

The Arabs conquered the north of Spain and Iberia

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)

Perhaps English is not your first language? The source you gave, From Al-Andalus to Monte Sacro, by Dolores Luna Guinot, is laughably bad history, terribly written and actually says the opposite of what you are maintaining: "..in a few years the Arabs took over the Gothic Hispania. The Asturian Christian resistance achieved that the northern Hispania remained apart from the domain of the Muslims thanks to the leader Don Pelayo". This book is self-published and not a reliable source anyway—Trafford is a vanity publisher, and anyone can pay them to publish a book, no matter how bad. And by the way, our own WP article on the Kingdom of Asturias, citing the medievalist Roger Collins, says it was "the first Christian political entity established after the Umayyad conquest of Visigothic Hispania in 718 or 722". Carlstak (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

August 2023

@Kleuske, I don't understand why you undid my edits. I removed France because it wasn't mentioned in the source there. furthermore, southern France wasn't a permanent part of al-Andalus. I added "Muslim Spain" because it is common and thus noteworthy to mention. The same thing applies to "Moorish Spain". Ibn Qattuta (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)

Source for "Muslim Spain" being common, please. Besides, up to the Battle of Tours, all of the south of France was under Ummayad rule. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
[1] You can find it here. This is the first reference in the article. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)
That reference says nothing of the sort. But perhaps I'm just not seeing what you see, so, please, do quote the bit where this source says "Muslim Spain" is a common term. Google-books says the term is used three (3) times in that work (that pertains to the Maghreb). Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Please read the third note. It says: "Al-Andalus is the Arabic term for the Iberian Peninsula, which I use consistently and occasionally substitute with Islamic Iberia, its translation. I do not use the more popular Muslim Spain, because it omits Portugal." Ibn Qattuta (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)
"Muslim Spain" is specific to Spain and is therefore not synonymous with "Al-Andalus" (the same principle applies to "Muslim Portugal"). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a usage I find abhorrent, but 'Muslim Spain' is sometimes popularly used to refer to al-Andalus generally, without regard for the territories of the current nation-states of Spain and Portugal. إيان (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Source? "Trust me, bro!"
Need I be explicit in stating that does not fly on Wikipedia? I hope not. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The source i mentioned above wasn't enough? Ibn Qattuta (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)
Not even close. The source you cite, the phrase "Which I occasionally substitute" is not indicative of it being commonly used (it isn't). The author of your source seems to prefer "Al Andalus", which makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gómez-Rivas, Camilo (21 November 2014). Law and the Islamization of Morocco under the Almoravids: The Fatwās of Ibn Rushd al-Jadd to the Far Maghrib. Brill. pp. 1, note 3. ISBN 978-90-04-27984-1.

August 4, 2023

Kleuske, please explain what in the policy Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for article titles supports this edit, and how the edit improves the article. إيان (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's nationalist POV-pushing. "a series of the conquests Western historiography has traditionally characterized as a Reconquista". The common name for this period is the reconquista (re-conquest). The phrasing you use implies the Umayyad somehow were the native population instead of being conquerors themselves. Moreover, your phrasing implies "western historiography" is somehow responsable for that term being used.
I would also urge you to read WP:BRD. I know, It's an essay, but it is how Wikipedia works. Kleuske (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, yes... WP:WIKILAWYER may also be useful. Kleuske (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Kleuske, first your rationale for removing the sourced content was WP:COMMONNAME and now it's suddenly an issue of WP:NPOV. Sounds a lot like WP:DONTLIKEIT.
The battles and conquests characterized as a Reconquista spanning 8 centuries were not simply against the Umayyads, who were out of power by 1031. They were against a variety of Taifas, the Almoravids, the Almohads, and finally the Nasrids. It seems you don't know much about the topic. Academic consensus is very skeptical of the nationalist concept of 'Reconquista' spanning 8 centuries, to say the least. To learn more, I suggest you actually look at the sources you've been removing with mercurial justification. إيان (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
And the whole was called the "reconquista". And I have read books on the subject, though probably not the same ones as you. You are free to add sources, that's not what I'm objecting against. I object to the phrasing you proposed for the reasons given. If "academic consensus" is as unanimous as you claim, I would have expected to be inundated with sources, here. My expectations are not high, though, since the claim in question was not sourced at all, only justified with vague hand-waving in the general direction of "Wiki Voice". Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems you have a vested interest in lying about the subject matter. There is no credible scholarly skepticism regarding the use of the term "Reconquista". Any alleged skepticism or attempt to rebrand the term as contentious seems to come from folks with religious interests. 2600:4040:9012:1100:AD3F:6304:D37C:FCBB (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This comment has an Islamophobic tone and verges on being hate speech directed against a well-established editor, besides being utter bullshit. Carlstak (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
"There is no credible scholarly skepticism regarding the use of the term". Yes, there is. As Alejandro García Sanjuán puts it, it is a "highly problematic concept that greatly contributed to produce a largely biased and distorted vision of the Iberian medieval past, aimed at delegitimizing the Islamic presence (al-Andalus) and therefore at legitimizing the Christian conquest of the Muslim territory".[1] So, "your phrasing implies "western historiography" is somehow responsable for that term being used" (?!) Well, d'uh. This Spanish-language term is primarily used elsewhere because Spanish historiography fostered it in the 19th and 20th centuries to begin with.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a term that reeks of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and that's because Spanish historiography is incredibly myopic, overtly Romanticized and generally stinks, but it is what it is. Reconquista is the WP:NPOV term in sourcing through sheer prevalence alone, even though it was just a routine conquest. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the overly long reply, but I'm sick to death of the ignorance displayed on this page for years now. Most scholarship regarding usage of the term is in Spanish, of course, so people who don't read the language are often unaware of the robust academic debate on the subject. Even Ortega y Gasset wrote in his España Invertebrada (1921):

