Jump to content

Talk:Iberian Peninsula/Archive 1

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

Iberia taking its name from Caucaisian Iberia

I remember when I took a year-long history class in Spain, my teacher told me that the Phonecians (or some other group, possibly the Greeks) took the name "Iberia" from Caucasian Iberia and used it in Spain, much in a similar manner as New "York". However, I cannot find any documentation on this claim, anybody else heard about this?- ryandward —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandward (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many theories, but the most popular theory is that the "Iberia" comes from the river Ebro, called "Iberus" by the Romans, which comes from the Greek "eypos," meaning "width." This could refer to the width of the peninsula.Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
might there be a link between the term Eire (for ireland) and Iberia? The term Eire is thought to mean 'generous' and the the greek Eubro might have a similar root (width). During the ice age Ireland was the last un-icebound land north of Iberia and the hunters may well have gone there from Iberia to hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.82.125 (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
No, there is not. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Location of Yucatan Peninsula

Where is the Yucatan Peninsula? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.6.112 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2002 (UTC)

It is a peninsula in Mexico.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Mexico
It's the crescent at the bottom arching towards the G.O.Mexcio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 October 2002 (UTC)

Languages

The visigoths spoke gothic by the 8th century, when the peninsula was invaded. When have they started to speak romance languages, like Spanish and Portuguese? I can't find this information, I'm not sure that's the right place to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.126.147 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Visigoths (as well as suevians, alans and vandals) replaced the previous roman higher classes on invasion of the empire, not the population. They became the aristocracy of the new visigothic kingdom in current Spain/south France, while the general population remained almost the same and continued to talk low latin and live as before, simply changing their masters. The visigoths adopted local roman law, and gradually local religion and language also. First visigothic kings were arrian, and spoke gothic/germanic language; later ones spoke low latin and were catholic. But the main population always talked latin. Chocheneguer (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Southernmost peninsula in Europe?

Burgas00, I'm removing the sentence you added ("It is the southernmost of the three southern European peninsulas (i.e. Iberian, Italian and Balkan peninsulas)"). It is not very relevant or true! All of the aforementioned peninsulas run, more or less, between the 35th and 45th parallels north. The Ogre 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes i changed a couple of things. Firstly that Iberia is not the largest peninsula (the balkans are much larger) and secondly I added that it is the southernmost of the 3 European peninsulas which is true. The other peninsulas start much further north and none of them goes as far south as Iberia. Albeit, the difference is not very significant so if you want to erase it you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd biggest?

The article says it's the 2nd biggest peninsula in Europe, after the Balkan. What about Scandinavia? --Golbez 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

the 2nd biggest of the three southern european peninsulas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't say southern, it says "It is the second biggest peninsula of Europe (after the Balkan peninsula) with an area of 582 860 km²." --Golbez 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Dude are you blind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you? That sentence does not contain the word "southern". --Golbez 19:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is the western and southernmost of the three southern European peninsulas
(copy pasted from the article)
Do you have a strange condition which makes you blind to the word southern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to lack reading comprehension. I will caution you against being uncivil. The sentence does not say "the second biggest peninsula in southern Europe", it says "the second biggest peninsula in Europe," or at least it did, until I corrected it. --Golbez 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you to be obedient and follow all Wikipedia rules. Please respect one anothers privacy and rights //---// bigjcaudle — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 22 March 2007‎ (UTC)

I have seen the article about the Balkans and there our fellows has concluded about what is Balkans and what extension should have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans , that mean that with 550.000 km2 Balkans peninsula is behind Iberian peninsula in extension, so i will change our article. (At least, while the Balkan's article remain with the same dates...) --Bentaguayre 10:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

After ten years, people still enter to change this basic element of the article. The Balkan peninsula is 470,000 km2, so it is of shorter extension than the Iberian one. --Bentaguayre (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

French Cerdagne in the Iberian peninsula

The article about French Cerdagne that links to this one says that "It is the only French territory in the Iberian Peninsula." I think it's true because there is no geographical, but only political, division between French and Spanish Cerdagne. So I think this french area must be included in the political divisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.233.163 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the map I cant see any part of Iberia which is in France. The division between the two countries seems to correspond with the Pyrennes.--Burgas00 12:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on "Greek"?

