Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:48, 8 April 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Balcanic Muslims in Sicily

Recently, many Muslims from war-stricken Bosnia and Kosovo have tried to illegally enter the Mediterranean country. This line, in the section "Muslims today", is poor and not relevant in my opinion. Balcan Muslims entered Italy mostly from Apulia and than directed northwards, not affecting Sicily that much. It is also to state which degree of Muslim religiosity can be appointed about Albanian and Kosovo Muslims.--Dans-eng 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Over stating

There was never a muslim conquest of simply "Southern Italy". Sicily? yes. Small parts of mainland Italy? yes... but Naples, which is considered the unofficial capital of Southern Italy has never had a muslin conquest (read; Duchy of Naples).. so to say "southern italy" in general is an over statement and untrue. - Soprani 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with that. "Southern Italy" is used here as a generic reference to a couple of lands which couldn't be defined more properly... would you prefer an article such as "History of Islam in Sicily, Calabria, southern Lazio, neighbourhood of Bari"? --Attilios (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I oppose the merger recently suggested. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on sourcing

The page, like most, could use improved referencing and it does have "citation needed" tags here and there, but unless there is very specific beef, it hardly needs a citations tag at top. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Hi, a new article, Arab-Norman civilization was created today by PHG (talk · contribs). What do the editors here think of this topic? Is it worth its own article, should it be renamed, or should it be merged elsewhere, such as here or to the Norman conquest of southern Italy article? Or somewhere else? Comments requested at Talk:Arab-Norman civilization, thanks. --Elonka 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Here is the diff that shows the dispute over the current wording of the intro. I will go over each point one at a time.

1. "Apulia and Calabria"

The problem is not so much "smallparts of" or "tips of", but "Apulia and Calabria", since there was a constant problem of semi-permanent camps and strongholds north of Calabria and west of Apulia, as in the famous one at Garigliano and lesser known ones like the one at Agropoli that supplied mercenaries to Docibilis I of Gaeta.

2. "a brief interlude"

This wording is just not needed, it sounds minimising and it is not our job to minimse the import of these events, just to report them. This is why I replaced it with the statement "Though the Muslim presence was ephemeral on the peninsula and limited mostly to semi-permanent camps or strongholds, their rule in Sicily lasted almost two centuries (902–1091)." This captures the facts about the mainland (ephemeral) and notes that Sicily was ruled compeltely from 902 (Taormina conquered) until the last vestige of Muslim rule disappeared (Noto). It lets the reader decide how important or not 200 years is. We could date the Muslim period from the first conquest to the first loss of territory, or from the final conquest to the final loss of territory (as I did), or from some other option, but I think I chose the fairest one: doesn't give either side credit until they finished the job. By the way, 965 is just the start of Kalbid rule.

3. "An area where the religion is particularly thin"

Not believable unless it can be cited that Islam is particularly thin in southern Italy as opposed to central or northern Italy or the islands. I captured the spirit with "The conquests of the Normans established Roman Catholicism firmly in the region, where Eastern Christianity had been prominent during the era of Islamic influence." Notice that the areas of Muslim dominance were largely Greek Christian and so the Normans brought Catholicism to prominence there.

4. Final sentence cited to Archaeology.Stanford.edu

Redundant considering my version. Also, "historics" is not English, Sicily isn't part of the Italian peninsula, and the dates 965-1072 seem arbitrary, since Muslims ruled all of Sicily from 902 until 1061, began their conquest in 827, and lost their last stronghold in 1091.

5. "Muslim control in terms of historics"

Meaningless in English. "Historics" is not good English and I don't know what it means for Muslim control to be short "in terms of" it.

For the above-cited reasons, I think my version is preferable. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Srnec, you seem to be confusing pirates with legitamate forms of Muslim states. Brief pirate camps, where the lifeforms were not even established on a permanent basis, but an outcast force failing to take an area controlled by the Byzantines or Lombards, is not the same thing as something like an emirate, for example the Emirate of Sicily or the Emirate of Bari where the Muslims HAD conquored the area and installed briefly a government.

