Talk:Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spain  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Portugal  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Crusades task force.
 

Plato's introduction to Al Andalus[edit]

Loads of POV and factual errors, my favourite "Jewish philosopher ben Gabirol brings the works of Plato to Spain ", which is tosh. The piece needs a serious Re-write and should fit resemble a better timeline.--Irishpunktom\talk July 6, 2005 11:16 (UTC)

If you have historical records that disprove that, please refer to them. --Aesed 7 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Anyone who knows anything about the Development of Al Andalusian philosophy knows that the works of Plato spread to "Spain" from almost the earliest days of the Umayyad rule. I would suggest you read the history books written by Said al-Andalusi, he died in 1070.--Irishpunktom\talk July 8, 2005 09:56 (UTC)
OK I have quoted out that section while I do further research on that event.--Aesed 8 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

"Muslim"? "occupation"? "Spain"?[edit]

The "Muslim occupation of Spain" was an event in 710, not an 800-year process; the Zirids of Granada certainly weren't "occupying" anything. This should be under the title "Timeline of Muslim rule in Spain". - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

I don't get why the word Spain need to be mentioned.. I don't think that that is an accuarate title. --Irishpunktom\talk 02:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
So what would you suggest? The country was Spain, you could call it Iberia Hispanica but that would not be clear to many readers. "Muslim rule" of spain is not accurate, it was more like 800 years of continuous battles between various occupying Muslims dynasties and various native Christians kingdoms.--Aesed 03:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
But not to the extent you imply. Most of the insurrections you mention during the Emirate (not Caliphate) of Cordoba were not "against the Muslims" but by Muslims against the emirs. To take one example, one of the leaders of the 818 insurrection in Cordoba was Yahya bin Yahya al-Laythi, otherwise best known for the introduction of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence to al-Andalus.
Again, all the entries from 1345 to 1391, and many of the others between about 1250 and 1475, don't relate to Muslims at all - they are either about wars between the Christian kingdoms or the treatment by the Christian kingdoms of their Jewish populations.
And some of your entries relate either to Muslim incursions into southern or central Italy, which were largely carried out not from Spain but from Tunisia (to say nothing of those relating to Jewish history elsewhere in Europe or the Muslim world).
My suggestion as to the page title would be to retitle the page Timeline of Medieval Iberia (Iberia rather than Spain so as to make it clear that the timeline also covers the territory of present-day Portugal), moving elsewhere the entries that don't relate to the Iberian Peninsula. PWilkinson 15:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well the purpose of the page is to narrate the timeline of the Muslim occupation of Spain, this is a specific period which begins with the moor landing in 711 and end in 1492 or so.
As you suggest the various historical events which do not fit under this topic will be excised in due time as I or other interested editors get to them , however it should be noted that some events though they take place outside of Spain proper are related to this timeline as being pre-cursors to events that take place in Spain or developments that stem from the Muslim occupation.
As you point out there may be some ambiguities in some of the entries and I invite you and any other knowledgeable editors to make any needed edits and clarify those ambiguous entries.--Aesed 04:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Spain" is problematic too, because there was no distinction between Spain and Portugal at the time. I suggest Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia (though Timeline of Medieval Iberia would be a better topic.) - Mustafaa 01:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well at the time "Hispania" as the Roman's called it since the second century BC, "Espana" as the spanish began calling it and "Spain" as we call it in English it , described the whole geographical region of which Portugal is part, Portugal began forming into its own independent region in the middle 12th Century.By the time portugal formed into an independant state, the Muslim occupation was no longer part of the picture in that region so the title makes perfect sense. --Aesed 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mustafaa, this article should be named Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Muslim Occupation of Spain! The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. Even more, it was frequent for Christians to refer to Islamic Al'Andalus as "Spain" (España or Espanha or Spanya or other variants), meaning a political reality that was different from their own! Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should be called Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. The Ogre 16:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • THis is a very serious problem and a lot a ppl talk about the use of "Spain" in English, and because many people use articles in English, today we have a lot of Portuguese history under Spain, and Portuguese as beeing Spanish. In English both Hispania and Spain are often written Spain. And here is the problem! That's why the Visigothic Spain, the Muslim Spain, etc... I say: use the name of the Roman province without change. That is Hispania. The article should be Timeline of the Muslim rule in Hispania. --Pedro 12:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree to choose the roman name for the Iberian Peninsula as it's the most NPOV. As to regarding the ocupation see below. Nuno Tavares 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fact, choosing Iberia or Hispania gives the same problem. The first is a greek name, the second is the roman name which at the time would make no sense anymore. So why not Timeline of the Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula. Yeah, I know, didn't like it either... but as for correctness it seems the obvious name. Nuno Tavares 16:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reminder to editors on this page :Wikipedia is not a democracy[edit]

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Most of you already know this.

Rename to "Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia"[edit]

Proposed: that the article be renamed "Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia".