Not sure what the author meant precisely when this was written in the first paragraph: "The same name of Iberia is used since Greek ages for another territory at the opposite corner of Europe: Caucasian Iberia." Could use a little clearer definition of what the "Greek ages" are in this context. As it stands now, the word "Greek" simply points to the non-helpful disambiguation page. I'll leave it that way until the specific period of history is clarified and hopefully someone else can take a poke at fixing the link. Fjbfour 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I help? The Ogre 15:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology?

This section doesn't give the etymology of the word. What did Iberia mean in ancient Greek? My hunch is that it might be related to berber, but I've got nothing to back that up. Anyone? --Zachbe (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows the etymology of Iberia. Your hunch that it is related to Berber is certainly the result of past theories that though the ancient Iberians had a North African origin. These theories are presently discredited. According to info on the Spanish wikipedia article it is believed that the root Iber is of Iberian origin, and could relate to the word ancient Iberians used to say river(which may have survided in the modern name or the Ebro river). I'll had this info to the article. Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't add the info without the ref - I'll see if I can get a few.Dave (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss my proposal. Jimp 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think a single Prehistoric Iberia makes a lot of sense - merge them all! Provocateur 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Hispania

Hello, "Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula", "The term Hispania is Latin and the term Iberia is Greek". Apropos of the merger discussions above, I think the two articles Hispania and Iberian Peninsula would benefit from better integration, or possibly merging or refactoring. Hispania could become a disambiguation page pointing to Iberian Peninsula, History of the Iberian Peninsula during Roman times, etc., for example. For a related example, see Formosa -- the island of Taiwan used to be known as Formosa, but we don't have a separate article called "Formosa" about the same geographic location and the history during the time it was called Formosa. What do you think? —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-13 09:19Z

Hello Quarl. I tend to disagree with you, even if both articles could benefit from some better integration. But, for me, Iberian Peninsula is essencually an article about a geographical location, while Hispania is an article about the Iberian Peninsula in Roman and Visigothic times. I believe these two should not be merged and also because either Iberian Peninsula and Hispania are words people are used to search for with different connotations, they should not be confused. The Ogre 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I support Ogre's reasoning here. Provocateur 03:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So do I. - Montréalais 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I also support this, good idea. Euskera 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I support Quarl because "Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula" That is right if anyone studyed Italien or Swedish they should know that. bigjcaudle — Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 22 March 2007‎ (UTC)
My friend, I dont't see the relevance of knowing Italien or Swedish! The fact is that the Romans did call the Iberian Peninsula by the name Hispania. That is way the article Hispania should refer to the Roman (and Visigothic) Iberian Peninsula, and the article Iberian Peninsula should refer to the geographical peninsula in Europe that presently encompasses Portugal, Spain, Andorra and Gibraltar! The Ogre 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Also ancient Greeks and Romans called ancient Georgians by the name of Iberians, see Caucasian Iberia. In some Roman texts, they refer to the people in South Caucasus as Iberians. I know its confusing but thats the way it is. :) Euskera 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose a merger. The Iberian Peninsula is a geographical feature, while Hispania was a Roman and medieval political entity. I'm aware that this is an oversimplification; "Hispania" has often been used as a geographical term. Nevertheless, there are two different concepts here which should be distinguished. FilipeS 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Iberia has been inhabited since...

I have removed a sentence regarding how long Iberia has been inhabited. It was essentially contentious, inaccurate and unconfirmed. Back in February the figure was 500,000; in May it was 1,000,000; in June 700,000 now 1,000,000 - well which is it? Chris Buttigiegtalk 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chris Buttigieg. Acording to Prehistoric Iberia, "Hominin inhabitation of the Iberian Peninsula dates from the Paleolithic. Early hominin remains have been discovered at a number of sites on the peninsula. Significant evidence of an extended occupation of Iberia by Neandertal man has also been discovered. Homo sapiens first entered Iberia towards the end of the Paleolithic. For a time Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted until the former were finally driven to extinction. Modern man continued to inhabit the peninsula through the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods." It continues, "Iberia has a wealth of prehistoric sites. Many of the best preserved prehistoric remains are in the Atapuerca region, rich with limestone caves that have preserved a million years of human evolution. Among these sites is the cave of Gran Dolina, where six hominin skeletons, dated between 780,000 and 1 million years ago, were found in 1994. Experts have debated whether these skeletons belong to the species Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, or a new species called Homo antecessor." So... I believe the figure 1,000,000 is correct. I am reverting you. Hope you are ok with it. The Ogre 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Chris Buttigiegtalk 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! See you around. The Ogre 01:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Iberia?