If ten people from Africa who are Muslims, get on a boat... come ashore on the coast of France and set up a camp for a couple of months before the government who controls the area finds them and kicks them out. That does not mean the south of France has had a period of "Saracen Muslim conquest" because of it. Yes I have accused you of "Islamophilia" before, because you're desperately trying to overreach the reality of history on the subject and that is the issue here.

2. "a brief interlude" is perfectly suitable and perfect wording. Compare the length of time the Romans, or the Bzyantines, or the Spanish controlled. Its a brief interlude in the history of Sicily as much as the Goths were and as much as the County of Sicily was before it became a full kingdom. Again, the only way you could have a problem with the sentence, if you were an Islamophile desperate to strike up a strong relationship between Muslims and Europe.

3. You must be joking. I don't suppose you've heard of "Christianity"? This is and has been historically one of the most strongly Christian places on earth. Perhaps you're confusing North with South. In the North of Italy there are a lot of athiests, but the South is and has been historically VERY strongly Christian and that forms an essential part of the culture. Have a look at the religious figures for the area to this day, its fair to say that Islam is historically and presently very thin, as are other religions. Even when compared with other Western European places.

4. Not redundant, because it shows the date in which the Muslims fully controlled the area. Again, Islamophilia and desire to "expand" the time frame on your part seems to be an issue here. The Muslims had not completed their conquest of Sicily in 902, that didn't happen until 965 when they were able to instate the emirate. Read the source.

5. Fine, if historics is not a good word to have, then I will change it to "in a historical context". Gennarous (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, thank you for participating.  :) For better results though, could I ask everyone to please concentrate strictly on discussing the article, and not the editors? I think the discussion will turn out to be much more productive that way.  :) --Elonka 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I deny having concentrated on anything but the article.

1. No, I dispute the use of "Apulia and Calabria", since there were (semi-)permanent settlements in the Campania and a lot of fighting took place there. Some of the "raids" were piratical, others were more organised, some were accomplished by ground forces not navies. Parts of southern France were indeed conquered, briefly, by the Muslims and Fraxinet in Provence was held for decades. You need to remember that the Muslims were not like the Vikings: they did not just overwinter, they intended to stay. Sometimes they stayed for a period to short to make a difference, other times they stayed for years or decades. It's not just Bari, it's the Garigliano, Agropoli, Cetara, Taranto, Otranto, Reggio Calabria, etc.
2. "Brief interlude" might be acceptable for the emirate of Bari or for a specific conquest, but it is not suitable for Sicily or for the whole of southern Italy, where Islamic occupations lasted (quite possibly) into the early 11th century, when the various chronicles of Bari record the activities of a certain "Ismael" in southern Apulia. I can stand the words "brief interlude", but not the way they are currently being used.
3. I was not joking: you have yet to show that it is particularly thin in southern Italy. I know it's very thin. I have visited southern Italy and never once met a Muslim. But is it thinner than in most of the world? And it really isn't relevant that it is thin there today, since the article is not about today. Also, as I pointed out, southern Italy was not predominantly "Roman Catholic" in the modern sense of the term, since it followed the several Greek rites in many places. It was aligned with Rome, but it was also Eastern (except in the Lombard areas). My version of the lead is more accurate and more balanced in this regard.
4. The Muslims fully controlled Sicily from 902 when they conquered Taormina. They lost all of it by 1091, when the Normans took Noto. 965 is an arbitrary date when the Kalbid emirate begins, but not the date of the conquest. 1072 is equally arbitrary, being the date of the surrender of Palermo. As I said, the first Muslim conquest took place in 827 and the last piece of Muslim territory was lost in 1091, the Muslims held the entire island from 902 until 1061.