  1. I for one approve. --Skoosh 16:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Completly APPROVE! The Ogre 17:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'm for the change too. Correctness is important. What most users will be doing is not very important, since a redirect page will stay here. I can hardly comment on Aesed's "argument" for "occupation", below, since it's more than biased. Velho 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. In agreement --Irishpunktom\talk 16:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Totally agree. Gameiro 16:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Approve of the change, and agree with Velho's line of argument. Alai 02:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Approve Lapsed Pacifist 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. I agree. "Spain" is inaccurate, and "rule" is a bit more neutral than "Occupation". Yodakii 18:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave as "Timeline of the Muslim Occupation of Spain"[edit]

1) - Most users will be doing a search for Spain rather than Iberia to get information on this historical period. Most books on the subject refer to Spain as in Muslim Spain such as:

  • Moorish Spain by Richard Fletcher
  • Convivencia: Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Medieval Spain by Thomas F. Glick
  • The Medieval Spains (Cambridge Medieval Textbooks) by Bernard F. Reilly
  • JEWS OF SPAIN : A HISTORY OF THE SEPHARDIC EXPERIENCE by Jane S. Gerber
  • Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain by Joseph F O'Callaghan
  • Conflict and Coexistence: Archbishop Rodrigo and the Muslims and Jews of Medieval Spain by Lucy K Pick
  • Vandals to Visigoths: Rural Settlement Patterns in Early Medieval Spain by Karen Eva Carr
  • Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Islamic Spain

etc etc..

2) The whole period is best described as an occupation , not as a rule. The Moors and Arabs were a foreign armed force that invaded and occupied various stretches of spanish territory for periods of time but incrementaly lost all them in time. One could say that they ruled the territory that they occupied , but that rule did not extend to the parts outside of the land they controled.--Aesed 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole period is best described as an occupation , not as a rule. The Moors and Arabs were a foreign armed force that invaded and occupied various stretches of spanish territory for periods of time but incrementaly lost all them in time.
One could say the same about the Ottoman Empire's rule of Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean, but no one does, because it's absurd to call it a regime of occupation when it lasts for almost 800 years. The Moorish emirs built governments, roads, universities, bureaucracies, and built them to last. Would you say the British merely "occupied" India? Of course not. They ruled India; it was part of the British Empire, just as Iberia was part of the Muslim empires of the western Mediterranean. And of course they didn't rule the lands they did not control; that's practically a tautology. What's at issue is whether they could be said to rule the lands they did control, and it's clear that they did. Establishment of governments and ruling dynasties (a sort of annexation) clearly distinguishes the Muslim states from territories that are simply under military occupation. --Skoosh 00:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the phrase "Muslim rule" is that it is misleading as to the nature of the events that took place between 711 and 1492 in Spain. "Rule" sounds hegemonic or imperialistic, but most importantly the timeline of events does not support this characterization. The timeline reveals a long drawn out tug of war between the Christian kingdoms and the Muslims forces. The Muslim controlled lands were beset with internal revolts, rebellions and a gradually collapsing sphere of control for most of that period. Look at the successive maps of Spain of 1000 , 1085 ,1157, 1248, 1492 and no matter how anyone would want to spin this story, the conditions on the ground that made the map shift to that degree could not be described as a "rule", and the case could even be made that after the year 1000 the Muslim occupation of Spain gives an appearance of a receding zone of control.--Aesed 02:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the article is about the country Spain, then the info about Portugal and Portugal in the picture should be removed. -Pedro 12:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this article is about the country of Spain, for the reasons I stated above. The country of Spain only exists after the Muslim rule. That means that what is meant in the article is Iberia, Iberian Peninsula, Hispania or Visigothic Hispania. All of these include all the territories in question. Not Spain! The Ogre 13:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that there are two discussions going on here. It's a mistake to debate them together. Leave the discussion about the use of Spain to the sections above, and this section for the use of Occupation. You see, Aesed, the use of occupation may be inaccurate as it may be understood as the process and not the period. You may read, for the current title, either "Timeline of the process of occupation of..." or "Timeline of the muslim presence in...". I'm not sure whether the term presence might work for english readers, but it seems to me to be the best one. Nuno Tavares 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the use of "occupation" is the most correct as the territory was claimed during the 800 years of occupation by the christians of Asturias. Yes... 800 years is a bit longer than the few years Germany occupied Belgium, Poland or France, but it is still an occupation since there were Christians not subjugated in Asturias that claimed the whole territory. If "occupation" raises eyebrows, my next choices would be "presence" or "control". As for the question of the process and the period, there's already an article named Muslim conquest of Iberia. So I propose a disambiguation at the top of both articles.--Gameiro 17:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


  • If you read the article and the porpouse of the article it is about Spain (the country). So I really think that the info about Portugal should be removed to form a "Muslim Portugal" ?! o.O

Also France was part of the Roman empire and it isnt discussed in this article. So we need info per country. And maybe we should have a third article about Muslims in Hispania.-Pedro 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Rename to "Timeline of the Muslim Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula"[edit]

This option was added 8/23/2005

  1. Approve I am casting my vote to change the title to use Iberian Peninsula in order to alleviate the concerns of some editors as regards to the ambiguity of the word "Spain" and to continue to use the word Occupation as more accurate than "Rule" .--Aesed 22:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just two notes --i) I agree it can be misleading to reffer to Spain, which can be read as an occupation that did not even exist when it was "occupied". Although Hispania can be construed as meaning Iberia, Spain is clearly a country name. ii) The content is still confused as anyway it centered in the achievement of the kingdoms that latter form spain (mostly Castille and Leon) almost omiting Portugal.--BBird 17:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

or to put it in a another way -- (a) Timeline of the Muslim (b) Occupation of (c) Spain

(a) ok (with a lot of amendments) (b) Occupation - this can have negative conotation as said above many times. (c) of Spain -- pure nonsense. Spain was never occupied by muslims. When the muslims where ruling the Iberian Peninsula, Spain did NOT YET EXIST.

