Talk:Norman–Arab–Byzantine culture

Original research

This article appears to be one in a long series of articles being created by PHG (talk · contribs) as POV forks. An ArbCom case is pending, where the (not yet final) decision would ban PHG from creating or editing any further articles about history. I have not yet had time to review the details of this article, but judging by PHG's other work, there is a high likelihood of original research and/or misinterpreted sources, so I am tagging the article as original research for now, until it (and the other articles) can be reviewed. For more details, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. --Elonka 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to get an expert to look at this; while I'm not nearly as active in history as I used to be, this is touching on one of my favorite subject areas. Arabo-Norman isn't a term that I'm overly familiar with; it has been used, but I don't know that its widely accepted or that that its meaning was this extensive. It appears that this article is basing its use of that term on two sources? Is that correct? Shell ^babelfish 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick look since the term isn't getting much of anything on Google scholar or Google books, what little I can find suggests that Arabo-Norman was only used to refer to a particular style of Sicilian architecture and the term may have since been abandoned. (See Great Buildings and How to Enjoy Them: Norman Architecture, Edith A. Browne, 1907 pp.25-26) Shell ^babelfish 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For "Arab-Norman civilization", please see Christian England: Its Story to the Reformation - Page 148 by David Lawrence Edwards - Religion - 1980 "In Sicily the feudal government, fastened on a country previously turbulent and backward, enabled an Arab-Norman civilization to flourish." For "Arab-norman" art or architecture, there are plenty of modern references on Google. You can also check the French variant "Arabo-Normand". Regards. PHG (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying though; you have one, maybe two people who've used the term to describe a "civilization" whereas the more common (and still rare) use of the terminology is to describe art and architecture from a particular period in Sicilian history. I think the article far over-reaches its bounds. Shell ^babelfish 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not claiming I have knowledge of all the historians who ever wrote about "Arab-Norman civilization". At least four sources I known of (I will add "Dossiers d'Archeologie", 1997: "civilisation arabo-normande" [1] and Abdallah Schleifer [2]) are using the expression, so this is not a neologism or whatever. The expression "Arab-Norman culture" also seems to be used quite often (Google). I don't really mind about the title of the article itself, the objective of the article is more to focus on the interactions that occured between the Norman and Arab cultures in that period of time. PHG (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps culture would be a better term here; what we're talking about is an important piece of Sicilian history, but I have a hard time using the word civilization to describe it. Maybe it would be worth checking with the Sicilian wikiproject to see if they have a naming convention this would fit in? It might be worth looking at other articles on the era too. Shell ^babelfish 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Arab-Norman": 12700 Google hits. "Arabo-normand": 2100 Google hits, top hits being non-English. "Arabo-norman": 1370 Google hits, with this article at the top. Moving article to "Arab-Norman"; this is the English Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Fair enough. PHG (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that "Arab-Norman civilization" is a suitable title. It brings up extremely few hits on any kind of Google search, be it in books, scholar, or the entire web. There is a case for an article on Arabo-Norman architecture, or "art and architecture", but I think a better choice overall would be to simply merge this article with the already existing Emirate of Sicily. --Elonka 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, Arabo-Norman culture has nothing to do with the Emirate of Sicily. It actually postdates it, and corresponds to the subsequent period of Norman rule. Just speaking about "Arabo-Norman art and architecture" would miss on all the other interactions (military, scientific, administrative etc...) described in the article. Regards. PHG (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, but since the Normans and Emirate overlapped from around 1061 to 1072, that's where this entire blending of cultures this article describes came from. Shell ^babelfish 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there appears to be some confusion with redirects, sorry. I chose the Emirate article, because that is where History of Islam in Southern Italy currently redirects. However, I see we also have History of Islam in southern Italy (lowercase "s"), which would probably be a better choice. Another option is Norman conquest of southern Italy. The point being, that we already have articles which cover this time period, and that "Arab-Norman civilization" is not a term in wide enough use to justify a separate article. --Elonka 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know. I think having an article on Wikipedia which focuses on the cultural interactions between the Arabs and the Normans in Sicily is totally legitimate. It is an article about culture, not just about the historical events mainly described in the other article. I also think it can be expanded tremendously as more people with knowledge on these cultural interactions can contribute. PHG (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

"Arab-Norman civilisation" simply doesn't exist, we can't just invent or coin random terms to describe things. "Arab Norman art" and "Arab Norman architecture" are genuine and perhaps warrant a standalone article. The "civilisation" thing however doesn't since its OR and the interaction between the two peoples can be mentioned in the article on the Norman reconquest of Sicily. - Gennarous (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty much my point from the beginning. There are legitimate uses of this term, but lets not make a civilization out of it where there wasn't one. Shell ^babelfish 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above users. "Italo-Norman" is a better term to describe the civilsation of the Normans in Italy, be it Greek-, Lombard-, or Arab-influenced. I read about this subject quite a bit and have never seen "Arabo-Norman" before. Srnec (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if this article is renamed to Italo-Norman culture or what have you, how does it relate to other articles about this time and place, like Kingdom of Sicily? Should this article cover culture, broadly understood--i.e. literature, architecture, art, etc, and others cover history? Or is this article about Islamic influence on south Italy? As with many things that PHG has done, this article confuses me. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are actually talking about acknowledged and quite often used academic expressions here. On Wikipedia, there are already numerous articles using the qualifier "Arab-Norman" (I tried to link a few to this article, see them with "What links here") For "Arab-Norman civilization", please see

