Talk:Arab invasion of Armenia

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Muslim conquest of Syria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am closing this discussion as part of a group, consisting of Talk:Muslim conquest of Egypt#Requested move 17 March 2023, Talk:Muslim conquest of Armenia#Requested move 21 March 2023, and Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia#Requested move 17 March 2023, as the moves are comparable, the arguments for each are comparable, and many editors in those discussions referenced their positions in other discussions.

With the exception of Muslim conquest of Egypt, which is closed as moved, these articles are closed as no consensus; editors opposing the move argued that the proposed title is inaccurate and would hinder understanding, while editors supporting argued that the proposed title was the WP:COMMONNAME. Overall, neither position was sufficiently strong to establish a consensus given the comparable levels of support.

Muslim conquest of Egypt differs from these in that the arguments for it were seen as stronger by the participants, as evidenced by P Aculeius's neutral position on that move compared to their opposition on others.

If editors wish to explore these moves in the future they are encouraged to open a multi-move request, which will address some of the raised WP:CONSISTENCY concerns. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab conquest of ArmeniaArab conquest of Armenia – Move to WP:COMMONNAME based on Ngrams, where the proposed title actually features and the current title doesn't, and Google Scholar results, where "Arab conquest of Armenia", with 23 hits, outnumbers "Muslim conquest of Armenia, with 6 hits, by more than 3:1, as well as this conquest essentially being an extension of/follow-through from the Arab–Byzantine wars (an A-class article that by community peer-reviewed consensus gets this terminology right). It is also worth noting that this page was created as the "Arab conquest of Armenia" in 2007 and only moved to the present title in a 2018 bold move without discussion - one to undo. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is part of Muslim conquests. Please don't start RMs without notifying discussants elsewhere on already open ongoing RMs on "Muslim conquests" in general, Spain, Persia, Egypt, etc., forcing them to scramble and repeat their replies across pages. Walrasiad (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with the existing title, and the mass nomination for renaming of all articles whose titles describe "Muslim conquests" to "Arab conquests" in spite of the relative accuracy of the former and inconsistent applicability of the latter undermines the contention that the move is consistent with NPoV. These articles all concern the spread of Islam, not Arab culture generally, and the use of the phrase "Muslim conquest" does not indicate anti-Muslim bias. The fact that the article was created at a different title does not prove that the current title is inappropriate, nor does the fact that the title was changed without discussion: since it has evidently remained at this title for five years since the move, there clearly was no consensus to move it back, and I see no compelling reason to do it now. P Aculeius (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Umayyad conquest didn’t exist yet

Umayyad caliphate was made in 661, this conquest finished in 645, there’s no way they could of participated. Naarwaez (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved, because arguments for that action presented better evidence and had more support from policy. WP:COMMONNAME is a core policy here, and the Ngram data seems to show scholarly consensus for "Arab" in the name of this event when given as a single phrase, despite cherry-picked examples of "Muslim". WP:CONSISTENT does not provide strong guidance here because some of the articles about similar events have "Arab" and some have "Muslim" in the title. Arab–Byzantine wars is the parent article, so consistency with that is achieved by this move. A wider discussion may be appropriate to discuss if all similar events should be renamed "Arab". -- Beland (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't follow WP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from the Ngram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn: "The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan), "The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and "The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (and WP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie_(talk) 05:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Support You could make the argument that this invasion was a "conquest" in the name of Islam and it would probably be correct, but nevertheless that is simply a historical perspective and not an objective description, which is that this invasion was done by Arabs. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This article is in the template Template:Campaignbox Early Muslim Expansions. Each article in that template would have to be renamed which goes against WP:CONSISTENT. This conquest was part of a series of conquests in which Islam was spread. Additionally, the conquest wasn't only Arabs who invaded, it also included Persians. Guz13 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not really pertinent what auxiliaries the Arab armies did or did not have, neither from a sourcing perspective, nor from a thematic one. Alexander the Great used litanies of auxiliaries, but his conquests were still 'Macedonian' ones. One could substitute ancient Persia, Rome, the Mongols, or any other great ancient power here to much the same effect. At the Battle of Ain Jalut, the Mongol side included a Syrian Ayyubid contingent, alongside Cilician Armenians and Georgians, but it was still a Mongol loss. Ancient warfare is always defined in terms of the leadership waging the war, not a military's constituent parts. As to the template, I don't think you've looked at it, because if you had, you would have realised that there is no consistency argument to be made. The terminology is already a complete mixture based on the relevant sources reflected, as per NPOV, for each individual topic. The Byzantine header links to Arab–Byzantine wars. Under this is the Arab conquest of Egypt and Arab rule in Georgia. Under the Sassanian subheading, there are the Arab conquest of Fars and Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. There is also the Arab–Khazar wars and Arab conquest of Sindh. This is all based on individual sourcing. Regardless of whether you think all of these titles should be at 'Muslim conquest' instead, there is not currently a strong consistency argument based on this template alone, though arguably, the Arab–Byzantine wars, which is the most direct parent topic for this page, would favour the proposed title from a consistency perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: per Guz13 R3YBOl (🌲) 19:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Support: The title as it currently is does not provide enough context to the average reader as to who these "Muslim invaders" actually were.Ixudi (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AD_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A_%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9

