Talk:Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula

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

Section The Urban-Huerta Landscape: The Economic Prosperity of Al-Andalus[edit]

This section, in addition to being better suited for the page Al-Andalus, contains what I perceive as opinionated and exaggerated views (for instance, ... the Reconquest of Spain, ... left Spain internally barren of resources), and furthermore it's pretty disconnected internally. I think that the section should be, if not entirely deleted, at least drastically trimmed. Jotamar (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It isn't a good fit in the current article and definitely lacks a NPOV. I was unable to verify against some of the cited references; it would have been easier if page numbers were provided but neither Catlos nor Fromherz seem to back up what's been written. Should be deleted. Glendoremus (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I opened this discussion, I wasn't even aware about the refs in the section not backing the claims. With no further comments in one month, I'm going ahead and deleting the section. --Jotamar (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian Peninsula isn't Spain[edit]

Whatever the way in the past the Iberian Peninsula was called, nowadays the event this entry refers aply to the peninsula itself, that is to Portugal and to Spain. Any person can think the previous naming excluded Portugal, and we could have also an entry about the muslim conquest of Portugal, which isn't needed. Several different Wikipedias use more neutral names for this event. In Portuguese its called "Invasão muçulmana da Península Ibérica". [1]. In the Galician Wikipedia its called "Invasión musulmá da Península Ibérica" [2]. In the French Wikipedia its used also the more neutral title: Conquête musulmane de l'Hispanie [3]Mistico Dois (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't bother to check the two extensive discussions of the page name before moving it, or open up a proper move discussion, you don't seem to be aware that this issue has been discussed at length quite recently. The state of Portugal did not exist at the time of the Muslim conquest, and countless historical and literary sources refer to the entire peninsula as "Spain", translating the Latin "Hispania", which included what is now Portugal, prior to Portugal becoming a separate state. This is not an uncontroversial move, and should not have been done without at least checking to see whether a similar move had been proposed in the past. Please return the article to its previous title [note, the article was moved back while I was typing this. Thank you.], and if you wish you can open a normal move discussion here. If you can achieve consensus for the proposed title, then and only then should it be moved. P Aculeius (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2024[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move away from the current title. There is a clear majority of editors in support of a move, and their arguments are better grounded in policy, primarily that the proposed title is more accurate and recognizable.

In opposing this move editors argued that WP:COMMONNAME supported the current title, but this was disputed and natural is only one part of WP:CRITERIA.

There is no consensus on whether to use Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula or Muslim conquest of Iberia, but it seems unlikely that further relists will resolve this question and so I am closing this discussion per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS.

Specifically, I am moving this to Muslim conquest of Iberia because it is more concise and because the sources provided by Asqueladd use "Iberia", not "Iberian Peninsula". Editors who disagree with this choice are free to open a new move request at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest of Spain → Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula – I'm posting this on behalf of Mistico Dois, who moved the page without discussion yesterday, and then self-reverted at my request. I think it's possible that a new consensus has developed since last year's discussions, although to be clear I still prefer the present title: in English-language scholarship, "Spain" is understood to include Portugal during the time period covered by this article, as it has generally been used to translate "Hispania" from Roman (and Carthaginian, for that matter) times up to the establishment of Portugal as a separate state in 1143. But without a requested move, members of interested WikiProjects may not know about the discussion. Please note that this is not intended as a discussion of whether it should be the "Muslim", "Arab", or "Umayyad" conquest, which we also argued over last year. If necessary that can be debated separately, but it'll make this discussion confused. P Aculeius (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: as explained above, I oppose the move, even though I'm the one who proposed it. I posted the page move request because I wanted to generate a more thorough discussion following Mistico Dois' moves yesterday. The nomination itself should not be counted as a vote in favour of the move. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Arab world has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Spain has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Portugal has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good alternative. There is potential confusion with the Kingdom of Iberia in Georgia, but I don't think that's nearly as well-known. I still prefer the current title, but "Iberia" may be an improvement over the proposed name, and I think it's fair to include in the discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be resolved with a hatnote pointing to Arab rule in Georgia if it is a concern. As a side note, a hatnote could be added whether the page is moved or not, since Muslim conquest of Iberia already redirects here. Bensci54 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What changed is that the article was moved without discussion, then moved back. I said the editor would need to open a move discussion, but it didn't appear that was happening. I thought it would be better to initiate the discussion than wait for an indefinite period for someone else to do it. P Aculeius (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer No consensus back then and the current title still seems to indicate modern Spain.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would support moving it to Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula or Muslim conquest of Iberia, or a more neutral title. Several other Wikipedias use more neutral names for this event. In the Portuguese Wikipedia its called "Invasão muçulmana da Península Ibérica". [4]. In the Galician Wikipedia its called "Invasión musulmá da Península Ibérica" [5]. In the French Wikipedia its used also the more neutral title: Conquête musulmane de l'Hispanie [6] Even Spanish Wikipedia calls it "Conquista omeya de Hispania" [7]Mistico Dois (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistico Dois: I wouldn't say that the choice of "Invasion" (as opposed to "conquest") is a neutral choice. The invasion/reconquista historiographical duo is a staple of Islamophobic frameworks.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I appreciate the reasons for the current title, but support the proposed title for sheer clarity/simplicity. "Iberian Peninsula" is just one word more, but it's precise, can't cause any confusion one way or the other, and doesn't require any further explanation about what it does or doesn't mean. Exactly what a descriptive title should do.
