Jump to content

Talk:Arab conquest of Egypt

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


Requested move 17 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am closing this discussion as part of a group, consisting of Talk:Muslim conquest of Egypt#Requested move 17 March 2023, Talk:Muslim conquest of Armenia#Requested move 21 March 2023, and Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia#Requested move 17 March 2023, as the moves are comparable, the arguments for each are comparable, and many editors in those discussions referenced their positions in other discussions.

With the exception of Muslim conquest of Egypt, which is closed as moved, these articles are closed as no consensus; editors opposing the move argued that the proposed title is inaccurate and would hinder understanding, while editors supporting argued that the proposed title was the WP:COMMONNAME. Overall, neither position was sufficiently strong to establish a consensus given the comparable levels of support.

Muslim conquest of Egypt differs from these in that the arguments for it were seen as stronger by the participants, as evidenced by P Aculeius's neutral position on that move compared to their opposition on others.

If editors wish to explore these moves in the future they are encouraged to open a multi-move request, which will address some of the raised WP:CONSISTENCY concerns. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest of Egypt → Arab conquest of Egypt – The page should be moved to the WP:COMMONNAME, which is Arab conquest of Egypt, as demonstrated to be overwhelmingly the case on Ngrams, as well as on Google Scholar, where 'Arab conquest' outweighs 'Muslim conquest' roughly 4 to 1. More generally, military campaigns are typically characterized in terms of the political identity or demography of the relevant aggressor, not by religious alignment. The Crusades are not 'Christian invasions' and the Mongol campaigns are not 'Tengrist conquests', etc, etc. The emphasis here on religious identity is rife with inconsistency both with respect to general practice and internally within the project. There seems like no obvious reason for exceptionalism here with respect to WP:COMMONNAME or military campaign naming practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Support Neutral: although the case is not as overwhelming as the nominator suggests; the ngram shows that the proposed title is a bit more than twice as common in recent published sources, and the proportion has been declining as the current title has become more common throughout the last several decades. It may strike the nominator as strange to label it a "Muslim conquest", but it's not really, since religion was the primary justification for the numerous military campaigns across the near east and north Africa during this period, and there's no widely-used name for the state or movement, besides "Arab" or "Muslim", that might be used, at least in English. And the Crusades are most definitely describable as "Christian invasions" or using similar terminology. I suggest that there is no rule against using religion in titles such as this, and attempting to construct one is opening up a can of worms; it is merely uncommon, but in some cases it may be appropriate, and it is not inappropriate here; the justification for moving the article is that another title is more common. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no singular Christian polity at the time of the Crusades, which is not the case in Islam at the time of the invasion of Egypt. Srnec (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the Crusades were undertaken for strictly religious reasons in heed to the call of the Pope, and at all or nearly all times with the implicit support of the Church. The Crusaders were not interested in reconquering the lost provinces of the Byzantine Empire for secular purposes. I note that my support for the proposal is only based on the probability of the most common name in published sources, and it is not especially strong (I've modified my vote to make this clearer). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the current title; but I also believe the statistical argument is valid, if not as strong as the proposer suggests. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Arab is an ethnicity, "Muslims" at this time refers to the polity, with capital at Medina. While nearly all Muslims were Arab at this time, the converse does not hold, not all Arabs (indeed, not even most) were Muslims. The "Arabs" did not invade Egypt, the Muslims did. Walrasiad (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "at this time"? Contemporary sources mainly describe the invaders in ethnic terms. Thomas the Presbyter calls them Bedouins/nomads/Arabs and Fredegar calls them Saracens. Srnec (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean before c.760, when small Muslim states first began to split away from the Muslim caliphate. The Muslim caliphate was the only Muslim state at this time, and the religious movement was synonymous with the political entity. It it was the Muslim state that undertook these conquests, on orders from the central leadership in Medina. It was the only Muslim state at the time, but it was not the only Arab state. "Saracen" is a much later Medieval Italian term, when there were already many Muslim states (not all Arab) around the Mediterranean basin, "Bedouin" is a lifestyle (and the "Bedouin conquest of Egypt" would be more reflective of the Banu Hillal invasion of 1050s), "Arab" is an ethnicity (most of whom were Christian & Zoroastrian at this time, and not involved in this). All three would be misleading connotations for this event. This article is about "Muslim conquest of Egypt" much as we might refer to, say, the "Mormon colonization of Utah" rather than a "White Anglo-American colonization of Utah".. Walrasiad (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Track back on "Saracen". I thought "Saracen" in Fredegar was in translation, but seems to be in original, so the term is older than I expected. Etymology seems very vague - my dictionary attributes it as a Frankish corruption of a Greek corruption of the Semitic term "Easterner" (i.e. al-Sharq). Other etymologies attribute it (fancifully) to "sons of Sarah" (Ishmaelites, although in Biblical narrative they were not biological sons, but rather adoptive sons expelled by Sarah). Anyway, doesn't affect my point. It was not "Easteners", nor "Ishmaelites" nor "Arabs" generally, but "Muslims" specifically, that is the political state of the Muslim caliphate, that invaded Egypt. Walrasiad (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that is the non-existent Mormon colonization of Utah is the best parallel for a 'religious'-styled event of this type then that rather proves the point that this is a particularly exceptional way of framing things. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to reply to everyone's comment. Please take care not to veer into WP:Bludgeon.
But since you address this to me, let me give a quick reply: "Muslim" and "Mormon" is not being used here as religious terms, but rather as a political/communal term. The Mormons, like the Muslims, were organized polities at this time, and identified themselves that way. They did not think of themselves as "Arabs" or "Anglo-Saxons", nor "Browns" or "Whites", but rather as "Muslims" and "Mormons". They were a single community and a single political state, under a single government with a single law, all defined along the line of "Muslim" and "Mormon" identity - and only that identity. Indeed, they explicitly eschewed all clan, tribal, national, ethnic or racial identities in defining that community and state. They did not consider themselves to be an Ishmaelite, nor Qurayshi, nor Arab state or empire, but explicitly a Muslim state, indeed, the Muslim state, the one and only Muslim state, encompassing the entire Muslim community, governed by Islamic law, under a common leadership, which they identified solely as "the Muslims". That is how the term is being employed here. This article is referring to a notable conquest by a clear political entity, the Muslim state of the 7th Century, with its capital in Medina. The political leader of this state was the "Commander of the Faithful", not the "King of the Arabs". Your insistence on reducing everyone to racial/ethnic terms, or seeing things only in racial/ethnic terms, may be a hangover of a bad 20th Century habit when everyone had race/ethnicity on the brain, but it is anachronistic and inapplicable. The "Arabs", an ethnicity, did not invade Egypt, any more than the "Whites" invaded Utah. The very clearly and explicitly defined "Muslim" political state did. These were not ethnic/racial conquests. To say the "Arabs" did this, or the "Whites" did that, is both vague and misleading and precisely wrong. The Muslims did, the Mormons did - that is specific, clear and precisely correct. Walrasiad (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems like opinion on how the page should be titled, rather than anything that countermands the very straightforward and clear evidence that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 June 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arab conquest of Egypt → Muslim conquest of Egypt – Unlike all the other related articles,