Now, as you can see, I think we ought to revert to my version of the lead section, but I will not do so without support from other editors. I have notified the interested/involved User:Ian Spackman in this and am asking Elonka if she would like to weigh in after looking over the diffs and the arguments. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm still finding the entire subject a bit complex. I would recommend that instead of going through multi-point arguments, to start with one single element, and to link to a couple sources which support one wording over another. --Elonka 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, can I ask why you involved yourself in this dispute?

First, I have listed several places that were not in Apulia or Calabria that were held by the Muslims. Their fortresses along the Garigliano stood, so far as I know, from 890 until 915. The Garigliano does not flow through Apulia and Calabria. For the sceptic there is this source available online and of the highest scholarship. Gennarous is arguing from hyperbole about "ten men in a boat" but he has not history to back it up.

My version of the intro is just more balanced. Gennarous seeks to minimise the importance of these events with words like "brief interlude", but what does brief mean? Muslim raids began in 652 and they continued to hold parts of Sicily until 1091. What's brief? Their control of Bari. Yes. Of Taranto? I suppose. Of Sicily? Not really. Of "small parts" of southern Italy? Not much less long than they held "parts" of Sicily. As for the dates, the link I gave above should give them just as I have stated them. None of this obscure.

As to the Roman Catholicism thing: the issue is that the regions the Muslis conquered were Eastern Christian regions, not Western. Sure Roman Catholicism was dominant in most of the south, but not in Sicily, Apulia, or Calabria, where Greek rites were typical, see Setton, "The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance" in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 100:1 (Feb. 24, 1956), pp. 1–76. I hope this helps, but you should also see what Gennarous has done at County of Sicily, Battle of Ostia, Emirate of Bari, History of Sicily, and Duchy of Gaeta: suppression of information (he won't allow Muslim pirates to be called Muslim), biased language ("annihilated" as a synonym for defeated), even removal of citations and sources (full-scale reversion at Emirate of Bari), and just plain ignorance (he won't read Barbary pirates). I have my suspicions about Gennarous motivations, but I will keep them to myself. If they are as obvious as I think they are, then you will see them yourself. And if you have any more specific questions about my claims or wish for some useful direction to sources, just ask. The Emirate of Bari article gives some useful primary sources (in Latin) and Kreutz' book can be viewed in snippets at GoogleBooks. Srnec (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This page landed on my watchlist for some reason (probably because of my source and title concerns at Arabo-Norman civilization). I saw an edit war in process, I stepped in. I am mildly familiar with the topic area but not substantially so. If I can help with a Third Opinion, and I am acceptable to both of you for that, I'll do some reading and try to come up to speed. Other than that, my main purpose here is just as an outside opinion on user conduct, not on article content. And I have no wish of saying, "One of you is worse than the other," I'm just giving general advice on how to help things move forward. --Elonka 04:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am more than mildly familiar (but far from expertly familiar) with this topic area, I have reasonable confidence that your third opinion will very closely resemble my initial opinion. :) I invite your third opinion. Besides Kreutz, Setton, and A History of the Crusades, Norwich provides an enjoyable narrative of the Norman conquest from its very beginnings, but beware his conjectures. I think the Cambrdige Medieval History may devote a whole chapter to the Arabs in southern Italy, form their initial raiding through their conquests. Patricia Skinner, The Duchy of Gaeta and its Neighbours, is good for the history of Gaeta, Amalfi, and Naples and their relationship with the Saracens. Norman Daniel has a broad account of The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe. There are older works on Sicily that cover this time period (Crawford), but I don't know about their reliability. Of course, there is also Musca's book, which I don't have access to. I can't think of any other works I know of/have looked at that bear directly on the history of Islam in southern Italy.