I'm spanish and I never ear about the Iberia to called the Iberian peninsula. The iberians only occupied the self North-east of Spain. The other civilization was the celts. The more correct is Celtiberia or Hispanic Peninsula but the word Iberian peninsula is very use but no Iberia. Iberia is a Enterprise of Airlines in Spain. Look the Península ibérica in spanish version please. Thanks for the attention. --Thor8 (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thor, the greeks knew the Peninsula as Iberia, and equally the anglosaxon world call to our Peninsula, Iberia; don't matter how we know really our land, at the moment that different peoples have differents names for the same land, for example we know Greece as Grecia, but the greeks say Hellas, the same can be said here althought you didn't know before this anglosaxon custom, the greeks can't come here to say us that we use an uncorrect name, equally here this is the english wiki. regards --Bentaguayre (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Understands what you say but is not the same. Hispania was ever the peninsula but when Hispania (Spain) begins a political territory in 1492 with Catholic Kings. The peninsula begin called Iberian because don't confuse the Portuguese with the Castilians. But all peninsula is Hispania, Iberia is the greek name of the oriental Spain the name Hispania is more old. I-shphanim is the phoenician name and become in Hispania for romans. The reasons are politics, if you talk spanish read the Península Ibérica in the article in Spanish. More specifically Toponimia. Best regards. --Thor8 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Iberia" at the Merriam-Webster Online. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish Wikipedia. FilipeS (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Olá Thor. I understand that you are well intentioned, but, besides these being the English language wikipedia, besides the fact that another wikipedia article is not a source according to policy, besides the fact that Iberia, in English and in modern Spanish means without a doubt the whole of the Peninsula (an not just the eastern parts anciently inhabited by the Iberians), the fact is that Hispanic in the modern sense means Spain and not the whole of the peninsula. The word "Hispanic" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means something pertaining to the country of Spain or its cultural descendants (as in Hispanic America, which does not include Brazil), not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Hispania was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not, only when refering to Roman Hispania, not the present times. Furthermore, if you call Hispanic to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should not emply that Hispanic is Iberia. If the Spanish wikipedia states that, without stating that it is a Spanish centered POV, that it is wrong and against policies and should be corrected. Gracias! The Ogre (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thor, the spanish wiki article is highly inacurate and i will correct it tomorrow, better is the article Iberia about the same question. The peninsula wasn't called iberian because portuguese or spanish, the greeks of ancient time called it with the name first to the eastern part and then to the hole Peninsula, in fact is a second name originated from a diferent source than Hispania wich like you said is phoenician. The question here is that both names are correct for the Peninsula, Hispania became more popular but the form of Iberia is used by the anglosaxon world today and since many years, so i repeat is irrelevant how we know our land and if the more popular along the history is another name, this is the English wikipedia and they say to our Peninsula, Iberia. They have the right to name the things like they want according with their tradition, and if you not support this think about the example that i put before: we the spanish call Greece to the land of the greeks, but the original name is Hellas and is inhabited by hellenos according to theyrself, do you want to change the spanish form of call to the country because this? --Bentaguayre (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thor