only the page title here has been changed.

It is best to either restore the original name of the page or move the titles of the other pages to Arab conquest as well. Fragrant Peony (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this new RM appears to just ignore the former one and hasn't brought any relevant points that could lead to a different discussion than the March one. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is because the general proposal was rejected within the other related pages, favoring the term Muslim conquests. It seems odd to only change the name of one page, while leaving all the other similar pages like Muslim conquest of the Levant, Muslim conquest of North Africa, Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of Armenia..etc.
Quoting the Muslim conquest of Armenia discussion:
"This is part of Muslim conquests. Please don't start RMs without notifying discussants elsewhere on already open ongoing RMs on "Muslim conquests" in general, Spain, Persia, Egypt, etc., forcing them to scramble and repeat their replies across pages. Walrasiad (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "[reply]
"There is nothing wrong with the existing title, and the mass nomination for renaming of all articles whose titles describe "Muslim conquests" to "Arab conquests" in spite of the relative accuracy of the former and inconsistent applicability of the latter undermines the contention that the move is consistent with NPoV. These articles all concern the spread of Islam, not Arab culture generally, and the use of the phrase "Muslim conquest" does not indicate anti-Muslim bias. The fact that the article was created at a different title does not prove that the current title is inappropriate, nor does the fact that the title was changed without discussion: since it has evidently remained at this title for five years since the move, there clearly was no consensus to move it back, and I see no compelling reason to do it now. P Aculeius (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)" [1][reply]
"These articles all concern the spread of Islam, not Arab culture generally" - this may be your opinion, but that is not the NPOV of the sources, which, as has already been exhaustively demonstrated, prefer the emphasis on the conquests as "Arab conquests". The conquests spread both, hence why there are now 500 million Arabic speakers from Yemen to Morocco. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fragrant Peony (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Super Dro, and because the real issue is that the other articles mentioned - none of which are great - are the ones that have got things turned around. The terminology used at this page is the mainstream academic language. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that they should all fall under the same academic and historical terminology. Fragrant Peony (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The original move was mistaken. "Muslim conquest" is not only consistent and accurate, it helps differentiate the original Muslim conquest from the later great migration of the Banu Hilal, which is sometimes also characterized as an "Arab conquest", for its instrumental role in the Arabization of Egypt and North Africa (recounted in the Medieval folk epic Taghribat Bani Hilal). Walrasiad (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all great, but it does not speak to NPOV, which requires are to first and foremost be neutral with respect to sources. NPOV is not some elastic thing that we can bend and flex because we think it serves the reader's interests. WP:POVNAME exists as an exception, but that is only in cases where the common name case is overwhelming above and beyond POV concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the Banu Hilal argument is one hell of a red herring. It's called a "migration" on the page itself, and there is barely even a whiff of conquest around it at all, except in the aspirational sense in the associated epic. Even were the event primarily military in nature, which appears doubtful, it's too remotely obscure by comparison to realistically be confused with the Arab conquests. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That migration is not nearly as notable and well-known as this event. There is no differentiation needed. Super Ψ Dro 10:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needed no, helpful yes. The history of the Arabs does not begin nor end with the Muslims of the 630s. "Muslim conquest" is both commonly used, accurate and more informative. The 630s conquest was undertaken by the Muslim caliphate, not just another Arab kingdom. And it was annexed at this time into the Muslim caliphate. There is a reason why all the above pages are given as "Muslim conquest of...". It is WP:CONSISTENT and there is actually a very good rationale for preferring that name for these conquests. There's no good reason why Egypt should be an exception. Walrasiad (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the current title is consistent with Arab-Byzantine Wars, which is a featured article of infinitely higher quality than most of these other comparisons. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant. That article covers a much longer period and series of conflicts that extends to the 1050s, written largely from the Byzantine perspective, when there were many disunited Muslim states in the Mediterranean, which had a myriad of other names. The "Muslim conquests of...." series of articles are all about the formative conquests of the Muslim caliphate, the single and only Muslim state, that existed in the 630s (and not the sole Arab state at the time, incidentally).
