Talk:Reconquista/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Latest edits Basque/Navarri/Cantabrians

A Navarrese (Navarri) was a Basque from around the area of Pamplona (not submitting to Carolingian rule), as opposed to other Basques vowing loyalty to the Carolingians and the western Basques (Álava and other western Basque regions). Leave your comments here. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That statement is false. No medieval chronicle or any other record states that the Navarri were "Basque". In fact, the Carolingian writers differenciated the Wascones from the Navarri, and indeed, the Navarri from the Pampilonensis. For example the Chronicle of Eginardo states clearly about the situation in 778 "Hispani Wascones subiugatos etiam et Navarri". So, Hispani Wascones were one tribe, Navarri were another different tribe.Annales Regni Francorum. Please, don´t confuse opinion with knowledgement. Wikipedia is made out of the second.188.78.129.62 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

According these sources Inigo was a Basque;

• R.L. Trask, The History of Basque, page 14, "In about 824 a certain Inigo Arista in turn otherthrew the last trappings of Frankish hegemony and founded the tiny Kingdom of Pamplona. Inigo, like most of the population of Navarre was a Basque."
• A History of Medieval Spain, by Joseph F. O'Callaghan, page 107.
• Conquerors, Brides, and Concubines, by Simon Barton, page 26.

According to this source Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;

• Basque Sociolinguistics: Language, Society, and Culture, by Estibaliz Amorrortu, page 14. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, IP editor, I should call to stop wasting my time, you are welcome to add constructive edits though. The Basques were a very wide category w a number of divisions. The Navarri, as it was virtually during all the Middle Ages, were the Basques, Basque-speakers from the area around Pamplona. A Navarrese meant a Basque during the Middle Ages, as opposed to the Francs (Occitans) and the Navarro-Aragonese speakers on the southern fringes of Navarre (the Navarrese 10th century conquests: the area of Tudela and banks of the Ebro, but not all).

The Navarreria of Pamplona was where the original inhabitants lived, the Basques of the Pamplona area. Please spare me your problems with the nominalisms. In English, "Basque" was not used before the 19th century (called Biscaynes) but it does not mean the Basques did not exist before the 19th century. The surname "Navarro" during the Middle Ages meant a Basque, as opposed to a Romance speaker (Navarro-Aragonese, Occitan). As put by J.M. Lacarra Basque language was almost an invisible language in formal documents, which does not mean it was no there. Get over it and move on. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

924 Abd ar-Rahman III's campaign to Pamplona: "virtually all speak Basque, which makes them incomprehensible". Iñaki LL (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a medieval references that states that Basque and Navarri were different tribes. If you are unable to face it with another medieval references, please don´t try to impose biased opinions. I repeat it to you: The Chronicle of Eginardo states clearly about the situation in 778 "Hispani Wascones subiugatos etiam et Navarri". So, Hispani Wascones were one tribe, Navarri were another different tribe.Annales Regni Francorum. 188.78.134.205 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are not to be used, since some people, like yourself, twist the meaning for their own purposes. Secondary sources are used to write articles on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Jihad

Under Concept and Duration there is mention of a "jihad ideology" in medieval Spain. This is anachronical nonsense. The term "jihad" is not used by any source of the period, nor for centuries afterward. deisenbe (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? See this. —Srnec (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I was not familiar with that article. I've learned something. Thank you. A link might be included in the article. deisenbe (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

First sentence.

I had made an edit to the first sentence which has been immediately changed back. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but I would like to offer the following. The opening sentence as it stands states that the Spanish Kingdoms "conquered" the Iberian peninsula from the Arabs. This seems to imply that the Arabs were there first, or had some sort of rights to the Iberian peninsula, which the Spaniards somehow took away from them. The whole article is about a RE-conquest. That is, the Arabs invaded FIRST in the 8th century, and occupied a European peninsula. This article is about recovery of that area by the original European inhabitants. The opening sentence should reflect that it is dealing with, as the word says, a reconquest, and not a conquest. What is the consensus on this? Change? No change?98.170.214.134 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The evidences do not show such "recovery of that area by the original European inhabitants." The Iberian Peninsula was conquered by the Celts, the Romans, the Visigoths, the Muslims, the Christian kingdoms of the North of the peninsula (this Reconquista), the French... This was a conquest of that area by peoples that were different from the ones that lived there before the Muslim conquest. The new conquerors even expulsed some of the descendants of the people living there before the Muslim conquest: most Moriscos were of Iberian descent. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 11:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the above analysis is completely misleading. Let's face it, all occupants of any land anywhere in the world originally came from somewhere else. In the infinite regress of human development, we find the original humans originated in Africa (by latest consensus; they could have come from somewhere else). Eventually the humans dispersed elsewhere, some to what is now termed Europe. The lands we now called England, France, Germany, etc., have been under the sway of some group or other since antiquity. England fell under the Romans and to a certain extent were certainly plundered by the Vikings. Genetic studies have shown over 80% of British people carry Spanish genes, which only means that the Celts seem to have ranged far throughout Europe. On the other hand, they were all what we now call Europeans. By contrast, the Middle Eastern people were not descendants of Europeans. The invasion of the Iberian peninsula in the 8th century is a relatively recent event, one which occurred at a time when the ethnicity and character of most European communities was well established. It is recent enough in recorded human history to be termed an "invasion." To call it anything else is revisionist nonsense, probably with a tinge of the usual northern-European racism, regardless of the ethnicity of who utters it. As to the comment about "moriscos," it's even more fatuous. Of course they had "Iberian descent." A morisco is the Spanish term not simply for a "converted" muslim, but for mixed-race people of which, after a 700 year occupation, there were legion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.214.134 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

