Talk:Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 28 March 2023

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: No Consensus - Numerically and in terms of arguments, there is no consensus to move in this discussion. I did consider a re-list, however the discussion has already run for nearly a month and there has been only one !vote in the last week. A further relist is therefore unlikely to change the outcome.

Those in favour of the move base their argument primarily on accuracy, particularly in that what is now Portugal was also conquered during the Arab/Muslim invasions. This was at least partly rebutted by those in opposition pointing to wider definitions of "Spain". Those in favour of the move also pointed to the surprising and contradictory references to places within now-Portugal in an article the title of which states that it relates to Spain, these were less firmly rebutted by the opposers. On the opposers side was the more concise nature of the present name, which is undeniable, and that the present name is anyway the common-name, which was less accepted (reference could have been made to the Google Scholar evidence cited in the previous recent RFC, but was not, though NGrams evidence was cited here it was disputed).

My non-binding suggestion to those wanting to move the article is to wait some months (preferably ~6 months or more) before attempting a further move discussion, and to investigate whether there is an identifiable WP:COMMONAME. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Muslim conquest of Spain → Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula – I believe the option of using "Iberian Peninsula" at the end of the title has not been sufficiently discussed. I believe this is the most appropriate title and my arguments are based on three points.

1. "Spain" fails WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE due to the exclusion of Portugal and other regions and does not follow the common practice in Wikipedia (see similar articles: 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, Timeline of Germanic kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula, Mercenaries of the ancient Iberian Peninsula).
2. "Spain" is not the name used for the peninsula at those times (it is anachronistic) and it does not matter if it was. Historical forms such as Spania would be closer to the concept defined by the modern English name of "Hispania", identical to the Latin original and for which we have an article, defining the former Roman province(s) actually covering the whole peninsula, vs. the modern country covered by the word "Spain" which does not treat the whole of the peninsula while also including regions outside of it.
3. "Spain" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Both the current and proposed being descriptive names, the common name argument has more nuances than if we were discussing proper names. Further, in the last RM, some users stuck to the notion that Spain is simply an appropriate way of naming the whole peninsula, which I do not believe should have gone assumed without discussion as it did. Many of the results that showed up were immediately interpreted as employing Spain for the whole of the peninsula, but there is no proof of this. If I search "Muslim conquest of Spain" in Google Scholar, there is a total of 565 results. I will discuss the very first academic paper there I have free access to. It is Jews, Visigoths, and the Muslim Conquest of Spain. Already on the first page we see One of the most persistent myths of modern historiography asserts that the Jewish communities of the Visigothic Kingdom collaborated with the Arab and Berber invaders of the Iberian Peninsula in the year 711. The author has already made clear he is distinguishing between "Spain" and "Iberian Peninsula" in this context. This paper is about Spain, not Iberia. Also on the first page we see He is currently working on his Ph.D. dissertation regarding the conquest and resettlement of Majorca in Barcelona, Spain. The geographical location of the scholar also can influence the title they choose to use. Being in Spain or at least being connected to it, this author published a work in Spanish history in a Spanish context, and not one on Iberian history in general.

There is zero evidence to believe all academic papers employing "Muslim conquest of Spain" are deliberately choosing to refer to the peninsula as Spain rather than Iberia. That is in fact a very wild assumption to make, but it is one users supporting the current title decided to adopt. This issue is far more complex and nuanced and the burden on proving that indeed authors are making use of Spain for the whole of the peninsula falls on those who supported the last move and will oppose this one, not on me or in supporters of this move. I will lastly state that forms using Iberia or Iberian Peninsula have 497 results in Google Scholar [1], actually pretty close to the 565 Spain has.