The Muslim caliphate of the 630s was emphatically religious (not ethnic) in definition and political constitution. It is defined as a religious community, led by a "Commander of the Faithful", not a king of Arabs. The Byzantines may have called him "King of the Arabs", but that is from an outsider's perspective which had little or no understanding of the caliphate's constitution, and so defaulted to simple ethnic or racial characterization. We should not do the same. Walrasiad (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely relevant. This is an argument from consistency, so I am illustrating how the consistency point is actually a bit more multi-dimensional. There is a further consistency argument to be made with respect to the sources, otherwise known as NPOV, which is policy. The current title reflects the prevailing academic language on the subject and the balance of sources. As noted in the prior RM, this is not a marginal matter. The sources favour this language 4:1. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT here is being turned into WP:OTHERSTUFF. At Muslim conquest of Spain "Arab conquest" was never a plausible option because there were more Berbers than Arabs in the invading force. I am not aware of the other articles but we should analyse each case independently, and so far I see weak reasoning as to why should we adopt "Muslim conquest" on this article's title. It is the current version that enjoys a broader usage among sources. And that 11th century migration to Egypt is 100% irrelevant for this RM. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Spain, all the Muslim conquest of the Levant, Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of North Africa and Muslim conquest of Armenia were all Arab conquests. Iskandar323 raised a good point about the term Arab conquest being used more academically. It would be more Encyclopædiac to rename the other pages under the same heading since it seems odd to rename only one conquest but not their other conquests, they were all Arab conquests. Fragrant Peony (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Plenty of sources use both. You are simply expressing your preference for "Arab conquests" over "Muslim conquests". Even if someone prefers to use "Arab conquest", nobody - certainly no academic - would say the latter was inaccurate, and indeed most would say it is more accurate.
The question is whether we want to use ethnicity/race as the prime identifier in the article title, or actually use the state's identification. It is true that many Western Europeans of the 20th Century had ethnicity/race on their brains, and so European writers of that century had a tendency to see everything through that prism. That is much less so today. I see no reason to emphasize race, particularly since they emphatically did not, and no modern academic would dispute that.
The main reason "Arab conquest of Egypt" seems to persist in this case (rather than the others) is simply because that happens to be the title of Alfred J. Butler's 1902 influential book. That doesn't mean we also need to adhere to 1902 nomenclature. We have more flexibility.
Use of accurate state-identifiers is common across articles in Wikipedia, as preferred over ethnic/racial identifiers. If it a state name is available, and we can use it, we use it. So we talk about "Spanish conquests" or "Mormon colonization", not "European conquest" nor "White colonization". The state, not the ethnicity, is preferred.
These were "Muslim conquests" or "Islamic conquests", that is conquests by a state known as the Islamic Caliphate (not an "Arab kingdom"), a polity defined as the community of "Muslims" (not Arabs), led by a "Commander of the Faithful" (not an Arab king), with its capital at Medina. It is how it conceived of itself. It was the only such state at the time (whereas there were other Arab states). It was this same polity - "the Muslims" - that conquered Mecca, Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Persia, Armenia, Egypt, the Maghreb and Spain. All these lands were integrated into the Caliphate. It didn't change its constitution, identification or organization along the way. The ethnic composition of the Muslim armies varied as it went - but they were throughout the one and only "Muslim army", not an "Arab army" (there were other Arab armies, whom they fought against). Nobody, absolutely nobody, would claim this entity was not "the Muslims", or that "the Muslims" can refer to somebody else during this time.
This is less tenable once the Caliphate began to break up after the 720s and competing Muslim states emerge. After that point, "the Muslims" is no longer an accurate identifier of any polity, and we must to turn to a variety of other names to use. But for the first century, and particularly for the 630s, they are "the Muslims", and emphatically so. And articles pertaining to the conquests of that state during that period are and should be "Muslim conquests".
It doesn't have another name. "Caliphal conquests" doesn't work as an adjective, and "Muslim conquests" is commonly used, accurate and clear. Ethnicity/race may have been a kink for 20th C. Westerners, but we have long passed that sorry time. I see no reason to revert to sloppy old-fashioned racial terms, when we can more accurately call it by its proper name, how it is commonly understood and how it is commonly used. Walrasiad (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are speaking about naming as if it is a purely editorial choice, when, more often that not on Wikipedia, it is not. It is guided by policy and guidelines, and here we need look no further than WP:NPOV. The current title outweighs the proposed one by 4:1 in sources. Neutrality with respect to the sources (alongside WP:COMMONNAME) naturally guides us to prefer the former as the primary title and the latter as an alternative title. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an editorial decision. It is the consensus Wikipedia editors have made across articles of the early Muslim conquests: from the parent article Early Muslim conquests, to the child articles: Muslim conquest of the Levant, Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of Armenia, Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, Muslim conquest of Spain and until last month, Muslim conquest of Egypt. The reasoning applied to these applies here as well. You tried to force through "Arab conquests of.." across the board and they were rejected. Only this and your newly-created forky Arab conquest of Mesopotamia slipped through to become jarring exceptions. They should be made WP:CONSISTENT. "Muslim conquest of Egypt" is more accurate and also commonly used. The title of a 1902 book, however popular, does not and should not bind us blindly. It should not override the common Wikipedia consensus about the early Muslim conquests, marring the connections between the articles in this encyclopedia.