Further note: even if "Spain" is a translation of "Hispania", that just raises questions as to why we don't replace "Hispania" with "Spain" in most other titles that include it (e.g. in Category:Hispania), as I expect the term "Spain" is often used in those contexts too. It's common for modern authors to refer geographically to present-day country names for the convenience of readers, but I don't think that always serves well for Wikipedia article titles. For example, it's common to refer to Al-Andalus as "Islamic Spain" ([8], [9], [10], etc), but of course this would raise issues if it were used as a title on Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Roman and post-Roman articles, as well as in scholarly sources "Hispania" and "Spain" are used interchangeably, depending on the preference of the authors, and sometimes just for variety. Nobody is confused by the lack of distinction of Portugal when any of the several Roman provinces called "Hispania" are rendered as "Spain"; everyone knows that there was no state called "Portugal" in Roman times, or indeed up until the eleventh century, four hundred years after the Muslim conquest. P Aculeius (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that any competent reader will understand the context anyways if they read further into any relevant article/book. But, given that Wikipedia's audience includes all English readers, I think it's safe to say that not "everyone" knows these things already. The average English reader probably has, at best, barely a vague idea of when Islam even started or probably no idea of what the post-Roman world looked like, etc. In fairness, one could argue that they also might not know what "Iberian Peninsula" is either, but it's a transparent thing to look up; less so what "Spain" refers to in different historical contexts. For most people, "Spain" merely means modern Spain. R Prazeres (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that modern Spain hasn't recently been conquered by a Muslim army (except perhaps in the minds of some far-right conspiracy theorists) might suggest that this isn't what "Spain" means in context. P Aculeius (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Spanish language Wikipedia uses the more neutral and historical name Hispania instead of Spain (España): "Conquista omeya de Hispania" [11]Mistico Dois (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's only fair, considering the modern country of Spain has since appropriated the name "Hispania", but the Iberian Peninsula contains two countries, Spain and Portugal. The way the article is worded now makes it ambiguous, and slights one nation in favour of another. I'm not saying this was done on purpose, just that it's an obvious oversight. I would favour moving it to "Muslim conquest of Iberia" for short. It's just both fairer and clearer. Wareno (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It is true that when Spain adopted its name there were complaints from Portugal on the grounds that "Spain" had previously referred to the Iberian Peninsula. Nonetheless, confusion is unlikely and "Muslim conquest of Spain" is the usual term in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue. Most Wikipedias use a more neutral title like I showed, Iberian Peninsula or Hispania, instead of Spain. By the way what you stated is nonsensical. In the 16th century when the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon united, in 1516, and the name of Spain was adopted to the new kingdom, nobody in Portugal ever complained to my knowledge.Mistico Dois (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for clarity and precision. Move to "Muslim conquest of Iberia" would be even better. Carlstak (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - just a quick scan through the references cited in this article indicate that "Spain" is widely used in this context:
    • Collins, Roger (1983). Early Medieval Spain
    • Collins, Roger (1989). The Arab Conquest of Spain 710–797
    • Catlos, Brian A. (May 2018). Kingdoms of Faith: A New History of Islamic Spain
    • Al-Makkari, Ahmed ibn Mohammed (2002). The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain
    • Ṭāhā, Abd al-Wāḥid Dhannūn (1989-01-01). The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain
    • Kennedy, Hugh (1996). Muslim Spain and Portugal: A political history of al-Andalus
    • Lomax, D.W. (1978). The Reconquest of Spain.
    • Roth, Norman (1976). "The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain"
    • Jessica Coope (2017). The Most Noble of People: Religious, Ethnic, and Gender Identity in Muslim Spain
Glendoremus (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are outdated. Wareno (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what makes them "outdated"? The supposed failure to mention Portugal, or an arbitrary cutoff date? Any historical text written in the last couple of centuries would normally be considered a valid source for events that happened in the eighth century. And these aren't even being cited for the content of the article, but for the concept that historians have traditionally referred to the entire Iberian Peninsula (with the exception of Hugh Kennedy's book, which provides a counter-example) as Spain during the medieval period, before there was a separate state called "Portugal". This entire debate still strikes me as a nationalist argument, a bit like objecting to an article titled "British colonization of America" because the title supposedly excludes Canada. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers of the English Wikipedia aren't people whose first language is English. We should take that in concern. Like I showed the word "Spain" is avoided in almost other Wikipedias for a more neutral wording, like Iberian Peninsula and Hispania. Even if Spain can be seen as more neutral from an English language point of view that doesn't make it the better wording.Mistico Dois (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct. According to news reports on the web: "The top countries that accessed English Wikipedia overall to date in 2023 are the United States (33.2 billion) and the United Kingdom (9 billion) - followed by India (8.48 billion), Canada (3.95 billion) and Australia (2.56 billion), according to Wikimedia Foundation data shared with The Associated Press." If you have a different source, I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. Glendoremus (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid analogy because "America" refers to the continent the US is located on and in the middle ages the name "Spain" wasn't yet applied to a single country. The circumstances have since changed. Furthermore, the article for the Roman conquest is already titled Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. This issue is clearly just gonna keep coming up because the current wording breaks the rules of consensus. Wareno (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spain is a very common term indeed. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The question is, do those sources group together Spain and Portugal and call that just "Spain"? I haven't found any source that does that. Vpab15 (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vpab15: Do you think Collins' The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797 excludes Portugal? Srnec (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, does it? Vpab15 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the idea that scholars would distinguish between modern Spain and modern Portugal in discussing the conquest of medieval Spain (which included what is now Portugal) by the Muslims in the eighth century is at all plausible. There would be no reason to make such a distinction, because the basic facts of the conquest did not differ significantly, or constitute a separate event. At the time of the conquest, substantially all of the Iberian Peninsula had been part of what's commonly called "Visigothic Spain" for nearly a century, and before that the main exceptions were a small Byzantine province in the south and the Suebi in the west—ruling a country that does not really correspond with Portugal either; the Visigoths annexed this in the late sixth century, and prior to their arrival, the entire peninsula had been part Roman Spain—Hispania—for centuries. The conquerors certainly did not make the modern distinction. Until the establishment of Portugal as a state in the eleventh century, there is simply no reason for historians to make a linguistic distinction between "Spain" and "Portugal". P Aculeius (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:PRECISE and WP:NDESC. Portugal is not part of Spain, and the current title will surprise and confuse readers and it violates WP:ASTONISH. There are unsubstantiated assertions that Spain in this context includes Portugal, but no evidence has been provided that when a source is using "Spain", that includes Portugal too. I find it quite unlikely that recent sources use "Spain" that way and have been unable to find any source. Unless that missing evidence is provided, the article should be moved. Vpab15 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go:
    "When "Spain" is used in this book it refers simply to the Iberian Peninsula."
    Catlos, Brian A. (May 2018). Kingdoms of Faith: A New History of Islamic Spain, page 5. Glendoremus (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While the term is featured in some English-language sources (particularly in 20th-century sources), state-of-the-art academia generally prefer to frame the geographical scope as Iberia/Iberian Peninsula (I may say that Islamic is perhaps even more common than Muslim, too), thankfully leaving possible associations with dangerous and toxic Spanish essentialism behind. Most of the items of the list of sources by Glendoremus do not directly adress the concept. Most also feel dated. I feel that this article is perhaps stuck in 20th-century academia. Regarding how current academia approaches the topic (and its problematic edges) you can check
  • Clarke, Nicola (2012). The Muslim Conquest of Iberia: Medieval Arabic Narratives. London: Routledge
  • García Sanjuán, Alejandro (2021) "Denying the Islamic conquest of Iberia: A historiographical fraud". What Was the Islamic Conquest of Iberia? Understanding the New Debate. London: Routledge
  • Clarke, Nicola (2021) "Re-reading the conquest of Iberia: The dynamism of a medieval tradition" (2021) The Routledge Hispanic Studies Companion to Medieval Iberia: Unity in Diversity. London: Routledge.
