Talk:Prehistoric Iberia/Archive 1

Proper text!

 * The following was moved from "Talk:Pre-Roman Portugal" and "Talk:Prehistoric Portugal" (identical posts).

This article is a partial copy of Timeline of Portuguese history (Pre-Roman). It urgently needs proper text. This kind of article is bad within a concept of a free encyclopedia as both articles will develop independently. Please help turning the chronology into a normal article. Thanks. Gameiro 01:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been done. Jimp 05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrived

 * The following was moved from "Talk:Prehistoric Spain".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prehistoric_Spain" Category: WikiProject Spain

Some questions

 * The following was moved from "Talk:Prehistoric Spain".

The Iberians arrived in Spain sometime in the third millennium B.C. Source? AFAIK there is only one moment when the diffuse conglomerate called Iberians could have been formed: in the Neolithic migration (and hybridation with locals). That was in the 5th milennium. In any case, we can't fully talk of Iberians with precision before they developed written language (in the 1st mielnnium BCE).

The Celts of Europe entered Spain through two separate migrations in the ninth and seventh centuries B.C.. That's plain wrong. Celts entered c. 1300 BCE with the Urnfields migration. They remained connected to continental Europe till c.600 BCE when the NE seems to have been re-Iberized. C. 700 they migrated westwards into the plateau and the Atlantic coasts.

If I get no replies and I have some time, I'll make a whole review of the article some time in the future. --Sugaar 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger of "Pre-Roman Portugal", "Prehistoric Portugal" & "Prehistoric Spain" to "Prehistoric Iberia"

 * The following is the discussion which lead to the creation of "Prehistoric Iberia". The merger had been mentioned on all three talk pages.  The following is the main discussion.

I propose that this article ( Prehistoric Spain ) be merged with Prehistoric Portugal and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. There was no Spain in prehistoric times. There was no Portugal either. It would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. Hey, even the Spanish version has it this way: Prehistoria en la Península Ibérica. Jimp 06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I perfectly understand you reasoning, and tend to agree... but, however, must countries have an article in Wikipedia about their prehistoric time. Why should Iberia be different? Furthermore, even if there is a lot of overlapping an mutual scholarship, there is also a lot of diffeentited national research, dealing with topics that do not affect both countries. Therefore I disagree with you merge proposal. Sorry... The Ogre 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I agree with the Ogre. There was also no prehistorical Iberia, but only several different cultures and times. It seems acceptable to have articles on the prehistory of present day countries. Velho 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To me the reasoning that there was no Portugal nor Spain in prehistoric times is king. I agree with the moving, since there is no real difference between say Alenteixo prehistory and the one in Huelva or Galician prehistory and northern Portugal's. This said, I also understand the motives for not merging, so I am in a state of mild agreement, if you may. Mountolive | Talk 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By Iberia I intend Iberian Peninsular. I believe you'd agree there was an Iberian Peninsular in prehistoric times.  Perhaps a title like Prehistoric Iberian Peninsula or The Iberian Peninsula in prehistory might be clearer but I still feel that the more consise Prehistoric Iberia would be adequate.


 * The Wikipedia page Iberia is a disambiguation page which states that Iberia may refer to the Iberian Peninsula or that part of it once inhabited by the Pre-Roman Iberians, who spoke the Iberian language. It also says that Iberia could refer to the Greek word and goes on to give a number of more modern uses of the word.


 * Putting the adjective prehistoric before Iberia would be sufficent to indicate that none of the more modern senses (including the Ancient Greek one) are intended. Thus prehistoric Iberia could only reasonably be interpreted as meaning the Iberian Peninsula (or aforementioned part thereof) in prehistoric times.


 * Indeed, the usual meaning of Iberia is the Iberian Peninsular as the first line of the article Iberian Peninsula attests. So, it would seem that the word is very much a geographical one and describes an area which did exist in prehistory.  So in the normal sense of the word there certainly was a prehistoric Iberia irrespective of whether or not there were a single Iberian culture, Iberian language or Iberian people.


 * Acceptable it may be to have articles on the prehistories of present day countries ... or rather on the prehistories of areas now contained within these ... but is this what we now have? Do read these two articles.  Is one actually about prehistoric Spain as opposed to prehistoric Portugal whilst the other be about prehistoric Portugal as opposed to prehistoric Spain?  I put it to you that they are both about one and the same thing: prehistoric Iberia.


