This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / Spanish / Medieval / Early Muslim 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 Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Spanish military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Portugal Top‑importance 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Spain Top‑importance 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages High‑importance 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Muslim history Mid‑importance 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Muslim history task force (assessed as High-importance). Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Whatever the way in the past the Iberian Peninsula was called, nowadays the event this entry refers aply to the peninsula itself, that is to Portugal and to Spain. Any person can think the previous naming excluded Portugal, and we could have also an entry about the muslim conquest of Portugal, which isn't needed. Several different Wikipedias use more neutral names for this event. In Portuguese its called "Invasão muçulmana da Península Ibérica". [1]. In the Galician Wikipedia its called "Invasión musulmá da Península Ibérica" [2]. In the French Wikipedia its used also the more neutral title: Conquête musulmane de l'Hispanie [3]Mistico Dois (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't bother to check the two extensive discussions of the page name before moving it, or open up a proper move discussion, you don't seem to be aware that this issue has been discussed at length quite recently. The state of Portugal did not exist at the time of the Muslim conquest, and countless historical and literary sources refer to the entire peninsula as "Spain", translating the Latin "Hispania", which included what is now Portugal, prior to Portugal becoming a separate state. This is not an uncontroversial move, and should not have been done without at least checking to see whether a similar move had been proposed in the past. Please return the article to its previous title [note, the article was moved back while I was typing this. Thank you.], and if you wish you can open a normal move discussion here. If you can achieve consensus for the proposed title, then and only then should it be moved. P Aculeius (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-move comment: in theory "Muslim conquest of Iberia" is more appropriate than "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula" as it is more common (299 vs. 227 results in Google Scholar [15] [16]). Definitively represents an improvement from the former title.

It is worth noting however that with "Iberia" this article does not comply WP:CONSISTENT with the parent article Iberian Peninsula and with historical articles like Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. Furthermore, the article may be easily confused with Umayyad invasion of Iberia, an article about the Georgian kingdom of Iberia. I won't start another move over this though. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible move, worst of all possible solutions. Iberia is in the Caucasus. The title now is unrecognizable. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly moved the article to the fuller name consistent with the RM result. The article Umayyad invasion of Iberia should also be moved, but for now I've put up hatnotes. Srnec (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with that, per WP:PRECISE, thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius. I continue arguing against your preferred wording of the note. In no moment has it been proven that "Spain" is universally employed by scholars in this topic to refer to "Iberian Peninsula". The note had "some" next to historians since 1 August 2023 until 10 January 2024, when you restored the past version knowing it was controversial and without seeking discussion.

I propose having an informal WP:3O. FOARP, you close the last (non-ongoing) RM (#Requested move 28 March 2023). I know it has been a while, but would you say that in that RM consensus was formed that would defend this edit [17]? I am arguing the inclusion of "some" next to "historians" to reflect that "Spain" being used as meaning "Iberian Peninsula" is not a universally held view. P Aculeius' edit implies that this view is universal. Is there consensus, as the RM above is still ongoing and this issue is not in debate there, for P Aculeius' interpretation? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that it's universally employed. The fact that the note and the text to which it belongs clearly says that several different formulations are used is clear. Adding qualifications to negative every statement is unnecessary and POV pushing. I restored the previous wording because I hadn't noticed that someone had added unnecessary qualifications since the note was written. Adding invisible comments to the footnote is inappropriate, as is tagbombing it as POV simply because you read it as a blanket statement of all historians everywhere, despite the clear context: the subject of the article can be called several things, but when historians refer to it as "Spain", they mean the whole peninsula. That doesn't mean all historians everywhere refer to it as "Spain". It means that's what they're using "Spain" to mean when they use it—there is no reliable source for the proposition that historians discussing eighth-century Spain intend to exclude Portugal, which did not yet exist, and did not become independent from Spain until the twelfth century. If you can find a reliable source that claims historians mean something else when discussing eighth-century Spain, please cite it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We had a similar dispute over the definition of “Axis Powers”, and which countries were members of the Axis. It was resolved by referring explicitly to the texts that used a particular formulation.