With the Christian conquest, there was a change of population, but not a return of an original population: Galicians, Asturians, Cantabrians, Basques, Aragonese, Catalans moved much further South than the lands they lived in previous to the Muslim invasion; a considerable number of Franks also came South; etc. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 13:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Xabier, we are talking about a full-blown conquest of some kingdoms over others. Yes, let's face it, the actors are different, the people are different, the kingdoms are different, even religion has changed (as attested in a new different rite imposed over the Christians inhabiting Andalusian towns as set out on the surrender treaties), or is a different religion, sorry many northern regions of Iberia were just Pagans when the Muslims arrived, even many Asturians were Pagans. We are not trying to reproduce traditional assumptions here, just bringing up the facts based on existing research works. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully disagree with both of you. Spain was a western European Christian country invaded by a spreading Muslim conquering army from the Middle East. Eventually the Muslims were expelled, and the inhabitants who were there when the Muslims invaded regained control of the land (it's a "REconquista," get it?). That's the long and the short of it. You may engage in arcane historical tracings of pre-historic human migrations, but none of that is germane to the recent history of a Muslim invasion, decay, collapse and expulsion from Europe. By your reckoning, England conquered Britain from the Romans, or even the Poles conquered Poland from the Nazis. Let's get real. The fact is Spain was the first super power. She ruled the world for 250 years, then, as it always happens, suffered her decay and collapse, and England became ascendant for the next 200 years, followed by another Anglo-Saxon country, USA. For the past 250 years we have been bombarded by a historiography steeped in Anglo-Saxon resentment and contempt for anything Spanish, and this includes a not-so-subtle attempt to remove Spain from the European community. I'm not being paranoid here, I'm just reading your above comments. I suspect from your names that you are not Anglo-Saxon, but I also suspect you are not Castilians either. And if you are, shame on both of you.98.170.214.134 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It could be said to be a "reconquest" is the Visigoths regained their former domains, but the Visigoths did not exist at that time. Why do we regard the rulers of Castille and Aragon as somehow the legitimate successors to the Arian and Germanic Visigoths? Furthermore, this took place over nearly a millenium. I think it is sensible to say absolute claims over an area expire over a certain period of time, certainly Castille can't use the Visigoths claim to the area around Grenada a full millennium after the Visigoth's ceased to exist.68.117.218.247 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous statement on Talavera

I believe the following is erroneous:

The very next year the Alhambra decree under Archbishop Hernando de Talavera (1492) dismissed the Treaty of Granada and now the Muslim population of Granada was forced to convert or be expelled.

Talavera's policy was peaceful voluntary conversion, explaining Christianity to them in Arabic.

It was 1499-1500 (no documents to establish precise date) that the Treaty was unilaterally "set aside" and conversion made mandatory. deisenbe (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in case of there is doubt over dates or other facts I suggest you add a reference. I do not specialize in this exact period, but I strongly doubt that there was anything of "peaceful, voluntary conversion". Iñaki LL (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How many Muslims converted voluntarily no one knows, although as with the Spanish Jews, some number converted to avoid being expelled from Spain. But that Talavera was in favor of voluntary conversion is abundantly documented. See the Spanish WP article on him. He learned Arabic for that purpose, and to him we owe the first book anywhere with printed Arabic words (the characters carved on blocks of wood), Pedro de Alcalá's Vocabulista en lengua aravigo, published in Granada in 1505. See "Cisneros y la quema de los manuscritos granadinos", Journal of Hispanic Philology, 16, 1992 [1993], pp. 107-134 [1]. (Full disclosure: I am the author of this article.)

There are a lot of sources cited there. There are more recent ones but every source I know of, and I've done a lot of work on Muslim Spain, agrees that it was Cisneros, Talavera's successor, not Talavera himself (he was fired), who revoked (some? all? would have to check) provisions of the 1492 surrender, and gave the Muslims of the Crown of Castile the choice of conversion, exile, or death. Islam continued in the kingdoms of Valencia and Aragón for another 20 years or so.

In English there isn't much on Islam in Spain, a striking contrast with the abundant materials on Sephardic Jews. The best starting points are María Rosa Menocal's Ornament of the world: how Muslims, Jews, and Christians created a culture of tolerance in medieval Spain, 2002, ISBN 0316168718, and L.P. Harvey, Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500, 1990, ISBN 0226319601. By the way, the "culture of tolerance" ended with the conquest of Seville and Cordoba by the jihadist Almohades, from Morocco.