In fact user Thor seems to have a POV agenda, since the POV ramblings in the Spanish wikipedia are also his doing as Thor8. This must be carefully watched as this editor seems to push a Spanish (Castilian) centered agenda, trying to minimize the diversity of Iberia and reduced to Spain as seen from Madrid. Beware! The Ogre (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I tried to revert his edits in the Spanish wikipedia and was treated like a vandal, even if I always explained my reasons. Well... Their prblem if they want to have a crapy, Spanish chauvinistic article! Maybe the Portuguese wikipedia should state that Iberia is the Lusitanian Peninsula!! Wouldn't that be great? The Ogre (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Lusitania, Bética and Tarraconensis was division of the Hispania. All the peninsula is Celtiberian not iberian only. And Portugal was there few Iberians isn´t it? I only say what Peninsula Hispanic is more correct, but is accept the name Iberian Peninsula. Usually is confused Castille with Spain but the old Spain is old peninsula with Aragón, Navarra, León, Castilla y Portugal. Aragon was castellanized but his spirit is live in Cataluña, they speak in Catalá but is Spain, not Castille but this is Spain. My english is not very well. If you speak spanish contact with me in the Castilian Wikipedia. Regards. --Thor8 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Spanish article at least has references. O Descobrimento da América e o Tratado de Tordesilhas, de Manuel Fernandes Costa, Biblioteca Breve, Instituto de Cultura Portuguesa, Secretaria de Estado da Cultura, Ministério da Cultura e da Ciência, 1ª ed., Lisboa, 1979.
This was write by Portuguez in article Península Hispánica and I fusioned with Península Ibérica and I do it with this reference. Read the book before change the spanish article. --Thor8 (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning is incorrect as you are trying to justify, improperly, for historical reasons, that the Peninsula shuold be called Hispanic Peninsula. However, wven if some ancient peoples did called it like this or even differently, what does it matter? Nowadays the people that inhabit it, as well as the rest of the world calls it something else (Iberian Peninsula). This is not the only instance where something of the sort happened. Using your own reasoning, if we were to follow what ancient peoples called the Iberian Peninsula, maybe we should revert back to Arabic times and start calling it Al-Andaluz or Andaluzia. See the fallacy in your reasoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.74.101 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please: do not feed the troll. It's just a catalan nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.186.159 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question in Regards to Hispania

I was just wondering what the difference is between the Iberian Peninsula and Hispania? I had thought that they always referred to the same thing (except Hispania in regards to the Spanish/Portugese Speaking World.) Of course, I haven't read the whole of either article, but I really don't see the difference. I am no expert on the subject, but could these be merged? I mean, the first sentence in Hispania is "Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula," and the Iberian Peninsula is what this whole article is about. I understand that these terms could be somewhat loose, but are they that different? Mhavril39 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read both articles before asking, no? FilipeS (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Iberian Peninsula is a geographical reality. Hispania is an historical reality, pertaining to the period of Roman Iberia (even if the name was also somewhat used for some centuries after that). The Ogre (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated than that. Hispania was an overall Roman name for the Peninsula, although could be used to indicate a part (Hispania Tarraconensis, for example). Come the medieval times, there were two of them -- a Christian Hispania and a Muslim Hispania -- and so Fernando I (d. 1060) was referred to as 'rex Hispaniarum' (King of the Hispaniae). When Ferdinand and Isabella abrogated the name they did so primarily in the vernacular: España (in the singular), although both España and Las Españas had been used from the 13th century to denote the (Christian) part of the Peninsula, and at times all of it. To complain that plucky little Portugal was not included by this new use overlooks the fact that they fully expected Portugal to be joined to their union of crowns (as it eventually was under the Habsburgs, and as it nearly was under Manuel I of Portugal around 1500). So: ([All] The) Spain(s) is perfectly acceptable as a means of referring to the Peninsula for the medieval period. Spain (= España = union of the crowns of Castile and Aragon) takes off at the end of the fifteenth century and becomes normal usage. But since Hispanic now means, in English, basically 'Latin American', it can't be used without confusion. So Iberian Peninsula is best. And, to quibble more than anyone else, Lusitania is all very well for Portugal, but where was the capital of the Roman province? Augusta Emerita, i.e. Mêrida, currently in... Spain. Terminology is ever imperfect from the historical point of view. Hostiensis (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology accuracy

What is the source for the etymology presented here? My wife's "Special Topics in Spanish Linguistics: Spanish Dialects" class has presented a different etymology (I will have to get the name of her book later) which suggests that it means nothing like, "Land of the rivers." RobertM525 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Robert. I'm pushing the article along. These etymologies that you read are based on certain assumptions about the affinities of the Iberians. If you assume they are Celtic then you can come up with a really great Celtic etymology. If you assume they are Basque, then it gets even better. Perhaps you might assume they are Phoenician. There is one for that too. None of them quite fit, exactly. The evidence states its native name was Iber and Iberia was named for the river. Unfortunately no one has much of an idea about the language. So, the professional linguists brush off these speculative etymologies and do not repeat them. We have to wait until a bilingual text of some length is found. It may not be long, or it may not be for 100 years. For general advice I would say, stick with the professional linguists. Put aside the expectation that someone has an answer for every question. Most ancient names remain unknown, and that makes sense. How should we know them when the languages are not known? So, it is nice to get the students thinking about things. However most of what we think is pure mythology. I went through a phase of etymologizing names too. I blush to think of it. They can present all they like, presentations do not make things true, and we have the epistemological problem of knowing when something is true. Unfortunately a name in an unknown language cannot be verified. Best wishes,Dave (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

rqmap

A topographic map would be nice. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