In conclusion. Many of the arguments for using "Spain" are flawed in many ways are require further consideration. That it is a common name is not a proven fact. Forms using Iberia are also very common and are concise and precise, and not anachronistic. This is why I believe they are a better title. And just in case, to avoid an Iberian Peninsula vs. Iberia debate, the article on the peninsula is called Iberian Peninsula and as I understood it, the move to "Umayyad conquest of Hispania" was carried out in the first place in 2007 because editors thought using "Iberia" could cause problems due to Georgia, also attacked by Muslim invading forces, was historically called Iberia as well [2]. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 00:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Besides the fact that we just did this, the fact remains that prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Portugal, "Spain" as used by historians unambiguously refers to the entire peninsula—both in Roman times and at all points thereafter. Since "Spain" and "Hispania" are really two forms of the same name, it is not anachronistic to use "Spain" in this manner, and indeed it has long been widespread practice to use the terms interchangeably when referring to the region from antiquity to the middle ages. Insisting on distinguishing Portugal, which was not a separate and distinct political entity until the thirteenth century, when speaking of Visigothic Spain (which included all of Portugal at the time of the Muslim conquest) is the anachronism here. I do not claim that "Iberia" is incorrect; it is simply not as recognizable as "Spain", and there is no advantage to using it, as there is no distinction between "Spain" and "Iberia" during the time period with which this article is concerned. And if we follow WP:CONCISE, then "Spain" is certainly more concise than "the Iberian peninsula". P Aculeius (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Spain" as used by historians unambiguously refers to the entire peninsula, and indeed it has long been widespread practice to use the terms interchangeably when referring to the region from antiquity to the middle ages I have yet to see proof of any of this. I again state I do not understand why has this been interpreted as an assumed fact when it still lacks evidence. Many of the academic articles titled with Spain are Spain-focused, because they're written by Spaniards, Spanish specialists or in some other Spanish context. The use of "Spain" does not demonstrate a deliberate decision by the authors of rejecting "Iberia/Iberian Peninsula" for referring to the peninsula. And "Spain" is absolutely not more recognizable than "Iberian Peninsula". One is used for a country and one is used for the peninsula including it and another. If we talk about the peninsula, "Iberian Peninsula" is the name, period. Otherwise, we would see other articles adopt this practice; we instead see the opposite, see for example Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula or Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula.

Besides the fact that we just did this doesn't matter, the user who closed the last RM recommended further discussion on the Iberian option. Super Ψ Dro 21:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not about to go trying to hunt down an authority for something so universally done that nobody thinks to mention it—"Roman Spain" means all of the Iberian peninsula, except for the period in which Rome controlled only part of it; "Visigothic Spain" means whatever portion the Visigoths controlled, which after the defeat of the Suebi was all of it until the Muslim conquest. This has nothing to do with Spanish authors giving short shrift to the Portuguese; this is about a standard practice in English-language scholarship. At least until the point in history when there was an independent state of Portugal, "Spain" in a historical context always means the entire peninsula unless the author specifically states otherwise.

"Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula" needlessly complicates the title and makes it less concise; most readers will not think to look under that title before "Spain". And it is not irrelevant that we just argued about this exact same issue for a couple of weeks. That an uninvolved closer suggested it might be worth further discussion doesn't mean that the people who just spent all that time arguing about the best title for this article want to do it all again, going around and around in circles with people who simply are not going to be convinced by anything that they say. That already seems to be happening in this new discussion, and currently it looks as though some of the people who dealt with the previous move proposal are avoiding this one, presumably because they're tired of trying to explain their opinion over and over, only to be contradicted or ignored. P Aculeius (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Such a practice has not been shown to be real. Authors in the recent centuries can easily simply be using names of modern countries currently associated to the regions they are discussing in their papers treating other historical epochs. That is why we have 114 results for "Mongol conquest of Russia" [3] even though no such thing as Russia existed back then. To assume all authors using "Muslim conquest of Spain" are deliberately choosing this option against referring to the Iberian Peninsula is an unfounded so far assumption. "Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula" needlessly complicates the title and makes it less concise We are just adding an extra of two words. It isn't that much of a deal. There also are no concision problems. "Iberian Peninsula" very clearly means the region the article covers.