That the Arabic-language native population should be lectured in Arabic does not say much to me. In California, the missionary Father Lasuen acculturated ("civilized") the native Americans using their own language (procedure prohibited by the king of Spain), and inflicting abuses and torture on them, which does not detract from the fact that the final goal was to assimilate them, one way or the other. Whatever valid sources say should be fine. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

How many voluntary conversions there were or weren't isn't the issue. My point is that the single sentence at the outset of my remarks is factually wrong. deisenbe (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead: Asturias

The background on Asturias added here by Pablo.alonso is undue detail for the lead, and thus was properly removed by Iñaki LL. This content and source should be blended into the section on the Kingdom of Asturias below. The lead is a summary of the body and should not include detail that is not present in the body, per WP:LEAD. The article is sorely in need of sourcing, so the addition is welcome, but it belongs in the section on Asturias. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your explanation, thank you. --Pablo.alonso (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question (new???), besides removing citation tags, and an informative notice posted by me on his talk page (note that WP does not support WP statements), he has added irregular citation style. Please do add regular citation style, with exact page and year. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the citation, I agree that more specificity is needed. Regarding the 'cn' tag, there is already a tag at the top of the article stating that better citation and in-line notes are needed throughout. Given the scope of the topic, the Bibliography section is sparse, and a mere 25 footnotes for an article of this length is deeply lacking. Adding further cn tags ends up being redundant, as the entire article lacks necessary sourcing, particularly to English-language RS. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Granted, it needs further citation, but that does not give a blank check to keep adding unsourced statements or WP:OR to the text. The reference there is a total guess, does not meet the citation standards. My position is for the editor in question to add with no delay the details needed for proper referencing. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor Iñaki LL (talk) has been systematically undoing and censoring without objective reasons every edit I was doing (with the only motivation that it was me doing the edit) or requesting citations where there was objectively no need for (with the only purpose to question the validity of my contribution). He has been editing my contributions on the basis of personal aversion rather than objective reasons. I have given detailed justifications for the changes I introduced, and when it was correctly explained that my editing was incorrect as Laszlo Panaflex did I had no problem in correcting the issue. However I am not keen in tolerating abusive and bullying attitudes of "self-esteemed veteran" editors that block/censure/disallow with no reason and in a biased fashion and think they have control and ownership of the page in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo.alonso (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no indication that these reversions were of a personal nature. Iñaki LL asked you not to remove maintenance tags without explanation, and he cited WP:VER as justification. Iñaki LL is correct that the citation needs to be more specific: requiring year of publication and page number are clearly warranted under that policy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be clarified the origin of this dispute: I changed in the lead the term "Principality" to "Kingdom" and originally no cn tag was there. Regardless I provided the appropriate explanation (that the term Principality was anachronistic as Asturias did not become such type of political entity until 1388 and that it was founded as a Kingdom by Pelayo, all of them historical and undisputed facts) Iñaki LL kept undoing my (properly explained) corrections and on top adding cn tags on a matter, the use of the term "Kingdom" to qualify Asturias, that not only was several times used and explained in the body of the article but that was also hyperlinked to its own Wikipedia entry Kingdom of Asturias. After constant undoings of any single edit I carried out by Iñaki LL providing vague ("irregular editing") or unrelated ("non-ideological term", "secular terms") explanations, my conclusion is that his attitude was only driven by personal motivations.

With regard to the last citation, I agree that it needs to be more specific. Pablo Alonso (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would finally also like to remark that the use of cn tags does not convert them automatically into untouchable objects. Sometimes, as is this case, a request for citation is neither justified nor necessary, and the removal of such tag is legitimate. The cn tag removal to which Laszlo Panaflex refers was one introduced by Iñaki LL when I changed "Principality" to "Kingdom" and the mentioned editor did not accept the (explained) changes. As I already pointed out during editing, there was no citation needed for such modification as the term Kingdom was both used in the body of the article and hyperlinked to the entry Kingdom of Asturias, as I have mentioned before. Pablo Alonso (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding some editing of my comments, the device I use does not let me to see a preview and sometimes I don't see mistakes until they are published, hence the editing. Apologies if this is disturbing. Pablo Alonso (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

While it was mentioned in the article, it was not sourced, like so much else. At any rate, you are now arguing a moot point. You state above that you agree the citation needs to be more specific. That is the only issue that remains relevant. You added the source, and Iñaki LL has the right to ask that it complies with WP:VER. I've tried to track down the source but have not been successful. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, because we are talking about different citations. The first cn tag I removed was when I changed "Principality" to "Kingdom", which Iñaki LL undid several times to finally leave it but adding a citation tag: this is the cn tag that I removed and I have already explained now and in the article why such citation was not needed. The second cn tag, which is the one that might be necessary and I agree needs to be more specific, is the one that I created not related to the term "Kingdom" but to the further addition I introduced mentioning the Astur-Leonese dynasty, which is the topic that those books talk about. Two unrelated issues not to be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo.alonso (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It now says Kingdom and there is no tag. You are arguing a moot point. Please drop the stick and focus on completing the necessary detail in the cite. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I know it does, but only after 2 days of constant uneditings and after your intervention. I´m neither holding stick nor arguing, I was just explaining the situation. And the cite has been already completed. Pablo Alonso (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The citation is not still completed. For a regular WP citation style, do specify page. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Could someone double check the statement claimed in the reference added? Iñaki LL (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the citation refers to the statement that the Kingdom of Asturias begun with Pelagius and was ruled by a monarchy that spanned from 718 to 1037, and apparently you need to double check an statement that appears in any single book of history you can find, I can only infer that your knowledge of history is manifestly limited and/or biased by obscure motivations/propaganda/misinformation and cast a serious doubt on your legitimacy to comment on this article. However, I am always more than happy to enlighten those less informed, so if you provide me with your address I am more than happy to post you the book so you can educate you and double check by yourself. Pablo Alonso (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Watch your language, FYI, per WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. I would appreciate someone could double check the information, given the reliability problems taking place in like articles before with an unhelpful editor with identical attitude as the one above, here, and here. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