French Cerdagne

Why is this area part of the Iberian Peninsula? Is there some sort of geological feature that this region has in common with Iberia and not with the rest of France? We should explain its inclusion. Funnyhat (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The french Cedagne was a spanish region occupied by France after the treaty of Pyrinees. They used to speak catalan in that region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.112.8 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of the Reconquista

The limits of the Kingdom of Navarre are invented. The region of Biscay belong to the Crown of Castille — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.112.8 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Algarve is not a city

Algarve is the name of a region not a city. The administrative centre is the city of Faro and that might be one of the biggest in Iberian Peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.157.111 (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Faro is not even on of the biggest 5 of Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.180.84 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Peninsule itself

This article, as almost all about Spain is a mess. First of all, it is true that the Iberian Peninsula more or less is limited by the Spanish-French border, but this is absurd since internationally a peninsule ends in the narrower region of land which linked it to the continent -in that case, well inside France. Since this is not so considered, I think it is compulsory to quote some kind of geographical authority stating clearly the limits of the peninsule. Secondly, it is all on the contrary: Hispania was first a political (not geographical) device, under Roman rule, and after, a geographical concept in despite of political ambitions (the same as America or Europe is today, but very far from a political subject, since they are made of multiple political units). No unity was achieved even when the whole peninsula was ruled under Habsburgs, since each kingdom held its own politics. Last, a peninsula is a mere fact of geography, not more. I don't understand why a peninsula has history, history is a subject of people, not floors. 213.60.26.62 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Added cleanup tag. Much of the article seemed like it could use some cleanup, the voice didn't sound right. Hope that's cool. Saffolicious (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Iberia to Iberia (disambiguation); do not move Iberian Peninsula to Iberia. Ucucha 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Helvetica (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ogre's idea sounds alright to me. Helvetica (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion 2

I text-merged this discussion in from Talk:Iberia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ogre's idea sounds alright to me. Helvetica (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Iberian Peninsula which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

189.62.162.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on reverting and seems to believe that Gibraltar is not under de facto British sovereignty. I suggest that s/he read Disputed status of Gibraltar where it is made quite clear that Gibraltar is under de jure and de facto British sovereignty. If truth be told, even Spain (the claimant) recognises British sovereignty over Gibraltar; in point of contrast, the Argentine government does not recognise British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. While Spain may indeed maintain an irredentist claim to the territory, this does not alter its actual status as a British territory. RedCoat10 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Our little dispute:
Me: [1]
RedCoat10: "extraneous information" [2]
Me: "I don't see why it is. The model seems to be to state the ownership and then the borders." [3]
RedCoat10: "Rv: which is why noting an irredenist claim is wholly irrelevant; the "ownership" is British." [4]
Me: "A theif does not own what he steals. Ownership is tied to international law, not occupation." [5]
RedCoat10: "please familiarise yourself with the issue at hand" [6]
Me: "Whydon'tyou?IthinkyoumeantheUKgainedGibraltarbytreaty.That'snotmypoint.Ownershipdoesnotequatedefacto." [7]
RedCoat10: "see talk page/please discuss" [8]
I apologize if I was misunderstood (though I'm pretty sure you got the picture). Most of my attention was directed at fitting a response in the space provided. Substitute "de jure ownership" for "ownership" in the above conversation. Then what I said may make more sense to you. Spain claims Gibraltar as part of its territory to such an extent that . The only difference I can see between the Argentine and Spanish cases I can see is that the Argentine claim is included in the Argentine constitution, while the Spanish Claim is not in the Spanish constitution. But this point is moot. The Spanish claim is represented on the very coat of arms and flag of Spain.--189.62.162.15 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Spain claims Gibraltar as part of its territory, no one is disputing this. However, this irredentist claim does not alter Gibraltar's actual status as a de jure and de facto British Territory, a status acknowledged even by the claimant, Spain. The constitutional difference is not the only difference between the Falklands and Gibraltar; Argentina does not recognise British sovereignty over the Falklands, Spain does recognise British sovereignty over Gibraltar (even if it 'wants it back', so to speak). RedCoat10 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Area of the peninsula