It may not be your favorite phrasing, but what is achieved by breaking consistency and making this an exception? How is Wikipedia improved by that? How does it help readers? The gain of "Muslim conquests" is clear: consistency and clarity. What is the loss you're afraid of? Why would readers suffer? Walrasiad (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unusual to say the least to form a local consensus to ignore WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME and overrule 80% of the sources. It's also needless. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV? What is NPOV? Are you saying these were not the Muslims? There is no scholar nor source - absolutely none - who would have any issue with calling these "Muslim conquests". Texts have to make a choice in their phrasing, some prefer to emphasize the Muslim state, others like to emphasize Arab ethnicity, but they are both used and practically interchangeable. You are insisting on a particular phrasing for no good reason other than WP:I just don't like it - you've made it clear you don't like it for Egypt and you don't like it for anywhere else. And that stubborn insistence on retaining that phrasing here breaks WP:CONSISTENT on Wikipedia series on "Early Muslim Conquests" - for nothing to do with Egypt, but just because of your general tastes. Give me a reason, a pragmatic reason, tell me how Wikipedia is improved by making Egypt an exception, so I may consider it. Walrasiad (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is not about you, me or anyone else. It is about respecting the sources fairly, proportionately and without editorial bias. It's extremely simple. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean you'd like to add a page to this proposal? This proposal is about Arab conquest of Egypt. Start another RM there. Super Ψ Dro 10:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is preferable to concentrate discussion on effectively the same topic in the same location, so editors don't have to scramble across pages and copy and paste their comments or arguments. Walrasiad (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each case requires independent discussion. Start another RM if necessary. Merging two different articles into one single discussion is pointless and will simply overcomplicate the process. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am mistaken, a multi-move is one of the options of this RM. I am asking to complete the list. Walrasiad (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a multi move. Other pages have simply been listed as comparative examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. This was just discussed, and Arab conquest of Egypt seems the best title per the points made and the consensus in that discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was very thin. There was one long oppose, one long neutral, and two nominal support votes ("per nom"). Not much of a consensus or any points made. Let the discussion happen. Walrasiad (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see points having been made and a consensus having been reached. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I participated in the previous discussion that resulted in moving the article from the proposed title to the current title just a couple of months ago. That and the several related page move discussions that followed became very heated and went on at great length. Some editors seem to believe that referring to Muslim conquests rather than Arab conquests indicates some form of anti-Muslim bias, although in point of fact the conquests were motivated entirely by religion, not ethnicity, and resulted primarily in religious conversion, not ethnic domination of the conquered territories.
I initially supported the move in this instance because it appeared to be the more common name, but the case was not as overwhelming as the nominator suggested, and the fact that the Egyptian populace was not displaced by Arabs, made me change my stance to "neutral" during the discussion. I continue to believe that there is no overwhelming reason to prefer one title to the other; "consistency" among related articles is not nearly as important as it is made out to be, particularly when, as here, the appropriateness of a particular description varies from one article to another (some of the other territories were significantly less "Arabized" than Egypt). In my opinion the title should be determined based on whether "Arab" or "Muslim" seems to be more accurate, if as seems to be the case, both names are common in scholarship; not on whether the title will be consistent with other related articles. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the point about displacement; a conquest is not a migration and this one no more implies some sort of immediate demographic displacement than any other conquest: most initially just involve a takeover by an occupying elite, with migration and intermarriage only following on later. The Roman conquest of Britain and Norman conquest of England are both pretty classic examples. But it also seems like a moot point. Only one word is being proposed for change here, and the population of Egypt was in no way displaced, either by Arabs or Muslims, though obviously both Arabization and conversion later occurred. If the suggestion is that the adjective implies displacement in some way, that premise would apply equally to either alternative. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the participants @Amakuru@Fragrant Peony@Iskandar323@P Aculeius@Super Dromaeosaurus@Walrasiad
This was closed as "Moved", with the argument for consistency being the primary cause.
In my reading of the previous RM, it was not a strong enough consensus to carry over to new RMs. Though the arguments raised there are relevant here as well, and were considered, the result of the previous RM cannot by itself be an argument.
There are 3 major points here:
  • WP:COMMONNAME
  • WP:CONSISTENT
  • WP:PRECSION
WP:PRECISION and WP:CONSISTENT, two of the criteria for moves, have been argued to favour the move. WP:COMMONNAME has been argued to oppose it. Per request on my T/P, I have reopened this for discussion regarding the weight that we should lend to these. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning back toward "Muslim conquest", acknowledging I supported the previous move, before changing to "neutral". This is not a case where COMMONNAME really helps, as both names are common and I see little value in trying to gauge which name is more trendy in scholarship. PRECISION is also ambiguous; Egypt's conquerors were Arabs, but they conquered it because Egypt was non-Muslim and in order to impose Islam on it. Some of its post-conquest rulers were Arabs, and Egypt's culture was permanently Arabized, in the sense that the dominant language, religion, and some other characteristics are either Arabic or Arabic-influenced. However, the population was never Arabic, and while Egypt was part of various caliphates over the next several centuries, they were not all specifically Arab—although they were all necessarily Muslim. CONSISTENT would support the current title, but it's not a very strong argument and the other policies should prevail if they clearly favour a different title. I don't think they do—so I think that returning to the previous title is the best choice. P Aculeius (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment, reiterate support to move to "Muslim conquest of Egypt". WP:CONSISTENT is paramount
* This page has been at "Muslim conquest of Egypt" for nearly 20 years without any objection. There has been no indication that the title has ever been problematic before.
* This mess started in March this year during the "Muslim conquest of Spain" RM, the same editor surreptitously threw up RMs across all "Muslim conquests of X" articles, including the parent "Early Muslim conquests" article, in an effort to influence that RM. They were all rejected except this one. This one had the least participation and discussion. The closer (who also closed other pages) may have attempted a "Solomonic" partition to resolve the quarrel. Far from resolving the problem, the closer created a new problem - that of inconsistency. It is inconsistency why we are here again today.
* In scholarship, "Muslim conquest of Egypt", "Islamic conquest of Egypt", "Arab conquest of Egypt", "Muslim Arab conquest of Egypt" are all commonly used, abound in writing, and are practically interchangeable phrases. They are all WP:COMMMONNAME. Nobody would be surprised confused or object to the use of any of these phrases. Which exact phrase is chosen is a matter of taste or what the author prefers to emphasize. Indeed many use both phrases in the same text.
* The emphasis on ethnicity/race was more common among 20th Century writers than now. Modern scholarship (e.g. Cambridge History of Egypt [2]) prefers "Muslim conquest" for reasons of precision, accuracy, endonym, etc. as I have already been gone into above.
* No argument has been made to show that "Muslim conquest of Egypt" is incorrect or uncommon, or how it may cause confusion to readers. "Arab conquest" has been argued as a personal preference (here and elsewhere), and the whole basis rests entirely on a pure numbers game.
* The popularity of the exact phrase "Arab conquest of Egypt" in citations rests on the title of the widely cited 1902 book by A.J. Butler. Archaic titles of popular books distort numbers and do not and should not bind us blindly. Much like the popularity of the phrase "Spanish conquest of Mexico" and "Spanish conquest of Peru" rests on the popularity of W.H. Prescott's books, and the phrase shows up in hugely outsized numbers in searches, but Wikipedia's article titles are "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire" and "Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire". Numbers are a factor, but never the sole factor, in determining common name. Reasoning is also necessary, and often trumps numbers.
* The choice "Muslim conquest of X" vs. "Arab conquest of X" is true for any page related to the "Early Muslim conquests" series. There are arguments for both sides, but the consensus of Wikipedia editors was to opt for "Muslim conquest of.." as the norm for this series.
* I have seen no arguments for an Egypt exception. No explanation of how it improves the article, or how making the exception serves Wikipedia or its readers.
* This inconsistency is glaring and needs to be resolved now. Or there will likely be RMs again and again for this page. To repeat, this article was stable at "Muslim conquest of Egypt" for nearly twenty years. The restored title will likely be stable for another twenty years. By contrast, "Arab conquest of Egypt" was unstable within two months, and will likely continue to be unstable, and RMs opened again every few months.
* In short, keeping it at "Arab conquest of Egypt" is all cost and no gain. Moving it back to "Muslim conquest of Egypt" gains consistency at no cost. Walrasiad (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: You've duplicated your bolded vote in this discussion. Please remove one of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The talk here of there being no arguments for the current title seems to either completely gloss over or be in contempt of WP:COMMONNAME. This is policy, and it does not imply that other names are uncommon, but simply, in Wikipedia's technical definition of the term "common name" one name is used in a "significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", for which clear evidence was produced in the past RM, and reproduced below here, and to which no counter or countermanding evidence has been produced. As to the dismissive attitude towards Butler, the Cambridge History that you have lauded states on page 60: "The best discussion of the conquest in general remains A. J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, which should be consulted in the second edition, P. M. Fraser (ed.), (Oxford, 1978); see also D. R. Hill, The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests (London, 1971) and V. Christides, "The Conquest of Egypt," "Misr", EI2". So that source establishes Butler's work as authoritative, and it clearly remained more than worthy of academic reprint 70 years later. As for Christides, I fear his piece is no longer the extant Encyclopedia of Islam entry in the third edition, but from his other works, including the paper "Sudanese at the Time of the Arab Conquest of Egypt", we can see that he opts for the same terminology. The eminent Patricia Crone, in her review of Hill's work meanwhile notes that Hill worked off of "500 traditions from the standard sources of the early Arab conquest", both attesting the quality of that scholarly work and the terminology in question. As to the question of why "Arab conquest", since the term's ongoing currency is quite clearly evident and the doubts about its contemporary usage clearly baseless, I would point again to Crone, writing in 2005: "[...] the history of the Arab empire sometimes reads like a fast-forward version of that of Rome. Where the Romans built up their empire over centuries, the Arabs carved out theirs in less than one [...] In the first centuries after the conquests, all native converts were Arabized, and Arabization continued thereafter too in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, while Arabic everywhere remained the high cultural language for Muslims." Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muslim conquest" heading is correct,​ as per WP:Consistency in article titles with the other Muslim conquests pages: Muslim conquest of the Levant and Muslim conquest of North Africa..etc. It's not encyclopedic to change the name of one but not the others. Voting is done by few members, the encyclopedia rules regarding consistency are clear. Fragrant Peony (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thought we already fixed this. Of course it should be at "Muslim conquest of Egypt".★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To reiterate the source-based evidence from the past discussion, Arab conquest of Egypt is the clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as demonstrated to be Ngrams, as well as on Google Scholar, where 'Arab conquest' outweighs 'Muslim conquest' roughly 4 to 1 in the context, i.e. it is not in even close. And as WP:COMMONNAME states, Wikipedia "prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." The idea that the proposed title is more consistent with existing (though IMO also poorly titled) pages on Wikipedia is a valid opinion, but it pales in comparison to the priority of respecting the sources, the bulk of which resolve on the existing terminology. This imperative is ultimately a reflection of WP:NPOV, which requires representing the reliable sources "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" (my bolding). Opting for minority terminology used in circa 20% of the sources is not a fair, proportionate and unbiased reflection of the body of scholarship, and arguments purely from the perspective of consistency (but one of five criteria), are not a good reason to stand in the way of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and mainstream consensus. While concision is a pretty moot point, recognizability, naturalness and precision all naturally favor the common name title, as noted at WP:COMMONNAME. The argument from WP:CONSISTENT meanwhile remains one-dimensional, taking into account only pages themed after the "Muslim conquests", while ignoring the broader and also more academically/scholarly consistency with the Arab-Byzantine Wars – the only A-class article in this topic area and of which this conflict was a key part. This page itself references three sources titled in terms of "Arab conquests": The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh N. Kennedy; The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years under Roman Dominion by Albert Butler; and "The Arab conquest of Egypt and the beginning of Muslim rule" by Petra Sijpesteijn, in Egypt in the Byzantine world by Roger Bagnall. All three of these sources are referenced extensively. The page cites but one source that uses "Muslim conquest", and that is the 1977 The Muslim Conquest of Egypt and North Africa by A. Akram, which is referenced once, fairly trivially and without a page number. In the broader literature, general histories of Egypt also refer to the invasion as an "Arab conquest" including A History of Egypt: From the Arab Conquest to the Present and A short history of modern Egypt, both by Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid-Marsot. The term also maintains its active currency in scholarship, such as in the titles of these recent papers: [3][4]. Given the balance of usage in the sources upon which this page is actually based and otherwise, coming as it does straight from subject-matter expert university professors, the case for moving the page elsewhere is rather wanting. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline and commanders