Disputed Tag[edit]

I removed the Disputed Tag in the beginning of the article, since the problem is not in its contence but the accuracy of the Title. The Ogre 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Expansion, corrections and a new proposal (maybe?)[edit]

Just did some expansion and corrections to the article, but I believe it still needs a lot of work done. And I've just realised that this a Timeline of the Reconquista above all things. Should'nt it be named like that? Give me yours thoughts. The Ogre 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you really rolled up your sleeves and got to work. Good job. The role that the Portuguese played in this long epic struggle was somewhat underrepresented before your edits.
Ogre-The intent of this article is to chronicle the historical events that marked the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula from their landing in 711 to their exit in 1492 or thereabouts. The listing of the events related to the Reconquista by the Christians are very relevant as they put the overall situation on the Peninsula into perspective. The title timeline of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula seems quite apt to me as a general description of the topic to be covered. (As long as we stay focused on the core topic and do not stray to far from it).--Aesed 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Moves[edit]

Ok, this last one makes some kind of media via we can all accept.

No. This article has been moved five times in the same day. Apparently a consensus wasn't established before the first move was made. And no discussion at all was made before any of the following moves were made. I don't any moves should be made before hearing out any objections first. --Yodakii 00:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

rule / occupation[edit]

I think there seems to be a consensus on "Iberian Peninsula", which is great. The problem is "rule" and "occupation". Muslims didn't occupy the entire peninsula, but they did rule parts of it. I think that is one reason why "rule in" is better than "occupation of", and I think even Aesed could admit that there was some Muslim rule. Si? --Yodakii 01:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well even if they ruled parts of it you certainly cannot characterize the whole period as a rule of the Iberian Peninsula. Perhaps you could say the Moors ruled some territory that they controlled for the period of time that they controlled it , such as Granada, but that does not equate a general statement like they ruled the Iberian Peninsula.
  • Furthermore the Moors at no time ever had complete control of the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, so how could you say they ruled it?
  • So my question to you is , please tell me who ruled what and from when to when, in which region and was that a rule of the Iberian Peninsula. --Aesed 02:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying Muslims ruled the entire peninsula. What I meant to say is that they ruled parts of it. The title "Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula", the way I understand it, doesn't mean rule of the entire area, but it could mean some rule somewhere in it. If the title was "Muslim rule of the Iberian Peninsula", then you would have an argument. By your same argument "Moslem occupation of the Iberian Peninsula" could also mean occupying the entire area which, I think you would agree, they didn't.
I could be wrong about "in" and "of", but that is how I use it. Maybe an English language expert should help here? --Yodakii 03:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • They occupied very shortly the Northern Iberian Peninsula, where their influence is pratically null, besides some myths of Mourish ladies and Mourish stories and it was just an invasion, rapidely removed. But the South of Portugal and Spain is another story (in Fact most of both countries). There are cities with Arabic names, people use old arabic names, some areas have an arabic influenced accent, Arabics made a huge influence in agriculture and seafair, although the genetic influence and, especially the religious influence is not that big, maybe the Mozarabics (natives) were more important in that former Latin-Arabic cultural fusion. I think rule is better (but it is not a perfect name for it), even if both countries have an exclusive Roman (mostly) and Visigothic (the remaining) base (we should not also forget that the Iberian Peninsula is not a sort of reversed Turkey, but we should also remember that is was a bit more than an invasion that we like to say in the History books. Althoug it really was an invasion, I would like a more poetic/historical name, like kingdoms, taifas, etc... I don't know. -Pedro 02:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

One more time: Timeline of Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula. I think this title is more accurate and neutral than the current title. If this doesn't work, then here's another idea, taking a que from The Ogre, this can also be called Timeline of Al-Andalus Does anyone have a better idea? --Yodakii 06:04:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