What is the basis for stating the area of the peninsula determined with ten square kilometer precision ("582,860 square kilometres")? This is quite surprising, given that the northeast boundary of the peninsula is given loosely as "the Pyrenees" (a mountain range more than 400 km long, and quite a few kilometers wide). Without very precisely defined boundaries, 10-km² precision is ludicrous. --Jmk (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No citations for that precise figure? Then I'll change it to 580,000 km², on the basis that the northern boundary has easily at least ±1 km uncertainty along the 430-km mountain range (so even the 1000s digit of the area is not precise). At least some references do give the number as 580,000. --Jmk (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The numbers I added were a closer approximation to the numbers used on the Catalan and Spanish wikis at the time.
580,000 is ok, but not 590,000. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Spanish reconquista.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Spanish reconquista.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Old page history

I have uncovered the page history of a version of the "Iberian Peninsula" article that was merged into the current page in October 2002. It can now be found at Talk:Iberian Peninsula/Old history. Graham87 11:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; it was at Iberian peninsula all along. Graham87 11:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iberian Peninsula. 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).

  • 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) 16:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Republic

Should this really be listed in the infobox. I have revert a recent removal of this, but I don't think it should read catalan republic as it simply doesn't exist. Catalonia as a cultural region perhaps. In similarity to the Basque country. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a country of the Iberian Peninsula

Catalonia is not a country of the Iberian Peninsula it is just a autonomous community, the countries that form the Iberian Peninsula are Spain, Portugal and Andorra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.251.97 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

France, the Pyrenees and Iberia

The theory around French Cerdagne being the only part of France on the southern side of the Pyrenees is a bit ridiculous. If you have a look at the topographic map on the right, you can see the entire border lies within the mountain range (so there's almost certainly other parts of France where the rivers flow south of the Pyrenees). French Cerdagne is around the Spanish exclave you can see towards the eastern end of the range.

Anyway, would it not make more sense to define Iberia as encompassing the entire mountain range to its north-most extent? If you draw a line through the middle of the range, half of Andorra and parts of Spain would be considered not to be part of the peninsula.

Rob984 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear physical geographical boundary between the south and the north of the Pyrenees, which for the most part follows the Spain-France border but not entirely. A river can either flow south or north the Pyrenees. As a convention, the Pyrenees are used as the isthmus of the Iberian Peninsula, which means Spain's Aran Valley is not in the Iberian Peninsula (Garonne is born there), while France's Cerdagne is (Segre is born there), as well as Andorra (Valira, tributary to the Segre, is born there). -- Trident90 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iberian Peninsula. 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).

  • 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) 03:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Area of the French Iberian region

The article claims that France's part of the Iberian Peninsula corresponds to the Haute Cerdagne area, which is correct and it's itself less than 1,000 km2, but then assigns 33,563 km2 to the French part. This is just contradictory. What is the source of this figure? --Trident90 (Talk) 22:11 23 september 2018 (UTC)

I removed “Greeks believed that European civilization began in Tartessos.”

This was uncited and not clear in meaning- maybe author meant educated Greeks from Classical times, or maybe meant a couple Greek archeologists from the 1900s? It needs to be clarified and cited before going back into article, if it is even true, which I doubt.Rich (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Incredibly, I added this to wrong talk page-using mobile device.16:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Isla Hispaniola

Dear readers, I do not interfere with your interesting comments and suggestions, but only want to add a small comment on this discussion: The name ,,Hispaniola" is a very old name wich means ,,With Plains" (Ebene or Hochebene in German, plaine in French). Greets, Gerard Rorik, Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.178.42 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Population