I don’t know if the sources discuss this issues, but if sourcing does discuss this issue it would be a good idea to cite it.

However, “some” is just a statement of fact and I don’t think needs to be such a massive dispute over it to be frank. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius, can you bring any source stating this is the standard academic practice? Any scholars who have stated that "Spain" is the way to refer to the Iberian Peninsula in this epoch? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glendoremus cited nine modern historical works that clearly use "Spain" to refer to the entire peninsula. While other participants in the above conversation were able to cite works that use other names, none have been cited stating that historians using "Spain" to refer to events of the eighth century mean only the portion that constitutes the modern Spanish state, and excludes Portugal. I will add two standard English-language reference works to the above list.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd edition, the one I have access to), uses "Spain" synonymously with "the peninsula" (under the heading of "Spain") to include the conquests of Augustus to the northern and western coasts. In its brief discussion of the Visigothic conquests, it makes no distinction between Spain and Portugal—which would be an anachronism, and does not have its own entry. Under "Suebi", it mentions that they "entered Spain in 409 and founded a kingdom in Gallaecia, which lasted until destroyed by the Visigoths in 585. The Spanish Suebi were converted to Catholicism by St. Martin of Braga c. 560" (emphasis supplied). Under "Iberia", we find "one of the ancient names for Spain" (emphasis supplied).

The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography lists Spain under "Hispania", but after a full page discussing the various names applied to the peninsula and portions thereof by various peoples and what the likely origins might be, uses "Spain" for the various section headings within the article: "Spain as known to the Greeks", "Spain as known to the Carthaginians and the Romans", and internally uses "Spain" and "Spanish", and quoting Arnold's History of Rome, refers to "the Spanish peninsula". Under "Gothi", the section on the Visigothic conquest mentions "Spain", without distinguishing part of it as "Portugal", concluding with, "in Spain their empire was overthrown about two centuries later by the Saracens."

It should be undisputed that the use of "Spain" by historians covering all periods prior to the establishment of Portugal means the entire peninsula; what is now Portugal remained part of Spain until the twelfth century. I do not think that there is any reliable source to support your assertion that historians using "Spain" to refer to events of the eighth century disagree as to its meaning, or that any significant number of them have used it to refer only to the area occupied by the modern Spanish state to the exclusion of Portugal; the assertion that "some" historians do so is not supported by anything in this conversation. The assertion that "historians use 'Spain' to refer to the entire peninsula during this period of time" is accurate, and qualifying it by adding "some" implies that other historians use the word "Spain" to mean something else during the same period, a claim that is not supported by anything. P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just restore the explanatory note to its previous, stable version (i.e. with "Some sources use "Spain" to refer to (...)"), per WP:STATUSQUO. That version is sufficiently neutral and it's the type of phrasing often followed elsewhere to avoid any potential WP:WEASEL wording (even if well-intentioned). Unless there are reliable sources explicitly stating that there is a standard academic usage and what it is (so far I've only seen a lot of WP:SYNTH), Wikipedia should not claim or imply that all or most historians follow a particular usage.

Or better yet, since the note itself is unsourced, I don't see how it merits being kept at all anymore. After the recent page move, the footnote no longer serves to clarify anything in the text. And since this article has a descriptive title for an event that has no conventionalized name, it's a little pointless to try to cover all the possible informal descriptions one can find in publications. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this but as a very brief note - keep as Spain. History isn't a science so don't treat it as one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying, I couldn't find the time. Yeah, this is finally the kind of argument that you should've brought all this time. I notice though that the sources are old. The second edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary was published in 1970, while Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography is originally from the 19th century. No authors used "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula/Iberia" during or before 1970 [18]. That we have gone from this to "Iberian Peninsula/Iberia" having been more common for two decades indicates to me a clear shift and that we need more recent sources. Could you bring sources from the 21st century, which is when this shift took place?

