This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSpain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMorocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPortugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
Find correct nameThe 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.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they arenot 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 arenot 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).
One of the sources dates of Franco's reign and is in spanish, if the source is from spain (wich it probably is) it would likely be biased.—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.238.24.213 (talk)19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it's biased because I haven't seen it. The anti-Francoist source which quotes it is definitely biased, by the author's own admission. I wouldn't think that an anti-Francoist would cite a nationalist except to rebut him, so I would assume that Goytiloso considers him a neutral source. But I don't know that, because I haven't actually been able to read them yet. In the meantime, I have created nested quotes to show where Goytiloso cites Valdeavellano (according to the editor who placed the citations there previously). --Jpbrenna (talk)05:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of arequested 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.
Support: Per nom. (The reason you couldn't do the move yourself is that there's already a page atJulian, Count of Ceuta. Ordinary users are not allowed to stomp on existing pages when doing moves, which is a rule that seems to basically make sense to me – although it would be nice if there was an exception for when the destination page is just a redirect to the page being moved, and has no substantial edit history.) —BarrelProof (talk)00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understandwhy it doesn't work, but what I was complaining because, just as you said, "it would be nice if there was an exception for when the destination page is just a redirect to the page being moved."TuckerResearch (talk)01:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewisesupport. BTW, if the move request is fairly uncontroversial, you can simply paste "{{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}}" on the redirect you wish to move to, and it will be taken care of.Constantine ✍07:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested 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.
Whoever wants to establish that Julian was a figure of legend as "fact" rather than a theory should first make his case here. 150 years is not a long period for the first documentation of his existence.Asilah1981 (talk)13:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It seems that the argument that he never existed is based on the fact that there is no mention of Julian in the Mozarabic Chronicle, but we do have him in an Arabic chronicle. I have requested all of the sources mentioned from a university system. When I have had time to review them, I will add further citations in the article.--Jpbrenna (talk)05:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link onJulian, Count of Ceuta. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
This can hardly be treated as a statement of fact. There is little that all the chronicles agree on save that he was a Christian from North Africa who assisted the Arabs in their invasion of Spain. Of course, all these chronicles were written at a remove of 150 years or more with no known lost antecedents.Srnec (talk)14:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pelayo's basic existence is not questioned, but parts of the narrative about him are. Most scholars today seem to think that Julian is totally fictitious, with important exceptions. I happen to think that the Julian legend preserves a real person, and that the بـ for يـ error in copying the earliest Arabic source is a plausible one — I've made it myself. But it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the sources tell us about the current state of scholarship, and they're telling us that Collins's view is the prevailing one. Even Collins doesn't dismiss the possibility of his existence entirely, but he thinks that the onus of proving it is on the proponents, and that their arguments are weak. --Jpbrenna (talk)15:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Julian, there is little that the late sources agree on. As I said, "North African Christian who helped the invaders". It is pretty clear that his role was embellished in legend, whether you take him for real or not. Pelagius is a different case, since the circumstantial evidence supports the basic outline of the later sources. For instance, an inscription by Fafila (his son, according to the chronicles) was preserved until the 20th century.Srnec (talk)00:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and Collins seems to say that even most scholars who accept Julian's historicity "tended to pass by the rape story" (36). But Grieve argues "“If Arab historians were to invent something out of whole cloth, they might have done a better job of it than the scant mention the violation receives." (236) She has a point: the later sources, Arab and Christian, are much more detailed than the earliest Arab source, which doesn't even give a name for the daughter. Kaegi thinks that the daughter could have been sent as a hostage after an agreement was struck between Roderic and Julian, a plausible scenario. So perhaps we should summarise the late Florinda story, and then note how later embellished versions differ from the earliest extant source, and then state what different scholars have said about it? BTW, in re-reading Collins, I have found that I misquoted: he was talking about a "drunken scribe" possibly mistaking an Urbanus for Julianus in the Mozarabic Chronicle (as other scholars, unnamed by Collins, have suggested); he was not talking about the بـ for يـ confusion in the earliest Arabic manuscript that Jones suggests. I must have misinterpreted my notes when I cited that before. I will correct this presently.--Jpbrenna (talk)12:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When younger, I knew people who talked to people who were active adults 150 years ago. It's not that long. The problem is the extreme brevity of surviving accounts. For example, take the question of Julianus vs Urbanus ... both names may refer to the same person. He could have had 2 names (Roman citizens famously always had 3). Or Arab/Berber people may have known him by some name derived from a title or some other attribute, and the Goths by another ... a situation not unknown in those times e.g.Cyrus of Alexandria was known to the Arab armies asMuqawqas, a name some say is derived from Caucasus, his place of origin. Another point of contention among scholars is Julian's position ... whether he was a Byzantine count, or a chief of the Ghumara tribe of Berbers (I think Ibn Khaldun suggested that), or simply a wealthy and influential merchant with trading posts on both sides of the straits of Gibraltar (can't remember who said that, some Arab historian). Once again, none of these are mutually exclusive ... he could have been all three. BTW, I don't like your reliance on Jones' translation ofIbn 'Abd al-Hakam, however. That is more than 150 years old; admittedly there may not be a more recent English translation, but just because this is English wikipedia does not prevent you from going to other languages. You need to find one based on the critical edition byCharles Torrey. The title alone of Jones' translation should tell you ...Dhikr is the equivalent ofchapter and is only one part ofIbn 'Abd al-Hakam's work. Even if you don't read Arabic, try to get hold of a copy of Torrey's edition, it is readily available from the many on-demand republishers that advertise their wares these days. His preface (in English) is very informative and directly addresses the question of the reliability ofIbn 'Abd al-Hakam's sources.MisterCDE (talk)00:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