...yo no entiendo cómo se puede llamar reconquista a una cosa que dura ocho siglos. (I don't understand how a thing that lasted eight centuries can be called a reconquest.)[2]

In his now classic work, La formación medieval de España: territorios, regiones, reinos (2004) Ladero Quesada explains very well what the state of historical research on the subject was almost twenty years ago:

"Reconquest" and "repopulation" have become, over the years, central categories of historical explanation, and, in spite of the topical or clearly outdated content of both concepts, they continue to be the point of reference for the same research that has contributed to replace them with others that are surely more adequate and comprehensive of the historical reality they study.[3]

Martín Federico Ríos Saloma says the term did not become widespread until the '40s of the 19th century with the publication of two new editions of José Ortiz y Sanz's work Compendio cronológico de la historia de España[4] and of Modesto Lafuente's Historia general.[5]
And finally, Kenneth Baxter Wolf says:

Alejandro García Sanjuán has called into question the continued usefulness of reconquista as a historical model, while Emilio González Ferrín has gone further, challenging the very notion of an “Islamic conquest,” which he regards as another misleading holdover from the past. Considering these two approaches side by side allows for a deeper appreciation of the challenges of demythologization in relation to the study of medieval Spanish history.[6]

Carlstak (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
PS: I could go on and on. Carlstak (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@Carlstak: Regarding the Kenneth Baxter Wolf quote, it's worth noting that González Ferrín's thesis about the Islamic non-conquest is disparaged as pseudohistory in academia, most notably by the very same García Sanjuán.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Asqueladd; the depth of your knowledge is appreciated. I wanted to demonstrate that this debate has been going on for years in Spanish historiography, and touch on the fact that the term and even the concept of a "reconquista" are of comparatively recent vintage. I believe Kenneth Baxter Wolf is a reliable source, himself. I have collected quite a few such quotes from across the academic spectrum and tried to pick a few that were most applicable to the discussion here.;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ García Sanjuán, Alejandro (2020). "Weaponizing historical knowledge: the notion of Reconquista in Spanish nationalism". Imago Temporis. Medium Aevum. 14: 133. doi:10.21001/itma.2020.14.04. ISSN 1888-3931.
  2. ^ Ortega y Gasset, José (2019) [1921]. España invertebrada: Bosquejo de algunos pensamientos históricos (in Spanish). Good Press. p. 88.
  3. ^ Ladero Quesada, Miguel Ángel (2014). La formación medieval de España: territorios, regiones, reinos (PDF) (2 ed.). Madrid: Alianza Editorial. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-84-206-8736-0.
  4. ^ Ortiz y Sanz, José (1795). Compendio cronológico de la historia de España (in Spanish). p. 12.
  5. ^ Ríos Saloma, Martín Federico (2005). De la Restauración a la Reconquista: la construcción de un mito nacional (Una revisión historiográfica. Siglos XVI-XIX) (PDF). p. 380.
  6. ^ Wolf, Kenneth Baxter (2 September 2019). "Myth, history, and the origins of al-Andalus: a historiographical essay". Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies. 11 (3): 378. doi:10.1080/17546559.2019.1566759.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Andalus/Archive_3&oldid=1246192030"