Siyah al-Uswari

Arabs from the Rashidun Caliphate and Persians who collaborated with the Arabs after internal instability in the Sasanian Empire. Guz13 (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: per reopen request – LuniZunie_(talk) 05:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support. (Found this discussion from NPOVN.) Evidence seems to indicate that "Arab" in place of "Muslim" is the WP:COMMONNAME in present-day scholarship. In addition to the evidence from the nomination, I checked the Google Scholar links from the previous 2023 RM on this topic, and they continue to corroborate the same pattern. Looking at the topics linked from Template:Campaignbox Early Muslim Expansions, the descriptor "Muslim" is more frequent than "Arab" in articles, but with such a wide range of titles and formats I don't see a strong WP:CONSISTENT case. Overall, it seems best that the scholarly COMMONNAME holds. No preference on "invasion" vs. "conquest". ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose After the Islamic forces invaded Armenia they established a caliphate. A caliphate is always Islamic and that is what was put in place in Armenia after it's conquest by Arab forces who were new converts to Islam since they invaded Armenia in the mid-7th century right after the founding of the religion. Considering one of the early core tenants of Islam was to spread the religion by conquest per it's founder Mahammad, I do not see any real issues with the title. In addition academics have also used this terminology like this book on the subject from Cambridge University Press: Chapter 8 - Byzantium, Armenia, Armenians, and early Islamic conquests [] Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional source, but less so for your lack of engagement with the existing source material. That you found one source that presents the alternative terminology is fine, but its usage in a single, broad summary work doesn't really shift the needle when set against the more detailed work of Armenian subject-matter experts. That includes all of the scholars mentioned above, in addition to Richard G. Hovannisian as an editor. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This was part of the Muslim conquests and annexation into the Rashidun Caliphate which is characterized (by Wikipedia and elsewhere) by as an Islamic polity, not an "Arab empire". Referral to "Arabs" or an "Arab empire" is anomalous old preference for racial terms, which is not followed in scholarship anymore. Most Arabs were not Muslims at this time anyway. Walrasiad (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  This is an unsourced exposition of pure opinion. It is nonsense that the proposed title deviates from scholarly usage. The usage for different conflicts is mixed, but the terminology of 'Arab' conquests has always been and continues to be more prevalent. It's not a 'racial' term any more than 'Arab' is a race, which it's not; it's an ethnolinguistic group. Again, like Macedonian or Greek – for want of a fellow conquering analogy. One would have to peddle race science that is far more academically backward than any terminology found here to support what you are asserting. You would also have to press the point that the likes of Richard G. Hovannisian, one of the foremost historians on Armenia, A) wasn't academic enough and didn't know what he was talking about, and B) used outdated or 'racial' terms. Most Arabs were not Muslims at this time anyway. – no idea what this is about, but it is unsupported and irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Racial or ethno-nationalism was a 20th Century obsession, and historians raised in that era tend to conceive and write in such categories or terms. That is no longer the case. The Caliphate is no longer referred to as an "Arab empire". It is the Muslim polity of the 7th Century, these are "Muslim conquests" by "Muslim armies", not some 20th C. ethno-nationalist squabble. Walrasiad (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion, but it has little bearing on this move request with respect to NPOV as defined by RS on the topic. You're currently ignoring the actual sources on the page, and in doing so, ignoring policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Policy has already been stated (WP:CONSISTENT, etc.). This question has been gone over many times before, on this and other pages. Its getting tiresome and repetitive. Nothing new is being added here. Not sure why you keep repeating attempts to keep bringing it up again and again. And pointingly replying to everybody until you get your way. Let the RM run its course. Walrasiad (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a single spoke of a single policy WP:AT that comes after WP:NPOVTITLE on the same page. Consistency alone is by far a lesser priority to WP:NPOV, which is one of the three core content policies. You have meanwhile only referenced consistency with respect to your personal preferences about terminology in the topic area. You have not addressed the already covered point about the wider topic template encapsulating various terminologies, which naturally weakens any consistency-based argument. You have also not addressed consistency with the actual parent topic here –Arab–Byzantine wars – and why you don't think consistency with this is important (beyond personal preference). And still, up to this point, you have not addressed any of the sources or other evidence. Your entire argument is made based on a priori conclusions. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

