Talk:Al-Andalus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Albr6394.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Arabs conquered the north of Spain and Iberia

Firstly, Granada wasn’t always a vassalage, as Muley Hacen and his successor rejected tribute. Also Musa bin Nusayr conquered Asturias in the north in 714. The whole north was conquered and Munuza (Umayyad leader) was appointed its governor. Only MANY years later was the kingdom of Asturias founded. The Arabs conquered the whole of Iberia. 2A04:4A43:4DAF:C3D6:917:85E4:D44D:E687 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

August 2023

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

Source for "Muslim Spain" being common, please. Besides, up to the Battle of Tours, all of the south of France was under Ummayad rule. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You can find it here. This is the first reference in the article. Ibn Qattuta (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)

That reference says nothing of the sort. But perhaps I'm just not seeing what you see, so, please, do quote the bit where this source says "Muslim Spain" is a common term. Google-books says the term is used three (3) times in that work (that pertains to the Maghreb). Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read the third note. It says: "Al-Andalus is the Arabic term for the Iberian Peninsula, which I use consistently and occasionally substitute with Islamic Iberia, its translation. I do not use the more popular Muslim Spain, because it omits Portugal." Ibn Qattuta (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)

"Muslim Spain" is specific to Spain and is therefore not synonymous with "Al-Andalus" (the same principle applies to "Muslim Portugal"). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a usage I find abhorrent, but 'Muslim Spain' is sometimes popularly used to refer to al-Andalus generally, without regard for the territories of the current nation-states of Spain and Portugal. إيان (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Source? "Trust me, bro!"

Need I be explicit in stating that does not fly on Wikipedia? I hope not. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The source i mentioned above wasn't enough? Ibn Qattuta (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of SimoooIX)

Not even close. The source you cite, the phrase "Which I occasionally substitute" is not indicative of it being commonly used (it isn't). The author of your source seems to prefer "Al Andalus", which makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

References

August 4, 2023

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

It's nationalist POV-pushing. "a series of the conquests Western historiography has traditionally characterized as a Reconquista". The common name for this period is the reconquista (re-conquest). The phrasing you use implies the Umayyad somehow were the native population instead of being conquerors themselves. Moreover, your phrasing implies "western historiography" is somehow responsable for that term being used.

I would also urge you to read WP:BRD. I know, It's an essay, but it is how Wikipedia works. Kleuske (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes... WP:WIKILAWYER may also be useful. Kleuske (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Kleuske, first your rationale for removing the sourced content was WP:COMMONNAME and now it's suddenly an issue of WP:NPOV. Sounds a lot like WP:DONTLIKEIT.

The battles and conquests characterized as a Reconquista spanning 8 centuries were not simply against the Umayyads, who were out of power by 1031. They were against a variety of Taifas, the Almoravids, the Almohads, and finally the Nasrids. It seems you don't know much about the topic. Academic consensus is very skeptical of the nationalist concept of 'Reconquista' spanning 8 centuries, to say the least. To learn more, I suggest you actually look at the sources you've been removing with mercurial justification. إيان (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

And the whole was called the "reconquista". And I have read books on the subject, though probably not the same ones as you. You are free to add sources, that's not what I'm objecting against. I object to the phrasing you proposed for the reasons given. If "academic consensus" is as unanimous as you claim, I would have expected to be inundated with sources, here. My expectations are not high, though, since the claim in question was not sourced at all, only justified with vague hand-waving in the general direction of "Wiki Voice". Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems you have a vested interest in lying about the subject matter. There is no credible scholarly skepticism regarding the use of the term "Reconquista". Any alleged skepticism or attempt to rebrand the term as contentious seems to come from folks with religious interests. 2600:4040:9012:1100:AD3F:6304:D37C:FCBB (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This comment has an Islamophobic tone and verges on being hate speech directed against a well-established editor, besides being utter bullshit. Carlstak (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"There is no credible scholarly skepticism regarding the use of the term". Yes, there is. As Alejandro García Sanjuán puts it, it is a "highly problematic concept that greatly contributed to produce a largely biased and distorted vision of the Iberian medieval past, aimed at delegitimizing the Islamic presence (al-Andalus) and therefore at legitimizing the Christian conquest of the Muslim territory". So, "your phrasing implies "western historiography" is somehow responsable for that term being used" (?!) Well, d'uh. This Spanish-language term is primarily used elsewhere because Spanish historiography fostered it in the 19th and 20th centuries to begin with.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a term that reeks of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and that's because Spanish historiography is incredibly myopic, overtly Romanticized and generally stinks, but it is what it is. Reconquista is the WP:NPOV term in sourcing through sheer prevalence alone, even though it was just a routine conquest. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the overly long reply, but I'm sick to death of the ignorance displayed on this page for years now. Most scholarship regarding usage of the term is in Spanish, of course, so people who don't read the language are often unaware of the robust academic debate on the subject. Even Ortega y Gasset wrote in his España Invertebrada (1921):

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

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

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

Martín Federico Ríos Saloma says the term did not become widespread until the '40s of the 19th century with the publication of two new editions of José Ortiz y Sanz's work Compendio cronológico de la historia de España and of Modesto Lafuente's Historia general.

And finally, Kenneth Baxter Wolf says:

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

Carlstak (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: I could go on and on. Carlstak (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Regarding the Kenneth Baxter Wolf quote, it's worth noting that González Ferrín's thesis about the Islamic non-conquest is disparaged as pseudohistory in academia, most notably by the very same García Sanjuán.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Asqueladd; the depth of your knowledge is appreciated. I wanted to demonstrate that this debate has been going on for years in Spanish historiography, and touch on the fact that the term and even the concept of a "reconquista" are of comparatively recent vintage. I believe Kenneth Baxter Wolf is a reliable source, himself. I have collected quite a few such quotes from across the academic spectrum and tried to pick a few that were most applicable to the discussion here.;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead length

I've done a bit of trimming in the lead. Length-wise, I think it's more or less fine as is. There are many paragraphs but they're pretty short, so they could simply do with a bit of merging and some more efficient wording, if needed. From a rough count, it has just over half the number of words as the lead of World War II, a GA article, and in terms of information, I find it hard to image any significant portions that could be trimmed without sacrificing essential information. If anything, the lead might also deserve a quick mention of its architectural legacy, given that this is the main physical and visual remnant of this period today (though I may be biased by my personal interests in that regard!). But feel free to discuss. R Prazeres (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've merged the second and third paras, which work ok together, and removed the segue into Islamic taxation, which is generic info for Islamic realms and not specific to the subject. Now it's the requisite four paragraphs. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks fine to me. A line about Christians and especially Jewish communities under Muslim rule might still be warranted, given their importance to the topic, but maybe more so on their specific cultural development in this period rather than their taxation and legal status which, as you rightly point out, is common to the rest of the Islamic world. R Prazeres (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree - the note about Jewish communities should restored as it's a primary aspect of the topic. Andre🚐 03:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Arts of the Book

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goldfinch12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Curious Shrimp, Bandzvlad.

— Assignment last updated by Bumblebeatrice (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

One would think that whoever is supposed to be supervising these students would ensure that they understand how to properly format text and references, as well as Wikipedia guidelines on style and tone, before letting them loose on articles where they may waste their time and that of other editors with edits that will be promptly reverted. I suspect that many of these "supervisors" don't know the basics of Wikipedia editing themselves. Carlstak (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)