Talk:Taifa of Córdoba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no consensus -- Aervanath (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Taifa of Cordova → Republic of Córdoba — Cordova is bad spelling; republic, I think, is more usual. — Srnec (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cordova is the English name of the city. Any evidence for use of "Republic of..."? It doesn't appear in the (barely referenced) article. — AjaxSmack 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • GoogleBooks. See also "Córdoban Republic". Cordova is rarely used in modern historiography. Srnec (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or to Taifa of Córdoba? The description sounds much different from a modern republic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taifa of Córdoba is an improvement. Look at the Spanish interwiki. Srnec (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no question that Córdoba is the Spanish name of the city; but it is not an improvement in the English Wikipedia, especially conjoined with an Arabic loanword. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given we have articles about Córdoba(in Spain and others), (but not Cordova, well... we do but it is not that Córdoba); and we have an article about taifas (possibly similar but *not* a republic), then Taifa of Córdoba seems the best title, and redirects from "Republic ..." and "... Cordova" would be useful - Nabla (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From GoogleBooks:
    • Srnec (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not doubt for a momment that we may find reputable references to any of the 4 possible combinations of Taifa/Republic of Córdoba/Cordova. And actually I'd be fine with any of those, I'm simply pointing that Taifa of Córdoba makes more sense to me, as "taifa" is both not "republic" and also used and I believe that if there is no clear use for an English name for a location then original one is best - Nabla (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Use of "Republic of" seems to be mostly WP:OR. The source cited as referring to a "Cordoban republic" (notce the lowercase "r") refers to "a new political system similar to a republic."[1] [my emphasis]. Use of "taifa" would make these qualifications more apparent. — AjaxSmack 03:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Although I showed that "republic" was a perfectly acceptable term by WP standards, nobody made any attempt to show taht "taifa" was. Sources? Córdoba, during the period, was a republic because sovereignty was exercised by the res publica and not by a single individual, like, say a party king, as in all the other taifas. Taifa is no more accurate than republic. Srnec (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Bosworth: The New Islamic Dynasties (1996), pp. 14-18. It lists Cordova, so spelt, as a taifa state, like any other, and the Jahwarids as a dynasty like the rest (a note that Jahwar himself was "formally a member of a triumvirate" adds little; so was Augustus). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration[edit]

this move seemed uncalled for; indeed, one minor improvement to WP would be to restore Cordova to its English name. I have therefore restored the name that existed during the move discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIBRO, the Library of Iberian Resources Online, which contains full texts of English-only scholarship from all over the twentieth century gives 71 results for Cordova and 216 for Córdoba. Secondly, the move discussion was fostered by an undiscussed move from the true original title: Córdoban Republic, which is the term that I referenced on GoogleBooks. The fact is that Cordova is undoubtedly an English (and only, to my knowledge, an English) name for this city, but it is not (at least no longer) the primary name used in English publications of the reliable sort. And hasn't been for some time. This case is similar to those of Zaragoza, Livorno, and Taranto. I would be perfectly happy to acquiesce in anglicisations (in fact I enforced one in a related case), but not when I find the anglicisation less familiar becaue it is in fact less used. Compare also Google searches for Cordova (10.5 million hits) and Cordoba (69.8 million); look also at the top results for each. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That has several of the usual flaws of search engine results. The first page of results for Cordoba represents a single work, which is devoted to the city; the other pages reveal that the hits for Cordoba are often citations of papers in Spanish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being...? The search has flaws. My scanning of the results seems to indicate that most of 216 hits (and that's still more than 71, assuming there are no problematic results there) show "Córdoba" in English prose. What do you adduce to show that we should prefer Cordova? Merely because it is an anglicisation? Should we move A Coruña to The Groyne? Or modus ponens to affirming the antecedent? "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." See Columbia or Britannica. Also, "an English exonym" may not be "the most common name in English language usage." Further, we are to establish common usage by reference to reliable sources, which I have tried to do. Srnec (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should probably move A Coruña to Corunna, which I hope is at least a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore everything else I say to concentrate on that? And isn't The Groyne a better anglicisation than Corunna? If you would prefer Corunna, why? Is it because of usage? But if usage is important, don't my searches support my claims about Córdoba predominating over Cordova in English for a while now? Srnec (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Córdoba is preferable to Cordova. I can cite specifics if I have to, but I've seen "Córdoba" used in guidebooks, travel lit, and recent history books. I have only seen Cordova in very old sources (19th century). Cordova may have been the original spelling, but I think Córdoba is now accepted. See the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/C0640100.html. --Bkwillwm (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Hello!

I was reading about this article when I noticed these lines:

  1. "Abū 'l Walīd continued his father's benevolent rule for twenty-one years " and
  2. "The cooperation between Córdoba and Seville aroused the jealousy of the Emir of Toledo Yaḥyā bin Dhī 'l-Nūn".

They seem to me like a non-neutral comments. I searched on how to issue a NPOV tag but the article said to discuss it in the talk page before doing that, which seemed more appropriate. Not sure if there's some other protocol to follow? Anyways, what do you think?


--Laom20 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taifa_of_Córdoba&oldid=1212534593"