--Asqueladd (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and already made in prior discussion. Nothing new is being brought up here that wasn't already considered before. Walrasiad (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add an interesting ngram, "Muslim Spain" far outstrips "Muslim Iberia" or "Muslim Iberian Peninsula" by several many miles. Walrasiad (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is unconsequential to this discussion as what Muslims conquered was not (yet) Muslim Iberia, Muslim Spain nor Muslim Iberian Peninsula. The common name for that is "Al-Andalus". As insteresting or more interesting that the ngram above is that we have an article titled "Al-Andalus" and not an article titled "Muslim Spain" (nor "Muslim Portugal").--Asqueladd (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems relevant to the extent it demonstrates that "Spain" is the usual term at all periods prior to the establishment of Portugal as an independent state. P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated. Quality sources certainly prefer "prehistoric Iberia" over "prehistoric Spain" and certainly "Hispania" over "Roman Spain". That's why we have articles titled "Prehistoric Iberia" and "Hispania" and not "Prehistoric Spain" or "Roman Spain", non-existence of Portugal (and "Spain") notwithstanding. We also happen to have an article titled "Carthaginian Iberia" and not "Carthaginian Spain". We don't have either an article titled "Visigothic Spain", so what "all periods prior to the establishment of Portugal" are you referring to?--Asqueladd (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published histories are evidence of general and scholarly usage, even if you refuse to acknowledge the significance of anything disagreeing with you. Wikipedia article titles are not evidence of general or scholarly usage—surely you're aware that Wikipedia is explicitly discounted as a reliable source. You also seem to be pretending that "Hispania", "España", and "Spain" are different words with different meanings, rather than the same word in Latin, Spanish, and English. The word "Iberia" also exists in all three languages, but it's not used to mean anything different in histories covering periods prior to the establishment of Portugal. Portugal was part of Spain before its establishment, and never regarded as anything didderent. The contrary argument is pure historical revisionism for nationalist purposes. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am just following your argument and the other user's argument. I did my analysis of state-of-the-art sources above (and about the current article's overreliance on 20th century sources), but you did not care to pay a visit there. I also did my educated guess about the historiographical problems of the current title (also based on sources) in the previous request, but nobody did care to comment on there. Excuse me if the ngram analyses do look silly, but I did not bring those here and yet they favour other terms to "Fooian Spain". Portugal was part of Spain before its establishment Sorry, but WTF you mean? Portugal did not exist in late antiquity. Neither what casual readers understand by "Spain" did. If you think so, you are buying into far-right national-catholic bullshit of "Spain being born with Reccared in 587". If you actually know that what casual readers understand by "Spain" did not exist in late antiquity, but well, you are willing to allow for an ambiguous term (not free of historiographical criticism and prone to power insane Islamophobic Spanish nationalism and almost necessarily requiring an inline disclaimer explaining what it is not about) to be used as a title when there are other available titles used in 21st-century academia, well, that's your choice, but be honest about it. Portuguese nationalism on Wikipedia vis-à-vis the Peninsular whole operates in the early modern period in other ways.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
even if you refuse to acknowledge the significance of anything disagreeing with you isn't this a personal attack? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is common to refer to "Iberians" and thus "Iberia" before the Roman conquest. After the Roman conquest, the common term is "Hispania" or "Spain". The article on the Kingdom of the Visigoths has as an alternative tile "Visigothic Spain", not "Visigothic Iberia". Walrasiad (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add: since ngrams are so much fun, ngrams for "Visigothic Spain" vs. "Visigothic Iberia". Now what did the Muslims conquer again? Walrasiad (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that the usage of "Muslim Spain" is taking a nosedive. Wareno (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remember people that the previous discussion ended without a consensus. I also would like to point the massive NPOV in other Wikipedias is to use a more neutral naming like Iberian Peninsula or Iberia instead of Spain.Mistico Dois (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Spain" not NPOV? Walrasiad (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether intended or not, that choice panders to Spanish essentialism.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, rather obviously, people might easily think it means the current country of Spain. Even the Spanish Wikipedia uses the word Hispania.Mistico Dois (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. In historical articles, it is pretty common to use terms like "Germany", "Italy", "Spain" etc. for geographic areas, without implying they refer to modern countries. e.g. in historical context, "Germany" does not imply the exclusion of Austria. Walrasiad (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a question of scope at least as much as of usage. Some of the sources cited saying "Spain" may indeed be discussing only modern-day Spain; and, conversely, the present title may reasonably lead readers to believe that this article is only about the conquest of, well, Spain. Using "Spain" forces us to then devote the lead sentence to explaining that we do not actually mean Spain but the Iberian Peninsula. Since I do not see how any of this aids us or the reader, I am inclined to support the proposal. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply because we are not discussing "Muslim Spain" vs. "Muslim Iberia" / "Muslim Iberian Peninsula". Rather, "Muslim conquest of X" is an WP:NDESC, and we need to describe the subject accurately so that an unfamiliar reader can easily identify it. It is not obvious to the uninitiated that historically, "Spain" can refer to the entirety of the Iberian Peninsula. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not more accurate. Indeed, if you want make geography a fetish, then "Iberian peninsula" is certainly incorrect. The Muslims didn't conquer Cantabria (part of the Iberian peninsula). And they conquered Septimania (Narbonensis) (not part of Iberian peninsula). Walrasiad (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it seems to be you that is making a fetish of geography. Rather obviously the Muslims didn't conquered all the Iberian Peninsula, however they did conquered more than 90% of it, which is enough for that qualification. The fact that they conquered a small part of modern Southern France isn't that much relevant since its also included in their conquest.Mistico Dois (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article title "Muslim conquest of most of the Iberian peninsula and part of southern France" is much too long. You know what is the common abbreviation for this event? "Muslim conquest of Spain".
Indeed, so common it far, far outweighs the proposed alternative. "Muslim conquest of Spain" (6,2110 results) versus "Muslim conquest of Iberian peninsula" (74 results). Both may be strictly inaccurate, but it is pretty clear which is the WP:COMMONNAME. Walrasiad (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are irrelevant. What matters is here is the most accurate naming, and this should also include the global understanding of what should be considered the Iberian Peninsula or Spain, back then or now.Mistico Dois (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the global understanding based on what? M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based in the other languages Wikipedias, for example, the name Spain is universally rejected, its used instead Iberian Peninsula or Hispania. If even the Spanish Wikipedia uses the word Hispania instead of España (Spain), thats enough for me.Mistico Dois (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other languages don't establish the common name in English. When you mentioned "the global understanding", I thought that you meant "the global understanding of the English Wikipedia readers". M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This debate comes up frequently and as per the ngram showed by the other user the usage of "Spain" to refer to the entire Iberian Peninsula is declining sharply. It's evident that its an archaism and the understanding in English is changing too, even if this comes after all the other Wikis have already read the writing on the wall. Wareno (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of fairness, you forgot a necessary "the" in your search term, "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula", which when corrected brings up 2,230 results. In fact, "Muslim conquest of Iberia" does even better than "Spain", except that when you look at the results, the phrase hardly seems to appear at all. Nor does "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula", which actually shows a nearly identical list of books about the subject, most of which don't use either phrase. The formulation with "Spain" does somewhat better, in that the word "Spain" is clearly used in the titles and summaries to mean the whole Iberian peninsula. But the exact phrase "Muslim conquest of Spain" isn't used terribly often either. The raw number of results simply doesn't paint an accurate picture for any of these phrases, although it does suggest that "Spain" is what historians most often call it, without any intention of excluding Portugal. P Aculeius (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in that the word "Spain" is clearly used in the titles and summaries to mean the whole Iberian peninsula. it is not clearly used with the connotation you say. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it's not clear to you is because you insist on applying an anachronistic interpretation that no credible historian would use. P Aculeius (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a problem about me, then why have several other editors raised the same worry? There isn't even any "interpretation" to "use". It is perfectly reasonable to assume not all sources using Spain mean the whole Iberian Peninsula. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to assume that all sources discussing "Spain" centuries prior to the establishment of Portugal mean the historical Spain that existed prior to that event—not the modern state of Spain, excluding Portugal. Sources about modern history will use modern borders—something that did not exist in the eighth century. This discussion was opened because a Portuguese editor who felt insulted by being included under the heading of early medieval Spain moved the article without obtaining consensus or even opening a talk page discussion, and after self-reverting did not open a move discussion.