  • And once again rule does not fit as a title,it does not properly characterize the standing of the Muslims over the whole of the Iberian Peninsula during the period when they were present there. One "rules" over territory that one fully controls in the sense of being able to govern it, but the Muslim never controlled the whole of the Iberian Peninsula , nor were they able to hold on to the territory that they occupied in their initial invasion in the Peninsula.
  • If you say timeline of Al-Andalus then you are reducing even further the scope that you are covering as Al-Andalus is a specific geographic sub region at a specific period of time within the greater Iberian Peninsula.
  • Now if you want to go to Timeline of the Muslim Presence in the Iberian Presence we can discuss but I think we should just put this to rest now and leave the title as it currently is as an acceptable title , though admittedly not perfect and continue to expand the timeline for the readers.--Aesed 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems the difference between "rule in" and "occupation of" is too confusing. I don't think its any use trying to explain in English any more.
  • Al-Andalus is not the modern province of Andalusia. It refers to all the territory ruled by Muslims in the Iberian peninsula until 1492, which what this article is about.
  • If you're talking about presence you'll have to mention the modern era as well, as there is a significant population of Muslims in Spain today. --Yodakii 16:39:24, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
  • Ok since all the other suggested alternative titles seem to open even more cans of worms I suggest we leave the title as it and move on.--Aesed 16:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I guess there are good reasons (namely neutrality) for "Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula", and there is no reason at all against it. Isn't it? Velho 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Almoravides / Murabitun[edit]

So which is it? The article currently uses both terms in a confusing way. We should decided on one term and use it consistently in the article. --Yodakii 16:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

removed[edit]

The Moors land an inexhaustible supply of soldiers from the population centers of North Africa. Soon the Moors have assembled a massive army and begin moving northward, conquering everything.
too funny. --Yodakii 04:17:51, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

The Moorish leader's Address to His Soldiers in 711 is captured in his speech: *:"In this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and you shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of Allah shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves".
biased.
Following is the entire speech Tariq ibn-Ziyad gave, (the text in bold is most well known): "Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but vou, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freelv to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least.

"Remember that if you suffer a few moments in patience, you will afterward enjoy supreme delight. Do not imagine that your fate can be separated from mine, and rest assured that if you fall, I shall perish with you, or avenge you. You have heard that in this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.

"Remember that I place myself in the front of this glorious charge which I exhort you to make. At the moment when the two armies meet hand to hand, you will see me, never doubt it, seeking out this Roderick, tyrant of his people, challenging him to combat, if God is willing. If I perish after this, I will have had at least the satisfaction of delivering you, and you will easily find among you an experienced hero, to whom you can confidently give the task of directing you. But should I fall before I reach to Roderick, redouble your ardor, force yourselves to the attack and achieve the conquest of this country, in depriving him of life. With him dead, his soldiers will no longer defy you."
--Yodakii 15:08:38, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Well rather than just blanking out the page why don't you create a page with the speech and then refer to it in the article?.--Aesed 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the speech adds to this article, and seems out of place in a list of dates and brief outline of events. If you want to add the speech in another article and link to it, go ahead. --Yodakii 03:58:00, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Syrians/Jordanians/Palestinians[edit]

741 - The 10,000 survivors of Kulthum's force arrive in Iberia under a new leader, Talaba ibn Salama; he and the Jordanians settle in Cordoba; Seville gets the Homs contingent; the Damascus contingent settle in Elvira; Qinnasrin in Jaen, and Palestinians in Algeciras and Medina-Sidonia. Civil war erupts between the Syrians and the Iberian Muslims, the latter being supported by a contingent of African Muslims under Abd ar-Rahman ibn Habib.
Can anyone verify this? Were there people called Syrians, Jordanians and Palestians at that time? --Yodakii 05:29:48, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Syrians, Yes, Palestinians, yes, Jordanians, no.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irishpunktom: At that time in the Eighth Century there was no Syria to say Syrians like today. Al-Sham was the entire East Mediterranean including Lebanon, Palestine and the actual Jordan. There was no Palestine by definition at that time except in the old historical records as a Roman nomenclature of the East Mediterranean and part of Syria. There was Syria Palestina as a region and even Lebanon was not a nation at that time. The people of the Holy Land were not called Palestinians until the British gave them a name within the nation-State. The modern Jordan is born in the 20th century in a conference meeting between Abdullah Emir of Trans-Jordan and Winston Churchill in 1922. The term Jordanians as a nation does not apply here, until the 20th century when Jordan was created to absorb the Palestinians who were going to be displaced and replaced by the Jews of Europe. In your article, instead you should say Shamites or perhaps refer to the people of the East Mediterranean. But where are the Lebanese in this movement of populations? weren't they interested in the new world of Iberian discoveries? I am really interested in knowing more about this migration.

Archaeologists and anthropologists have a problem explaining the the drop of the Palestinian population in the eighth century AD. This phenomenon is a serious question in the Archaeological agenda that could be explained by the massive migration of people towards North Africa at that time, including the Jews of Palestine. Several family names in Morocco and Palestine have common roots in both countries and the ties are under serious study of genealogy and ancestry. Genetic research could help shedding light on the blood relations between Palestinians and Jews, for peace purposes. Any thoughts?

Noureddine (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)74.107.120.220 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article clean up?[edit]

Do not you think that, probably, the whole article needs a clean up?