My language is totally correct, please highlight the passages that are inappropriate according to you. I have only remarked observations: your knowledge of this topic is limited (e.g. calling Asturias a Principality 600 years ahead of time; e.g. requesting citations for widely established facts such as the creation of the Kingdom of Asturias) hence your reliability is questionable, as are your motivations: your attitude has been abusive and with traits of bullying, as evidenced by your systematic undoing and deletion of all my additions without providing explanations and just for the fact that it was me who wrote them, not to mention your obsessive behaviour asking me about additional accounts or finding and linking past examples of your previous quarrels that have nothing to do with the current matter. I had corrected the citation and for me this topic was over, but you kept going. Change your attitude; drop this thing. Pablo Alonso (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And just to clarify what an unhelpful editor is: I corrected an anachronism (i.e. Principality) and slightly expanded the information providing the references (e.g. Casariego, J.E.: Crónicas de los reinos de Asturias y León). You, on your side, did not do any additions or contributions, your only editing has consisted exclusively on deleting and undoing my entries, following not objectivity or accuracy but your personal motivations. Watch your mouth when you talk about unhelpful editors and reliability. Pablo Alonso (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not dealing with toxic editors. Bye Iñaki LL (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read Bullying and toxic editors. Bye Pablo Alonso (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Asturias, Galicia and the use of the term Kingdom of Asturias

After a bitter discussion with editor Iñaki LL (talk), it has come to my attention an apparent conflict with the use of the term “Kingdom of Asturias”.

When I corrected the use of the term Principality to refer to Asturias for being an anachronism, Iñaki LL reverted several times the correction given ultimately the explanation that Kingdom was an “ideological” term. At the beginning I did not understand why the use of the term Kingdom was “idelological” but ultimately I saw it when the fact that Iñaki LL is a basque nationalist was made apparent.

This trait which should be irrelevant, in this case unfortunately seems not to be. Basque nationalists tend to support and sympathize with the claims of other Iberian nationalisms, most notably Catalan and Galician. For Galician nationalism, it is important to reinforce and strengthen the pillars over which they can claim historical rights and therefore it is common practice to blatantly exaggerate the origin, nature, role and importance of the Kingdom of Galicia in order to support such claims. Therefore, Galician (and fellow Basque) revisionists would talk of a Kingdom of Galicia where Asturias was included instead of a Kingdom of Asturias where Galicia was included (Galicia was incorporated to the Kingdom of Asturias by Alfonso I and later remained under the rule of the Kings of León).

Therefore, when I corrected that Pelagius started a “Principality” in Asturias with the term “Kingdom”, this change was constantly reverted on the grounds that “Kingdom” was an “ideological” term, an absurdity only possible for a nationalist. I would say that the only ideological thing here has been the constant revertion of corrections in order to fit the article to the personal and subjective view of history of the aforementioned editor.

I don´t want to enter here into a debate over the origins of the Kingdoms of Asturias and León, the bibliography is more than ample and volumes of information can be found in any library. However, some people seem to have a problem with the use of Kingdom of Asturias and apparently it should be either put into question or changed to Kingdom of Galicia.

If the latter is the consensus of the contributors to this page, then I will support to either substitute all entries referring to Kingdom of Asturias for Kingdom of Galicia or to tag all entries of Kingdom of Asturias as “unsustained”.

If the consensus is the opposite, I will ask to stop putting into question the use of the term Kingdom of Asturias and stop contaminating the article under biased and self-interested revisionist perspectives.

Thanks.Pablo Alonso (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Noise noise noise, the mutating, username will continue on and on and on, out of the scope of a concluded discussion, escalating. Further helpful info on this case: WP:DIS, WP:AGF. Bye. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Great contribution, as usual. I am still waiting to see some sort of hypothesis, arguments or explanation to support your statements related to this article. So far, I can only see a long list of citations on Wikipedia rules that you keep breaching yourself. Pablo Alonso (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It continues behind the scholarship

It pains me to see the lead of this article reflects so naively the long-disgraced view of the "Reconquista" actually being a period of time in history. As historians like Joseph Callaghan have demonstrated, it is rather a term that reflects a Hispanic-Christian interpretation of a period. This article should follow scholarly consensus, particularly in the lead. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Caballero1967, what is your objections exactly? The lead has gone through a lot of changes, may be modulated for improved accuracy and up-to-date consensus, but that needs to be well justified. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Portugal and the Reconquista in general

I’m going to jump in on this and say that Portuguese history does not talk about the reconquista. It’s a Castilian phenomenon, later Spanish, but despite the geography Portugal does not belong in this article. For what it’s worth, I have a Ph.D. in Hispanic Studies, with medieval specialization.

I wish there were more on the speciousness of the reconquista concept, which is most valued by Catholics. Catholicism is no longer Spain’s official religion. deisenbe (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe, so do they speak of conquest? 'Nation building' or expansion? Whatever it is, it would be interesting you add that nuance, it would enrich the article. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Does who speak of conquest? If you mean the Castilians, the final war, the Granada campaign that ended January 2, 1492, it is in Spanish always “the conquest of Granada” (la conquista de Granada), and never reconquest. Why? Because - I’ve not checked this, this is my memory - Granada (Elvira) was not part of the Visigothic kingdom.

Nobody anywhere in the West talked about “nation building” in the fifteenth century. Nor that Castile was expansionist. The official line is that they were retaking territory stolen from them. Nobody questioned this publicly. Even the Andalusians did not dispute this story; they had conquered all of North Africa as well as Spain, they just said they were right in doing so, spreading Islam.