I opened the discussion to see whether there was a new consensus; right now I don't see one. What historians mean when they say "Spain" in the eighth century shouldn't even be the focus here: it's obviously not the modern Spanish state as opposed to Portugal. What wording historians prefer is debatable; but what Portuguese editors think English-speaking historians should prefer is not relevant: that would be nationalist editing. The discussion is about whether this article's title should change, not what editors wish historians would do. P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The historical Spain you're talking about is Hispania. In no moment has it been argued to be equivalent to Spain to be discussed together, like I argued in the second RM that "Iberia" and "Iberian Peninsula" were. They are different terms. The first RM replaced "Hispania" by "Spain". You continue arguing "Spain" is the WP:COMMONNAME when there is still no consensus. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is the one settled on at the end of previous discussions. Consensus is needed to move the article to another title, not to leave it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the second RM: and that the present name is anyway the common-name, which was less accepted; investigate whether there is an identifiable WP:COMMONAME. The current title is not supported by WP:COMMONNAME. That was not the outcome of the first or the second RMs. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spain is not a common name for this event. We had a RM precisely about this before and the closing user noted that there was no consensus for the notion of "Spain" being more common to be true and that a future RM should investigate whether there is an identifiable WP:COMMONAME, effectively implying that this had not been achieved in this RM which was largely about discussing this notion. Why did then P Aculeius start a RM based on a premise that still remains unfounded and unproven? in English-language scholarship, "Spain" is understood to include Portugal during the time period covered by this article no, it isn't. And if it is, the effort for proving this remains underwhelming. This is the only article about the history of Iberia employing "Spain". As I had noted, see List of the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula, Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.
As I had argued, the choice of scholars of employing "Spain" as the title of their papers does not indicate a deliberate choice of employing the term "Spain" over "Iberian Peninsula" (which is this article's scope) with the same meaning (the article's scope), as it could also be explained because they are focusing on Spain (which is not this article's scope), perfectly reasonable considering these two are descriptive and not proper names and also considering many of these scholars are Spaniards with the primary aim of writing Spanish history. We need further examination of sources to determine scholars using "Spain" are also explicitly including Portugal. We can find easily other instances of descriptive titles, like the current one, being employed widely, because they are simply a combination of words which make sense in that context. 115 results for "Mongol conquest of Russia" [12], but no article titled that way and no such entity as Russia existing at the time. Still, users here continue interpreting all sources using "Spain" as definitively and unambiguously referring to the territory of the Iberian Peninsula (a maximalist definition), which again is not proven.
But, even if we adopt this maximalist view, according to which all sources using "Spain" effectively use it with the same meaning as sources using "Iberia/Iberian Peninsula", so explicitly including the country of Portugal and not only the country of Spain, and are therefore perfectly comparable without further examination of the sources, "Spain" stopped being more common in 2002 (links: Spain 2001, Iberia 2001 vs. Spain 2002, Iberia 2002). The 2002 results show 452 and 461 results respectively, unfiltered ones show 586 and 517 results. We are thus discussing the majority of sources with this filter and find out that "Spain" becomes more common only through older sources (WP:AGEMATTERS). "Iberia/Iberian Peninsula" had 37 results since 2023 [13] while Spain 27 [14]. There is a clear "shift" in academia towards the proposed title, this "shift" again assuming authors are using "Spain" and "Iberian Peninsula" meaning the peninsula and not the country unambiguously and in all cases. I have been accused previously of manipulating sources to push my point in this talk page for showing this trend and arguing it is a valid point, it is indeed one and in for example the Ukraine topic area modern sources always take priority (Talk:Odesa/Archive 2#Requested move 11 July 2022, for example).
I will repeat it again. Spain is not a common name for this event. This, still, remains unproven. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE. No objection to using "Iberia" over "Iberian Peninsula" though per consistency and to avoid any potential confusion with Georgia I would favor the longer one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Post-move comment: in theory "Muslim conquest of Iberia" is more appropriate than "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula" as it is more common (299 vs. 227 results in Google Scholar [15] [16]). Definitively represents an improvement from the former title.
