Talk:Al-Andalus/Archive 2

Al-andalus
Al-Āndalus (Arabic الأندلس) was the Arabic name given to those parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Muslims from 711 to 1492.[1]

This statement should be better expressed, because the name is- as far as i'm aware- originally a latin word "Vandalus" that refers to the Vandals. Read3r 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [Forget this contribution, i had not read all the article ;)]
 * That's totally correct. But Al-Andalus is the Arabic name of Andalusia (which came from Vandal). So nothing is wrong there. -- Szvest 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Islam in Spain into this article
Really, I don't know if there's anything in Islam in Spain that's not already here but my impresion is that both articles deal about exactly the same thing and this one is much better. --Sugaar 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, MERGE. Johnbod 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MERGE - I agree with Sugaar that this article is much more comprehensive and that any additionl info in the Islam in Spain article could be merged into this one.KarlXII 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MERGE - The article Islam in Spain suffers from nationalistc POV. Islam was a global fenomenon in almost all of the Iberian Peninsula, should we have different aricles for Islam in Spain and in Portugal? I think not. Furthermore, Spain is a modern country that only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512) - the word Spain should not be used, therefore, to denote all of Iberia. The Ogre 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's good point I didn't even consider. Yes: Portugal also exists. --Sugaar 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MERGE I agree as well. While I don't think the nationalistic bent is a major issue the other article is certainly more balanced 206.136.32.239 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Bradley


 * KEEP I don't think the two should be completely merged. Al-Andalus only refers to a historical presence of Islam on the Iberian Peninsula.  Islam in Spain should be reworked to focus on the current status of Islam in Spain, a topic that is not covered in the Al-Andalus article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkwillwm (talk • contribs).
 * That's a good idea but it requires at least one compromised editor. Personally rather than "Islam in Spain", I'd work in "Muslim community in Spain", what should adress mostly the issue of immigrants of North African and other Muslim origins in Spain, their social and legal situation, demographics, and, of course, the aspect of religion, which is virtually exclusive of this community of mostly recent immigration. It would surely give a better (more complete and coherent) article. The historical reference should be very brief and directing to Al-Andalus.
 * Still it needs of one or more editors interested in working in it. --Sugaar 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An article about the current status of Islam in Spain should be called Muslim community in Spain. I agree with the suggestion made above. The Ogre 14:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Islam in Spain → history of Islam in medieval Spain (Al Andalus). Al-Andalus → Politics, society, culture and science in Al Andalus. Muslim community in Spain → Muslims in Spain. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  15:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My friend... Medieval Spain is not the Al-Andalus! The Al-Andalus coresponds to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula or Hispania. The Iberian peninsula, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, 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 Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors, who called it Al-Andalus. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain 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, any article should not emply that Spain is Iberia! The Ogre 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My dear friend...Nobody said that Medieval Spain is the Al-Andalus! Read my vote carefully and w/ more concentration! You had to explain what you've just explained to people who voted "merge" instead. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  15:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a small communication problem between us... What I'm saying is that we can not have an article called Islam in Spain when it is about the "history of Islam in medieval Spain (Al Andalus)", as you've said. because you can not call Medieval Spain to the historical reality of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages! What about Portugal in the Middle Ages? The Ogre 16:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What i meant by that is that in order to have both Islam in Spain (rename it Islam in Al-Andalus) and Muslim community in Spain (Islam in nowadays Spain) we need to focus on politics, society, culture and science in Al-Andalus article. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay! Now I get it! That seems acceptable to me. But... does it not split in two an article that should be integrated? The Ogre 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Well, IMO, as there's much to relate it is preferable to have 2 or 3 articles as per above. I believe this article needs more expansion re political conflicts, cultural and scientific developements, etc... I therefore think a separate article on religion would be a good idea. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Merge. --Arabist 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