In any case the wording of the note is problematic. Historians use "Spain" to refer to the entire Iberian Peninsula prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Portugal in the twelfth century. would indicate that historians use only "Spain", not even "Iberian Peninsula" or "Iberia", to refer to the peninsula during this period, which is obviously not true. And anyway, as other editors have noted, now that the article has been moved and that the note no longer fullfills its purpose, and considering it is unsourced anyway, P Aculeius, would you agree to removing this part and only keeping the alternate names used for this event? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, your reading is illogical and unnatural. Why are you beating a dead horse? Find some other war to wage, already. P Aculeius (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very useful reply. Do you actually believe the current note, in the context of the current title/lead, serves any purpose for readers? R Prazeres (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the same thing over and over without understanding that it does not imply that all historians everywhere use this terminology exclusively. It simply explains what historians who use it mean—and not one single solitary piece of evidence, argument, or claim from any other source whatsoever states that they mean anything else by it! Insisting without a single good reason that only some historians use it to mean one thing necessarily means that other historians use it to mean something else, and that is completely unsubstantiated, without the slightest support. Continuing to argue over it without any basis in fact or policy is not collaborative editing; it is just bludgeoning. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius, you're continuing to drag this argument as much as anyone else. Rather than continuing with this semantic debate, could you answer my question above? R Prazeres (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered you, and you're not listening. I was done with this discussion on January 9, and so was pretty much everyone else until SD decided to launch a war over it ten days later, and you joined in. The note serves a perfectly valid purpose: explaining what is meant by a disputed term used to refer to the topic. It does not say what you keep claiming it says, it never did, and no reasonable reading of it supports your argument, nor has any valid reason for changing it to say what SD keeps arguing it should say ever been presented. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of winning, and it needs to stop. P Aculeius (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop pinging me every time you want to continue an argument I already said I was done with. P Aculeius (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so permanently hostile and unpleasant to talk with? The note no longer serves any purpose, the article has been moved and no longer uses a disputed term. If you're done with the argument, I assume I can remove the note without getting reverted. If I am not correct we will need more discussing and your current attitude will not help with it. It's just the way things work here in this website. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remove the unsourced note and be done with it. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just went ahead and did it ([19]), to save someone else the trouble. R Prazeres (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was thinking of doing that too. Let's leave it here and waste no more time with this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797. A modern scholarly monograph. Robet Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, uses "Spain" throughout, never "Iberia". I don't care about the note, but let's not pretend that it is hard to source this usage of "Spain". Srnec (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This short comment of yours is as strong of an effort as the one it has been made throughout three RMs to prove this claim. Some comments above I expressed some more openness to accepting this claim if more modern sources could be brought to light. Which yours is. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Hispania changed to Iberia? The land was historically known as Hispania. H20346 (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't required to use the geographical names used at the time. "Hispania" was dropped at #Requested move 15 March 2023 and "Iberia" was adopted at #Requested move 5 January 2024. You can read the brief closing comments as a summary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula → Muslim conquest of SpainMuslim conquest of Spain – This never should have been moved away from Spain. It's now a lengthy mouthful instead of concise and doesn't follow the predominant language. See Ngrams. Also, it doesn't accurately reflect the name of the geography as it was named at the time when it was conquered. It was Visigothic Spain or Hispania, but everyone knows the Roman term Hispania is what becomes 'Spain', so it gets simplified in literature as the latter. This becomes particularly clear when you look at what actually comes after 'Visigothic' in the literature, and it's not even close: Ngram #2. Finally, 'Iberian Peninsula' only appears on page where it's been inserted, only 12 times and not in the sources. 'Spain' appears nearly twice as much despite being temporarily displaced from the title, etc., and its prominent in sources. Arab conquest of Spain ... Moorish Spain ... Islamic Spain ... Muslim Spain are littered across the source titles. So if it's called Spain before the conquest, and Spain after the conquest, I think we know what it is called for the purposes of the conflict. And yes, Portugal exists, but it didn't at this point in history. See Ngrams or lack therein, for 'Visigothic Portugal'. The clear common name for the relevant territory at this point is 'Spain'. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as I never agreed with the move and do agree with the points made—in the Roman and post-Roman and even for centuries of the post-conquest period, there was no region called "Portugal" to be differentiated from "Spain"; "Spain" referred to the whole peninsula, including the former province of Lusitania. However, I foresee strong opposition to moving the article back, and I'm not optimistic about the chances of establishing a consensus. P Aculeius (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In English, Spain refers to a state that does not include the territory now called Portugal, and therefore the proposed title would be not only inexact, but also misleading. That is more relevant than any possible advantage. --Jotamar (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, in English Spain refers to a country that currently doesn't include Portugal, but which did include all the territory now called Portugal at the time it was conquered in the eighth century. Roman and medieval-era lands rarely match the borders of modern countries, even when the same names are used to refer to them.