That an uninvolved closer suggested it might be worth further discussion doesn't mean that the people who just spent all that time arguing about the best title for this article want to do it all again that's not really my problem. Consensus determined another discussion is valid. You can dispute the resolution given by the (indeed uninvolved, as policy requires) user if you wish though. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Particularly considering another RM was just closed today resulting in the same title. While I disagree about the move to the present title, the exclusion of Portugal in the title isn't a major issue as "Spain" often referred to the whole peninsula in the Middle Ages, such as in the little Imperator totius Hispaniae (Emperor of All Spain). The clear division between Spain and Portugal is a development of the last several centuries. Estar8806 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As I state above, that we just had a RM is irrelevant. As a result of such a division between Spain and Portugal having indeed developed as you state, in the 21st century it is required to make use of a name that covers both concepts. Further, the medieval title is simply employing Hispania, not "Spain". It appears today such a title is mostly translated to "Emperor of All Spain" rather than "Emperor of All Hispania" in English-language academia, which only shows current and not historical usage. But that is an individual case, it is not equivalent to this historical event. That "Spain" is more common in the context of that title does not prove "Spain" is more common for referring to the Islamic conquest. That too requires individual analysis. Please, show evidence that "Spain" is more common for referring to the Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. I remind that both variants have a very close number of uses in academic journals, and while "Spain" is ambiguously used, meaning that only some of the results will refer exclusively to the peninsula, the intention when using "Iberia/Iberian Peninsula" is very clear. Super Ψ Dro 21:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree The anachronism matter is not the issue. Clarity of meaning is more important, and 'Spain can be ambiguous, whether or not it is technically correct or is the term used by sources. Using 'Iberian Peninsula' is unambiguous and also correct in every respect and should therefore be used. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. In this context, "Spain" is common and clear. The territory of what later became Portugal is not being excluded. Any doubt is rapidly dissipated in the lede. Walrasiad (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