rate of conversion in al-Andalus cited in article WRONG
Regarding the following: "Within two decades a majority of the inhabitants of Andalus, especially most of the Unitarian Christians and the oppressed class, accepted Islam freely in recognition of the peace, security and the freedom of religion and expression under the Muslim rule. (Gothic Princess Sara). By 770 C.E. people of all races from North Africa and Arabia migrated to Andalusia (Spain and Portugal). They intermarried with various nationalities including the native Spanish-Muslim population, with the result that Spain became a fairly homogeneous country within a few generations." All the books I have read on the subject show this assertion - that Andalusia became mostly Muslim within two decades, and that there was homogeneity within a few generations - to be false. To quote but one scholar, "By about 800 only some 8% of the indigenous population of al-Andalus had become Muslims. This had rised to about 12.5% by the middle of the ninth century. Thereafter the figure increased by leaps and bounds.... By about the year 1000 the proportion stood at something like 75%, after which the [conversion] curve flattened out." - Richard Fletcher, "Moorish Spain," p37-38. Similarly, Bernard Reilly writes that "...a very sizeable Christian majority remained within the area of Spanish Islam until well into the 10th Century." ("The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain", p19). These assertions are based on the work of Richard Bulliet in "Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period" (1979), which is seen as the authority on the subject by scholars in the field (Thomas Glick and Bernard Reilly to name two others). So the picture of a majority of Andalusian Christians converting to Islam within TWO DECADES is patently absurd. Twenty years is not a very long time for something so major to take effect, and the gradual conversion, as posited by Bulliet and others, is much more realistic. Kalukembe 09:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can be right but do you have any references? --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  12:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the references are right there! The Ogre 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks The Ogre. I've read the message quickly. Be bold Kalukembe and fix the innaccurate edits. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
It is reasonable to suppose then that the corresponding Gothic designation "Landahlauts" (allotted, inherited, drawn land), in its phonetic form — "landalos" — became easily and spontaneously, to Arabic ears, "Al-Andalus". Maybe. But it's not totaly true : landahlauts was pronounced landaχlɔts. I don't think arabic would have missed the χ. -- Sajasaze 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean [landaxlauts], with velar instead of uvular fricative. Anyway, this objection is not necessarily correct, because languages lose and gain sounds over time. Latin at the time of the Visigoth conquest (and Latin was the living language of Hispania then) didn't have [x], and in Spanish, [ʃ] as in Portuguese 'x' or English 'sh' did not become [x] until after the time of Columbus. So Halm's idea is quite plausible phonetically.
 * But more importantly, Halm's proposal, although ingenious, is totally unsubstantiated by direct evidence. The person who wrote this Etymology section wrote carelessly, confusing fact with conjecture, messing up citation formats. I have just rewritten the entire section. We have no proof that the Visigoths ever used the word 'landahlauts'. Hurmata 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Visigothic Hispania"
Within just the last week, I have wanted to link this article to a concise description of Visigothic Spain. My internal link has twice been undone by "The Ogre", who raises false justifications, some of them baseless obsessions. It is a weak argument to say that the History of Spain has too broad a scope to be a good choice. There are many subdivisions in the History of Spain article. In particular, for now (i.e., until somebody were to edit it) there is a section entitled "Visigothic Hispania". "The Ogre's" approach of linking *separately* to "Visigoths" and "Hispania" is obviously a bad idea for the user becaues either you have to synthesize separate articles or you have to duplicate information between two articles. Even "The Ogre's" second argument, that you *have* to always choose to link to the article of narrower scope, is a weak argument. The Ogre has a disturbing insistence on the false idea that the political entities in Iberia before 1000 A.D. were not Spain. Despite "The Ogre", Spanish history starts at least with the Roman occupation. "The Ogre" inadvertently revealed himself to be a Spanish speaker (by using a Spanish verb in place of an English one), so it is especially annoying for this reasoning to be coming out of him. One last point, a practical point. The article on the Visigoths happens to be very badly written. It is clumsy, inaccurate, overlong. Also, even if it were well writen, it gives too much detail for what I'm after in the Al-Andalus article. Hurmata 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Postscript: "The Ogre's" point about "History of Spain" being very broad in scope does have some merit to it. But, in that article, at just the third screenload down, one can see the Table of Contents, with "Visigothic Hispania" being item 3. I think that's sufficient orientation. If somebody cleans up the Visigoths article and provides a concise first or second paragraph to summarize their place in *Spanish* history, then I might be glad to link to that instead. In editing Al-Andalus, I *was* going to write, "Visigothic Spain" until I saw it was being call "V. Hispania" in History of Spain. Strange: the History of Spain says "Roman Spain". Anyway: hey Ogre! When somebody says, "Roman Spain", don't worry, there's no confusion of modern Spain with ancient Iberia! LOL. Hurmata 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hurmata, but there is confusion! An encyclopedia should correct long standing errors, such as calling Spain to Iberia or Hispania. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain (and it links there!), not all of the Iberian peninsula or Hispania (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castilian 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 Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castile and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512; for a presentation of this issue, see Kings and Queens of Spain), one can almost say that there was never a Spain, in the modern sense, before that! It was Iberia that began being conquered by the Roman Republic, a conquest finalized by the Roman Empire, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Buri, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the modern usage of the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castile, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castile came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castilian word "España" (which is the castilian derivative of the latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castilian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages and identities other than Castilian, see Languages of Spain and Nationalities in Spain). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula or Hispania, 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 Spain is Iberia or Hispania, and that there is an exclusive direct descent from ancient Hispania to modern Spain. Please my friend, acknowledge my good faith and desire for exactness! I have nothing against Spain! quite the opposite. And you should notice that I am a member both of WikiProject Portugal and WikiProject Spain! For all these reasons I believe the link Visigothic Hispania (how about creating a new article just dealing with that?) should not direct to History of Spain, not only this is too broad a scope, but it is wrong, since it implies Spain is Hispania, excluding Portugal. Furthermore, why should there be a link when there is already a box of the "History of Spain"? And even more when in that box the link regarding the period of "Visigothic Hispania" is directly to the article Visigoths (as a sub-entry to the Spanish history stub Medieval Spain)? Hope you do understand my reasonings. I'm not going to change the link just now. I believe we should reach some sort of agreement. Thank you. The Ogre 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind you, Hurmata, that in most Iberian languages, namely Portuguese and Spanish, "Spain", when refering to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, was frequently worded in the plural - they spoke of the "Spains" (As Espanhas or Las Españas) - which has quite different connotations... The Ogre 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my view a link back to the history of Spain toward the beginning of this article is entirely appropriate and useful for the reader. So that the reference isn't too restricted, the opening paragraph could refer to "Visigothic Spain and Portugal" with links to the history articles of each of these nations so that the reader can follow up with one (or both) if further information on the Visigoths in Spain or Portugal is desired.  I think that's the simple and best solution, at least until there is an article devoted to the Visigoths in Iberia generally.Corlyon 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
 * I insist: Ogre, in his/her zeal to correct the world's misunderstandings of Spanish and Iberian history, just mucks up the historical facts. Hispania and Iberia essentially mean the same thing strictly *historically*, because "Iberia" is from Ancient Greek and "Hispania" is from Latin. (*Geographically*, they are not equally acceptable because "Iberia" is accepted as having a contemporary reference, while "Hispania" is not.) Furthermore, Portugal the *political* entity *did not yet exist* during the Visigothic period (and did not *come* into existence for another 250 years or so)! PLUS, the Visigoth kingdom included modern Portugal! Corlyon's well meaning suggestion of "Visigothic Spain and Portugal" is therefore historically unjustified *in the present context* (it would only be justified in a discussion limited to *Portuguese* history). Indeed, Ogre's concerns seem to be perfectly addressed by saying "Visigothic Hispania" in preference to "Visigothic Spain": what the Visigoths invaded and governed starting in the 420s WAS Hispania, and with the exception of Galicia (which has never been Portuguese culturally or politically!), the Visigoths soon conquered all of Hispania. (They got Galicia too after another century or so.) So perhaps the rest of you can understand my impatience with Ogre's attempts to "set us straight".
 * Seems like Ogre is obsessed with the repercussions of Castilian imperialism and chauvinism, to the extent of overstating his/her (let's say "their") case. I find Ogre to be a prisoner of their biases. I would like to interpose some personal history. I visited Spain for a month -- the whole of the visit was in Barcelona. I practiced reading newspapers in the Catalan language and my stay happened to coincide with the Catalan National Day. I have also dabbled in the Basque language and I'm a student of the dialectology of the Spanish language. During the 1994 World Cup, I read Brazilian newspapers. So I am sophisticated as to all the cultural and historical differences Ogre is concerned about. Ogre reasons falsely that if you refer readers to an article about "Spain" for a discussion of Visigothic Hispania, then you are equating modern Spain with Iberia.
 * I concede to Ogre that ideally, the information I wish to direct readers to should be located in an article on Visigoths or Hispania, or both. But the brief and well written writeup I wanted, I found it in "History of Spain" under the already existing heading of "Visigothic Hispania". If someone perversely had placed this paragraph in the article on Led Zeppelin, I might well have linked to Led Zeppelin! In that event, I would also have placed comments in the respective Discussion pages imploring that somebody move "Visigothic Hispania" from Led Zeppelin to Visigoths and Hispania. Lastly, I still feel that Ogre screwed up by making the phrase "Visigothic Hispania" link to TWO articles (each word linked to an article). I think THAT is "confusing". If you insist on keeping the readers away from History_of_Spain, then pick *one* alternative. Hurmata 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hurmata. I do not see how do I muck up the historical facts - people that confuse Spain and Hispania (or Iberia - yes! Historically the same thing, but not in the modern geographical sense, I agree) are the one who are mucking up historical facts! And I agree with your reasoning that "Visigothic Spain and Portugal" is historically unjustified in the present context, not only because Portugal did not yet exist during the Visigothic period as a political entity, but also because Spain did not yet exist during the Visigothic period as a political entity! What existed was Hispania - Visigothic Hispania. Let us remeber that this is just a discussion about a link. I disagree with your choice to redirect it to the History of Spain article, though I do give some credit to your idea of not having it linked to two different articles. The best choice would be indeed to have an article called Visighotic Hispania. Why don't we work on it? Meanwhile I'm redirecting the link not just to History of Spain but more specifically to History of Spain#Visigothic Hispania. The Ogre 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A small correction: It was not Galicia that was conquered by the Visigoths, but the Suevi kingdom of Gallaecia, a teritory that always included not only modern Galicia, but also Northern Portugal. And the Suevi kingdom did control for some decades part of the former Roman province of Lusitania. The Ogre 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me interpose some personal history. I am Portuguese (and male, by the way) and have been in Spain more times then I care to remember (and in all the provinces and autonomous regions). I speak, besides Portuguese (and Galician...), Spanish/Castilian fluently ,and am able to read and maintain a conversation in Catalan (not to mention other languages or dialects of Iberian Romance). I am a sociologist and I like Spain! "So I am sophisticated as to all the cultural and historical differences Ogre is concerned about". You see, the concerns are not just mine... I am just trying to correct some long standing errors! Just the other day a colleague of mine was watching the opening session of a scientific meeting, in Lausanne, done by an American. When she said she was from Lisbon, our American colleague replied "Ah! Lisbon, in Spain!", she then said "No, Lisbon, in Portugal!", to what he replied "Yes, Portugal, in Spain!" - do you see the type of misunderstandings and ignorance many of us (I hope all of us!) are trying to shed some light on? I hope you do. Thank you. The Ogre 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Meanwhile I'm redirecting the link [. . .] more specifically to [[History of Spain#Visigothic Hispania." Oh, Wikipedia provides the functionality of linking to a section of an article. I am glad to learn of this.