(Threshold 09:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC))

verify[edit]

Can anyone verify this?
1609 - Philip III issues the Act of Expulsion for the entire remaining Moriscos population, who are found to to have appealled to the Ottoman Empire for military intervention in Spain and are viewed as a fifth column that is trying to rebuild the Muslim occupation in the Peninsula.
--Yodakii 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. A full explanation of this may be found in: J. H. Elliot - Imperial Spain (1469 - 1716), Edward Arnold (Publishers) LTD. London 1963.
(Threshold 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC))

POV[edit]

So Muslims "Pillage" and "massacre" while Christians "retake", and build universities and Monastries. Nice. This needs some serious NPOVing. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

so what? Everybody knows the Muslims were bloodthirsty brutes and the Christians were knights in shining armour, just look at the Crusades. Oh wait, it was the other way around. never mind then. Maybe this article should be renamed to Timeline of the history of Al-Andalus, then, since it seems to extend beyond the occupation proper, and cover the time when Muslims were not so much 'occupying' the Peninsula, but were simply living there. Or, we'd have to move Reconquista to Christian occupation of Al-Andalus now, won't we. Baad 17:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this article isn't a "Timeline"[edit]

I've noticed a bad habit by Wikipedia writers of calling their chronology articles "timelines." But a timeline is a graphical representation of history, usually involving a horizontal line crossed by short vertical lines accompanied by dates. Other graphical elements can be involved, such as icons or pictures.

The particular article under discussion here, therefore, isn't a timeline. It is a Chronology and should be retitled accordingly.

67.94.0.46 Fred


Done --Irishpunktom\talk 13:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


re-moved page to original title.Unilateral changes and even covert renaming to rule has already been discussed on this page.--Aesed 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


There is a larger issue here, noted in my original post to this talk page, namely that the misuse of the term "timeline" is widespread throughout Wikipedia and needs to be changed. So, while I can understand Aesed's displeasure at the unilateral change by Irishpunktom, the change was factually correct and ought to be made a policy throughout Wikipedia. Therefore I'm posting a notice to this article that we are having a dispute over a factual issue here, in this case the issue is linguistic: the use of the most correct word for titling the article. I will now set forth my case--as well as repeat it in the general Timeline article.


Definition of Timeline [edit]

Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Function: noun
1 : a table listing important events for successive years within a particular historical period
2 usually time·line /'tIm-"lIn/ : a schedule of events and procedures :
TIMETABLE 2


Random House Unabridged Dictionary Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

1. a linear representation of important events in the order in which they occurred.
2. a schedule; timetable. Also,time'line".


Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

(plural time lines)
noun
Definitions:
chronology shown pictorially: a linear representation of significant events in a subject area such as the history of art, shown in chronological order


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

time·line ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tmln)
n.
A schedule of activities or events; a timetable.
A chronology.
A representation or exhibit of key events within a particular historical period, often consisting of illustrative visual material accompanied by written commentary, arranged chronologically.


Wikictionary

Noun
timeline or time line
  1. a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events (past or future); a chronology
  2. a schedule of activities; a timetable


As for the definition of chronology, I don't think that's in dispute. Nonetheless, the Second College Edition, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it as:

1. The determination of dates and the sequence of events.
2. The arrangement of events in time.
3. A chronological list or table.

Now, given all this, it is clear that we have two different words for two different things and can therefore, when using them properly, clearly distinguish between the two. But some people will counter that language is a changing thing (which it is) and so, given the definitions provided, the meaning of "timeline" may be in transition. Thus, if "timeline" is used to mean "chronology" frequently enough, such as in hip venues like Wikipedia, it will soon come to actually mean that.

And this hypothetical projection into the future is true enough. But if that were to occur it would be an unfortunate development. We would then have two words for "chronology" and no word that would unambiguously indicate the graphical representation of time in a true timeline. Therefore, when we meant this latter, we would have to add an adjective, as in "true" timeline, "graphical" timeline, or whatever. This is needlessly cumbersome.

Therefore I recommend that Wikipedia establish a policy for the correct use of these two terms consistently through the various articles and that editors carry this policy out.

-- 68.49.159.131 Fred


timeline is already used as "chronology", and there is nothing wrong with this. What are you talking about? "timeline" refers to the information. It may be represented graphically, along a line, or in a table. As long as the two can be converted isomorphically into each other, there is nothing wrong with using the same word (and even if there were something wrong with that, we shall still stick with common use). So how would you translate Greek chronology into English? timelore? I am not saying the two terms are exactly synonymous. They overlap. You talk about the timeline of a single process, but about the chronology of several events. But this is semantic hair splitting. Baad 17:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The primary discussion on this topic seems to be going on in Talk:List of themed timelines. So I'd like to redirect the dialogue there, where I posted an idea on how to resolve this issue.
That said, to respond to your arguments here, the "time" in "timeline" does, indeed, refer to the chronological information itself. But the "line" in "timeline" refers to the graphical representation as either a line or a table. As for the question of translating, that raises an interesting issue, but not the one you were thinking of. I would ask what the non-English Wikipedias do regarding "timeline" or "chronology" articles? What words do they use in their titles? This might be enlightening to know.
68.49.159.131 Fred

What should "Cmbil" be?[edit]

Year 1485 in ==Castille-Aragón conquers the kingdom of Granada== mentions a castle called Cmbil. This is clearly a mistype. What should it be? Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be the castle of Cambil. , yes its a typo --Aesed 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Map and text say different things[edit]

On the first map, the picture says 1150 in the bottom left map but the text under it says 1100. Which is it? Or could they be so similar it doesn't matter?