But is it superior to "Iberia/Iberian Peninsula" in usage and clarity? Super Ψ Dro 07:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. e.g. "Muslim Spain" is a very common term, you'll find used in practically all works that touch on this topic. "Muslim Iberia" is very rare, and "Muslim Iberian peninsula" and "Muslim Portugal" practically non-existent. ngram Walrasiad (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not discussing the name of the peninsula under Muslim rule, which is called not Muslim Spain not Muslim Iberia but al-Andalus. "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula/Iberia" has almost as many results in Google Scholar as "Muslim conquest of Spain" while at the same time unambiguously referring to the peninsula in all cases without any problems of precision unlike the current form does. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I struggled with this line of reasoning in the last RM. You conquer what was there before - referring to a territory being conquered by what it will come to be known later is a whole new level of anachronism. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The term commonly used in RSs is "Muslim Spain", not al-Andalus. But that's for another day. The prevalence of "Muslim Spain", suggests the Muslims conquered "Spain" at some point. And that is what makes this title helpful to readers. If you want to be pedantic, then they certainly did not conquer the "Iberian peninsula" (Cantabria was never conquered), and southern France must be included in the title (as Narbonensis/Septimania was also conquered in this campaign). So your proposal is not only less familiar, it is also factually erroneous. Walrasiad (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it is al-Andalus. It is more common both in Ngrams and Scholar by a wide margin. The prevalence of "Muslim Spain", suggests [...] I am again going to remind you the article we're discussing is Muslim conquest of Spain, not al-Andalus. Make arguments based on the topic of this article, not of another. then they certainly did not conquer the "Iberian peninsula" (Cantabria was never conquered) but that does not apply to "Spain" for some reason? Very easily I can also tell you Septimania has never been defined as "Spain". Does that make the title you defend factually erroneous too? Super Ψ Dro 15:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it's "Muslim Spain". I research & read in this area all the time, and that's the common term used. Hands down. Even if "al-Andalus" is mentioned, it is not repeated again in rest of the text to refer to the place, which will almost always be referred to as "Spain" or "Muslim Spain". As to Cantabria & Septimania: you have been insisting on imposing a less familiar title because you believe it is "more accurate" than plain Spain. But "Spain" has always been used by historians roughly, it is not meant to be precise. "Iberian peninsula" is meant to be geographically precise, but it is also incorrect. When choosing between a roughly correct term ("Spain") and a precisely wrong term ("Iberian peninsula"), I'll go with the former. Especially when it is used more commonly in this context, and is more recognizable to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I suppose it's about time to use that Google counting gadget to comprehend the prevelance of usage of each term and publish the results here. Swift and simple. Nashville whiz (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you mean Google Ngrams, it does not allow searches of more than five words. "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula" has six words and thus cannot be searched, so it is not useful in this case. Super Ψ Dro 15:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You could just search for "conquest of the Iberian Peninsula" and then compare it to the combined totals for "Arab conquest of Spain" and "Muslim conquest of Spain". Red Slash 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Furthermore, Islamic (as in Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, which is attested in plenty of secondary sources) may be even preferable to Muslim as it underpins the political side. Common or not, current (not to confuse with long-standing, as it has been a recent change) title is 1) ambiguous (as in 'not precise', thus murking the scope of the article and shunning Portugal for most readers) and 2) panders to Spanish essentialism. An elaborate scholar reasoning about why it is unconvenient to use Spain can be found here.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• As closer of the last RM, I'm strongly neutral, but this move request is definitely valid. "We just did this" but there wasn't a strong, well-debated consensus about how exactly to refer to the conquered entities. Most of the discussion revolved around the first word of this title, not the last word. I support discussion and will be interested to see what comes out of it. Red Slash 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was a reason why I didn't want to get into the same debate a second time—most of the arguments about Spain/Iberia/Hispania are the same ones already expressed in the previous debate, and none of them are going to change the minds of the people who've already expressed their opinions after reading the same arguments restated multiple times. However, here is the ngram for "Muslim conquest of Spain", "...Iberia", and "...the Iberian" (I tried entering "Hispania" as an alternative, but for whatever reason it was not included in the results). The search was case-insensitive. Although the latter alternatives have increased in popularity over the last few decades, so has "Spain", which accounts for about the same number as both of the others combined. P Aculeius (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  And I just found why it didn't include "...Hispania" when I deleted the two Iberian options, and tried to compare just "Spain" against "Hispania": "Ngrams not found: Muslim conquest of Hispania". Which is not to say that the phrase has never appeared in an English-language publication; just that it is too rare to show up in Google's corpus of English-language books published between 1800 and 2019. P Aculeius (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should count "Iberia" and "the Iberian" together, as we're discussing whether we should use the name of the peninsula or of the modern country. These are the results [4]. "Iberia" forms are on the rise and get close to the Spain variant which has been decreasing on the last years. We see a trend of authors switching more and more to the Iberian version. Though this is, once again, assuming all uses of Spain refer to the whole peninsula rather than the modern country, which is not necessarily the case. Super Ψ Dro 19:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I just said that "Spain" accounts for as much use as the others put together—that alone is a strong argument for keeping it. And there is not a sustained downward trend shown in the ngram; just