On the rather moot point about your opinions regarding the characterisation of the Rashidun Caliphate, you might find the lecture notes of Kenneth W. Harl, a professor of Classical and Byzantine History of forty years, instructive: The Abbasid caliphate transformed the Arabic Empire into the first true Islamic Empire. – the point being that the early Islamic/Arab empires were qualified by both their religious identity and their identity as 'Arab empires', at least up until the time of the Abbasids – which was, in fact, a major factor in, and part of the whole controversy around, the Abbasid revolution. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

An article can only have one title, so choices have to be made. The current title is WP:CONSISTENT, WP:NPOV, recognizable and accurate. You may have a preference for ethno-nationalist labels. But your trying to ram it through again and again against the consensus of multiple RMs, ignoring repeated failures to get your way, and replying to every opposing vote is verging on WP:POINTY. It's probably advisable to take a break. Walrasiad (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The proposed title is the preference of the RS that are referenced. You do not seem to wish to address the sources or adherence to them, per NPOV. That there was a no consensus RM two years ago is not a cause to never have one again – if anything, a no consensus close invites further discussion – and is not a good faith argument in the current RM, which should be evaluated based on its own merits. Nationalism is an C18th ideology, so it is unclear why you think it is relevant to this C7th topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

A "no consensus" close is often not an invitation for further discussion. It typically indicates that we're at an impasse and getting tired and don't think further discussion will help unless the situation changes substantially or significant new evidence is provided. It is not an invitation to continue hammering away with minor variations of the same arguments. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your input @BarrelProof. More voices are highly desirable here, so your tuppence on the policy-based arguments in the discussion would be welcome. I agree with your clarification on no-consensus closes, but when the participation is as limited as in the previous RM, I would hardly call that an impasse, so much as the matter being simply under-discussed. It was also bulk closed without relisting – preventing further engagement from emerging. The prior RM also focused more on abstract numerical evidence from search results, while in this new RM, I have made a point of focusing on the high-quality sources that are already at hand – as authored by Armenian history experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

My comment was just a knee-jerk reaction to what you said about a no-consensus close. I'm unfortunately not knowledgeable about this topic, and just watching this discussion for my own education. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

In my previous comment, I explained how this requested page move would go against WP:CONSISTENT.

And your responses are in WP:BLUDGEONterritory. Guz13 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - This current title is found high-quality scholarship: Kaegi (Cambridge University Press) explicitly frames the episode as a "Muslim invasion and conquest of Armenia" and as the "Muslim invasions and conquest of Byzantine Armenia" in the 7th-century context. The terminology also appears in other Cambridge University Press reference scholarship (e.g., Bosworth in The Cambridge History of Iran refers to "the Muslim conquest of Armenia"). WHile "Arab invasion" is narrower and can be misleading as an article title for a conquest narrative that is often framed in religious-political terms in the literature.Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.