Wars back then weren’t about ideas or principles anywhere in the West. (I don’t know about the East, but I seriously doubt it.) It was more what military forces you could count on (why should soldiers show up and fight?), who your blood allies (relatives) were, who were your friends and enemies.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Muslims/Moors/Berbers/Arabs conquered Spain very rapidly as there was little or no opposition most places, they were sometimes openly welcomed. The Visigothic monarchy (remember they were invaders too) was not popular. The “Arabs” were much more tolerant. And while they conquered Iberia in about 10 years, it was almost 800 years to get them out. I.e. the Andalusians did not welcome the Christian “reconquest” like the Arab conquest had been welcomed by Christians in the eighth century.

Note pressure on Castile etc. from France, via Alfonso VI’s French wife Constance of Burgundy, and the Clunyists (see Cluny Abbey, though there’s little on Iberia) sent to Spain.

Finally, saying that the Arabs did not conquer all of Iberia is at best a half-truth. There were small numbers of rebels or refugees hiding in mountains all across northern Iberia. But they counted for nothing at the time (eighth century). The Muslim rulers didn't worry about them; Muslim sources do not even mention Covadonga. The Christians got help as well as pressure from Christian Europe; nobody helped the Umayyads (Muslims). (The Emirate of Córdoba was the last surviving Umayyad state.) Certainly the Abbasids, who ruled most of the remaining Muslim territory, weren’t going to help them; they would have conquered al-Andalus if they could have. deisenbe (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading about the Catalan crisis, I chanced open this quote from George Orwell, who fought in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and knew Spain and Spanish pretty well: “nationalism is power-hunger tempered with self-deception.” (“Catalonia’s Drive to Vote on Independence”, NY Times, September 28, 2017) deisenbe (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Since I lack expertise, I will not offer a position on the substance. But I will point out that the section on Portugal in the article cites no sources at all. The section deals with Portugal gaining independence, but it does not link it to the Reconquista other than it was happening in the same time frame. The whole article lacks adequate sourcing, of course, but the lack of any source in this section further attenuates whether Portugal should be included in the article. Also, thank you for your explanations, deisenbe. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing is woefully undersourced. There is abundant scholarship relevant to this article.

Since it’s relevant to the article, I would suggest one of my publications on the topic, “No hubo una Edad Media española.”Another is “Cisneros y la quema de los manuscritos granaditos.” deisenbe (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Deisenbe would be willing to explain what he means by "the speciousness of the reconquista concept"? (Not a challenge, a query.) The concept has been heavily problematized in Spain (where it has political implications), but in Anglo-American scholarship it seems alive and well. Derek Lomax provided a pretty "straight" treatment in his monograph The Reconquista (1984). It is even used of Portugal, as in Stephen Lay's The Reconquest Kings of Portugal: Political and Cultural Reorientation on the Medieval Frontier (2009). It seems to me that the concept of Reconquista belongs in the same category as feudalism, Byzantine Empire, Vendel Period or Carolingian Renaissance: anachronistic interpretive schemes that can be useful or misused. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was long, Deisenbe, thanks but I do not need so much on what nationalism is, especially state nationalism, I was asking on what Portuguese scholarship and historiography are calling this territorial expansion phenomenon in order to know what to do with the related Portuguese concept. While it is basically a general Iberian process of territorial expansion along with colonization, nationalist historiography of these countries seem to have treated it differently, and then, there is English language literature on the topic. All these problems may also be addressed in Concept as far as I see it.

Yes, there are a lot of nuances to the use of Reconquista. I slightly disagree with Srnec's idea on categorization of Reconquest, it holds true to certain extent, but the idea of a 'reconquest' whatsover is so biased that it cannot be compared to, say, Carolingian renaissance. However, addressed as it is now with its Spanish term and its extensive historiography and literature, I am fine with the present general approach to the article, it just needs explaining what it is. (Also agree that the article definitely needs further verifiability, of course) Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks Deisenbe for your linked articles, they look pretty interesting, I guess they can be used in the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese histiography is focused, as far as big themes, on Portugal’s uneasy and messy relationship with Spain, or proto-Spain. The Reconquista was a Castilian topic and for that reason alone the Portuguese didn’t want to be part of it. Bear in mind also that in contrast with Toledo, Córdoba, and Seville, there were no great cities “liberated” by the Christians in Portugal. deisenbe (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Here’s another article: https://www.csun.edu/inverso/Issues/Issue%2012/documents/ensayo-DanielleOlive.pdf This is from a departmental publication, Inverso, at Cal State Northridge, 2012.

I wouldn’t call Lomax’s book a monograph. I don’t think he himself would have. It’s a popularization. See the review in Speculum. There are certainly historians who defend that there was a genuine reconquista in Spain, just as there are plenty who deny the important role of descendants of Jews in Spanish culture after 1492. I’m not going to put more time on it. I just would say that between Ortega and Lomax, I’d go with Ortega. Here’s an Ortega quote from his classic es:España invertebrada, which I added but someone moved to a footnote, the reason for which move I never have seen: “No entiendo cómo se puede llamar reconquista a una cosa que dura ocho siglos" ("I don't understand how something that lasted eight centuries can be called a reconquest"). If you want to see it in context, it’s on p. 75 of this version: http://hermanotemblon.com/biblioteca/Literatura%20en%20General%20/Ortega%20y%20Gasset,%20Jose/Ortega%20y%20Gasset,%20Jose%20-%20Espana%20invertebrada.pdf. I’m rereading it. He also said (p. 76): “To understand modern Spain’s problems, you have to study the Middle Ages” (“El secreto de los grandes problemas españoles está en la Edad Media.” deisenbe (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I added slight changes to finetune the concept and its "a posteriori" nature. I don not know exactly in what source that information (on Portugal) lies, so verifiability is welcome. As for the note, yes, I added it myself since the quote was too large inside the paragraph, Ortega is a historic (nationalist) thinker but not an up-to-date history researcher. If you still think the quote should be further highlighted, a quote box could be a good way to illustrate the argumentation with a revealing/enlightening statement. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m washing my hands of this article, at least for now