 * Closely read Prehistoric Spain and you'll find that, yes, it does make mention of a few archeological sites which do happen to be in Spain but these are simply examples peppering an article which, in the main, is really about prehistoric Iberia. Closely read Prehisotric Portugal and you'll find that the text hardly even mentions Portugal: it's clearly about prehistoric Iberia.


 * Ogre, you write "there is also a lot of diffeentited national research, dealing with topics that do not affect both countries." well, I've got to say you'll be hard-pressed to find much of this in either of these articles. It's not merely "a lot of overlapping an mutual scholarship" which we see here.  What we have are two articles about the same thing.


 * This is by no means any surprise: there was, after all, no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. "Why should Iberia be different?"  It most certainly should not.  Nor do we have Hispania split in two.  Such articles should be based on geographical regions which had meaning in prehistory not on arbitary present-day political boundaries.  There should, for example, be no seperate Prehistoric Canada, Prehistoric United States and Prehistoric Mexico articles but a Prehistoric North America article and/or various other more specific but meaningful articles.


 * Just as a side thought: suppose the Basques gain independence, are we going to split this article to account for the fact that there'd be another seperate country in Iberia? Jimp 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: So as to encourage further discussion I've put a note about this proposal on the following pages.


 * Talk:Gallaecia
 * Talk:Lusitania
 * Talk:Hispania
 * Talk:Pre-Roman Portugal
 * Talk:History of Portugal
 * Portal talk:Portugal
 * Talk:Portugal
 * Talk:Spain
 * Portal talk:Spain
 * Talk:Iberian language
 * Talk:Iberians
 * Talk:Iberian Peninsula
 * Talk:Iberian languages
 * Talk:History of Spain


 * Jimp 09:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Ogre, good question. I don't think article size would be an issue here: were we to merge them all, I think we'd still be under 30 kB. But the main question would be whether the title fits.  Would Prehistoric Iberia be an appropriate title for the whole thing?  Is that the time period covered by Pre-Roman Portugal prehistoric?  If not, perhaps the best solution would be to merge this with the corresponding section of Prehistoric Spain to Pre-Roman Iberia ... or Iron Age Iberia. Jimp 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Having just checked up on Iron age and Prehistory it would seem that this time period would usually be counted as prehistoric so, let's merge them all ... at least until the article expands enough to split in three: stone age, bronze age & iron age.
 * What's puzzling me, though, is this quoted from Pre-Roman Portugal: "10th Century BC ... Development of Tartessos, the first Iberia State mentioned in writing sources." That seem like history to me. Jimp 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This was a suggested merge not a page move so I am removing it from the WP:RM page as your advert has been there for more than five days. Good luck in whatever you decide to do. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you ... I guess merge is the better term. I'll have to merge-tag them. Jimp 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to the proposal. Seems quite logical and would make a more complete and interesting article. Maurice27 00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I intend to go ahead with this plan. I will move Prehistoric Spain to Prehistoric Iberia and merge Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal there as well. Jimp 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed changes. What's to be gained by merging the three articles? The only reason I can think of is that it would reduce the number of articles from three to one. While that might be beneficial for print edition, we can have an unlimited number of articles. Prehistory articles for modern countries help establish flow in history series. So someone interested in the history of modern Spain can trace the flow of history back to its very beginnings. It seems to me that the main reason for making this change is semantic and trivial: that there was no Spain in prehistory. While true, so what? I don't think the articles should be changed just to make this point. Also, the idea of lumping these together as "Prehistoric Iberia" is no less arbitrary than having separate articles based on modern borders. Both are just modern conceptions of geography. Why stop at Iberia? Why not just merge together everything into "Prehistoric Europe"? In short, I don't see what benefits we can from a merge that offset the cost of losing articles that contribute to the flow of country article series. Also, there definitely does not seem to be consensus yet for a merge, so please wait a bit longer before going through with this.--Bkwillwm 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it there is a fair bit to be gained by merging the three articles. The reduction of the number of articles from three to one if an advantage at all would not be the most significant one.  No, we are not limited the way we would be were we writing a paper encyclopædia.  Yes, we can have as many articles as we like.  The simple reduction of the number of articles is not an advantage in & of itself.  On the other hand, nor is it a case of the more the merrier.  We can have as many articles as we want ... we can also have as few as we want.