Namespace issues[edit]

Occupation is clearly the wrong word. An 800 year rise and fall does not constitute an "occupation." The U.S. in Iraq for 3 years is an occupation. Occupation ought to be changed to "rule". Using Occam's Razor, the most succinct way of expressing the article's topic accurately would be Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia.—thames 20:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You should study this history a bit closer. It really was a 800 year retreat. The moors only occupied parts of the Iberian peninsula for limited periods of time and they were gradually pushed all the way back to Andalusia and then encouraged to return to their ancestral homelands.--CltFn 17:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the condescending tone. The Ottoman Empire began its decline in the 1500's. It was a 400 year decline, but we don't refer to the areas it gradually lost as "occupied by the Ottoman Empire." They were ruled by the Ottoman Empire. The various kingdoms in Iberia ruled their territories. It wasn't a foreign occupation in the common sense of the word. Ruled is the more accurate term for the 800 years of muslim kingdoms that existed in Iberia. That they rose and fell does not make it an "occupation."—thames 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The territories occupied by the moors were not their own as they were an external foreign invading force. The term "rule" is misleading and polemical and is thus innappropriate. Your generalization of an "800" year rule doth speaketh poorly of your knowledge of this period of history--CltFn 00:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, condescension doesn't help anything, and I'll ask you to refrain. When the Manchus invaded China to establish the Manchu dynasty over a different people we do not say that there was a Manchu "occupation" of China. When the Mongols invaded and ruled over the vast Mongol empire for ~150 years we do not refer to a Mongol "occupation" of China, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. We say the Mongols ruled those territories. When Cortez arrived in the New World, slaughtered the leaders of the native peoples and instituted the Spanish Empire in the Americas, no one refers to the Spanish occupation of the Americas--we refer to Spanish rule over their colonies. The fact that the Moors and Berbers were an external invading force is irrelevant to whether or not they ruled Iberia. Their kingdoms in Iberia spanned hundreds of years--longer than the Mongol Empire, or the Manchu dynasty, or the duration of the Spanish Empire. It categorically was not an "occupation."—thames 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Occupation is defined as Invasion, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. They did not rule those territories , they invaded , massacred , pillaged , raped , enslaved and reduced the survivors to a little thing called dhimmitude. In due course, they got booted back accross the sea to seek their glory elsewhere. In any case you cannot say rule , because if you were to name one "ruler" you would have to delimit it to a specifc period of time and a specific territory. The period of history was more of a long war than anything else and various groups or factions were fighting each other on all sides and occupying various locations in succession. You could perhaps read the timeline if you find the time--CltFn 02:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that they "invaded, massacred, pillaged, raped, enslaved, and oppressed" the people of Iberia makes no difference as to whether this was an invasion vs. and occupation. The Mongols ruled over vast portions of Eurasia for about 150 years and did all those same atrocious acts--that's what expanding kingdoms and empires do. The fact remains that 800 years of kingdoms in Iberia is properly referred to as "rule", especially when compared with 150 years of Mongol rule, 300 years of Manchu rule over China as the Qing dynasty, 500 years of Spanish rule in the Americas. I've read the timeline, and it reads like the typical rise and fall of kingdoms that one would find anywhere in the world. Occupations are short term affairs. Muslim kingdoms existed in Spain for longer than the duration of the Mongol Empire, longer than the duration of the Qing Dynasty, longer than the duration of the Roman Empire, longer than the duration of the Spanish Empire in America. "Occupation" is clearly the wrong word.—thames 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I will move the page to Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. All the best.—thames 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are objections so lets not change the title. The examples you use are are full of holes and inacuracies. --CltFn 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Such as?—thames 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 500 years of Spanish rule in the Americas? Consideting that that the spanish arrived in the Americas in the late 16th century , that would mean that they still rules up to , well, the year 2000.
  • longer than the duration of the Roman Empire? Last time I checked the Roman empire lasted nearly 15 centuries.
  • 800 years of kingdoms?; Various factions of Muslims invaders occupied two-thirds of the peninsula for 375 years, about half of it for another 160 years and finally the kingdom of Granada for the remaining 244 years, this last period thanks to a treaty made with Ferdinand III of Castille in 1236 allowing Mohammed ibn-Alhamar to keep Granada as a vassal of Ferdinand in exchange for his cooperation against the Muslims. --CltFn 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
400 years, 500 years, either way Muslim kingdoms were in Iberia longer than Spain ruled in America. The Roman Empire lasted from 31 BC to 476 AD, longer only if you count the Byzantine empire. The fact that Muslim rule expanded and then declined does not mean it wasn't rule. In fact, that just makes them more like every other expanding power throughout history. That they ruled only part of Iberia is why the namespace should read Muslim rule in Iberia, not Muslim rule of Iberia--that's all. That Ferdinand held them as vassals for two hundered nears does not change the fact that they ruled over their areas of Iberia. Moreover, the fact that he made them vassals certainly weighs in favor of using "rule" instead of "occupation" since no one makes a vassal of occupiers--that would be absurd--one makes a vassal of out of a subordinate ruler.—thames 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It was an occupation. Just drop it already. By the way the Eastern Roman Empire falls under the heading of Roman Empire, seems quite bizarre that you would not think so.--CltFn 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets not start this again. wikipedia is not a democracy!