It is worth noting however that with "Iberia" this article does not comply WP:CONSISTENT with the parent article Iberian Peninsula and with historical articles like Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. Furthermore, the article may be easily confused with Umayyad invasion of Iberia, an article about the Georgian kingdom of Iberia. I won't start another move over this though. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible move, worst of all possible solutions. Iberia is in the Caucasus. The title now is unrecognizable. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly moved the article to the fuller name consistent with the RM result. The article Umayyad invasion of Iberia should also be moved, but for now I've put up hatnotes. Srnec (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with that, per WP:PRECISE, thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note dispute[edit]

P Aculeius. I continue arguing against your preferred wording of the note. In no moment has it been proven that "Spain" is universally employed by scholars in this topic to refer to "Iberian Peninsula". The note had "some" next to historians since 1 August 2023 until 10 January 2024, when you restored the past version knowing it was controversial and without seeking discussion.

I propose having an informal WP:3O. FOARP, you close the last (non-ongoing) RM (#Requested move 28 March 2023). I know it has been a while, but would you say that in that RM consensus was formed that would defend this edit [17]? I am arguing the inclusion of "some" next to "historians" to reflect that "Spain" being used as meaning "Iberian Peninsula" is not a universally held view. P Aculeius' edit implies that this view is universal. Is there consensus, as the RM above is still ongoing and this issue is not in debate there, for P Aculeius' interpretation? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that it's universally employed. The fact that the note and the text to which it belongs clearly says that several different formulations are used is clear. Adding qualifications to negative every statement is unnecessary and POV pushing. I restored the previous wording because I hadn't noticed that someone had added unnecessary qualifications since the note was written. Adding invisible comments to the footnote is inappropriate, as is tagbombing it as POV simply because you read it as a blanket statement of all historians everywhere, despite the clear context: the subject of the article can be called several things, but when historians refer to it as "Spain", they mean the whole peninsula. That doesn't mean all historians everywhere refer to it as "Spain". It means that's what they're using "Spain" to mean when they use it—there is no reliable source for the proposition that historians discussing eighth-century Spain intend to exclude Portugal, which did not yet exist, and did not become independent from Spain until the twelfth century. If you can find a reliable source that claims historians mean something else when discussing eighth-century Spain, please cite it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a similar dispute over the definition of “Axis Powers”, and which countries were members of the Axis. It was resolved by referring explicitly to the texts that used a particular formulation.
I don’t know if the sources discuss this issues, but if sourcing does discuss this issue it would be a good idea to cite it.
However, “some” is just a statement of fact and I don’t think needs to be such a massive dispute over it to be frank. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, can you bring any source stating this is the standard academic practice? Any scholars who have stated that "Spain" is the way to refer to the Iberian Peninsula in this epoch? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glendoremus cited nine modern historical works that clearly use "Spain" to refer to the entire peninsula. While other participants in the above conversation were able to cite works that use other names, none have been cited stating that historians using "Spain" to refer to events of the eighth century mean only the portion that constitutes the modern Spanish state, and excludes Portugal. I will add two standard English-language reference works to the above list.
The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd edition, the one I have access to), uses "Spain" synonymously with "the peninsula" (under the heading of "Spain") to include the conquests of Augustus to the northern and western coasts. In its brief discussion of the Visigothic conquests, it makes no distinction between Spain and Portugal—which would be an anachronism, and does not have its own entry. Under "Suebi", it mentions that they "entered Spain in 409 and founded a kingdom in Gallaecia, which lasted until destroyed by the Visigoths in 585. The Spanish Suebi were converted to Catholicism by St. Martin of Braga c. 560" (emphasis supplied). Under "Iberia", we find "one of the ancient names for Spain" (emphasis supplied).
The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography lists Spain under "Hispania", but after a full page discussing the various names applied to the peninsula and portions thereof by various peoples and what the likely origins might be, uses "Spain" for the various section headings within the article: "Spain as known to the Greeks", "Spain as known to the Carthaginians and the Romans", and internally uses "Spain" and "Spanish", and quoting Arnold's History of Rome, refers to "the Spanish peninsula". Under "Gothi", the section on the Visigothic conquest mentions "Spain", without distinguishing part of it as "Portugal", concluding with, "in Spain their empire was overthrown about two centuries later by the Saracens."