 * Three articles, one article, a couple of dozen articles, merge the lot under some bigger umbrella. It's not the number of articles which is concerning me but their content.  I could cope with three articles but I'd argue that Stone age Iberia, Bronze age Iberia & Iron age Iberia would make the more logical trillogy.


 * "Prehistory articles for modern countries help establish flow in history series." you write, Bkwillwm, "So someone interested in the history of modern Spain can trace the flow of history back to its very beginnings." Yes, this is true, however, what I propose will in no way impede this.  Most readers come to such articles via links on other pages.  The links will still be there, the only difference will be that what they are directed to will be all that more full an article.  Those interested in the history of Spain could come and read about prehistoric Iberia under the title Prehistoric Iberia.  Anyone searching for Prehistoric Spain will also land in Prehistoric Iberia.


 * My purpose goes beyond making any trivial or semantic point. There was no Spain in prehistoric times therefore the article Prehistoric Spain is actually about prehistoric Iberia.  Similarly there was no Portugal in prehistoric times therefore the article Prehistoric Portugal is also actually about prehistoric Iberia.  Do have a good read of these articles if there be any doubt in your mind that this is what the articles are actually about.


 * So what I'm really proposing is to move the text of Prehistoric Spain to a title which better fits the topic it deals with. Similarly I'm proposing to do the same with Prehistoric Portugal.  It's no coincidence that the titles under which they'd be moved under this logic would be the same.


 * Bkwillwm, you write "the idea of lumping these together as 'Prehistoric Iberia' is no less arbitrary than having separate articles based on modern borders. Both are just modern conceptions of geography." I cannot agree with you here. The term Iberia comes from Ancient Greek so it's not all that modern and does predate Spain and Portugal but more importantly it's a question of physical verses political geography.


 * Let us assume that the terms Iberia and Iberian Peninsular were coined yesterday. The region would not have been called Iberia in prehistoric times but the region would still have existed.  The terms Spain and Portugal are unavoidably modern.  Such article titles as the ones we now have make as much sense as Renaissance Pakistan or Mediæval Nunavut.


 * "Why stop at Iberia?" you ask, Bkwillwm, "Why not just merge together everything into 'Prehistoric Europe'?" Because that article is big enough as it is.


 * You main point, Bkwillwm, seems to be that by merging these articles we will lose "articles that contribute to the flow of country article series." I understand how such a loss would be a concern, however, what I argue is that no such loss will really occur.  There will still be an article (or articles) to contribute to this flow.  Indeed, the merged article should do a better job of it seeing as it would be the combination of the best of all three.  Moreover, if you suppose you can trace the flow of history of modern countries, I suggest you try to do so for Portugal from Modern to Prehistoric times through Roman Portugal.


 * Jimp 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You make the point that "Iberia" is not a modern concept but that it has origins in ancient Greek. I think it is still a modern concept, regardless of its origin, since it is indeed a concept we have in modern times. Anyway, I think we should be writing Wikipedia based on the modern categorizations of the world more than the ancient Greeks'.

"Prehistoric Spain" differs from Renaissance Pakistan and Mediæval Nunavut in that people actually write about it as a topic and it makes at least some sense (I'm sure you'd agree even if you think "Prehistoric Iberia" makes more sense). What seems to be the main issue is that Spain did not exist in prehistoric times. While true, there are many other examples of history articles here tracing the course of a country's history even in periods when it did not exist (e.g. Prehistoric France and the History of Italy during Roman times). Having separate articles based on modern countries helps people interested in the history of a specific country to find information with greater ease. For example, someone interested in Portugal might not want to read all about Atapuerca.

You responded that these articles should not be merged into Prehistoric Europe because that article is already too large. I agree, and, while neither Prehistoric Portugal nor Prehistoric Spain is all that large now, concentrating everything into one article could cause information to be left out in the future. Wikipedia articles generally run 40 to 60 KB at the most. I think there's enough on the topic of Prehistoric Spain that it could easily reach that size alone, which means a merged article would have to leave out information. Of course, you might say we'll address that problem when we get to it. But we already have two articles that are reasonably well under way, why merge when we might have to spinoff articles later?--Bkwillwm 17:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not when so merging will put us into a position from which to spin articles off under titles which make sense? There was no Spain, there was no Portgual, no, this alone would be reason enough to merge them in my mind.  Let's put things under logical titles ... but there is more to my argument than this.