We need for "somebodies" with existing expertise to clean up several articles in this field. I found an account of the Muslim invasion of Iberia which confused the invaders Tarif and Tariq (I thought I saw that in "Visigoths"). The article History_of_Portugal is awful because it is crudely reverential as opposed to encylopedic, and because it is thin as to factual depth.

Ogre, I agree with you, from time to time the good editing of one Wikipedia article requires the editing of articles being linked to. In past moments, it was not feasible for me to take on that much extra work.

I am familiar with the great ignorance of world geography to be found among even Americans with college degrees. Some of them suppose Brazil to be a Spanish speaking country. During the Cold War, a German computer programmer working in the US met coworkers who didn't realize there were two Germanies. Hurmata 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A followup to my preceding comment, off topic and strictly for the amusement of the readers. One of the fifty American states is New Mexico. Many educated Americans think that New Mexico is either part of Mexico or a sovereign nation. An entire book has been written about this phenomenon (by Richard Sandoval in 1986). Hurmata 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposal to keep the reference to Visigothic Hispania and link back that part of the article on Spain that contains the information on the Visigoths is reasonable. However, I don't really agree that it is actually improper to refer to "Visigothic Spain" just because technically speaking the nation state of Spain did not exist at that time.  English-speaking people refer to "bronze age Ireland" or "Renaissance Italy" even though Ireland or Italy didn't exist as nations in the bronze age or the Renaissance.  I have on my shelf a book titled "Roman England".  The English words "Ireland", "Italy", "England" or "Spain" have long been used in a geographical, not a geopolitical sense, and it's perfectly valid for users of a language to develop their own customs for the use of their own words in their own languages.  It's not a question about being careless or mistaken or ignorant, but about communicating ideas and concepts which are readily understandable not only to the well-educated, well-travelled or pedantic, but to the average 14 year old from Wisconsin or Wolverhampton who is interested in learning something about her world. "Visigothic Spain" is not an uncommonly used term in English (when one is dealing with that era).  I get 26,600 hits on Google with "Visigothic Spain", versus just under 2000 for "Visigothic Hispania".  I believe that it is a goal of Wikipedia to remain accessible to its readers, and sometimes that may mean using terms that are more commonly understood by the speakers of that language.
 * Finally, the comments about Americans are really patronizing and unnecessary in this forum.Corlyon 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
 * I tend to disagree. Ogre represents himself as being motivated in part by the fact that outside of Iberia there is widespread ignorance of the ethnic and political diversity of Iberia. He supported this motivation with an anecdote in which an American intellectual, a professional academic, showed a dramatic ignorance in this regard. Ogre feels this is not an isolated case. ;)  Now, I do agree with you (with the first part of your remarks) that, let me put it this way, Ogre's cure is almost as bad as the disease. But I can't see ;)   why it's "unnecessary" to pile on about the reckless ignorance of the best educated Americans. Reminds me of another case. Early in 2004 (a presidential election year) on C-SPAN (for non-Americans, that's a public service cable channel dedicated to interviews and lectures on the arts and current events), a political scientist teaching at one of the world's leading universities, MIT, was giving a public lecture. He related that his 20 something son, employed as an engineer at Microsoft, had just decided to vote in an election for the first time in his life out of indignation at government actions against Microsoft. He asked his father -- the MIT political scientist -- "Dad, when's the election?" The answer: "Uhhh, they're usually held the first week of November." Yes, all you non-Americans: these "slackers" are the people running your world (indirectly, by electing the U.S. presidents and by working for the U.S. corporations that dominate the world's economy). How about the Americans who are unaware that Australia's an English speaking country? This is not a rumor -- an Australian visitor to this country (my native land) described his discovery of this ignorance to a radio reporter. Hurmata 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hurmata and Corlyon! I really do not have time, just right now, to elaborate on a reply. I'll do latter on. Let me just remark two things, Corlyon: Do you see my point? Cheers! I'll be back in a while. The Ogre 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I did not intend to make a general comment on Americans being ignorant, I merely described something that happened with a colleague of mine quite recently - and I agree that patronizing comments about anyone are unnecessary in this forum.
 * 2) When you say Italy, you are refering to a present state that occupies the whole of the Italic Peninsula; when you say Ireland you are refering to an island called such and to two states that are both called Ireland; when you say Roman England you are refering to the Roman presence in the territory of modern England (not Wales or Scotland); when you use Spain to denote the whole of the Iberian Peninsula you are doing something very different - you are using the name of a modern country that occupies parte of Iberia to refer to the whole of it, it is as if I said Roman England (and not Roman Britain) and then went on about the Roman presence in Scotland (suppose it had existed perenially).

Bernard Lewis
The quote by Bernard Lewis is taken out of context. There is important information before it and after it. Jews of Islam can be accessed from books.google.com (limited access). Also, I believe that Bernard Lewis was talking about Jews of Islam in general and in this case this quote MUST be moved to Dhimmis may be or Minorities in Islam or whatever. --152.14.80.167 14:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Portugal & Spain series templates
These templates seem really intrusive & irrelivant, is there any way to modify them so they are hidden, etc. They don't seem to be that well designed either. Fennessy 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to do with them but I would not say they are irrelevant: Muslim Iberia is a very important part of the history of Spain and Portugal, the same that the Hittites or the Byzantine Empire are an important part of the history of Turkey. Seems failry obvious, isn't it?
 * Now could they be placed in a less intrusive manner, reformatted in a smaller size or something? Surely. I'd suggest you go to the corresponding Wikiprojects and discuss it there. --Sugaar (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the solution that was found for the article Hispania, that is, to place them in the see also section, paralel to each other? I'll do it, let me know what you think. The Ogre (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing information in "The Emirat of Granada" section
The first paragraph seems to deal with the situation after the peace treaty with Castile and the provisions of this treaty. However, it is as least confusing, if not simply wrong, to say in this context that the muslims of Granada were granted tax exemption for three years and a limtitation of taxation to the amounts paid under Nasrid rule. This suggests to imply that Granada then was under direct Castilian rule, which it wasn't for another 150 years as the first sentence rightfully says, and the Nasrid dynasty wasn't in power any longer, which it actually was until the end of Muslim rule in 1492.

Further, it is not entirely clear what is meant with the statement that muslims - in a state under muslim rule! - had religious freedom and what it meant at that time and under these conditions that muslims had freedom of movement (within Granada, beyond its borders?). Finally, I simply don't understand what "virtual self government" should mean in the context of a medieval monarchy - Rule of the dynasty in power at that time to be unchallenged by christian neighbors? neutrality of the christian states in case of internal struggle? Both has nothing to do with self government in a modern understanding.)