• Christian England: Its Story to the Reformation - Page 148 by David Lawrence Edwards - Religion - 1980: "In Sicily the feudal government, fastened on a country previously turbulent and backward, enabled an Arab-Norman civilization to flourish."
• The Government of Sicily Under Philip II of Spain - Page 75 by Helmut Georg Koenigsberger - Sicily (Italy) - 1951 - "the Arab- Norman civilization during the earlier Middle-Ages".
• "Dossiers d'Archeologie", 1997: "It is legitimate to speak about an Arab-Normand civilization until the 13th century" (Original French: "on est fondé à parler d'une civilisation arabo-normande jusqu'au XIIIeme siècle" [3],
• Abdallah Schleifer: "the monuments of a great Arab-Norman civilization" [4].

So "Arab-Norman civilization" is not a neologism or whatever. The expression "Arab-Norman culture" also seems to be used quite often (Google). I don't really mind about the title of the article itself, the objective of the article is more to focus on the interactions that occured between the Norman and Arab cultures in that period of time. You can also check the French variant "Arabo-Normand". PHG (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think using the term "civilization" is overblown. Usually, that term is reserved for things that span much more than 200 years and much larger areas than a single Mediterranean island (see Clash of Civilizations). "Culture" is slightly better. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this point about "Civilization" actually. I would be OK with "Arab-Norman culture". It is also a naming option I had been considering, and it has a fairly good following on Internet [5]. PHG (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

English sources

Hm.. this begins to touch more on subjects I'm familiar with.

Malcolm Barber in The Two Cities: Medieval Europe 1050-1320 on pages 225-250 discusses the Kingdom of Sicily. Barber discusses the differing disputes over the exact nature of the Norman rule in Sicily, and it appears that the Byzantine Greek influence is probably as pronounced as the Islamic. On a quick reading, neither Arabo-Norman nor Arab-Norman is used to describe the culture. Seems to be a good overview of the recent scholarship with plenty of pointers to other more in depth studies.

As far as studies of the Normans, the basis is the work of Charles Homer Haskins, in this case, his The Normans in European History which is long outdated but worth a read if you can find it. (Haskins is the man who wrote the Twelfth-Century Renaissance also)

David C. Douglas discussed the Normans in Europe in his 1969 The Norman Achievement where he discusses the Normans in both England and Southern Italy and Sicily. Chapter 10 discusses Scholars and Artists.

A newer work by a Norman historian is Marjorie Chibnall's The Normans which is part of the Peoples of Europe series. Part III covers "The Normans in the South", including the culture.

There are other works that could be included, and a number of journal articles that discuss the transmission of Islamic learning, but that's a good basic introduction to English publications.

The thing I'd want to stress is that there is more than just the Norman and the Islamic that went into the culture in southern Italy. Byzantine Greek was a very important part of the culture, and needs to be brought out also. It was especially so in the bootheel of Italy, which had not been under as much Islamic influence as Sicily. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The mosaics of the Cathedral at Monreale are a nice example of Byzantine influence. Strangely, the Wikipedia entry describes the cathedral as "Arab-Norman"... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article would better be split into Italo-Norman art and Italo-Norman architecture or moved to Italo-Norman art and architecture. The current title is just not the best for an article, since the "civilisation"/"culture" was not only Arab-influenced (as I pointed out in my original comments) and there is no reason to separate out the Arab-influenced Norman culture from the rest. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I like a lot of the ideas that have been presented so far. Just throwing another one into the mix, what about something like History of Sicily (Norman conquest) or something like that? I was looking at the History of Sicily article, and trying to figure out where this one would fit into that one, WP:SUMMARY style. Or to put it another way, in the grand scheme of Sicily-related articles, where is there a gap that needs filling? What would this article be a subarticle of? Once we know its "parent" article, and which section this would fit into on the parent, it will probably be easier to figure out what the title should be. --Elonka 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We also have Norman conquest of southern Italy, Kingdom of Sicily, and Italo-Normans that are all related to it directly. Italo-Norman art and Italo-Norman architecture link nicely from Italo-Normans, Normans, and Norman architecture. "History of Sicily (Norman conquest)" is covered at the conquest article, so I think "History of Sicily (Norman period)" or "Norman Sicily" would make more sense, but the Kingdom of Sicily article can/should probably cover that. We're still waiting on a County of Sicily article for the period 1061 to 1130. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I had a "main|Italo-Norman art and architecture" link at Norman architecture until it was removed as a redlink. I guess I forgot to create it! Srnec (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I'm a Northern Norman kinda gal.