the opposite. You're cherry-picking facts to present a misleading picture of the evidence—placing the desired result before the facts and ignoring everything that stands in the way. That includes historical usage, which is relevant, since the majority of scholarly literature on the subject is not from the last ten or fifteen years, and sources much older than that remain perfectly valid. And this is why I did not want to restart the same argument with the same people again as soon as the last one finished. And at this point it looks like any outcome other than a move will be followed by yet another request to move the article for yet another slightly different formulation of the same reason... P Aculeius (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There has been a grand total of two requested moves. Quit the lamenting. Also, recent trends in contrast to historical trends are worth taking into consideration. So as to give you an example, Kiev was moved to Kyiv because Kyiv had become more common in recent years [5]. Analysing the total of results is not always required. By the way, this trend is reflected not only on Ngrams but in Google Scholar too. When searching only academic articles since 2019, "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula" OR "Muslim conquest of Iberia" gives 163 results while "Muslim conquest of Spain" gives 120. "Muslim conquest of Spain", in this maximalist definition, stopped being more common in 2002 (links: Spain 2001, Iberia 2001 vs. Spain 2002, Iberia 2002. Iberia has been more common than Spain for +20 years. To this we add the ambiguity and precision problems given by using "Spain". Super Ψ Dro 21:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Filtering the results by excluding those that don't support your argument doesn't make the argument any stronger. And don't tell me how to feel about telling you my position over and over again and explaining the reasons clearly, and constantly being told that I'm wrong. This is BLUDGEONING, where not only do you disagree with other people, but you have to reply to everything that anyone says telling them why it's wrong. Maybe it's a fine line between picking apart bad arguments and bludgeoning, but you don't have to have the last word on everything, and if people stop replying to every one of your replies out of sheer exhaustion, that doesn't mean that they have no answer for you, and that you have "won". You think all the evidence is on your side, other people see it differently. People have a right to their opinions based on the evidence as they see it, and after a while it's pointless to keep arguing that their opinions are wrong. At a certain point it would be nice to think that the arguing would come to an end, as it seemed to have done two days ago, but here we are again, and it's going the same way. P Aculeius (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeatedly bandying around the term bludgeoning is itself bludgeoning. A poor filler for comments with little else meaningful to say. Here's a more pertinent essay to chew on: WP:WALLOFTEXT Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"No, you!" is a great argument. But the point remains: each time someone gives a reason why they think the article title should remain at "Spain" (or "Muslim", or "Persia"), here or in the related discussions that were closed yesterday, you or Super Dromaeosaurus have to reply, stating why that editor's reasons are wrong and should be disregarded. I understand the impulse, and if the reasons given really are bogus then there's at least some justification—but at a certain point you just have to accept that you will not convince people that your interpretation of the evidence is better than theirs, especially if they have already seen your explanation and decided against it. And you do not "win" the argument by replying to every response until other editors stop replying to you, thereby allowing you to claim that your last-posted versions of the same argument have been accepted (or not refuted). P Aculeius (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't actually really voted in this discussion. But regarding the above. Pot. Kettle. Black. One can't really tell others not to pontificate while simultaneously pontificating oneself. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Hate to break it to y'all, but Arab conquest of Spain still kicks collective butt. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) That's hilarious. Since the bulk of the conquest was undertaken by Berbers, not Arabs. Walrasiad (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm talking about sources. The alternative – dubious, vaguely nationalist POV-y OR – has no place here. It was an Arab empire, hence Arab conquest ... as it says in reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is, erm ... what the content policy here is based on. A great deal of this was covered in the previous discussion. Please feel very welcome to go plot "Berber conquest of Spain" on Ngrams and watch bugger all pop up ... if only to spare us further iterations of this vapid discourse. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Arab empire"? Who was the "Emperor"? The "King of the Arabs"? LOL. Walrasiad (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion is already excessively long. We don't need to discuss already rejected proposals here. If there is a comment after this one related to this I will delete the whole thread. Super Ψ Dro 21:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Hey hey hey, easy there on what proposals you go calling already rejected ... the last RM barely touched on this. But indeed, there's always tomorrow. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "King of the Arabs" is exactly what early Syriac sources call Muhammad and his successors. See, e.g., Jacob of Edessa and the Zuqnin Chronicle in Andrew Palmer, ed., The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool University Press, 1993). Identifying the early Muslim state as an Arab one goes back to Wellhausen and is well established in scholarship. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC) I know. That's precisely why I brought up the term. You'll find "King of the Arabs" in Byzantine records then and down the ages. They did not understand the novel and subtle constitution of the Muslim state. To outsiders, the "Commander of the Faithful" made no sense, he must be just another barbarian king, and the "Muslims" just the same old Arabs - overexcited desert bandits on a rampage, like the Lakhmids and other Arabs before them. But the Muslims saw it differently. They didn't see themselves as an ethnicity, but a religious commonwealth, united and ruled by sacred law, not kings. They identified themselves as "Muslims", not Arabs, that was their identity, emphatically superseding clan, tribe, ethnicity and even race. It was a novel form of state organization that was hard for outsiders to comprehend then. And some struggle with it even now. But this is separate discussion. Maybe this should be separated off from the RM above. Walrasiad (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Not sure quite what you're saying here. "The Muslims saw it differently" ... ok? And the rest of the world saw it differently again. Perceptions are not the issue here. The Arab conquests were the expansion of a polity like any other - by the time of the Umayyads, like any other monarchic empire - one specifically founded by the highly reticent Mu'awiya I, who hopped on the Islamic bandwagon as late as he possibly could, and, upon gaining power, turned nepotistic and dynastic at pace. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's only fair, considering the name that used to refer to the entire Iberian Peninsula was appropriated by the modern country of Spain. Wareno (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opposition is based not only on the satisfactory current title for reasons already stated above but because I think it is more likely to be used in searches. The Iberian Peninsula is mentioned up front in the article and a few words of clarification could be added, even in a footnote, if thought necessary. Regardless of which option is used, the other one should be a redirect, which the suggested Iberian Peninsula alternative currently is not. Donner60 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Created redirects for both "Peninsula" and "peninsula" (our article on the p. is capitalized, but an ngram suggests that the uncapitalized form is also common). If this article is moved, it can be moved over one of the redirects. "Muslim conquest of Iberia" already exists. P Aculeius (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also simplified the lead sentence, and added a note as suggested, explaining the use of "Spain" as it relates to "Hispania" and "Iberian Peninsula". Currently the article combines references and notes; the latter could be split off using a footnote template, such as {{efn-lr|note text goes here.}}. I usually use the lowercase roman numeral style to distinguish notes from reference numbers, but letters would do just as well. P Aculeius (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've tweaked this slightly, since there are exactly two serious alt names of the 'of Spain' variety, and bolding fragments of alt names, rather than complete alt names, is not, AFAIK, guideline supported. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty sure it's fine, and it reads more clearly (to me), but there's no need to go to war over it; I'll abide by your changes. I usually place notes by the word or phrase requiring explanation, and try to avoid placing them at the end of sentences, where they can be confused with citations; but since there's no separate note formatting in this article, and there are no citations at the end of the sentence, it isn't really a problem. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, Donner60's point and because we can't keep having RFCs on this - we're done here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The current title is not the common name. Super Ψ Dro 08:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not by any stretch of the imagination. No term here has a significant majority in sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Definite anti-Portuguese bias. The opening sentence of this article refers to it as the conquest of the Iberian peninsula, not Spain. Looking at some other relevant articles, Visigothic Spain redirects to "Visigothic Kingdom", and Muslim Spain redirects to "Al-Andalus". The map in the former article shows that this kingdom covered a large part of southern France at one time, and only conquered northern Portugal relatively late. Hispania points out that this is the origin of the name of Hispaniola as well as Spain. It is not clear then that Spain is treated as equivalent to, or even an alternative name for, the entire Iberian peninsula during this period. PatGallacher (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that the mention of the "Muslim conquest of Spain" or "Muslim Spain" in reliable sources is biased against Portugal? SimoooIX (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  • • Not necessarily, it is possible that some of them really are referring to Spain. PatGallacher (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Change of heart here. Dromaeosaurus's latest arguments and stats had their final say on me and the fact that modern academic literature tend to use the "Iberian peninsula" more often now speaks for itself, WP:AGEMATTERS. Nashville whiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Except that the ngram clearly showed no downward trend in the use of "Spain" compared with "Iberia". The statistics show that "Spain" remains the most common term for the Iberian peninsula as a whole prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Portugal in the twelfth century—four hundred years after the Muslim conquest. And it's used for the whole history of the region, not just the period of Visigothic rule; it's used when referring to Roman and pre-Roman times as well, alongside "Hispania". The claim of anti-Portuguese bias is not only absurd—at least when referring to English-language sources that have no particular interest in minimizing Portuguese history—but wildly anachronistic. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that the ngram clearly showed no downward trend in the use of "Spain" compared with "Iberia". it did clearly show that "Spain" in the WP:OR wide definition decreased to a level it has not recovered and that Iberia/Iberian Peninsula is increasing. The statistics show that "Spain" remains the most common term for the Iberian peninsula as a whole Iberia/Iberian Peninsula has been more common for 20 years in Google Scholar. And, the problem with many sources is they are written by Spanish authors or in Spanish publications, they understandably give more focus to Spain without implying the rejection of the term Iberia/Iberian Peninsula. But this is something you simply do not want to even consider, no matter what. All Spain results, 100% of them, must surely mean the peninsula. Super Ψ Dro 07:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You are either not looking at this ngram or you are inventing an interpretation out of thin air. This analysis considers English-language sources, not Spanish authors in Spanish publications. The bias you insist is the source of "Spain" meaning the whole Iberian peninsula before there was a country called "Portugal" is largely if not entirely filtered out at the very beginning. The ngram shows no significant downward trend in the formulation currently used by this article; its prevalence has increased along with occurrences of the alternatives over the last several decades. There is zero evidence that historians writing in English have used "Spain" in order to denigrate or minimize the importance of Portugal, which did not exist as a separate state, and would not for another four centuries; and there is no plausible reason why they would wish to do so.