As an aside, if you are chiefly here to provide an outside opinion on user conduct, why would you refrain from "one of you is worse than the other"? Not, mind you, that I am asking for such an opinion, but what else can an opinion on user conduct amount to unless you believe we have acted identically? I would strongly object to that. I am a little irritated at being accused of using "crap" disparagingly of another editor when I did not. Outside input ought to be, I think, more careful than that. I have reverted or modified all edits that appear to me to be, in practical if not intentional terms, vandalism. An edit war that may be, but a just edit war. Srnec (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

'cause I'm trying to stay neutral. If I'm acceptable to Gennarous too though, then I'll try to weigh in with more opinionated stuff.  :) --Elonka 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one obvious, important, and still very accurate source: Jules Gay's L'Italie méridionale et l'empire Byzantin. Srnec (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1. see first reply. Non permanent pirate camps in countries actually controlled by powers such as Byzantines before they found out about them and kicked them out of their country, is not a "conquest" by any stretch of the imagination (and lets face it, you're really trying to stretch as far as possible). You basically did nothing to disprove the first reply and you're basically, ignorantly trying to compare a non permanent pirate camp to a legitamte government and actually Muslim controlled place.. like the 20 year Emirate of Bari.

2. Brief interlude is perfectly suitable for both Sicily and especially the entire southern Italian mainland. Again, I don't know what you have against southern Italy, but you're stretching very, very far. I suggest you read the history books about the southern Italian peninsula, especially controlling powers such as "Byzantines, Normans, Spanish, Aragonese". No "Muslim" apart from one or two isolated towns such as a 20 year spell in Bari. Look how long the Greeks controlles Sicily, look how long the Romans controlled Sicily, look how long the Byzantines controlled Sicily, look how long the Spanish controlled Sicily... the E of Sicily, is without question historically brief.

3. This article is about "the history of Islam in southern Italy", history doesn't end in 1200. See the previous reply to #3, the only thing you basically added in this reply is that you saw "no Muslims in southern Italy" when you visited. Which is hardly a surprise. Yet you continue to Islamise it in the article, despite the fact that it is historically Christian (previously Orthodox Christian) and around 1000 years is Roman Catholic.

4. Wrong. Read the dates in the source, from an actual scholar. They did not control all of Sicily until 965. The source from an actual scholar proves you wrong. Misplaced Pages works on what is vertified. The source vertifies information, "Srnec wants to Islamise southern Italy with misinformation" does not. With these replies, you actually addressed very little pertaining to the information in my original replies, certainly you could not dimiss them. - Gennarous (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Folks, the edit-warring and related edit summaries on this article are embarrassing. Referring to each other with words like "vandalism" and "crap" and "trolling"?? I thought better of both of you. Can you please stop with the reverting, and just talk about what it is exactly that you want to do with this article? --Elonka 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The "crap" I removed was not added by Gennarous. It was a longstanding misconception based on 1000-year-old propaganda. I don't think I have been uncivil at all, though I did counter "Islamophilic" with "Islamophobic". But I have presented adequate reasons to justify everything and he has not responded. Srnec (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

I have absolutely no expertise and very, very little knowledge of the topics under discussion: this is an area of the encyclopedia where I am a reader rather than a writer. So the matter becomes very simple: Gennarous’s edits are designed to prevent me from learning anything about the presence of Muslims in the Southern Italy of the Middle Ages, while Srnec’s are designed to tell me something and to back that up with reasonable sources and decent English. When I look at the debate here, and the edit summaries in this article and those related to it, I see that Srnec shows no obvious signs of ignorance in the handling of sources, while Gennarous shows no obvious signs of intelligence in using them. I have read around the issue a little and see that the subject is of some importance—the Sicilian emirate, for instance, lasted a lot longer than Italian Fascism or Russian Stalinism. On the Five Points above it seems to me that any dispassionate observer—Elonka, for instance—could only pronounce a 5-0 victory for Srnec and an ‘annihilation’ for Gennarous. I move that the Srnec version of the lead be restored and that, in due course, the article be improved in various ways—Ian Spackman (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Haddad (1999), pg. 608

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• High-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Start-Class Italy articles
• Mid-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Ages articles
• Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
• Start-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• Start-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Start-Class Greek articles
• Low-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages