User talk:Liberty Wealth

"Rule" vs. "Presence"

In English, "rule" implies existence of a polity, "presence" implies existence of people. e.g. "The conquest of Quebec ended French rule in North America" is perfectly correct (e.g. 1, 2). "The conquest of Quebec ended French presence in North America" would be incorrect. Walrasiad (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Presence in many cases refers to political terms, not demographic.

In addition, "Rule" implies that Muslims dominated the Peninsula for 8 centuries, which is false. His dominance of most of the Peninsula ended much earlier. Liberty Wealth (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Then there's something lost in translation. The term "presence" in English does not have political connotations, indeed the insinuation is usually the opposite, that someone is very quietly there, not saying anything, much less ruling anything. You would not use that word in an English text that way. Nor does "rule" imply predominance. France also did not dominate North America. But it is quite normal to refer to French rule in North America. Walrasiad (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Presence means being in a place, I think that meaning is international, but perhaps it does not make evident a political organization. That is why I put "occupation" before, because the Islamic occupation lasted 8 centuries. Rule still does not convince me, I think it still has a connotation of political domination and I think it's somewhat deceptive.

I can just inform you of customary English usage. "Rule" is perfectly explanatory and correct (as the French North America examples above show), whereas "presence" would be misleading (not only no insinuation of polity, people remain "present" under different political regimes). I know usage of these terms in Portuguese and Spanish is different, but they don't translate in the same sense into English. English-speakers would draw different inferences from those terms. "Occupation" certainly not, as that is a purely military concept, with heavy connotations of being not political.Walrasiad (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with you on the Presence, although I have already put a source in English that uses it.

But Occupation is perfectly valid. We are talking about a political entity that "invaded" and occupied the Iberian Peninsula. Although military is valid, because we are talking in a warlike context of constant wars between Muslims and Christians during the Reconquest and the formation of Al Andalus. It is completely valid.

Which political entity is that? There were dozens of kingdoms on the peninsula that rose and fell. There were many wars between Muslim kingdoms and between Christian kingdoms, and plenty of interventions by powers outside the peninsula, during this period. I am not sure what you're referring to. Who is "occupying" who? Walrasiad (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

With occupation I mean the Muslim kingdoms.

That you talk to me here is not going to reverse the fact that I have contributed a source from the Complutense University of Madrid where he uses presence. Liberty Wealth (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Evidently you're not a native English-speaker. Nor is that writer. I'm sorry. I've tried to help you here with writing, but you seem to have some other agenda and I'm wasting my time. I'm beginning to suspect you're a sockpuppet of User:JamesOredan. Walrasiad (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)