Talk:Caliphate of Córdoba

Untitled

Based on the information in the article on Byzantine_coinage, I am removing the following line from the economy section of this article:

"Thus, the Caliph was the first European commercial urban economy following the disappearance of the Roman Empire."

Let me know if I'm missing something here... Hiberniantears 20:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Caliphate

When this article was on the Main Page Did You Know, it was decided that this should be named "Caliphate of Córdoba" not "Caliph of Córdoba", because it's about a series of caliphs, not just one. Art LaPella 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Avveroes and Maimónides came AFTER the Caliphate of Cordoba, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its neccessary to specify the language in this case so I added "Arabic" before it because I studied Arabic & I know that was in Arabic.

Best regardsIraswe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.158.33 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Emirate

Where's the page on the EMIRATE of Cordoba gone, it keeps redirecting here, but i'm looking for the period directly before this. Starting in roughly 750. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.6.140 (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was never created in the first place [1].

I believe anyhow it should redirect to Al Andalus, not here. --Sugaar (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I correct my previous idea: this article deals better with the Emirate period than Al-Andalus article. Though only slightly better.

Nevertheless it would surely be great if the Emirate article was created as well. --Sugaar (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am getting ready to write a large addition to the Cordoba section but am vacillating on where to place it. My first thoughts based on the books Encyclopedia Britannica that I am initially reading is to place them in either a new section of Umayyad Dynasty or to create an Arab Umayyad Dynasty in Spain or something similar page. However there are other options such as Caliphate of Cordoba or even Al-Andalus, which I actually think is the worst of the options. I am going to think on it and see what others in the know have to say. I also brought home a bunch of books on African History and Asian History but forget that Spain has a lot of involvement in the History of North Africa for a period, so I will need to go to my University Library and get more books. Anyway please chime in, let me know what you think. If I don't get a lot of strong opinions one way or the other I will just be BOLD, and do what I think is best from all of my sources. speednat (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you should create an Arab Umayyad Dynasty in Spain page. If anything, the number of articles on Al-Andalus should be decreased (e.g. by joining the Emirate of Cordoba and Caliphate of Cordoba into Umayyads of Cordoba or Umayyad Emirate and Caliphate of Cordoba), not increased. I'd put it in Al-Andalus, or Caliphate of Cordoba if it only concerns the Umayyad period. Zhmr (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cordova/Córdoba, etc.

This article is full of Spanish place names, but I take the view that there should be English language place names for English language articles. This isn't simple chauvinism but because references should match up, so that (for instance) searches will lead there better. Can anyone suggest how best to address this issue? PMLawrence (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Seemingly illogical statement

The last section "List of rulers" is concluded by the sentence "Therefore, a genetic study concluded that the genome of Hisâm II, the tenth ruler of the Umayyad dynasty, "would have mostly originated from the Iberian Peninsula and would not be more than 0.1% of Arab descent, although the Y chromosome would still be of fully Arab origin"." I do have a problem with that. If the Y chromosome would be the only genetic material of Arab descent remaining in the aformentioned Hisham, then it would still be one out of 46 chromosomes, making up at least 2% of his genetic material, as opposed to the supposed 0.1%. Did I miss something? Did they miss something? Or were the findings in the given study paraphrased too shortly so that the sentence now is simply wrong (with this specific detail)? --87.151.245.87 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that each chromosome makes up an equally large segment of a persons genetic material, which is fallacious.108.131.5.67 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

Even considering the wealth of cultural exchange and legacy of Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula, has there ever been a real discussion regarding their presence in Spain? Has anyone ever asked the obvious question: What were Arabs doing in Spain in the first place? This question is fair I think when you consider how the Christian Crusades in the Middle East, which came afterwards, is used as a tired trope to bludgeon skeptics. Zamdrist (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

They destroyed the crumbling Visogothic empire. What were the Visogoths (Germans) doing in Spain? What were the Romans doing in Spain? What were the Carthagians doing in Spain? What were the Greeks doing in Spain? Why do you only want to ask this question of the Arabs?108.131.5.67 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Caliph of Córdoba recreated?