[edit]

The conquest ended in 641 with the siege of Alexanderia, and Abd Allah ibn Sa'd was a commander. The result should say just Rashidun victory. تفاصيل الفتوحات (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit-war again, as explained on your talk page. And please provide a clear and reliable source about the commander.
I will let other editors weigh in on the end date: 641 seems reasonable to me, but this article also covers continued expeditions to Nubia in 642 and Byzantine counterattacks in 645, so 646 is reasonable if we count these events as part of the process. Preferably, it would be good to follow the example of reliable sources here again, if any of them state the end of the conquest explicitly. R Prazeres (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conquest ended with the Battle of Nikiou in 646. If it helps, here's a source that says: Arab conquest of Egypt, overseen by the Rashidun Caliphate and taking place between 639 and 646 ended the long period of Roman and Byzantine rule in the region. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that sounds good enough for me, and all the more so since it's the status quo and fits the current scope. R Prazeres (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine lost Egypt in 641. They counterattacked long after they was conquered. تفاصيل الفتوحات (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres: I just wanted let you that, on second thought, I'm no longer convinced that the RS agree on 646 as the end date.
Hugh Kennedy, for instance (see ref), agrees with the 641 date: Egypt as a province in the Islamic caliphate, 641-868... At the end of the year 30 (November 641) a treaty was made in which the Byzantines agreed to give up the city by Shawwal 21/September 642. This meant the end of serious resistance: it was now up to the small army of conquerors to establish a working government over the rich lands they had so swiftly acquired.... After the conquest 'Amr was accepted as governor by the Caliph 'Umar... He successfully drove off a Byzantine counter-attack on Alexandria in 25/646
There are other sources that mention 641 in passing (like the one I cited before about 646), but the Cambridge history of Egypt seems to offer more in depth content. Like you said previously, both date seem reasonable (depending on how you look at it), so I'll leave it to you to do as you see fit. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking further. Kennedy is a good author to cite on the subject (and I checked his later work on The Great Arab Conquests and it says about the same), and I found another ref that seems to agree and would be easy to quote on the matter ([5]). I'll add a short statement to the article itself and make the change to the infobox, but I don't feel strongly about it, so other editors are free to disagree and request further discussion. It might be clearer also if we group some of the later sections under an "Aftermath" heading or something similar, but that's just a suggestion too. R Prazeres (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The sources talk mostly of 642 (the date of the formal surrender of Alexandria) than of 641 as the conclusion, but there's agreement on the conquest of Alexandria being the defining event anyways. So I've put 642 in the lead & infobox to be inclusive, and included quotes in the new citations for reference ([6]). Feel free to adjust. R Prazeres (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are a joke