I’m washing my hands of this article for the time being. The point at which I reached this conclusion was when I noticed that “the caliphate’s army” was defeated by Pelayo. This is ridiculous. No army ever went up into the mountains of Asturias. Pelayo defeated some group, at least that’s the founding story, but it had to be small, and Pelayo’s forces were also small.

There are too many cooks and they are spoiling the broth.

I’ll leave you with the following thoughts, for what use anyone cares to make of them:

1. There is a prior myth to the “reconquista”, and that is the “conquest” of Iberia in the first place. Arabic sources refer to it, although they are much later and may reflect Christian influence. Not much fighting took place in this “conquest”; there wasn’t much resistance. The Christian Visigoths, who were also invaders, were unpopular.
2. Granada (don’t confuse it with Grenada, as someone apparently did) was not “reconquered”, it was “conquered.” Without exception, in Spanish it is “la conquista de Granada,” in all periods.
3. Portugal’s role in the reconquest was minor, and Portuguese historiography does not deal with it much. It’s not part of the national founding myth, as it is in Spain. Portugal didn’t even exist until 1139, and its reconquest was over in a century.
4. The martyrs of Cordoba have no direct link with the Reconquest, but they should be mentioned as contributing to the Christian ideology. They were relatively well known.

deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe, I buy your take on a certain sentence, and agree on most of your points. However, please do not make indiscriminate removals, they are problematic. The tag is a good reason to do a clean-up, but there is relevant and accurate information for which verification would help, instead of deleting. Please read WP:PGCHANGE. I will try and add myself some sourcing in the next days, and clean up. However, if you happen to identify plagiarised excerpts, feel free to remove it. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The above statements are a little disingenuous. Revisionists always like to talk about "there was no reconquest." Oh, you're just so clever... Well, a conquest is not defined by the level of violence. A foreign race, the Arabs, crossed the water and infested the Iberian peninsula. That's a conquest, no matter how difficult or easy it was. The Spanish people finally booted them out, no matter how long it took, or how sporadic was the fighting. In the end, they kicked the foreign race out; that's a reconquest. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your narrative, but that's what happened. Turn the page, buddy.98.162.136.248 (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Infested"? "The Spanish people"? A "foreign race" in 1492? You'll have to do better than that. Srnec (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC

I don't have to do anything. If you don't know what those words mean, how is that my problem?98.162.136.248 (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Original research added

There is ongoing edit-war related to an editor with a confrontational drive, not adding WP:VER as suggested, and keeping WP:OR. Please stop it. I doubt your statement is so for all the realms, but if so, add the source, and that should do it. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Standing army

I deleted the following from the lead as copyvio. It looks useful but I'm not sure where, and would have to be reworded:

"Unlike all of Christian Europe, at this time al-Andalus had a professional standing army. The troops were Arabs and mostly Berbers but with many mercenary and slave soldiers of Slav, African or other non-Muslim origin as well." Doug Weller talk 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I have strong doubts on the statements in quotes, since it does not even state the exact period, 7 centuries is very long a span with many changes, but other than that, what is the objection exactly? Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

In popular culture

There should be a topic about how the Reconquista is depicted in popular culture, such as in movies and music. Tonyjeff (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

I put the neutrality disputated tag on this article today. This is an article on a highly controversial topic: the definition of Spain. Spain fought in 1936-39 a Civil War which is not directly linked with the concept of Reconquista, but in its ideological origins is much related.

The two competing points of view are:

• Spain was a Christian nation, conquered by Muslims. The Reconquista was a successful and heroic campaign to expel the invaders and restore the Christian kingdoms to the descendants of the original rulers. A little-known episode today is that of the Martyrs of Cordoba, who gave their (Christian) lives to express opposition to Islam in Hispania.
• The opposing point of view says that the concept of Reconquista is mythical; that it was invented and promoted much after the events to advance later political goals (the stability of the monarchs and the dominance of Castile, among other things). Defenders of this view point out that the “conquest” took 7 years (711-718), and the “reconquest” 773 years (718-1491). This shows, according to those who hold this view, that the Muslims were faced with little resistance, while the Christians were faced with a lot of resistance.

Reviewing the history of this article, as I did today, changes are constantly being made advancing one or another point of view. There is evidence on both sides. I don’t think that a consensus on what is correct will ever be reached. It certainly has not been reached in Spain. (See the article on Reconquista from the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Reconquista#El término «Reconquista»: historiografía y tradición.) Therefore I think the POV tag should remain indefinitely. There is precedent for this; see Nathan Bedford Forrest (a Confederate Civil War hero). deisenbe (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the two schools of thought treats the Reconquista as an actuality, and has a well-developed (if varying) interpretation of events that occurred in Iberia over the course of almost eight hundred years, threading them together as the gradual process of reunifying the Christian "nation".