Does anyone here know why Caliph of Córdoba was turned from a redirect into an article about a month ago? I don't see any discussion on this Talk page, and the Talk page for that page still redirects here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

could we add how the slave trade with a big part of Córdoba's economy please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• La civilització del califat de Còrdova en temps d'Abd-al-Rahman III.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

On the claim in section on culture

This line can be read in the section on culture "Al-Andalus was subject to eastern cultural influences as well. The musician Ziryab is credited with bringing hair and clothing styles, toothpaste, and deodorant from Baghdad to the Iberian peninsula.[23]" Considering these claims especially on toothpaste and deodorant, there is not a caveat that this is an ancient version of both so it's a bit confusing. Also the article on deodorant does not mention this claim anywhere, the one on toothpaste does, but with the same source. The article on toothpaste states that the Romans had a sort of toothpaste too, which came before the Caliphate and included the Iberian peninsula, so Ziryab perhaps reintroduced it. However the source is from an author (Ivan van Sertima) who also claims the Olmecs were originally Africans and Africans discovered America before Columbus. His work has been widely critisized for 'robbing native American cultures' and disregarded as pseudohistory. http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/vansertima.pdf

So I would state this claim from him should be taken with a very large grain of salt, should an author with such a record be the only source for such a claim? If there is no other source than Sertima for this claim I would suggest just taking this whole claim out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.96.183 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arkesdn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Successor state parameter in infobox

There are many, many Taifa states that emerged as the caliphate collapsed, and some are still missing from the infobox, probably more than we can reasonably keep track of. So rather than keep adding to an already long list that would became hard to follow and further stretch the infobox's length down the page, I'm simplifying this to just "Taifa kingdoms". That should be plenty enough for an infobox summary, and anyone reading a professional reference on the history of al-Andalus would expect a similar generalization. It's also the format already followed at the Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate infoboxes. A similar summary is used in some other similar situations, e.g. at the Idrisid dynasty infobox, where "Zenata kingdoms" is listed instead of trying to account for all the shifting Zenata principalities that followed there. R Prazeres (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposing merger on Umayyad Cordoba articles

I propose merging the articles on the Emirate of Cordoba and Caliphate of Cordoba into one article, titled Umayyad Cordoba, or something similar. While holding the title of Caliph is significant, it should be noted that the state was ruled by a contiguous dynasty up to its collapse. For a comparion, the Ottoman Empire is still one article despite the fact its rulers took the title of Caliph under the reign of Selim I after the Ottoman-Mamluk War (1516-1517). Alongside that, both the Emirate and Caliphate share significant cultural, societal, and political characteristics that should be explained at once in one article. It would also help boost the Emirate as a topic on Wikipedia. I noticed that the Emirate of Cordoba is edited rarely, with discussions on its talk page even rarer.

--Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: To avoid a split discussion, I've removed the copy of this proposal at Talk:Emirate of Córdoba and left a message there directing editors here instead, so we can have a single discussion where consensus can be determined. (WP:MERGE doesn't give clear instructions on which talk page to use when there isn't a clear merge destination. Since this article has more visitors and page watchers, it seems best to host the discussion here for maximum visibility. If there are any problems with this, let me know.) R Prazeres (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A merger makes sense to me. The polities are identical, just with the technical distinction of proclaiming itself a caliphate. I'm not sure about "Umayyad Cordoba" though. If the title is going to go descriptive, I think just "Umayyad Spain" would be better. It's more recognisable, and better delineates the geography as country-level, unlike "Cordoba", which outside of the context of "emirate of" or "caliphate of" could be readily confused with the city name. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Support.

• As others said above, these two things are the same state/dynasty. The current split between the two has been mostly workable, but it's awkward for Wikipedia's encyclopedic structure and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE because we have no overall article for the entire period/state of the Umayyads in al-Andalus, which makes it annoying when trying to link to that full topic because you have to either link both or semi-arbitrarily pick one of two subdivisions. Neither article is very long, so it would be easy enough to consolidate them into one and hopefully encourage more integrated improvements to the whole topic.
• My recommendation for the new name would be something like Umayyads of Córdoba; mirroring a bit the current name formats but making it clearer that it's about the regime, not the city. "Umayyad al-Andalus" would be precise as well, but might feel less natural for unfamiliar readers? I would prefer to avoid a title with "Spain" as it would run into many of the same arguments as this move discussion.