CltFn, the link you provided also says, "In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus". Since the discussion was not getting anywhere, a vote is necessary. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The 3 periods of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula[edit]

There were 3 general periods in the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula:

  • 1. Invasion, confusion and chaos, 714-756 A.D.
  • 2. Golden era 756-1036 A.D.
  • 3. Anarchy and annihilation. 1036-1492 A.D.

Out of the 3 only # 2 would qualify for the term "rule" . However the overall term occupation fits all 3.--CltFn 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the result was no consensus --CltFn 12:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine, if you want to get technical; there's a 6-to-3 majority for moving to Timeline of Muslim presence in Iberia, which is where I'm going to move it to; please don't move it to a nonsense name again like you just did. (What's a "peninsulal" supposed to be?) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Timeline of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula → Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia : Please see the above section for reasoning on both sides of this proposal, thanks : —thames 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion[edit]

Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "—thames 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)"
  • Support per all of thames' reasons. —Khoikhoi 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose see The 3 periods of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula above--CltFn 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment... here's the problem... military occupation "occurs when one nation's military occupy all or part of the territory of another nation or recognized belligerent during an invasion (during or after a war)." -- I don't think we can really say that it remains another's nation for 700 years... unless the U.S. Government is still in its period of "occupation" :) Would you support Muslim presence in the Iberian...? granted there is still a presence... you do recognize the problem I bring up, I hope? gren グレン 07:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --gren グレン 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have already been through this debate and decided to keep it as it currently stands. --Aesed 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Siddiqui 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (I would support Presence as above). This ends in 1616, not 1492. Septentrionalis 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Presence" is problematic as there are still Muslims in Iberia today. This timeline (as it stands) only covers the period when they had military forces and kingdoms in Iberia.—thames 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read to the end of the article. What military forces or kingdoms did they have in 1609? Septentrionalis 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That section is under the rubric of "Aftermath". There are ~800 years of forces and kingdoms from invasion in 710 to the final defeat in 1492. Euphemizing the namespace from "rule" to "presence" because of a postscript section is silly and misleading.—thames 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • support seems good. --Pedro 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per Thames. --ManiF 20:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images[edit]

Image:Iberia 1150.gif, Image:Iberia 1300.gif, and Image:MuslimOccupation.jpg may be deleted soon. The author says he created them... but... to what extent? He had to have source data if these are accurate maps. There is a good chance they are copyvios and we also need sources to justify that these maps are historically correct. Can anyone help provide information on this or alternatives if that fails? We need maps like this... we just need them to be verifiable and free. gren グレン 07:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In a follow up... they seem to differ some from his UTexas source... I am not sure why they differ but... is there any way anyone here can clean up and digitize the UTexas map and make it look nice? That would simplify this. gren グレン 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have answered your query on your talk page. These maps are the digitized version of the U of T maps scans , plus from other primary source accounts from historical documents to confirm these frontier lines.--Aesed 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Discontinuity[edit]

There is a major discontinuity between this article and Morisco. The way the Morisco are treated in the two articles you would think they were different people. Someone with better historical knowledge than myself needs to take a look and change one of the articles to bring the accounts into agreement. --StuffOfInterest 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

PageName → Chronology of the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula – Rationale: After 8 centuries and most of the Muslims being indeed autochtonous to al-Andalus, who had converted to Islam centuries before, you cannot call it "occupation" without going against WP:NPOV policy. The page has been moved before a few times but there seems to be a couple of users who unilaterally decided against it. (copied from the entry on the WP:RM page) ===Survey=== :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ ::Support, as per rationale--Asterion talk to me 00:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
This move is improper. There is consensus for Timeline_of_the_Muslim_presence_in_the_Iberian_peninsula - as of one week ago. Leave it there. Septentrionalis 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It has been changed by someone to "occupation" when I requested the page move, should not these people abide to those rules too? --Asterion talk to me 20:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes they should; that's why I moved it back to presence. Changing the redirect means they will have to go through WP:RM to change it again. Septentrionalis 23:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Also a little confused here, I just checked the last WP:RM and it says "Muslim rule" not "Muslim Presence"?--Asterion talk to me 23:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I could not find it at first. So, what should we do then? Is it possible to enforce them to respect the previous RM?--Asterion talk to me 23:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. This page cannot be moved to "Occupation" without admin consent. Other moves can be prevented by requesting move protection from WP:RfPP, but that won't be necessary if there is no future problem. Septentrionalis 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. Apologies for misunderstanding. --Asterion talk to me 23:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

much better[edit]