  Technically Roman Spain was "Hispania", or "Iberia" to the Greeks; but modern historians typically use "Spain" as a synonym for Hispania and do not distinguish "Portugal" as a separate area during the period of history before there was an independent state by that name. If they need to be more specific, they use the names of the various Roman provinces—Hispania Citerior, Hispania Ulterior, Hispania Baetica, Hispania Tarraconensis, (Hispania) Lusitania (which happens to include most of modern Portugal, along with a large chunk of modern Spain), or simply refer to it by historical period: "Roman Spain", "Visigothic Spain" (both of which included all of the territory now making up the state of Portugal).

  It's important to distinguish historical uses of place names from twenty-first century national borders. There was no "Muslim conquest of Portugal ", because the concept of Portugal as a state didn't exist yet. Portugal became an independent state in 1179, more than 450 years after the Muslim conquest of Spain. P Aculeius (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as an anachronism. Spain to most readers of English is the state the territory of which includes a swath of the Iberian peninsula and colonies in North Africa, but not the territory that is now now Portugal and Gibraltar. There is no material connection or continuity connecting the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania that was conquered by Tariq et al to the common meaning of Spain in English. I would like to see Umayyad conquest of Hispania for specificity, but that’s esoteric terminology and not familiar to the common reader, and therefore as against the principles of WP:article titles as the proposed title. إيان (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a lot of people regularly forget that Spain has enclaves in Africa and thinks of Spain mainly as "the Spanish mainland". The connection between all the Spains past and present is that they all occupy roughly the same space with minor variations. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Muslim conquest of Spain", people don't think you mean 21st century Eurabia conspiracy theory. They think you're talking about history. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When referring geographically to the peninsula, what do you say? Iberia or Iberian Peninsula. On the other hand, Spain, prima facie, is the modern state that has no connection, except in later Spanish nationalist mythologies, to the Visigothic Kingdom of Roderic. The two are not the same and are not interchangeable for the purposes of this title. As R Prazeres explained below, it sometimes appears in the prose of a publication about this history, where the context is already established. However, as Vpab15 notes below, the current WP:NDESC is less surprising. إيان (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am very comfortable with the concepts of Roman Spain and Visigothic Spain. France, Italy and Germany have and also had lots of different historic shapes. And no, for the nth time, the proposed title does not only appear in prose; it often appears in the titles of both books and scholarly papers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Roman Spain nor Visigothic Spain is Spain. إيان (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure where this puritanical 21st century ownership of terms mindset is coming from, but that's not really how history naming works. Is Roman Britain not Britain anymore either? Try going over there and making that case. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not seeing the role of the modifier? As Visigothic Spain is not Spain, Roman Britain is not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. إيان (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So Roman invasion of Britain also causes you intense confusion? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment. In English as it is used today, Britain primarily refers to the island, while Spain primarily refers to the modern state. إيان (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Close to home: Arab conquest of Egypt – Roman Egypt is not geographically identical to modern Egypt. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Current WP:NDESC title is perfectly fine. Proposed title would unnecessarily WP:SURPRISE modern readers. Vpab15 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it surprise? What would readers expect on arrival that they would not get? And what wouldn't become apparent after reading one sentence? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The modern state, which is what Spain means in English. إيان (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And "Muslim conquest" would mean what in the context to this imaginary set of readers? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A conquest by people that are Muslims. إيان (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which could only be referring to ... when? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: a quick history of the article names and renaming proposals.