The other school of thought treats the Reconquista as a fabrication made to advance Castilian hegemony among the nation-states that became "Spain", and later, to advance Spanish nationalism.

So it follows that the first point of view produces an actual article, a long one, with considerable detail, but following the logic of the second point of view, no article is necessary to treat this non-existent process.

I don't think deleting the article would go over well. We have an article that briefly acknowledges both points of view in the Concept and duration section, but I suggest that the section should be expanded and a description of the tension between the two viewpoints treated in more detail. Also, the lede should at least mention this scholarly dispute. If these conditions are met, I don't see why the tag is necessary. After all, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" means that some WP editors dispute the neutrality of the article, not that "The very existence of the subject of this article is disputed among scholars". I would say further that this same principle should apply to the Nathan Bedford Forrest article as well. Carlstak (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be nuts to delete the article. I suppose there could be a second article on the Validity of the Reconquista concept, but I wasn’t thinking of that and am not sure that’s the best way to go.

My concern, that you may have missed, is that the article is not static, it keeps getting modified by editors who do not agree about the position to take, which implies that WP editors, in essence, do not agree about what a neutral article should say. deisenbe (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I get your point. However, the template documentation does say: "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article," and "Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article". In my opinion, the scholarly disagreement is central to a discussion of the very notion of a Reconquista, and should be given much more attention in the article. It's probably true that the neutrality of the article will always be disputed because of this controversy, but it seems to me that the "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag might be taken by some editors to be an invitation to "fix" the article's neutrality and "correct" the "mistaken" facts, given that according to the same documentation text, "The purpose of this...template[ ] is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight". Admittedly, I haven't noticed a surge in edit-warring at the Forrest article since you put the tag on it, but policy does say they're not meant to be permanent. Carlstak (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, when there is consensus on what the article should say, the template should go. But looking at the history of the article and how many things get changed (27 edits last month alone), and the archives of this talk page, I don’t expect consensus anytime soon. deisenbe (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I agree with Carlstak that the neutrality tag will not add anything productive, and should not be there permanently. I think the points of view are by now represented in the Concept and duration section. I also agree that it should have a slot in the lede in order to cite the controversies presently affecting the subject, per WP:LEAD. I do not see a need to reach a single point of view, just reflecting them in the article should be enough.

I think presently all scholars agree that this period exists, if not as a consistent 'reconquest' pursuit, at least as a period, 711-1492, the period of Muslim political presence in the Iberian Peninsula. I do not think that anything extraordinary happened whatsoever in 718 or 722 that turned the tide, but whatever is consensual here should be fine with me. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deisenbe, it still sounds to me as if you want a permanent tag on the article to "warn" readers that the content is disputed; we know that this subject will always be contentious, but a permanent tag is against policy. If you want to challenge something specific in the article, then please open a discussion of it, and in that case the tag will remain, but meanwhile, my understanding is that the tag should be removed until such a challenge is brought by you or another editor. Carlstak (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry I said “pwrmanent”, but looking at the template documentation you provided a link to above, none of the three situations specified under which the template should be removed has been met.

• There is no consensus.
• The nature of the dispute has been set forth.
• The discussion is not dormant.

If you insist I’ll write more on the present non-consensus, but I thought it was obvious. Look at the talk page archives first. Maybe a solution would be to translate the long section on it in the Spanish WP. deisenbe (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me, Deisenbe, or perhaps I wasn't clear; I'm not talking about "consensus" now, I'm talking about policy: "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." Why don't you boldly make the changes you suggest, which sound reasonable to me, and see what happens. If you are reverted, no big deal, then it will be settled by consensus here, I believe. Please let us all know if you find some other points of contention. Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality challenge

OK, here’s a challenge from the second sentence: “The completed Reconquista was the context of the Spanish voyages of discovery and conquest". The problem is that the wording suggests that the only way to look at the history is from the Reconquista, i.e. Christian point of view. That’s what “completed Reconquista” is: the _best_ label, or the only label. That’s not neutral POV.

More neutral would be: “1492 was the context...” deisenbe (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"The end of the Reconquista" / "The final conquest of Granada" could work for me. 1492 feels too vague. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"1492" isn't context. Also, it is arguably just as Christocentric. The question isn't what point of view is correct but rather what point of view did contemporary Spaniards have and did it play a major role in the "voyages of discovery"? That is, if the voyages were seen as the next obvious step—the Reconquista having been "completed"—then that is relevant, regardless of whether or not treating 1492-as-representing-closure is accurate to earlier views (say, 718) or later (say, 2018). Cf., e.g., Abbas Hamdani, "Columbus and the Recovery of Jerusalem", Journal of the American Oriental Society 99, 1 (1979), pp. 39–48, which states: "The beginning of Columbus' voyages to the New World coincides with the culmination of the Spanish Reconquista and carries over the latter's crusading zeal." I'd be happy with Iñaki's suggested "conquest of Granada". Srnec (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have a consensus. I’ll revise it, see what you think. @deisenbe. Done deisenbe (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality challenge #2

The Reconquista ended in 1491, as said in the first line.

Actually the Reconquista ended with the 1264 reconquest of Jerez. Without exception, contemporary documents of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and early fifteenth century call what happened to Algeciras, Almería, and Granada a “conquest” and not a “reconquest”. See es:Anexo:Cronología de la Reconquista, which is very precise. (If you know of exceptions, I’d appreciate a reference(s).)

