Jump to content

Talk:Reconquista

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

Reverted improvement[edit]

In my view, this reversion erases a clear improvement because the deleted content explains to readers from very different cultural and geographic backgrounds the starting and ending points of Reconquista in layperson's terms. Before the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula there was a Christian Visigothic Kingdom and after it two new countries emerged in the peninsula. A. Landmesser (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it adds little useful content, but primarily the unhelpful statement of the disputed (to say the least) notion of re-conquest in plain wikivoice, plus an emphasis of the para-historical linking of current day countries with a non-directly related past, primarily satisfying modern nationalist contructs (again in Wikivoice) rather than providing any sort of historical insight about the middle ages, in which the current existence or non-existence of modern-day polities bears no relevance.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about Reconquista as fact or narrative[edit]

With regard to WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and current academic consensus, should the article present the Reconquista as a matter of historical fact at face value or as historiographical narrative?

This has been a perennial discussion (such as here), and the article would benefit from some stabilizing, somewhat binding consensus. I am hoping for robust engagement with the latest scholarship and the most reliable sources. إيان (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be presented as a vision of history/perspective/historiographical narrative. Current opening statement shuns the approach to the concept in academia in favor of the poor "series of military campaigns". The content in the body of the article would also require serious reassessment in regard of the chronological balance at the very least, or more dramatically, in regard of a full deprecation of this article as the default recipient for military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historiographical narrative per Asqueladd. It may take some bold editing to get more engagement from other editors. I suggest proceeding in stages, with due notice on this talk page, outlining intended changes. I would support "a full deprecation of this article as the default recipient for military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages", although I imagine that would catalyze some outrage, and bring out the reactionaries.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the reactionaries. All the more reason to gather some excellent references to start. إيان (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the creation of Military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages to host such information. This looks like a useful source to consider:
García Fitz, Francisco; Monteiro, João Gouveia, eds. (2018). The war in the Iberian Peninsula, 700-1600. Themes in medieval and early modern history. London ; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-138-70745-0.
It might be a good idea to round up some of key texts in preparation for these changes. What do you all think? إيان (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is vague and unclear. Vegan416 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historical fact. Vegan416 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in on this. I'm relaxing with some refreshments right now after a long workday,;-) and should be able to devote some time and attention tomorrow. I'm sure Asqueladd will have something to say. Carlstak (talk)

First, this does not really seem to be an RfC so the tag should perhaps be removed. That is not meant as a criticism of the discussion, which is very relevant. Second, as per WP:COMMONNAME, Wp should use the terminology most commonly used and for which people are most likely to search. The article should of course build on scholarship. Jeppiz (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For competing perspectives in the academy, see Carlos de Ayala Martínez, The 'Reconquest': A New Proposal of Defnition (2024), and Alejandro García-Sanjuán, Cómo desactivar una bomba historiográfica: la pervivencia actual del paradigma de la Reconquista (2019). The former summarizes the latter thus:

    Professor García Sanjuán [identifies] three different groups of researchers: [1] those who reject it as unacceptable given its irremediable ideological undertones; [2] those who, in accordance with the more traditional interpretation, though to varying degrees, understand and accept the ‘reconquest’ as that formative period of the Peninsular reality without which it impossible to understand the realities of Spanish history; and, finally, [3] those of us who propose to recover the term by applying it exclusively to the ideological dimension to which we are referring...

    Is the term "Reconquista" more or less problematic than "Byzantine"? "Feudalism"? More or less ideological than "Glorious Revolution"? "Reformation"? The debate is entirely about the right words to use. The historical facts are not in dispute. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear! Hear! Vegan416 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a little difficult to parse the problem that requires an RFC. To summarise, as a naïve reader, the “Reconquista” appears to be the term used for the series of campaigns. If the campaigns actually happened, and this term is the term used for them, then I see no need to clarify except to say that the term is modern, and was not used at the time. If the term has political implications, that needs to be made clearer, though many terms that have political implications are still the proper term to use (eg, Holocaust).
While the RfC is far from well-constructed, I don’t think it needs to be revoked at this point. Obviously asking editors to refer to policy and to regard the most reliable sources is unnecessary, but a clearer case needs to be made for a more specific change. All history pages are regarded as historiography to some degree, including this one; if the change desired is the word “historiographical” then it should be made clear why the reader needs this phrasing. — HTGS (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the change desired is the word “historiographical” then it should be made clear why the reader needs this phrasing. This has been discussed in the archived thread linked above I'm fairly certain consensus You are certainly wrong about such purported consensus, tho. To begin with, Reconquista is an ambiguous historiographical construct accounting for at least three meanings (as per one of its partial defenders) And second, the validity of such construct for one, two or all three of such "meanings" is questioned in academia (as per one of its partial defenders). --Asqueladd (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reconquista&oldid=1227278342"