It seems to me as if this part needs a bit of clarification.217.19.182.234 (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory Introduction of the Section "Society"
The two paragraphs under the heading "Society" seem to me rather disappointing as they mention in a very unsystematic manner some features of the various groups of the Iberian population of the time. What is said about the main occupation of jews seems to me even stereotypical. (I can't imagine that ambassadors made up a numerically significant part of the population.)217.19.182.234 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative use of the word pagan for non-Muslim
In the subsection entitled "Treatment of Non-Muslims" I found two uses of the word "pagan" apparently referring to Christians and Jews. In both cases I changed the word "pagan" to "non-Muslim". All Christians and Jews would strongly object to the use of this word when referring to their faiths. If you happen to know the original editor meant to use the word in reference to pre-Christian, polytheistic religions then please feel free to change it back and edit the paragraph to make it clear what the word "pagan" refers to. LuisGomez111 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While the term "pagan" can be considered pejorative, I don't think it is correct in this context to peplace it by "non-muslim". If I'm not mislead the article refers here to the distinction apparently made in muslim practice between the People of the Book and followers of other, less accepted non-muslim beliefs. While I'm not a native English speaker, I can't do the changes myself, but I suggest to refer to those not being considered People of the Book when the "pagan" population is referred to.217.19.182.234 (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just did a bit of reading on the definition of dhimma, the primary issue in the subsection entitled "Treatment of Non-Muslims". It originally referred to Jews and Christians (or "people of the book" as many Muslims refer to them). Later, Muslims broadened this term to mean Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Sikhs. Muslims never applied it to the believers in the polytheistic, pre-Christian religions of Europe. Therefore, I believe "non-Muslims" is the best word for that paragraph, not "pagans". LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Al-Andalus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Al-Andalus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wainwright": From Hayy ibn Yaqdhan: Martin Wainwright, Desert island scripts, The Guardian, 22 March 2003. From Ibn Tufail: Martin Wainwright, Desert island scripts, The Guardian, 22 March 2003. 

Reference named "Montada": From Milky Way:  From Galaxy:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Al-Andalus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Al-Andalus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gingerich": From Mathematics in medieval Islam:  From Inventions in medieval Islam: </li> <li>From Astronomy in medieval Islam: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Al-Andalus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Al-Andalus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bieber":<ul> <li>From Science in medieval Islam: Jerome B. Bieber. Medieval Translation Table 2: Arabic Sources, Santa Fe Community College.</li> <li>From Gerard of Cremona: Jerome B. Bieber. Medieval Translation Table 2: Arabic Sources, Santa Fe Community College.</li> </ul>

Reference named "Lucas-65":<ul> <li>From Factory: Adam Lucas (2006), Wind, Water, Work: Ancient and Medieval Milling Technology, p. 65. BRILL, ISBN 9004146490</li> <li>From Inventions in medieval Islam: Adam Lucas (2006), Wind, Water, Work: Ancient and Medieval Milling Technology, p. 65, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004146490</li> </ul>

Reference named "Lucas-10":<ul> <li>From Inventions in medieval Islam: Adam Robert Lucas (2005), "Industrial Milling in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: A Survey of the Evidence for an Industrial Revolution in Medieval Europe", Technology and Culture 46 (1): 1-30 [10-1 & 27]</li> <li>From Factory: Adam Robert Lucas (2005), "Industrial Milling in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: A Survey of the Evidence for an Industrial Revolution in Medieval Europe", Technology and Culture 46 (1), p. 1-30 [10].</li> </ul>

Reference named "Zaimeche":<ul> <li>From Astronomy in medieval Islam: </li> <li>From Science in medieval Islam: Salah Zaimeche (2003). Aspects of the Islamic Influence on Science and Learning in the Christian West, p. 10. Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation.</li> <li>From Gerard of Cremona: Salah Zaimeche (2003). Aspects of the Islamic Influence on Science and Learning in the Christian West, p. 10. Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation.</li> </ul>

Reference named "Katz":<ul> <li>From Book of Optics: Victor J. Katz (1995), "Ideas of Calculus in Islam and India", Mathematics Magazine 68 (3): 163-174 [165-9 & 173-4]</li> <li>From Science in medieval Islam: V. J. Katz, A History of Mathematics: An Introduction, p. 291.</li> <li>From Gerard of Cremona: V. J. Katz, A History of Mathematics: An Introduction, p. 291.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Bunyan
American logger that had an ox named babe. Babe died and Paul moved to Alaska —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.161.168 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In Portugal?
I've heard a lot about the Muslims in Granada, Córdoba, and other parts of Spain. But what about the history of Muslims in what is now Portugal? After all, the Moors conquered both countries. I always receive detailed info in Spain articles, but whenever I try to find information about the Moors in Portugal, even on Wikipedia, it isn't sufficient enough. I've put up a request for an article called "Moorish Portugal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Other_categorization_schemes#Portugal), and I want someone to start it. Can anyone help? Thanks!

-Stallions2010 P.S. If anyone can help, I have starting information on the article.


 * Hi Stallions2010. Good idea. An article about Arab/Muslim presence in Portugal would be of great interest. You are right in that there's a total lack of documentation about the subject in both European and Arab/Muslim history works. I'd suggest that we'd start the article from scratch and go slowly. Cheers -- Svest 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

I don't know if this answers your question, but you can see in the history of portugal article that, before the Christian "Reconquista", you cannot speak of Portugal as an independent country (or even a political entity). Hence the non-differentiation.

--129.104.247.2 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

but you cant call it "spain" either. spain is not hispania and this "mistake" is rampant everywhere including many articles in wikipedia. if we use the correct names reflecting the times then there would be no one asking, "what about portugal?"

Lusitano Transmontano 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, There's an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silves Hope that helps. Marina (from Olhao, Algarve, Portugal), 11 February 2006


 * Hi. The Roman name of the full peninsula was Hispania; in the Middle Ages, Spain (Spania/España in Castilian) was the translation from the latin, so, it referred to the full peninsula. Portugal was a county of the kingdom of Leon, and became independent in 1139. Until the 17th century, Portugal was considered part of Spain (Spain dind't exist as a state, but as several kingdoms), it will be later that the joint kingdoms of Castile and Aragon under one Bourbon king will claim to be "Spain" as an state. As long as in the middle ages there were no differences, this could be the origin of the confussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.87.176 (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

POV in the Culture section and elsewhere
I agree that Muslim Andalus achieved great things, and I myself added a sentence to summarize that to the introduction. My sentence alludes to sourced statements made later in the article. Nevertheless, this article has over time attracted many sentences of a fawning nature that exceed the historical facts or that seem to paint Islamic civilization in too rosy a tint. There was a fair amount of material which seems like pro-Islamic POV. Perhaps the most prominent example of this was a comparison that seems intended to obscure a finding in a recent report by Arab academics commissioned by the United Nations to evaluate the state of the Arab World. This report was released some time after 2000. One of its findings that was widely publicized in the West was that very little translation into Arabic is done, so little that -- as the report itself noted -- the publishing industry in Spain today does more translation into Spanish in one year than the entire Arabic world has done into Arabic in all history. One contributor to this article made a different contention about publishing in Muslim Spain: that Muslim Spain in the time of the Caliphate of Cordoba produced more publications annually than Spain does today. Maybe it's true. And it's also true that the above mentioned comparison of translation volume has nothing to do with an article on Al-Andalus. Nevertheless, the mention seems POV to me. If we can confirm the reliability of the source given, then it would be OK to restore that sentence to the article. Hurmata (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are further examples of previous bad faith edits. Consider the following single passage: "In France, the Muslims were defeated at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel in 732. This place is known as 'The Pavement of the Martyrs' and in Muslim chronicles as 'Balaat ash-Shuhada'. Muslim control of Toulouse, Narbonne, Lyon and nearby territories varied from time to time. This went on until 975." This is full of historical inaccuracies which consistently serve to overstate Muslim influence and therefore overglorify it. Obviously, only Muslims call the site of the Moors' decisive defeat in France "Pavement of the Martyrs", and that phrase is just the translation of "Balaat ash-Shuhada". Muslims never controlled Lyon -- although they did sack nearby Grenoble and they occupied large parts of Provence 889-955. Muslim control of Toulouse and Narbonne did not "vary from time to time". Toulouse is well inland, near. Moors may have raided the Mediterranean port of Narbonne, but they never ruled it after the defeat of 732. Hurmata (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"In addition, as many as 60,000 treatises, poems, polemics and compilations were published each year in Al-Andalus.[37] In comparison, modern Spain published 46,330 books per year as of 1996.[38]" A single hand-written treatise, poem or polemic can't be validly compared to a modern printed book. Most of these formats today are published in newspapers or periodicals, not books. It's misleading, POV. Besides, the citation source [37]is a letter to the editors of the Malaysian "New Sunday Times" by Prof. Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abd Razak. He's the Naib Canselor of a Malaysian University, but neither a historian nor has he published scientifically on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.156.128 (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian and Muslim playing ouds
Image of Christian and Muslim playing ouds, miniature from Catinas de Santa Maria by king Alfonso X. Feel free to insert this image into the article. Phg (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Higueruela painting and Jewish soldiers
The description has that the painting represents Jews fighting alongside Muslims. While this almost certainly happened, I don't see any evidence of this in the painting. The only thing notably Jewish are the Stars of David, which were also heavily used by Muslims until creation of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.246.172 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

map
why not move one map to the top of the page? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag
Is there any source or reference for the green-white flag? --  maxrspct  ping me  13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was not such a thing as a flag of Al Andalus. Several colors were used in different moments by different kingdoms. Assuming that there has been enough time to aport references since max rspct request in September, I remove the image. --Garcilaso (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mere Raids
"However Poitiers [Tours] did not stop the progress of the Berber Arabs and in 734 Avignon was conquered, Arles was attacked and the whole of Provence was overrun. " The Battle of Tours was one of the most decisive battles in history, and it did stop Moslem conquest into Europe. The fact a few pillaging raids were made doesn't take away from that. I believe there is an attempt to detract from Charles Martel's strategic triumph that day. 69.119.207.171 (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

El-Endülüs
= The Turkish pronunciation of the name Al-Andalus Böri (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Section
The entire legacies section needs some serious work. The fact that the legacies section exists at all seems to indicate that the Moorish influence on the Iberian peninsula after the Reconquista ceased to exist and evolve. Perhaps changing the name of this section and editing some of the content to make it geared more towards explaining the continuing influence the Moors had within Spain after the Reconquista, that would be more indicative of the meshing of Christian and Islamic culture. Also the articles on pottery and aviation seem a bit ambiguous and perhaps belong in different articles, I do not think these very specific topics are deserving of their own subheadings. Another suggesting I would make would be to incorporate the "Legacy" section into the main body of the article. I think this would eliminate the idea that these contributions are the only lasting "legacies" of Moorish Spain and that the Moors within Spain itself after the Reconquista did not continue to impact Spanish society. I am open to suggestions anyone might have, as to how to go about achieving this task. 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Alexion (Alexander Ion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexion (talk • contribs)

I'm wondering if the Legacies section should be renamed something more along the lines of "Lasting Legacies." That may help to make the Moorish influence more permanent. I also agree that the Aviation and Pottery section may want to be transferred to a different area or maybe have a sentence or two that helps tie them back to the main article.Spartemis (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis

Treatment of Non-Muslims
I think that this section is too short and in is structurally unsound. Depending on who was in charge, the treatment of non-Muslims was quite variable. Each ruler had their own objectives and motives and depending on what those where, their subjects were offered different amounts of right and respects. Muslim rulers are not all the same and by such a glossed over topic, it takes away the agency of the people and the rulers of the time. Spartemis (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis

Although this section says that it is discussing a controversial subject, it cites only the views of María Rosa Menocal. This sounds biased. Why is the opposing viewpoint not also cited here?

Structure
I feel as though this article jumps around far to much and needs more dates to give it a better sense of a timeline. The way it is written seems very sporadic. Its good that if you are looking for a specific aspect of Moorish Spain that it is easy to find, but having everything segmented the way it is makes it more difficult to get an overall view of what Moorish Spain was like. Reorganizing it chronologically seems as though it would make more sense. Voitik2 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Title of the Article
To me there seems to be an issue with the title of the the article. "Al-Andalus" refers specifically to the rule of the Caliphate of Damascus over the area, as well to a very specific region in Spain, Andalucia in the far south of the Iberian Peninsula. However, the actual Muslims that invaded and came to inhabit the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula were the Berbers of North Africa, also known as Moors. Therefore I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Moorish Spain" and that a side note be included that this region was also known as Al-Andalus. The term Al-Andalus identifies more with a geographical area rather than a study of the people and culture within this area and really the blending of cultures. Moorish Spain, is also a term that is more familiar to most readers and influential historians on the subject like Richard Fletcher have titled books on this subject as "Moorish Spain" not Al-Andalus. 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Alexion (alexanderion)
 * I would like to agree with the proposal for changing the title of the article from "Al-Andalus" to "Moorish Spain." I believe that the current title is misleading.  While the article is clearly attempting to give a history of the Muslims in Spain as a whole, the title as is does not fit. If left unchanged, the article appears to be about the specific are of Andalucia or the specific rule of the Claiphate of Damascus, rather than the Muslim history. IlliniChica (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree! The Moorish occupation was of parts of the Iberia Peninsula, not just Spain. Iberia includes Portugal. The Ogre (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your point about the Moorish lands also incorporating parts of Portugal, perhaps a more appropriate title would be "Moorish Iberia." Al-Andalus still seems a bit too specific for the type of information(especially cultural) being presented in this article. Alexion (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "Moorish" is itself inaccurate; why should it be used as the *title* of this article? Europeans used it frequently in the Middle Ages to refer to any number of groups of people who had darker skin and were Muslims. For the same reason that you wouldn't use the word "Saracen" to refer to an Islamic community, you should not use the word "Moorish."Triplefull368 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the term is inaccurate, while it is true that the term refers to several modern ethnic groups, it was these ethnic groups that came to occupy the Iberian Peninsula. I do not think the comparing the terms Moor and Saracen is justified, the term "Saracen" came to encompass all those that practiced the Islamic faith, while the term "Moor" simple refers to the peoples of northern Africa that were predominantly Muslim during this time period. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article about Moors "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors." This article has an entire section dedicated to the Moors of Iberia. I think it would make sense to standardize the terminology, referring to the place and people inhabiting the southern Iberian Peninsula, during this time. Alexion (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. Al-Andalus was a name of choice, used by Muslims themselves, to refer to the Iberian peninsula, not the particular region that now is called Andalucia. And it was used throughout, not merely in the brief period of Damascus rule.  "Moors" was a generic term, bordering on a slur, used only by Christians to refer to any Muslim, wherever their ethnicity or origin (e.g. Portuguese explorers used the term "Moor" to refer to East African and Indian Muslims.)  "Moor" is not specific; it is a generic term, the Spanish equivalent of the Italian "Saracen". Moreover, it is very incorrect to imagine that the Berbers were the only Muslims who came to al-Andalus. Indeed, tensions among different Muslim ethnicities was a significant feature of political life and strife. The Ummayad Emirate (750-1009) was Arab-ruled, and the disintegration of the 11th C. saw the establishment of competing Arab, Berber, Saqaliba (Slavic mameluke) states (e.g. Seville, Zaragoza and Murcia were Arab, Badajoz, Albarracin and Granada were Berber, Valencia, Almeria and Denia was Saqaliba, etc.)  "Moorish Spain" has decidedly archaic feel.  Most serious history books I know, including art history, "al-Andalus" is commonly used.  Finally, and more importantly, there needs to be an article title which can be used comfortably in other articles.  e.g. I write a lot on Medieval North African history, where there is a lot of interaction and dealings between the governments and peoples of Spain and Africa.  "Al-Andalus" and "Andalusians" fits the bill nicely alongside, say, al-Ifriqiya and Ifriqiyans. "Moorish Spain" would be as clumsy and odd as "Moorish Africa" and "Moorish Mauretania".  There's more to al-Andalus than just its dealings with Christian kingdoms. Walrasiad (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Architecture
Architecture during the time of Moorish Spain was definitely changing greatly to say the least. Although it mentions in the article how certain aspects of the Muslim architecture were shared with the Christians and the Jews I think that it doesn't go into enough detail about it. The architecture was greatly influenced by the Muslims and this architecture was used even after the Reconquista. However, there were many more aspects of Christian architecture that go unmentioned in the article. The mosque at Cordoba being a prime example. Many Christians sought to eradicate the Muslim's imprint on Iberia and the mosque was converted into a church. This change to the architecture was seen as a blemish on the mosque, but either way it did show that the architecture of the time was not totally influenced by the Muslims and there were many who resisted even this. More should be mentioned in the article on the effects of architecture. Voitik2 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Colours on map
Hi The section on the Caliphate at Cordoba has two maps thth use white as one of the colours. It is a very long established convention that white (or grey) is reserved for neutral areas, not affected by what is being illustrated on the map. It is very confusing to violate this convention and use white as if it were any other colour. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though the white area could easily be recolored to something else. Both images, File:Al Andalus.gif and File:Taifas.gif, have liberal copyright permissions which permit this kind of modification, so you or someone else who is proficient with image manipulation could make this change and upload a new file version which would replace it. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename This!
I propose that this article be renamed "Islamic Rule of the Iberian Peninsula." This is about more than "Andalus," which seems to refer only to a limited period, not the span of time encompassed by this article. Tapered (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Care to elaborate your objections? Islamic rule did not cover all the Iberian peninsula. "Al-Andalus" is a common scholarly term to refer generically to any and all the Muslim-ruled areas of the Iberian peninsula, between the first conquest of 711 and the fall of Granada in 1492 (e.g. Hugh Kennedy (2005) Muslim Spain and Portugal: a political history of al-Andalus.) Walrasiad (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, a link to the assertion about 'Al Andalus.' Tapered (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just gave you a reference. You can check it out at the library. Still wondering what youre objections are, though.  Can you explain? Walrasiad (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia a link to a credible source, which I requested, is much better than a library source. As it turns out, I've found several. Further searches revealed that "Al Andalus" is well enough linked so that an intelligent search, using current political and geographic terminology will direct readers to the information they/we need. Don't feel that thanks are in order. Tapered (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

NO NEED TO RENAME.Tapered (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad
Fr/ now on, will eliminate namestyle 'Prophet' Muhammad. Jesus isn't styled 'Savior' Jesus. Abraham isn't 'Patriarch' Abraham. Moses isn't 'Prophet' Moses, etc,etc,etc. Tapered (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he is. He is called "Jesus Christ" (i.e. "Yashua the Anointed").  And OT prophets are frequently referred to with their descriptive (e.g. "the prophet Elijah", etc.).  As "Muhammad" is a pretty common name, it is useful to be clear. Walrasiad (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourced paragraphs deleted
In this edition, a number of sourced paragraphs have been deleted with only this comment: removing non-pertinent content. I think that a thorough explanation is needed. Jotamar (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With no answer in one week, the editor being active, the next natural move is to revert the deletion, which I proceed to do. Jotamar (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * if you want to restore material then the burden of evidence is on you. however, let us take a look on the material you the re-added.


 * the paragraph starting with the sentence "christians, braced by the example of their coreligionists..." is supported by a single source. namely a christian website, hardly a reliable secondary source. the paragraph is also undue.


 * the paragraph starting with the sentence "during these successive waves of violence against..." is not sourced at all and totally misplaced under the chapter of "rise and fall of muslim power"....as it has nothing to do with the subject i.e. not pertinent.


 * the sentence "periodic raiding expeditions were sent from al-andalus to ravage..." is in the wrong section ("rise and fall of muslim power"). as noted by the text, "medieval spain and portugal was the scene of almost constant warfare"... thousands of such incidents happened between the warring opponents. cherry picked incidents do not merit inclusion as they violate wp:npov. what is really needed, however, is a description of the fall of "muslim power" (the rise has already been described in other sections).

--  mustihussain   20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Lewis quote taken out of context
I re-wrote the quote to convey the whole mean of the section from Lewis' book. As it was written it was plagiarism.

Starting from page 44 Lewis writes “The need to uphold the Holy Law by which the status of the dhimmi is established and protected was a common concern of Muslim jurists and even of rulers. ... “ He then turns his attention to the Ottoman period of which there is most information. The next paragraph says “Sometimes, when persecution occurred, we find that the instigators were concerned to justify it in terms of the Holy Law. The usual argument was that the Jews or the Christians had violated the pact by overstepping their proper place. ...” It is at this point that Lewis discusses a poem written by Abu Ishaq in 1066 to justify an anti-Jewish outbreak of that year (see page 45 for the poem). Lewis argues that poem assures Muslims that they are acting lawfully “in robbing and killing Jews”. He says in the bottom paragraph “Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq’s and massacres such as that in Granada in 1066 are of rare occurrence in Islamic history.”

Thus, Lewis says that the "persecution" and "massacre" was rationalized by a "diatribe". This breach of the dhimmi protection sections of Islamic law was rare as the law generally upheld and sustained the protection of the Jews. That is what I expressed. The plagiarized quote was "such massacres are of rare occurrence in Islamic history". Not only was it plagiarized but it didn't explain what "such" refers to. It is to Muslim violations of dhimmi protection. Generally this didn't happen until the 19th and 20th century (he points out on the next page) when modern standards changed attitudes to the institution of dhimmi and Jews wanted more freedom. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ah, now i see what you mean. is the latest edit ok to you?--  altetendekrabbe   12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Section stubbing
In response to the RFC changes need to be made here. I am in favor of blanking the section Enduring influence on Iberian Peninsula and rebuilding it based on discussions that should take place here on the talk page. J8079s (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From ;
 * I happened to stumble upon POV material at Enduring influence on Iberian Peninsula which had been long removed elsewhere. I tried a bit, but it is almost impossible to rectify Jagged's account, so I would argue for total removal, so that people have the opportunity to start from scratch. What do you think? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Second that. Typical Jaggedian screed.  Some of it might be salvageable, but at this point it is probably easier to rewrite it from scratch. Athenean (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Be Bold Use the talk page for rebuilding. J8079s (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed entire problematic section. Verified contents can be reincluded from this version. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Umayyad Dynasty

 * I am getting ready to write a large addition to the Cordoba section but am vacillating on where to place it. My first thoughts based on the books Encyclopedia Britannica that I am initially reading is to place them in either a new section of Umayyad Dynasty or to create an Arab Umayyad Dynasty in Spain or something similar page. However there are other options such as Caliphate of Cordoba or even Al-Andalus, which I actually think is the worst of the options. I am going to think on it and see what others in the know have to say. I also brought home a bunch of books on African History and Asian History but forget that Spain has a lot of involvement in the History of North Africa for a period, so I will need to go to my University Library and get more books. Anyway please chime in, let me know what you think. If I don't get a lot of strong opinions one way or the other I will just be BOLD, and do what I think is best from all of my sources. speednat (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to compile extensive information on the Umayyads in Spain, the Al-Andalus article is probably not the appropriate place to iclude all of that. Instead write a new article and link it here. --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are pages on the Emirate of Cordoba (756-929) and the Caliphate of Cordoba (929-1031). You could place it there, partitioning according to period. Walrasiad (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The main thing I want to accomplish is to be consistent. I am, at this point, only working with one real source, and they are calling them the Umayyad Dynasty. I wish I hadn't forgotten, when I was at the U yesterday that Iberia and North Africa were closely linked until the 15th century. I probably won't make it back to the library until end of next week or beginning of the week after. I could always look through the online journals that I have access to or even use the public library. speednat (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Pagans?
"Those who were neither Christians nor Jews, such as Pagans, were given the status of Majus."

The claim that there were "pagans" surviving in eighth-century Spain (or any religious group besides Christians, Jews, or Muslims) is a bold one. I found the reference to this in the Google Books edition of the footnote given, but the book by Salma Jayyusi is probably not a reliable source, as it's a "history" written by someone whose training is in poetry. Whatever the claim itself in the book is footnoted to isn't available in the preview. Suggest finding a better source for this odd claim or deleting it. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mosque or Cathedral
For what it's worth, I find it offensive to refer to the (whatever) in Córdoba as a Cathedral. (See my edit which was undone today). It was built as a mosque, and the cathedral part, controversial from when it was built onwards, is about 10% of the whole. No one in Córdoba, except priests, ever calls it the Cathedral. No tourist itinerary in Spain says "we're going to take you to the Cathedral (or even Cathedral-Mosque) of Córdoba." The Mosque is beautiful, and I've yet to hear anyone call the Cathedral that. When I studied Spanish art (in Spain) it was never called the Cathedral. Legally it is true, the Catholic church controls it and calls it a Cathedral. But I think it's doing the reader a disservice, as well as being on the wrong side of history and popular opinion, to refer to it as a Cathedral.deisenbe (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not well worded at present, but as the revert says, it _is_ used by the Catholics today. How about "The interior of the Great Mosque of Córdoba (now the Catholic Cathedral-Mosque)" ? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal feelings aside, my understanding is that if no khutbah is preached, no adhān is called, and no rakaats are prayed at the former Great Mosque, it cannot properly be designated a mosque today. Otherwise, readers would get the impression that  Roman Catholic and Islamic services are being held conterminously. Carlstak (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The way it is now is much better. Thank you.deisenbe (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling attention to the issue. I had meant to get it right with the partial revert, but mixed it up with the same edit page open on another tab in my browser. I certainly take your point, but wanted to avoid confusing the reader. Carlstak (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
No mention of Casiri's etymology, which Edward Gibbon endorsed. French Wikipedia has an article devoted to the etymology of Al-Andalus: Étymologie d'Al-Andalus et de l'Andalousie - Eroica (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Legacy section
, as pointed out in their edit summary restoring it, I didn't add the section you removed here. It was in the history section, which was the wrong place. As can be seen from my edit summary, I think it was WP:UNDUE because it was the only aspect of the legacy of al-Andalus covered by the body of the article (although the lead has a sentence on cultural legacy). So what I did was create a Legacy section, put in a place-marker sub-section on the cultural, linguistic etc legacy with a maintenance template saying it needed expansion and added the section you removed to it as a separate sub-section. It therefore now sits in a broader context of the overall legacy - although that broader context needs significant expansion. It's a surprising omission that al-Andalus' legacy was not covered - a lot needs to be added. I intend to do so when I get some time - hopefully others will add too. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification. This section about legacy has content about "Islamism" which still does not seem to be written with a WP:NPOV. "Islamism" and Osama have been given a disprortionately WP:UNDUE weight. However as the section expands I hope for more neutral, balanced, and reliably sourced content. Khestwol (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also problem with the quality sources itself, which are relatively low quality (pundit websites and less reputable newspapers) on the subject which should be covered by scholarly articles and books. Aside from the questuonable reputation, the quality of these articles seems abysmal to me as well. Take the Daily Telegraph which presumably quotes one single line (!) from terrorist group posting and the rest seems entirely associations by Telegraph reporter. In short at least in the given form this seems to be extreme fringe, that got hooked onto this article. Essentially it looks like some nutter or terrorist having claimed something somewhere in which Al Andalus was mentioned and some pundit writing about it on his private website and a very few newspapers picking it up in low quality articles. Imho in that's ridiculous for an encyclopedic article on Al Andalus, hence I support the wholesale removal. Without better sources such content has no place here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with here. Khestwol (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not. The section is well cited (in particular there are two Telegraph articles, one by a historian not a journo, mentioning more than one single line; your assessment of the cites is counterfactual) and it is difficult to argue it gives undue weight when it's so small a mention at the tail end of the article. We might dispense with the mention of "Islamism", which I'm not even sure is a word, but I feel the section should stay. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Islamism? Otherwise I agree with Pinkbeast. The objection to this is quite POV, in my view. It's a well discussed and prominent Islamist objective, often voiced by al-Qaeda for instance, to restore al-Andalus to Dar al-Islam. I'm not sure why it's doubted. A quick search of Google books reveals multiple scholarly references. It resurrects, in a modern context, a long-standing Muslim grievance concerning the reconquista. But I don't care that much one way or the other and won't waste any more time on this: there's more productive things to do. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, so far we have a comment from which is not accurate about the citations. Anyone else want a go? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually the comment was accurate. Let me clarify and reiterate a few points here. First of all if there are indeed plenty of scholarly sources that discussing the reqconquering of al Andalus and state that it is a common theme in islamism or even just among islamic terrorism, then I have no objection against properly worded addition. However the text in question uses no scholarly sources, is questionable worded and at least at first glance doesn't strike neither as notable (for this article) nor as particularly correct either.

I'm not really an expert on the subject, but no scholarly or otherwise reputable source on Al Andalus that I've read even mentions the reconquering of it or Spain by islamism or terror groups. Similarly, while it is true that while you can find the sentiment of reconquering Al Andalus on the internet and probably find one or to quotes from an individual cleric or terrorist to that regard, none of he sources on islamism/islamic terrorism that I've seen described it as common or widespread attitude or goal.

Now let let's get the text in dispute displayed here, so that everybody following the conversation can easily see what we're talking about:
 * The desire to reconquer, or more specifically re-Islamicize, Al-Andalus has been used as rhetoric by leaders of Islamic states and has been discussed by Spanish politicians. Osama bin Laden, for example, several times spoke of Al-Andalus, which was reported after the 2004 Madrid bombings.  The Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS have also expressed an intention to "retake" al-Andalus.  

Now there's variety of problems which such an addition involving the notability of content, the proper reading/understanding of sources with regard to their content, the reputability and reliability of sources. The leading sentence makes a rather broad claim about leaders of islamic states and Spanish politician, which is rather unlikely to be true nor does it seem to covered in this form by the those. Which islamic leaders? Which Spanish politicians? I'm not aware of significant Spanish politician or an islamic head of state/significant politician making that a serious political issue or pursuing a discussion about it? The next line claims that bin Laden spoke several times of Al Andalus. Aside from the fact that might wonders what "spoke of" is exactly supposed to convey here, there sources merely state that the islamic terror group Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri (named after bin Laden's son in law, who died in 2001 already) claimed responsibility for Madrid terror attack of 2004. However the authenticity of the letter is unclear (according to sources and actually directly disputed in some). So how a claim of unclear authenticity by a terror group presumably associated or inspired by bin Laden turns into a statement of bin Laden about (the conquest?) of al Andalus is everybody guess. Now a word on the sources used for the content so far. The is a short superficial article by Wilkinson (published in the daily telegraph and the age, shortly after 2004 attack), the media archive with 4 press articles on the private website of a pundit and a somewhat obscure looking short article published on Spanish news agency website, that seems to refer to google and Wikipedia as sources and even gets the time frame for al andalus wrong (probably just a sloppy typo). ''So no scholarly sources, no well researched journalistic background articles and Wikipedia content and sources don't even really match. And all of what with well researched and well published topic like Al Andalus''. To be blunt such crap has no place in Wikipedia.

Now the rest of text stating that the Muslim Brotherhood and Isis expressed the goal or interest to reconquer Al Andalus is not quite as bad and least somewhat in line with the cited sources. First of all according to the cited source the (actual) Muslim Brotherhood (and its leadership) made no such claim but rather the Islamic Society of North America. Now for the source itself, it is a blog entry published with the Daily Telegraph. Now it is true that the author of this blog is a well qualified historian, whose scholarly publications certainly might be use for WP (in other areas). But is blog piece is neither scholarly nor well researched (journalistic) background article, but a short opinion piece. Moreover neither medieval Spain or medieval Islam seem to be his field of expertise (judging from his website and the fact the he quotes the New York Times (rather scholarly literature or historical sources) for a description of medieval islamic Spain. So scholarly source here either not does it actually source the Wikipedia content. Note not everything scholar publishes anywhere is automatically a scholarly publication or notable for Wikipedia. Now final statement that Isis wants to retake Al Andalus Spain, that one is correct and although the sources are rather mediocre again the seem at least sufficient to verify the claim. They are however not really sufficient to establish the notability of that information and frankly neither does common sense. Isis states that their plans to conquer the whole islamic world and other parts of the globe do of course include Al Andalus as well. Why that is supposed to be a notable legacy of al Andalus is beyond me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I watch this page and it needs a lot of work. I agree with this seek to remove the modern claims as they may be a legacy of Osama et al (which has a home some where in wikipedia, but not here) J8079s (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * are you seriously unaware of the extensive scholarly literature discussing the legacy of al-Andalus and its impact on modern Islamicism and Islamist terorrism. I wasn't going to bother any further but such an ill-informed post requires answering. Here's a very small tip-of-the-iceberg sampling of the literature:
 * DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the beginning above, my issue is with the currently given text and the currently used sources and I took the time to explain above in detail why. As I stated above as well I have no issue with with a properly worded text based on scholarly sources.
 * DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the beginning above, my issue is with the currently given text and the currently used sources and I took the time to explain above in detail why. As I stated above as well I have no issue with with a properly worded text based on scholarly sources.
 * DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the beginning above, my issue is with the currently given text and the currently used sources and I took the time to explain above in detail why. As I stated above as well I have no issue with with a properly worded text based on scholarly sources.
 * DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the beginning above, my issue is with the currently given text and the currently used sources and I took the time to explain above in detail why. As I stated above as well I have no issue with with a properly worded text based on scholarly sources.
 * DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the beginning above, my issue is with the currently given text and the currently used sources and I took the time to explain above in detail why. As I stated above as well I have no issue with with a properly worded text based on scholarly sources.
 * DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the beginning above, my issue is with the currently given text and the currently used sources and I took the time to explain above in detail why. As I stated above as well I have no issue with with a properly worded text based on scholarly sources.


 * There is no argument that the notion of "Al Andalus" exerts a certain influence in the islamic world or is evoked by some terrorists. As far as islamic terrorism or fundamentalism is concerned the question however is how notion of al andalus (the desire to reconquer it) ranks in comparison to other motivations, ideological notions and driving forces for their terror activities and hence whether it really a notable legacy that should be mentioned here.


 * As far as the books you list here are concerned. They are are proper scholarly sources, however as far as I can see at a first glance they simply don't source what the current text claims. Also only one of them ("Critical Muslim 06: Reclaiming Al-Andalus") is somewhat of an actual scholary work on al Andalus, there rest seems mostly scholarly work on islamism and/or islamic terrorism where al Andalus at some point is mentioned on the side. That may justify the mentioning of al Andalus in articles on specific terror groups or islamism when their ideological notions are described, but not necessarily the inclusion here in this article. Note that ideally (and in doubt) this article should describe under legacy what scholarly sources on al Andalus consider a notable legacy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's quite a dubious assertion, too. Since there have been 500 years to write books about al-Andalus but ISIS are a recent development, it stands to reason that a mention of how the latter feels about the former is going to be much easier to find in a book about ISIS, all of which could potentially mention it if they chose. The overwhelming majority of books on al-Andalus could not possibly mention it, since it hadn't happened yet.


 * Wikipedia's citing policy wants scholarly works; but there's nothing in there about their primary subject being the subject of the article.


 * So; there's an overwhelming weight of citations for a minor mention at the tail end of the article. Seems fair to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you've somewhat missed the point of the posting. A few comments regarding that.
 * a) The scholarly citations above are cases where al Andalus is mentioned, but none of them sources the content, you insist on of having in the article. So if you want to make case based on those citations at all, you need to read them and compile a new content based on them.
 * b) Of course do WP article not simply require arbitrary scholarly sources, but scholarly sources and the notability of their content are also assessed based on their to domain. To give an crude illustration the content of an article on some math topic is primarily based on (scholarly) math publication and not so by scholarly publication on poetry or religion that for some mention that math subject on the side.
 * c) Not sure what you want with those "500 years". When I'm talking about somewhat recent scholarly publications reflecting the current scholarly knowledge on al Andalus and what authors consider notable, that roughly comprises publication of the last 30-50 years. We are now already 11 years after the 2004 attacks and islamism and islamic terrorism is around for more than 50 years, so if scholars writing on al Andalus consider the use notion/use of al Andalus in it a notable legacy it will be reflected their, there isn't really much of a time issue here.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So, the offending text is: The desire to reconquer, or more specifically re-Islamicize, Al-Andalus has been used as rhetoric by leaders of Islamic states and has been discussed by Spanish politicians. Osama bin Laden, for example, several times spoke of Al-Andalus, which was reported after the 2004 Madrid bombings.[45][46][47] The Muslim Brotherhood[48] and ISIS have also expressed an intention to "retake" al-Andalus.

DeCausa's second source supports "discussed by Spanish politicians". Several sources supports bin Laden discussing Al-Andalus. Fourth source quotes a member of the ruling Turkish political party.

So you may not like the text (in particular, I'll grant you "leaders of Islamic states" isn't in there, but there is no serious doubt that Al-Quaeda have a bee in their bonnet about Al-Andalus, no? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest revert
All you're saying now is that you don't like it. Too bad. It's cited to a wide variety of reliable sources and says what is in those sources. There is absolutely no reason to exclude this material; and it's certainly not that "this wording" has been discussed on the talk page, because I just wrote the wording now. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I explained in detail above, why the current sources are not acceptable here and why they didn't even fully source what the text claims. Now you have modified the text but still used the same questionable sources instead of using scholarly sources in addition even your "modified" claim repeats the false/misleading claim about the muslim brotherhood (not the brotherhood made that claim but a related American organization, I outlined that earlier already).
 * Perhaps more importantly there is still no scholary source that justifies the inclusion here of the Al-Andalus article. We don't collect under here rather random material about people who used the term Al-Andalus somewhere in some sentence. Also aside from me to other editors suggesting that this material is not appropriate here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of scholarly sources there; you just happen not to like them. If there's an error in what I wrote, feel free to correct it.


 * I hardly think prominent militant Islamic groups proclaiming their desire to unconquista Al-Andalus is "rather random material". It seems entirely pertinent.


 * The "other editors" you mention consisted of one editor who dislikes the word "Islamism" (so do I, and it's gone) and objects to the material being purely sourced to the Telegraph (and now it's not). Pinkbeast (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't claim the existence of plenty of scholarly sources, but write a text suggestion actually based on them. And yes ISIS mentioning Al Andalus as "legacy" of Al Andalus is somewhat random and of (iapprpriate) recentism. The are roughly 500 years of legacy/influence to look at based on scholarly source and you pick a recent nutty ISIS claim based on a mediocre newspaper article? Please .... --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)