The population data (~57M) looks to be wrong. Roughly speaking Spain (whole country) makes ~46.7M, Portugal ~10.3M. Adding the population of Andorra and Gibraltar (~0.1M) and whatever the French territory in the Iberian Peninsula has (I dunno about the exact number, the article states it is in the 0.01M range), you need to detract the population of the Macaronesian archipelagos and the Balearics (roughly ~3.8M) and the population of Ceuta and Melilla (~0.18M).--Asqueladd (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead

@Puto tigaz and Cristiano Tomás:
I just edited the lead to sort the territories in terms of decreasing area Peninsular Spain, Continental Portugal, French Cerdagne, Andorra and Gibraltar. I'm just surprised to find out later the order of the first two has been the subject of a long edit conflict over time. Can this be set out here for good one way and another? Thanks.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Density

Please add "population density" below the population data. Aminabzz (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Maps of the Iberian Peninsula

Hello everyone, would it be possible to modify the maps of the Iberian Peninsula by those displayed here. Even though it might sound silly, a person deletes these cards for no reason. So I ask here. The first maps are in replacement because they are better detailed. The Roussillon map is to explain why France owns part of the Iberian Peninsula. I specify that wikipedia is a free library, that the information must be sourced and that a user cannot impose or delete texts for personal ideas--81.67.153.44 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The current medieval maps are fine, and no special detail is needed, because the bulk of those details are not discussed in the body. As they shouldn't be, this is a general article and not about military history precisely. A map of Europe for the climate section is superfluous. There is a climate map already of the Iberian Peninsula. The ethnic map is utterly out of place, out of date, and frankly the idea of the article improving from the random insertion of an early 20th century map (from the era of biological racism, no less) about ethnic groups in a section with no historical content is bonkers. I specify that wikipedia is a free library So what? --Asqueladd (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
PD: The Rousillon is not part of the Iberian Peninsula. Only the Haute-Cerdagne is.)--Asqueladd (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The climatic map of europe was to show the disparities between the iberian peninsula and the other side of the pyrenees. Historical maps were to refresh those old maps. The ethnic map also represents the languages spoken in the Iberian Peninsula. I think you see a little too much evil everywhere. And wikipedia is a free library because everyone can contribute something, it is not up to one person to say what should or should not be written. I especially wanted to change the cards with more recent ones and put as much information as possible. Then for the racial side I leave you in your own delirium. I like to have a very precise and also overall view, which is why I wanted to make this modifications. Seeing the Iberian Peninsula alone and then as a whole interests me, and I thought that it could also interest other readers.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The climate map is superfluous. "I especially wanted to change the cards with more recent ones and put as much information as possible" As long as that extra information (in French, rather than English, no less) is not covered by the article (and as I tell you, it probably shouldn't be as that focus on military history is WP:UNDUE), the "extra-details" of those illustrations are not necessary in themselves. "I think you see a little too much evil everywhere." That's bad, I'll think about it as long as you promise me than you'll think about you being blocked in fr.wikipedia as multi-sock of Julio189red (a perm-ban there) and your role in the Wikimedia projects.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