• March 11, 2006: created by Durova as "Islamic conquest of Iberia".
• April 15, 2006: moved by CltFn to "Islamic invasion of Iberia".
• April 16, 2006: moved by KhoiKhoi back to "Islamic conquest of Iberia".
• April 16, 2006: moved by CltFn back to "Islamic invasion of Iberia" again. Ensuing talk page argument.
• April 17, 2006: moved by Irishpunktom to "Muslim invasion of Iberia".
• April 17, 2006: moved again by Irishpunktom to "Moorish invasion of Iberia". Ensuing talk page discussion.
• August 6, 2006: moved by Tigeroo to "Umayyad conquest of Iberia". Ensuing talk page discussion.
• August 30, 2006: moved by Spangineer to "Umayyad conquest of Hispania".
• April 8, 2009: moved by Lanternix to "Umayyad invasion of Hispania".
• July 2, 2009: moved by Che829 back to "Umayyad conquest of Hispania".
• March 15, 2023: Bermicourt proposes moving to "Muslim conquest of Spain, arguing that it is the most common title, that "Arab" and "Moorish" conquest are less common, "Umayyad" conquest not found at all, that "Iberia" is not commonly used, and "Hispania" not used significantly. Lengthy talk page discussion closed as "no consensus" on March 23, but reopened by the same editor on March 24 after an editor (me, in the interests of transparency) suggested that a substantial majority of commenters had agreed with the proposal. Lengthy talk page discussion resumed.
• March 28, 2023: moved by RedSlash to "Muslim conquest of Spain", per apparent consensus of talk page discussion.
• March 28, 2023: SuperDromaeosaurus proposes moving to "Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula". Even lengthier talk page discussion ensues, closed as "no consensus" on April 24.
• January 4, 2024: moved by Mistico Dois to "Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula".
• January 4, 2024: moved by Mistico Dois back to "Muslim conquest of Spain" due to lack of consensus to move following consensus in previous discussion less than a year earlier. Ensuing even more lengthier talk page discussion.
• January 21, 2024: moved by BilledMammal to "Muslim conquest of Iberia" without consensus for a new title.
• January 24, 2024: H20346 says that "Iberia" should be changed to "Hispania".
• January 28, 2024: Walrasiad says that "Iberia" is unrecognizable because it's in the Caucasus, where there was also an Umayyad invasion.
• January 31, 2024: moved by Srnec to "Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula" per comments calling into question whether "Iberia" is recognizable.
• January 14, 2026: Iskandar323 proposes moving back to "Muslim conquest of Spain", the title established by consensus from 2023 to 2024, with no consensus established for any other title before or since.

So, the proposed title is the only one for which there was ever a consensus reached after a talk page discussion; all of the moves in January 2024 were performed without establishing a consensus for any other title. P Aculeius (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, in order to avoid confusion between Spain the country and Iberia the peninsula, which falls within the rule of WP:PRECISION. Wareno (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I appreciate the impulse but this has been discussed before and I don't see new arguments that weren't considered previously. For what it's worth:

• As others mentioned, this is a WP:NDESC title, which means there isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME (i.e., there is no conventional name for this event in reliable sources, only various phrasings in a variety of contexts). WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOV therefore take on a bigger role.
• It's obvious that to the majority of readers the name "Spain" refers to the modern country, period. Meanwhile, "Iberian Peninsula" is clear and a well-known geographic term — and literally just one word longer. Therefore, there is no notable gain and a clear possible loss in the proposed title.
• It doesn't matter much that "Spain" is used as a historical shorthand by some authors. Authors can get away with more flexible wording in the specific context of their own books and the audience they have in mind, but that flexibility does not transfer to Wikipedia titles, where the context is a universal encyclopedia with a universal audience and no pre-determined article scope. The titles and lead sections here must be especially clear and without POV issues. (Even the main body of the article can be more flexible, so long as the topic is clear at the top.)
  • For comparison, the article Al-Andalus isn't (and shouldn't be) titled "Muslim Spain" even though that wording is common in the full sum of English publications (e.g. [20], [21]).
• It"s certainly irrelevant that "Hispania" is the etymology of modern "Spain"; we base ourselves on modern English words and meanings, not on their etymology. As another editor mentioned above, using "Hispania" could indeed be precise enough if preferred, but would be less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to most readers.
• Lastly, as a general note I repeat in many WP:RMs: editors should be careful about relying on Ngrams for WP:COMMONAME, as they can easily be misleading. Among other reasons: Ngrams don't distinguish inline contexts and don't distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources (and WP:COMMONNAME, like the rest of Wikipedia, explicitly refers to the former).