[edit]

I'm sorry but the sources used are laughibly biased. One of them is entitled something like "the war with Islam and the west". This tribalism will get us no where and it just reads like bashing people. If this page is to be taken seriously, attempt to at least balance the sources (preferably use ones that aren't overtly prejudicial, but if you will at the very least counter that with something else). 2A00:23C7:D98A:4E01:4D88:7C2:17A2:D58D (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxation" section

[edit]

I had a second look at this section (see last stable version here), initially intending to clean it up. Not only is it unclear why there would be a "taxation" section in an article about the initial conquest, but the entire section is clearly written as a polemic with an obvious POV. Unsurprisingly, and more importantly, I found no reliable sources cited in the section; the sources ranged from random websites to books published by non-historians like Andrew Bostom (a medical doctor) and others, including possibly self-published works, all clearly polemic authors who are not academics on the topic. Given that it contributes nothing else to the article, I've removed the section for now ([7]).

John of Nikiu, which is mentioned in the section, is indeed a well-known primary source and is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but if he is to be discussed it must be done in line with WP:NPOV and by referencing reliable secondary sources. This is already done further below with reference to Hugh Kennedy, an actual historian. If editors want, it is possible to create a section about controversies, but this should be done cautiously and the text should be transparent about the POVs being reported (e.g. see WP:CONTROVERSY). R Prazeres (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_conquest_of_Egypt&oldid=1216891242"