  • this timeline is very good and useful, but we need pictures of people and places, such as a paitings of a war... we also need more of the Muslin side of the story.--Pedro 11:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said, the main challenge regarding images being the copyright of these images which are fiercely enforced in Wikipedia these days.--CltFn 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Pedro says. Coming to this article for the first time, after a rather heated argument with someone who held Charles Martel directly responsible for what they termed the ethnic cleansing of Islamic Spain, I have to say that the timeline struck me as presenting a rather one-sided view, so that it is the negative aspects of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula that are repeatedly mentioned along with the injustices suffered predominantly by Christians. The history of Muslim, Christian and Jewish interaction in the Iberian peninsula during this period is rather more complex and needs developing in a determined but dispassionate way.--Opbeith 11:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some of the red out of this article[edit]

If you look at the timeline you will see far too much red links. If anyone can help out by doing the research on any red links that you choose that would be great.--Aesed 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did about 4 or 5 red links, will try to help out some more as I find the time.--CltFn 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Something i noticed in the timeline it says in 1502 the moors were expelled. in my reading i have never heard such claims. The only time there was a order for expulsions was in 1609-1614. Is there any sources or refrences to claim there were any expulsion of the moors in 1502? i only know that the jews were expelled in 1502.

"occupation" and "reoccupation" of Jerez: When?[edit]

Well! I logged on just because I saw a factual discrepancy in the timeline, but after reading the whole of this diuscussion page I can only say, these discussions over occupation and rule have been depressing. I guess the combatants have none been from the Iberian peninsula, but some have for some other reason a great many axes to grind, and they I would welcome to switch to the Spanish wikipedia "reconquista" page, to get an idea of historiography (and even of history!). End of a short aside.

T21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Sebatianalfar

So: to the factual anomaly in the text: Timelines can be useful for some purposes, so I´d be glad if the entries on Jerez could be checked by someone competent: There are three different dates given in the timeline for the final occupation of Jerez by the the reconquista: 1248, 1250 and 1254. See the quotations below from the timeline:

<snip> "1248 (...) *Arcos, Constantina, Huelva, Jerez, Moron, Ronda, Saltes and Segorbe are retaken from the Muslims and will remain in Christian hands thereafter"

(- "retaken" is childish for an interval of half a century, but we´ll let that pass, there are worse things in this page)

"1250 Mertola, Santa Maria del Algarbe , Silves , Tavira , Tejada , Constantina , Huelva , and Jerez fall to the Reconquista and will remain in Christian hands thereafter." (...)

"1264 - Muslim revolt in Andalusia. * October: Alfonso X of Castile takes Jerez." <snip>

So which is right? 1248, 1250, 1254? Can a historian help?

Sebatianalfar 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

accuracy disputed[edit]

i put a "disputed" tag on this page because of the fact that there had been no response to my contribution (three different dates for occupation of jerez). originally i had only made the comment in the discussion page, but there had been no response. that is to say, please do not remmove a disputed tag without reading to the bottom of the discussion page! and please leave the disputed tag until the error is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebatianalfar (talkcontribs) 08:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign --Sebatianalfar 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern developments[edit]

If you are going to keep this title, you have to mention the modern presence of Muslims in the Peninsula after the expulsion of Moriscos.

Mention things like Islam in Gibraltar, the Regulares intervention in the Spanish Revolution of 1934, the Spanish Civil War, the North African Procuradores in Francoist Cortes, Islamic immigration (mostly Maghrebis and Pakistanis), the M-30 Mosque, modern Muladis (Mansur Escudero and his association)...

Otherwise make clear that it is not about modern times. --84.20.17.84 (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Skimming the above discussion, I think Timeline of Al-Andalus is the best title. It unambiguously refers to a specific time (714-1492) and place (Iberian Peninsula) and it makes no editorial comments on the various sides (occupation v. rule v. presence). Fishal (talk)

Lisbon[edit]

Editing: I mean; is not wrong as a part("The Muslims were killed") but is wrong as whole. The majority were respeted and stay or left alive; only some part of the Population as the Christian Bishop were killed by some Colognese(or other specific german part of the army, not all) as some flemish cruzaders who acted against the will of the King of Portugal wich was very angry about such amotinate and murdered acts, and also against the majority of Cruzaders wich in majority as well the King Afonso Henriques the First in charge, respected the peacefull agreement with the Muslims and respect all lives.

Source: Osbern`s letter.

Inappropriate text replaced with templates[edit]

When I came upon this page, it bore the following in the article lead:

[This timeline needs citations and the material is biased and suspect in a number of places. Not useful academically.]

I haven't been through the page history to see when this was added or by whom, and don't have the time right now to do so. Instead, I replaced the text with the {{refimprove}} and {{unbalanced}} templates. I don't know whether there is an active dispute on this page or if the text was added by a dissatisfied drive-by editor, but putting text in the article is not the best way to challenge material. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy template[edit]

Hi everyone, I added a Factual Accuracy template to this article. As explained in my recent edits, the article is largely unreliable, no references, it´s not a timeline, full of wrong data, and based on old and racial received ideas. I have brought up this in other articles too, the Muslim <> Christian divide/opposition is way overdone, lacking precise data, even stereotyped. Honest readers of this article looking for true information just deserve better! Iñaki LL (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)