R Prazeres (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your bolded name suggestion makes the most sense because the new article should begin the polity at its founding by Abd al-Rahman I after the Abbasid Revolution, and not on Iberia as governed by the Umayyad Caliphate post-711. Though the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula should still go into the background. I might also suggest Umayyad Dynasty of Córdoba as another good title with similar connotations to the one you suggested. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I thought about the same thing (i.e. confusion with the post-711 years) after I wrote that, and I agree. "Umayyads of Córdoba" is slightly better in terms of conciseness than "Umayyad dynasty of Córdoba", but otherwise I have no preference between the two. R Prazeres (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with switching to a "dynasty" title is that it is less natural when describing the state, as opposed to the dynasty specifically. It is usually the title of a dynasty article spun off from the state to which they are attached. I actually think it might be better to sit at Emirate of Cordoba as the base name, with the technical renaming of itself as a caliphate being simply covered in the text, lead and infobox. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Although boy does Ngrams disagree with me. I guess I'm not reading the right history works. Ok, maybe Umayyad Cordoba works as a catch-all that can have both the other terms redirecting in. I think the advantages of having a common term probably outweigh the minor city confusion issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there may not be a perfectly satisfying option. I think that the results in that last link ([2]) exemplify that "Umayyad Cordoba" might indeed be primarily understood as the city specifically. It's common on Wikipedia and even more so in scholarly sources to refer to medieval Islamic states/periods primarily by dynasty (e.g. Ayyubid dynasty, Almoravid dynasty, Hafsid dynasty, etc). Since we have an Umayyad dynasty article already that deals with the ruling family, I think we're good here with any reasonable title that could only refer to the relevant Andalusi period/polity. So, although it feels unimaginative, "Umayyads of Córdoba" ([3]) or "Umayyads of al-Andalus" ([4]) should be common enough to be recognizable. We can find more common word strings if we search, but the amount of publications treating the topic from many different angles/backgrounds means that a wide diversity of expressions exists, and I can't think of any right now that don't pose other problems for our purpose here. We could always revisit the merged article name later with a move discussion (WP:RM). R Prazeres (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. It means the city often. Try Umayyad state of Cordoba – slightly longer, but very precise for what the combined page would reflect, and extant in scholarship as a means of describing the full history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I also get the sense that Umayyad Cordoba would be fine on second reference when referring to the polity. What do you both think? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be a major issue. Any confusion with the city could be resolved readily with a hatnote. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Although a lot of sources for that are specifically talking about the city. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Umayyad state of Córdoba" is fine too, though it seems less common and recognizable. I'd prefer "Umayyads of Córdoba" for that reason, but don't take this as a strong objection; "Umayyad state of Córdoba" would be my second choice among our suggestions so far. (Though be sure to use lowercase for "state".) Both are clearer than "Umayyad Cordoba" I think, and either would suit our immediate purposes for merging. There's still time to wait before this discussion should close, so maybe we'll see what others think. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, it's just me, you, and Iskandar323 who all agree that a merge is necessary. How long should we wait for others to respond before doing anything? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MERGECLOSE recommends a week or more before closing the discussion (so let's say no sooner than July 16 to be safe, or longer if we need more time to discuss). If no one else comments, then yes we can simply wrap up by confirming the final details between the three of us and then proceeding. I'm also happy to help perform the merge itself when the time comes. R Prazeres (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I posted a quick technical question at Wikipedia talk:Merging (see here) about the best way to merge two articles into a new title, as we're proposing here. Maybe one of you already knows, but I figured it was worth getting some community recommendations in advance. R Prazeres (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would copy content from Emirate of Córdoba into Caliphate of Córdoba, since the latter has significantly more edit history (292 edits dating back to 2006 vs 973 edits dating back to 2004). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That was my instinct as well. Thank you for your quick and clear response! R Prazeres (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that copying into the more edited and more viewed page makes sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with that! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres & @Iskandar323, I'm good with you both taking charge on the merge whenever since you're both much more experienced with that and implementing Islamic history on Wikipedia then I am. I'll still work with you both on it though. I guess I do have a couple questions/add-on statements though about the merges to begin our disscussion of how to do it.

1) Should we create a separate discussion on this talk page to discuss how to merge? If so, feel free to answer my below questions there.

2) I imagine this article will need to be reevaluated on its content assessment scale, especially because it's Level 4. Does one of us need to notify a more experienced editor to re-review the page?

3) After an article is moved/renamed, do links to the previous two articles on other pages automatically change, are they done by bots, or do they need to be changed manually? Same question about redirects?

4) After the merge is complete, I'm also going to add an Archive for the talk page, and set up some automated archiving. I'm doing it because even though the talks are pretty small at the moment, they take up space in the content section. I'd appreciate if you'd let me do that so I can get some experience with it. I only say that in case either of you had the same idea.

--Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the proposal is to merge to this page, the vital article status shouldn't really be affected. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm more referring to the letter rating for how good the article looks. Here, it's a B, but Emirate is a Start-Class. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the rating shown on the talk page; unless it's a Good article or Featured article, the other ratings are informal indications for editors, as I understand it. Archiving is still a good idea though.

I'm happy to perform the merge if you want, either tomorrow night or on the weekend. Essentially, we more or less bluntly copy all the content from Emirate of Córdoba to this page, then blank and redirect Emirate of Córdoba here, then move this article to the desired new name, and then do some basic clean up of the content (i.e. integrate the two texts, update the lead, etc). Any links to Emirate of Córdoba will be redirected here, so it shouldn't be a problem.

I guess the last thing to do before the merge now is to finalize the choice of name for the merged article before we perform the move. R Prazeres (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with Umayyad state of Córdoba. That name is specific and unconfusing, and the name can always change if there's a better one found if the scholarly consensus gives a better option. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And, after you're done with the merge just tell us so we can look over it and I can set up the archive pages. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)