small rectification

The Celtic map was created by a wikipedia user. I have nothing against but she is not scientific. Indeed it is not possible to affirm or deny the maximum extension of Celtic migration. Would it be possible to mark "hypothetical expansion...". About the "southern France" appointment. There is no point in specifying south or north of a country and dividing a country in two on the Iberian Peninsula page. I would like to simply put France instead of southern France. It seems more appropriate with the subject. in the article "Major modern countries" it is possible to specify "Roussillon" because if we talk about France it is logical to specify the region which is part of the Iberian peninsula. also to say that today it corresponds to Pyrénées-Orientales. If you have any suggestions I am interested.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Roussillon is not part of the Iberian Peninsula. Only the Haute-Cerdagne is.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you explain better which is your problem with the Celtic expansion map? Particularly what is supposed to be wrong vis-à-vis the Iberian Peninsula? I don't mind getting rid of that map (far from essential in this article) but you did not change the map with your edits.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Asqueladd Haute-Cerdagne is part of Roussillon. Yes indeed, I wanted to put the history of Roussillon to explain how part of the Iberian peninsula is currently in France. And instead of putting the zone precisely I put Roussillon. It is a mistake. I did not think that I would be taken back on this detail. In the table I wanted to specify the region but it is true that it is not the whole region. The Celtic map does not bother me either, but this map does not represent reality, but simply a hypothesis of Celtic expansion. That's why I meant hypothetical. I think it matters.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, if the entry is to delve into the situation of the peninsula by the 17th century in non-economic terms, a bit of the spillover of some conflict could be mentioned (as long as sources do) but still I don't see an illustration of the Haute-Cerdagne as prioritary by any means in the history section. There are dozens of more illustrative options (also the chosen illustration doesn't have an historical context, but recentist). It's still WP:UNDUE. There is a reason most historical studies with an Iberian focus fail to mention the area. Besides that I am neutral on whether to include the Haute Cerdagne in the table of the Iberian Peninsula#Major modern countries. Regarding the so-called Celtic map (which happens to be Eurocentric, not unlike some of your proposals), I see reasons to put instead a Iberia-specific map (such as this one) or not to put a map at all, but what's your problem specifically with the "reality" of the map? (which can be roughly sourced if that's your worry [9][10]) Regarding the Iberian Peninsula it is usually what historians consider to be the extent of the Celtic culture by the Late Iron Age: that is, emptying the corner of the Gulf of Biscay (Aquitani/proto-Basques) and the Mediterranean and southern coast (Iberi) and putting question marks into the Lusitani and Vettones, as they are rather considered to be non-Celtic indoeuropean.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced the image of the Celtic expansion by an Iberia-centered map, if for no other reasons than the holistic grouping of the different peoples instead of just the Celtic ones and the handy Iberian (rather than European) context. In any case, for the next time you need to make a better case for your edits, instead of randomly picking a map to smear about its "reality" or whatnot. Bye.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the point in mentioning and linking "Tarifa" here? It is hardly relevant within given context. If a mention is needed, the geographical feature (Punta de Tarifa) rather than Tarifa should be mentioned/linked.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct on the population it seems. Quick calculation: Peninsular Spain has 43,932,022, Peninsular Portugal has 9,789,343, Andorra has 77,543 Gibraltar has 33,698 so Iberia is roughly 54 million.
But I see a lot of unjustified reversals here: 1) You have reverted that the southernmost point of Europe is in the Iberian peninsula Tarifa. No reason to. 2) You have reverted that Spain is the second highest country in the Europe - as per sources. Not "regions". There are no clearly defined comparable regions in Europe. We can say that A) Iberia is high altitude overall B) As a result, Spain is the second highest country in Europe. We cannot say anything more than that because sources do not support that. Which region would be the first? Which would be the third or the fourth? Huasteca (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally User:Asqueladd, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to revert an entire edit over a minor qualm, such as preferring Punta de Tarifa over Tarifa - either is fine. See: WP:STONEWALLING.Huasteca (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You have reverted that the southernmost point of Europe is in the Iberian peninsula Tarifa. I have not. Incidentally, User:Huasteca I have not reverted you here, but I have left the edit and I have brought the issue to discussion. In any case, regarding the rest of edits other than the Tarifa issue, please check the sources before modifying sourced content.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Asqueladd Ok my apologies. I just saw from my own notification. I see you engaged in a bunch of edits.Huasteca (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the ranking. You say Not "regions". There are no clearly defined comparable regions in Europe. We can say that A) Iberia is high altitude overall B) As a result, Spain is the second highest country in Europe. We cannot say anything more than that because sources do not support that. Yet it is precisely what cited source states: "The IP encompasses 583 254 km2 and has very contrasting and uneven relief. The mountain ranges of the IP are mainly distributed from west to east, and in some cases reach altitudes of approximately 3000 m a.s.l., resulting in the IP region having the second highest mean altitude (637 m a.s.l.) in western Europe" (Lorenzo-Lacruz et al. 2011, p. 2582). I have no problems with rewording the ranking bit as "in high average altitude in a Western European context" if the "ambiguous" (as in "not easily sortable") nature of the concept "region" is problematic to you (it may well be; incidentally the "Western Europe" concept is also ambiguous). All in all, Spain is possibly the second European country in terms of average altitude, yes, but this is the article about the Iberian Peninsula (which is not to be only framed as simply the sum of Spain and Portugal, particularly when "handy" sources don't do that). For that frame, we have the articles of Spain and Portugal.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iberian_Peninsula/Archive_1&oldid=1168402349"