Talk:Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula

message: Proposed: that the article be renamed "Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia".  
# I for one approve.  --Skoosh 16:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia" 

message: This option was added 8/23/2005
# 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)
thread_title: Rename to "Timeline of the Muslim Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Disputed Tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Almoravides / Murabitun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Syrians/Jordanians/Palestinians 

message: Do not you think that, probably, the whole article needs a clean up?
(Threshold 09:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean up? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Verify 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: It should be the castle of Cambil. , yes its a typo --Aesed 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should "Cmbil" be? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Such as?—thames 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Namespace issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Actually the result was no consensus --CltFn 12:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The 3 periods of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discontinuity 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That's great, thanks. Apologies for misunderstanding. --Asterion talk to me 23:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: much better

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Can we get some of the red out of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "occupation" and "reoccupation" of Jerez: When? 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy disputed 

message: 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  and  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 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate text replaced with templates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Factual accuracy template

message: As someone already pointed out long ago in this talk page, the Saracen attacks in Italy mentioned in the page (Pisa or Monte Cassino) had obviously nothing to do with Spanish Arabs/Muslims, but with those from North Africa or Sicily. If nothing is argued against it, I'll delete the entries. --Jotamar (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saracens in Italy 

message: skimming the page I see on the current timeline "1205 – Death of Maimonides in Egypt. Birth of Chaiya bat Avraham Toledano." Who ??? Googling shows lots of refs to 'Society for Creative Anachronism'; and loads of websites that have copied wikipedia ;-) I am editing this out M@T arragano (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1205 – birth of 'Chaiya bat Avraham Toledano'. I am deleting 'creative' invention