There is also no justification for limiting our inquiry to sources published in the last twenty years: that is a direct appeal to recentism, and fits neatly into the narrative that people are becoming less prejudiced against the Portuguese; but there is no evidence or explanation for such prejudice in English language sources, and no discernable trend to support this analysis. It is perfectly reasonable to consider what historians have been writing in English over the course of several decades, as well as what they are writing today; and little written since the subject first becomes discernable in the ngram around 1950 is so outdated with regard to the events of the eighth century that what it calls the conquest needs to be excluded from consideration.

No matter how often you keep dragging it up or how loudly you proclaim it, there is no basis whatever for claiming that historians writing in English are trying to hold down Portugal or erase its people from history. It is as much a red herring as the completely unsupported assertion of "original research" that you mentioned without the slightest basis above. I can only assume that it is there merely to alarm and intimidate. If it were somehow "original research" to inquire as to what the event is generally called in English, then there would be no point to this discussion, and the move request could be dismissed without further discussion. Your use of Google Scholar, arbitrarily filtered to exclude all other results, and everything published before 2000, would be no less original research; but carefully manipulated to show what you want it to show, which makes it far less useful for determining the best title for the article.

All I see here is repeated attempts to dismiss what you don't like, claim trends that don't exist in the statistics, and intimidate editors with bogus claims of original research and nonsensical arguments about anti-Portuguese bias lurking behind everything. Perhaps it is time to move on; there are other windmills to tilt at. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You then accuse others of bludgeoning or of wall of texts or whatever. What a strange behavior. I have never implied there is a deliberate anti-Portuguese bias in English-language academia. Also, as I already stated, it makes sense that Iberian forms would be counted together, you ignored this for whatever reason. With that 20 years thing I meant to state Iberia forms are currently more common in academic journals as shown in Google Scholar which is something often taken into consideration as in the Kyiv RM. All of this I have already explained, multiple times. This whole RM is just me repeating the same stuff to a couple of editors, you included.

I will ignore your accusations of intimidation and manipulation here but I am not going to let them pass a next time. I am going to refrain from answering to your comments because it is a waste of time and I recommend you to do the same with me. It will save others from useless paragraphs of text. Super Ψ Dro 15:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am unsatisfied with current title and all the options in these RMs, but we should not move an article on the faulty logic that says we cannot use "Spain" the way historians use it. Srnec (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Anachronism is not the only rationale behind this RM. Super Ψ Dro 07:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support for now. One way out of this dilemma, and perhaps one that might satisfy both sides, would be to call the article "Muslim conquest of Hispania, since that is what the Iberian peninsula was called when the Visigoths subdued the Hispano-Roman population, and what it was called under their dominion. I agree with what Lawrence J. McCrank says:

"Islam in Ispaniya, that is al-Andalus, had to be integrated somehow into Spanish history, and if peninsular history were to be whole, that had to include Portugal. Yet 'Islamic Spain' seems a terrible anachronism, misleading for the incorrect assertions that the entire peninsula went Islamic, that peninsular political unity was ordained, and that all peninsular Muslims considered themselves Spaniards. As mentioned, the organ for such a synthesis was the grand Historia de España directed by Ramón Menéndez Pidal. This was almost totally a central nationalist undertaking, giving more attention to the Luso-Hispanic west than to the northeast, Catalunya; the old state-building themes were transferred to the Caliphate as the political history of Muslim Spain, as it were thought of then, were reassembled; and the glories of Muslim Hispania, not al-Andalus, were claimed for Spain herself as a cultural legacy to be selectively cherished.

But Islam was a thing of the past for the Spanish. There was, in Rouseau's Romantization of the noble savage, an idealized Islam in Spain, as if more benign than that encountered by crusaders in the Holy Land even though the very history recounted belied the treatment which relied most on the court of Alfonso X 'el Sabio' for its idealist rapprochement. This amounted to a rapprochement of sorts, coming to grips with an interrupted history. Spanish historiography in this integrative process was very Augustinian, in appropriating Islamic history in Spain from Islam in general, and making it Spanish, as though Islam were an unjust possessor of its own history. This also dissected Islam as a religio-cultural whole because its political history was so fractured, just as Europe, into nation-states. Al-Andalus was treated less as an entity unto itself or a continuous extension from the Near East across Africa, but as an aberration in Europe. It was thereby separated from the Near East and North Africa in historical maps, thematic treatments, reference works, and therefore, in general perception. Islamic Spain was thereby repatriated; and al-Andalus was made into something it was not." Carlstak (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Portugal is not part of Spain. The current title is too confusing for readers and a violation of WP:ASTONISH. It has been shown that reliable sources use the proposed title. It hasn't been shown that most sources that use the term "Muslim conquest of Spain" are referring to Portugal too. Vpab15 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Copyright violation, 13 May 2023

Earlier today, an editor made three edits to this article, the main one adding a new section entitled "Devastation of Hispania", and consisting of three largely unaltered paragraphs from The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, pages 39 and 40 (a PDF of the book is linked in the copyvio notice currently at the top of the article; the pages are not numbered in the PDF, but I located the text by checking linked index entries for "Alfonso X"; the second one apparently is page 38).