On a serious note, I tend to agree that there are probably articles already out there that much of this could fit into, with overflow to Italo-Norman art and architecture? We could go really wild and call it Italo-Norman-Islamo-Byzantine art and architecture in Southern Italy and Sicily (kidding, I promise) And lets not forget any other scholarly influences, did some of that intellectual history stuff come through Sicily? (can you tell I snored through my intellectual history classes?) Ealdgyth | Talk 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "Italo" part is coming from in the context of this subject. Using an example of Arab Norman architecture... the San Giovanni degli Eremiti in Palermo, its a mix of Norman and Arab, "Italo" doesn't really come into it, since the general Sicilian populance of the time didn't have a real choice or say in what was built for them under different overlords/rulers from outside influences. I still feel this article should just be deleted and Arab Norman art and Arab Norman archiecture created. The user who created this seems to be good at making articles and putting them in a presentable manner (despite the fact that this article is not genuine).. perhaps he could start those two articles with information on books he has and then just delete this one. - Gennarous (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Italo-" just refers to Italy, not to Italians. The Normans in Italy = Italo-Normans. Normans in Sicily = Siculo-Normans. "Italo-Norman" as an adjective covers it all: Arab, Byzantine, and Lombard influences. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In my experience also, this term has never come up. I see that PHG has produced a few examples, but it struck me as bizarre when I first saw it. I mean, there was Arab Sicily, and then there was Norman Sicily, but the two did not really mix to such an extent that there was a new civilization. The only place "-Norman" is appended to another culture is "Anglo-Norman". Otherwise, in France, Sicily, and Antioch, the people they conquered remained distinct. "Norman Sicily" always sufficiently covers "the period when the Normans ruled previously-Arab Sicily, with much of Arab society and administration remaining intact under their overlordship", or something to that effect. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam. The fact that a given term does not appear in one's experience is I'm afraid not very relevant. This term has appeared in my own experience quite often: "Arab-Norman" is very often used in art and architecture, and quite often to describe the culture (or even civilization) in this time period (references above). The fact that "Arab-Norman" is a term recognized and used by a number of historians of art or history is enough I believe to warrant an explanation of the term on Wikipedia. Regards PHG (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Instead of making a redirect that effectively deletes this article, I think a formal AfD (article for deletion) process should be started if some think this article should be deleted. The concepts of "Arab-Norman civilization" or "Arab-Norman culture" are discussed by numerous scholars (referenced in the article and on this page), so it is untrue to present it as "an invention". Please start a formal AfD process if you wish to delete this entry. PHG (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Overwriting an article with a redirect is a perfectly acceptable procedure if all of the relevant information in the article is already present at the destination article. Otherwise, relevant information (which does NOT need to mean "all information") needs to be copied over, and the process is called a "merge". As the text below the edit window says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly.....do not submit it". --Alvestrand (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All the information was not present elsewhere and redirecting, as yet, is inapporpriate. Srnec (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the redirect has been recreated, but I agree with Srnec here--the info in this article is not yet present in Norman conquest of southern Italy or any other article, as far as I can see, so the redirect is not yet appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone that the information has not yet been merged, so a redirect is not yet appropriate. I also still think there's a good case for simply moving the article to a different title, such as "Arab-Norman culture" or "History of Sicily (Norman era)" or something like that. --Elonka 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Inspite of everyone's agreement here, User:Gennarous is still replacing this article with a redirect. Please someone revert him and help him understand this is not the proper thing to do. I would agree with the title Arab-Norman culture. PHG (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this article needs to be either fixed, or deleted. Simply changing it into a redirect though, isn't the way to go. We could submit it for AfD, but it sounded like some editors wanted to try and salvage it. Anyone have a preference on whether we should continue with salvage operations, or just send it to AfD? --Elonka 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am doing research related to the culture/civilisation of Norman Sicily/Italy and will try to have a solution to the whole thing shortly. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name and intro

I modified the intro to use "Arab-Norman culture", with a modifier about the use of "civilization". There are 6 Google hits for "Arab-Norman civilization" (including this article) and 17 for "Arab-Norman culture", including cited keywords for a book on this page: [6]. They all seem to refer to Sicily. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of sorting this all out. The terminology for the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and its culture/civilsation is more varied than I knew. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

It's been a couple months so I thought I'd check back in... Is this article still in a disputed state? Or can we remove the tags? --Elonka 07:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like people stopped paying attention to it, rather than addressing the issues under dispute. (Isn't that how most disputes get solved on Wikipedia?) --Akhilleus (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can remove the tags, but there is a lot of information about the Norman Kingdom of Sicily that I would still like, someday, to organise better. I had gone back and begun re-reading some material I haven't read in a while, but other things sidetracked me from finishing the research I was doing when the dispute was alive. I certainly did not stop paying attention, I can assure you, but the dispute is not important anymore: the page was moved to a more appropriate title (twice) and the terminology has been verified. Srnec (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid coinage

Tarì gold coin of Roger II of Sicily, with Arabic inscriptions, minted in Palermo. British Museum.

A Roger II tari gold coin, with Arabic inscriptions, minted in Palermo. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Phg (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)