R Prazeres (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:NPOV should be the concern, and that's why it should be Spain! The majority of the sources use this terminology. Not using the terminology used by the sources based on whimsical fireside in-Wiki musings on the language is exactly the problem. If we just stick to the sources, it's simple. Incidentally, Al-Andalus does come out on top in recent literature if you just use case insensitivity on Ngrams. Also, why is it an WP:NDESC title? As I demonstrated in my opening statement, the full title phrase appears abundantly and dominantly in Ngrams. I hear you on Ngrams reliability, but my assessment is that the same pattern is also borne out by source analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think my points above answer most of this, so I'll avoid introducing more repetition. In short, there is nothing whimsical about the current title and it works fine; to me, this is trying to fix something that isn't broken. With regard to being a "descriptive title" (WP:NDESC, but actually brought up several times across Wikipedia:Article titles), this should be self-evident enough: unlike events such as World War II, the Hundred Years' War, the Punic Wars, etc. which have agreed-upon proper names, there is no conventionalized name for this event. That should be clear from reading the many references on this topic: none of them provide such a name (or if one does, it's not repeated with any frequency elsewhere). So the title is nothing more than a short description acting as a heading for the topic. Hence, the description needs to be clear and not an appeal to mere frequency of a word without precision. R Prazeres (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like there's some false equivalence going on here. One title has regular titular use in scholarship, e.g. Roth. The Jews and the Muslim conquest of Spain; Simon. Jews, Visigoths, and the Muslim Conquest of Spain; Kurt. Minting, State, and Economy in the Visigothic Kingdom: From Settlement in Aquitaine through the First Decade of the Muslim Conquest of Spain; Walker. Egypt's Arabism: Mustafa Kamil's 1893 play (Fath al-Andalus) on the Muslim conquest of Spain. The other does not. As for fixing things that aren't broken. This page was moved to "Spain" in the past based on a clear consensus at RM in 2023. It's only through a variety of funny business since that it's landed elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if we want to inject further criteria, there's also concise. The Spain title is two words and 15 characters shorter. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the outset, it was hopeless to imagine that this proposal would get anywhere. The only time there's ever been consensus for a particular name, it was for the one proposed, and that just got ignored when certain people didn't like it. If they can just disregard both policy and consensus, there's no way to win. P Aculeius (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. True NPOV: neutrality with respect to the sources is worth hammering home. I've also posted the discussion at NPOVN for input from others. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the argument then that the current name somehow goes against NPOV? How would that be? إيان (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it’s good to include the link to the NPOVN post. إيان (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The titular instances appear to be from the 20th century. إيان (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the primary topic for Muslim conquest of Iberia if that satisfies people? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with that but the issue raised above is that Iberia is also a place in the Caucuses that has also been conquered by Muslims. I think you’re right, though, that this article would take precedence as primary topic. إيان (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly preferable to the current form, and it does have titular scholarly usage. The primary topic case does also appear to be supported by Wikinav. When people want to mean Georgia, they tend to say Georgia. (Ditto with Spain, but not the point of this comment.) Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Arab world, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The proposer is completely correct regarding usage of 'Spain'. I think it follows that the proposed title is NPOV, but not necessarily that the current title is POV. 'Visigothic Kingdom' would also be NPOV. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per R Prazeres. It would also have the odd effect of placing Portugese cities that were conquered by Muslim forces, such as Coimbra, outside the scope of this article's title. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't do that. Sigh. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposed title would make a reader not familiar with this topic assume that this happened only in the territory of modern day Spain. An article's title, of all things, should be chosen assuming a point of view of a person who has never heard about the topic before in order to include both the more knowledgeable reader (by including sections other than the lead), and at the same time the "beginner" reader by making the lead and the title as clear as possible for everyone (otherwise, if we are writing and editing articles as if the target audience are people like the users of this discussion it defeats the purpose of what an article is supposed to be about which is to teach. You should put yourself in the shoes of an average Joe/Jane who's reading this article for the first time). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The scope is defined in the lead, which readers have to read in order to understand the precise scope of the topic. The title isn't meant to be a precise scope; it's meant to reflect the predominant language in sources, per NPOV. "Iberian Peninsula" is meanwhile currently being treated as if it is some sort of precision magical bullet, when the reality is it's no more less imperfect an indicator than "Spain", because: NEWS FLASH: the Arab conquests also didn't encompass the entirety of the Iberian Peninsula either. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The title must not only follow the NPOV guideline but also complement the lead section and the article itself per WP:POVNAMING, also there's a situation in which the user searchs "Muslim conquest of" and then it would show "Muslim conquest of Spain" under the search bar, which in the prespective of a reader like that it wouldn't mean Portugal and Spain, only Spain. A scenario where, for some reason, that reader doesn't even click on that, then it would mean that they will be misinformed, a situation that doesn't exist at the moment, so that title is creating a problem where there isn't. You also said that the Arab conquests also didn't encompass the entirety of the Iberian Peninsula either, that is true, but that isn't a valid reason, otherwise we would have to change several articles to have different titles to follow what you said (European theatre of World War II comes to mind). Also, and more importantly, you claim that due to NPOV the change to that title is therefore warranted, per WP:POVNAME if a given title is in use today predominantly then that title should be chosen, based on that and the fact that you claim that the majority of sources in English use the word "Spain" instead of "Iberia" or "Iberian Peninsula", on what basis can then be said that it's the convention in today's literature to use that terminology? How can I check that there's at least more studies being published that use your proposed title instead of the current one? A quick search on Google Scholar shows examples of both types and it seems that the use of the word "Spain" is actually the one that's becoming less used over time as it's being replaced with "Iberia" or "Iberian Peninsula" when refering to the Muslim conquest of the territories of modern day Portugal and Spain together (compared with the research published in the last century, the difference becomes evident). Nowadays, when the word "Spain" is used it's to refer only to the territory of modern day Spain (meaning studies that focused only on the Muslim conquest of the territory of modern day Spain), even though there's also instances where the word "Spain" is still used to refer to both Spain and Portugal. But even if there were more recent studies being published that do that, there's just too many instances in today's literature that use terms such as "Iberia" or "Iberian Peninsula" to be ignored, so no this is not a "magical bullet" as you said, there's plenty of scholars that now use those words in their research. Hence your argument about NPOV, in my opinion is not valid. Therefore, I still don't see that a change on the article's title is warranted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not use "Hispania"? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It was at Hispania in early 2023, but it got moved away from it. We could also even use "Visigothic Spain" for precision – it would at least assist those that struggle with the idea of scholars using modern country names for historical territories non-identical to modern state borders. But at the same time, the impracticality can only be taken so far... Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - mainly on WP:RECOGNIZABLE / WP:COMMONNAME in reliable titles. In modern English, "Spain" is often understood as the modern state. However, in academic publishing on this specific topic, "Spain" is also used as historical shorthand for late antique / early medieval Hispania (i.e., the peninsula), and it appears directly in scholarly book titles and subtitles about the 711-720s conquest. For example:

• Roger Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710-797 (B. Blackwell). https://archive.org/details/arabconquestofsp0000coll
• Andrew Kurt, ... through the First Decade of the Muslim Conquest of Spain (Routledge, 2020). https://www.routledge.com/Minting-State-and-Economy-in-the-Visigothic-Kingdom-From-Settlement-in-Aquitaine-through-the-First-Decade-of-the-Muslim-Conquest-of-Spain/Kurt/p/book/9781041182924
• Shahnaz Husain and Isla Rosser-Owen, The Muslim Conquest of Spain and the Legacy of Al-Andalus (Ta-Ha, 2004). https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Muslim_Conquest_of_Spain_and_the_Leg.html?id=e-7lAAAACAAJ

Given that Wikipedia routinely uses modern place-names for historical territories when that is the dominant modern English labeling, I do not think "Spain" here is inherently misleading, especially since the lead can make the scope explicit in the first sentence. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]