 * I agree that we should be writing based on modern concepts rather than those of the ancient Greeks. The point I made about the concept of Iberia's having its origin in ancient Greek was rather a side point.  Sure, let us use modern concepts but let them be the concepts which are most applicable to the period in question.  Ancient or modern, the concept of Iberia is geographical rather than political.


 * I still don't feel that Prehistoric Spain or Prehistoric Portugal make any more sense than Renaissance Pakistan or Mediæval Nunavut but do accept your statement that people actually write about it as a topic. I believe they'd also write about prehistoric Iberia ... in fact what I'm arguing is that this is exactly what they have been writing about under these titles.


 * This really is the main issue here as I see it. All three of these articles are actually about Iberia.  It's not a question of having a little overlap: they're all about the same thing.  There was no Spain, there was no Portgual, thus the articles have become articles about the more general topic of prehistoric Iberia.


 * When articles are about the same thing they should be merged. This is my real point.  They should be merged even if they have later to be split ... even if they have to be split immediately.  What we are dealing with is information.  Information is best organised in a logical way.  The internal organisation of each of these articles is logical: it's chronological.  If this topic (i.e. prehistoric Iberia) is to be organised into different articles, let's follow that logic.


 * I'm afraid that I find the argument that there exist "history articles here tracing the course of a country's history even in periods when it did not exist" somewhat unconvincing. I have to say it seems like a bit of a "What about article x?"-type argument.  Perhaps that was the best way to organise that information on that topic.  Perhaps it wasn't but the case is simply that nobody's come up with a better way.  Perhaps somebody has but it's been rejected, forgotten, neglected, etc.  I'd prefer to concentrate on how best to organise this inforamtion on this topic.


 * I don't see how merging the articles would cause information to left out. Mightn't a more full article attract more interest?  Mightn't that article be in a better position to grow and expand.  I don't think may editors think in terms of "Oh, this article is getting too big ... better not add anything to it."  No, if it starts going beyond 40 KB, let's split it.  Isn't that the normal flow of things around here?


 * I don't belive that my proposed reorganisation will impede people's ability to find the information that they are after. No, "someone interested in Portugal might not want to read all about Atapuerca" ... or he might.  Someone interested in Spain, on the other hand, might want to know about the genetics of the prehistoric people of Iberia.  In any case the bit about Atapuerca is best viewed in the context of the article: what it is is an example of what was probably going on across the peninsular.  How about the person just interested in finding out about the history of the Iberian Peninsular as a region in itself? Jimp 08:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So?
What's the status and outcome of this discussion. I began being against the proposed merge, but know I'm for it. Does anyone want a vote? The Ogre 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe that Pre-Roman Portugal should be also merged. The Ogre 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "What's the status and outcome ...?" good question, The Ogre. I thought I'd addressed Bkwillwm's concerns decently.  I'd been waiting for his reply but it's been three weeks. Discussion seems to be pretty slow on this question: are people just not interested?  The discussion that has gone one shows a majority in favour of the proposal (including you & me) but I don't think that putting it to a vote would be a bad idea. Jimp 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll
The following is a survey of opinions as to whether or not users support the proposed merger of Prehistoric Spain, Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Please indicate your position below preferably with a breif explanation (or a more detailed explanation in another section).

This I hope to be a rather black & white vote. I have left room for shades of grey though do leave your brilliant hues outside this box. Please discuss such issues as how and under what title(s) to reorganise the material if merged in a new section after this poll.

I would hope to have this survey wrapped up by the end of next month, however, we must keep in mind that Wikipedia runs on consensus rather than majority vote ... or at least that's the theory. Jimp 08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The following poll is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support

 * 1) Strongly support - as discussed above. Jimp 08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly support - The Ogre 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd written that I would have hoped the poll to be wrapped up by the end of the month. Half-way through the month and I find that the merge had already been started. So I finished it off. I've closed the poll early because of this. Jimp 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)