It should be undisputed that the use of "Spain" by historians covering all periods prior to the establishment of Portugal means the entire peninsula; what is now Portugal remained part of Spain until the twelfth century. I do not think that there is any reliable source to support your assertion that historians using "Spain" to refer to events of the eighth century disagree as to its meaning, or that any significant number of them have used it to refer only to the area occupied by the modern Spanish state to the exclusion of Portugal; the assertion that "some" historians do so is not supported by anything in this conversation. The assertion that "historians use 'Spain' to refer to the entire peninsula during this period of time" is accurate, and qualifying it by adding "some" implies that other historians use the word "Spain" to mean something else during the same period, a claim that is not supported by anything. P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just restore the explanatory note to its previous, stable version (i.e. with "Some sources use "Spain" to refer to (...)"), per WP:STATUSQUO. That version is sufficiently neutral and it's the type of phrasing often followed elsewhere to avoid any potential WP:WEASEL wording (even if well-intentioned). Unless there are reliable sources explicitly stating that there is a standard academic usage and what it is (so far I've only seen a lot of WP:SYNTH), Wikipedia should not claim or imply that all or most historians follow a particular usage.
Or better yet, since the note itself is unsourced, I don't see how it merits being kept at all anymore. After the recent page move, the footnote no longer serves to clarify anything in the text. And since this article has a descriptive title for an event that has no conventionalized name, it's a little pointless to try to cover all the possible informal descriptions one can find in publications. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this but as a very brief note - keep as Spain. History isn't a science so don't treat it as one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not replying, I couldn't find the time. Yeah, this is finally the kind of argument that you should've brought all this time. I notice though that the sources are old. The second edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary was published in 1970, while Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography is originally from the 19th century. No authors used "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula/Iberia" during or before 1970 [18]. That we have gone from this to "Iberian Peninsula/Iberia" having been more common for two decades indicates to me a clear shift and that we need more recent sources. Could you bring sources from the 21st century, which is when this shift took place?
In any case the wording of the note is problematic. Historians use "Spain" to refer to the entire Iberian Peninsula prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Portugal in the twelfth century. would indicate that historians use only "Spain", not even "Iberian Peninsula" or "Iberia", to refer to the peninsula during this period, which is obviously not true. And anyway, as other editors have noted, now that the article has been moved and that the note no longer fullfills its purpose, and considering it is unsourced anyway, P Aculeius, would you agree to removing this part and only keeping the alternate names used for this event? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, your reading is illogical and unnatural. Why are you beating a dead horse? Find some other war to wage, already. P Aculeius (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very useful reply. Do you actually believe the current note, in the context of the current title/lead, serves any purpose for readers? R Prazeres (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying the same thing over and over without understanding that it does not imply that all historians everywhere use this terminology exclusively. It simply explains what historians who use it mean—and not one single solitary piece of evidence, argument, or claim from any other source whatsoever states that they mean anything else by it! Insisting without a single good reason that only some historians use it to mean one thing necessarily means that other historians use it to mean something else, and that is completely unsubstantiated, without the slightest support. Continuing to argue over it without any basis in fact or policy is not collaborative editing; it is just bludgeoning. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, you're continuing to drag this argument as much as anyone else. Rather than continuing with this semantic debate, could you answer my question above? R Prazeres (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered you, and you're not listening. I was done with this discussion on January 9, and so was pretty much everyone else until SD decided to launch a war over it ten days later, and you joined in. The note serves a perfectly valid purpose: explaining what is meant by a disputed term used to refer to the topic. It does not say what you keep claiming it says, it never did, and no reasonable reading of it supports your argument, nor has any valid reason for changing it to say what SD keeps arguing it should say ever been presented. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of winning, and it needs to stop. P Aculeius (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, stop pinging me every time you want to continue an argument I already said I was done with. P Aculeius (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so permanently hostile and unpleasant to talk with? The note no longer serves any purpose, the article has been moved and no longer uses a disputed term. If you're done with the argument, I assume I can remove the note without getting reverted. If I am not correct we will need more discussing and your current attitude will not help with it. It's just the way things work here in this website. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remove the unsourced note and be done with it. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just went ahead and did it ([19]), to save someone else the trouble. R Prazeres (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was thinking of doing that too. Let's leave it here and waste no more time with this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797. A modern scholarly monograph. Robet Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, uses "Spain" throughout, never "Iberia". I don't care about the note, but let's not pretend that it is hard to source this usage of "Spain". Srnec (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This short comment of yours is as strong of an effort as the one it has been made throughout three RMs to prove this claim. Some comments above I expressed some more openness to accepting this claim if more modern sources could be brought to light. Which yours is. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of peninsula[edit]

Why was Hispania changed to Iberia? The land was historically known as Hispania. H20346 (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't required to use the geographical names used at the time. "Hispania" was dropped at #Requested move 15 March 2023 and "Iberia" was adopted at #Requested move 5 January 2024. You can read the brief closing comments as a summary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula&oldid=1223987681"