I reverted these edits before I was aware of the copyright violation, for two reasons: 1) the first edit appeared to change a statement about one event into an assertion that the same thing happened repeatedly, although it was cited to a source that presumably described a specific event; i.e. the source did not describe what the edit changed the text to read.

2) the new section seemed unnecessarily rhetorical, and read as a list of grievances against the invaders, using quotations from period sources, and inflammatory phrases such as "young women as sexual slaves" (this exact wording twice in three sentences). There was no qualification or discussion of misdeeds on the part of Christians, so it seemed like a very one-sided discussion to tack on near the end of the article. The section also contained curly quotes and scare quotes, and did not read like encyclopedic text—one reason I didn't recognize it as a possible copyright violation, assuming that a scholarly source would write better than that.

The copyvio notice was placed a couple of hours after I reverted the edits. I note that the first edit listed for redaction is not part of a copyright violation: another editor corrected a typo (atttack → attack), nor is the last (my reversion). Not being an expert in remedying copyright violations, I looked up both Wikipedia:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. My reading is that the revisions only need to be deleted if they cannot be cured by reverting the content to an earlier revision. While revision deletion could still be performed, I cannot see anything to suggest that this is the preferred course of action; the page about that procedure seems to indicate otherwise.

However, I thought I would report what I found while investigating the alleged copyright violation—it certainly was one—and explain why I had already deleted the content in question. I leave it up to the experts to decide whether to delete the appropriate revisions, noting that as a non-admin I couldn't do it myself anyway. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

but most of it was quotes? it hought quotes were ok? H20346 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have spanish and protugese friends and they told me the Invaders devasted the land. It is often said thatthe muslims were wlecomed a liberators to spainand they brought flowers and hugs but that seems like a myth that needs to be addressed. why would the misdeeds of christians be told? the muslims were the foreign invaders attacking them? H20346 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You are quoting from a book that has received poor reviews from scholars for it accuracy, or "the myth is a myth" in the words of one, so it seems inadvisable as an introduction to the topic. There are much better works out there. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Generally quotations are fine, but you'd need to cite them as quotations and attribute them to the source in question. Here you simply copied the text of several paragraphs with almost no changes, and didn't attribute it to any source. To anyone who read the article, it would appear to be your own work, rather than quoted from a book. You could paraphrase the text by rewriting it in your own words, but you'd still need to attribute it to a source.

Also, the book you borrowed the text from doesn't appear to represent mainstream scholarship on the subject, but a revisionist view of events. It's very unbalanced, and much of the language is inflammatory. That means that it may not comport with Wikipedia policy, which requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean that articles have to present events as if nothing bad happened or assume that both sides were equally at fault, but it does mean that you have to take other perspectives into account—which is what differentiates mainstream scholarship from historical revisionism. The book you're using is trying to prove that what most scholars believe isn't true, and that makes it a tricky source to incorporate, and possibly one that shouldn't be used, if it gives undue weight to a perspective that isn't widely accepted in academia.

It's understandable that Spanish people writing at or in the centuries after the conquest would have a very negative view of the events, but that doesn't necessarily make them the best sources for what actually happened. As a rule you can quote from their writings, but not in a way that gives a one-sided impression of an entire section of the article. And it's not clear that there needs to be a separate section just detailing the "devastation" of Spain. Presumably both sides waged brutal war against the other, because that was the nature of warfare at the time. But to the extent that it's necessary to delve into specifics, the topic is covered elsewhere in the article. If an addition to an article mostly repeats things that are already mentioned, or overemphasizes them in an unbalanced way or unnecessary detail (or very vaguely, in some cases), then it probably will be deleted.

The bottom line is, the edits appeared to be advocating a particular point of view, which isn't allowed, and the source may not represent mainstream scholarship on the subject. None of the additions were attributed to the source from which they were taken, or identified in any way as quotations, or rewritten in your own words. All of these made the content inappropriate, both in terms of what the material said, and because it was a violation of another author's copyright. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)