Of course it is true that the term Reconquista can be said to mean “until 1492” because, conquest or reconquest, it was all part of a single campaign: expelling the Moors, and it has been used that way since the fifteenth century.

My point is that “Reconquista” has two meanings, but the article doesn’t mention that.

As far as why I just don’t go and make these changes, it’s because I have basically wasted a lot of time with corrections that got taken out. deisenbe (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to check into the diffs here, but I have noticed in edits you've made on some of the numerous other articles both of us have edited, that you have a tendency to add disputable content without reliable sources offered to support it. Could that have been why your edits were reverted here? Carlstak (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I plead guilty on that, but I would point out that I was Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University, and spent 30 years teaching about Spain. But did I violate WP policy, I sure did. Why don’t I hunt down the documentation for the things I’m saying? I have in some cases; for the others it’s a combination of a) lack of ready access to a research library (particularly in the humanities, digitized resources are insufficient), and b) Wikipedia's need is infinite, my time is finite, I have to pick and choose. deisenbe (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Deisenbe, as I mentioned, we're talking about policy. I respect you, but WP policy decides our actions here, not your credentials. Carlstak (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've caught some blatant errors you've made in your unsupported edits, as you well know. In one instance, you brusquely contradicted one of my edits, asserting that you had the text right before you. Funnily enough, I had downloaded a PDF copy of the pertinent text on Jstor, and had it right before my eyes. You were wrong, and admitted it as much afterwards, saying that you didn't have Jstor access (which wasn't even necessary, since the referenced text was on the first page of the article, which was visible to all as a preview). I don't know what makes you think that your credentials trump the policy requirement for reliable sources. Your excuses of "lack of ready access" and your "finite" time (so is everyone else's) don't hold water, and are an insult to fellow editors who follow the rules. I've added thousands of cites to many different articles, and using Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google search of "all", I can find a scholarly source within a minute 70–80 percent of the time. I find it puzzling that an editor who has been editing English WP since 2005 and has made over 21,000 edits thinks that WP policy shouldn't apply to him because of his academic credentials. I've noticed also that you tend to respond emotionally when someone reverts one of your edits, and that's when you're most likely to make an error. Carlstak (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, being fed up with litigation is not exclusive to anyone, I think that anyone who cares w the state of the EN WP has been hit by that. Would not like to be bureaucratic but anyone may dispute a statement and WP:VER is ultimately there.

As for Reconquista, I think we would better leave it as is. I do not think that any reconquest happen whatsoever, usually a set of campaigns presented as crusades, since Castille was not reconquering anything, for a start. They are just ideological claims aimed at justification, either referred to 20th century, or contemporary to the events. Machiaveli was well aware of the deceitful nature of the religious claims raised by Ferdinand of Trastamara, the real Prince. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So you disagree with me? deisenbe (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality challenge #3

"Ferdinand and Isabella completed the Reconquista with a war against the Emirate of Granada that started in 1482 and ended with Granada's surrender on January 2, 1492."

A minor point: a ceremony occurred on January 2, 1492, but the Capitulation was signed in 1491. The war ended and Granada surrendered in 1491.

Main point: Only one side of the story is being told and endorsed as correct. That’s not neutral. Not everyone agrees on what 1492 meant. It’s like 1948: for Israelis it’s when their country was born, but for the Palestinians it’s the nakba, the disaster. For Muslims 1492 was a disaster, one that they have not forgotten after 500 years. Reconquering Andalucía comes up in Arabic discourse. al-Andalus is a common name for movie theaters. deisenbe (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall I agree with that. Now how does this translate to text? Iñaki LL (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Concept and duration section does a fair job of summarizing the dispute among scholars over the validity of the synthesis used to justify this simplistic concept of a continuing Reconquista, but I think a discussion of this dispute should be further developed throughout the article, which really needs a reworking, in my opinion. Carlstak (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I should be fine with further elaboration on the matter. However, to be honest I think the present-day wording gives a good approach on the state of the matter. Deeper insight into the geopolitical stakes during the different periods of each kingdom would be welcome, the thing is that the very concept of Reconquista appeals to a two way movement (northbound/southbound, "Moor"/Christian), a focus on buffer areas, ultimately a bias, and that is an erroneous assumption.

Many bitter disputes were happening at the time between the Christian kingdoms, who used the Pope's backing and excommunication threats to legitimate attacks on their northern neighbours, especially Castile, e.g. against Navarre, resulting in its eventual symbolic participation at Navas de Tolosa (1212) just after Castile's conquest of about a third of its territory, getting Navarre landlocked. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand what “appeals to a two way movement” means. “Ultimately a bias”: what kind of bias?

We are in disagreement in our assessments of the sufficuency of “the present-day wording”. If you read Spanish, read es:Reconquista#El término «Reconquista»: historiografía y tradición. Pretty different, much deeper, and better documented.deisenbe (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I just read the section in the Spanish WP and I agree that it's superior to what is in this one. Why don't we translate it and add it to the English article? It's easily translated and parts of it could be incorporated into the "Concept and duration" section pretty smoothly, with the appropriate sources, of course. This is my free (not literal) translation of the first paragraph of the Spanish section, with emendations that I think are necessary:

From its very beginning, the putative Reconquest constituted, for the different kingdoms and counties (e. g., the County of Barcelona) that had emerged in the isolated mountainous north of the Peninsula, a restoration and liberation, not only of the territory, but also of the numerous Hispanic-Visigothic Christian population (the Mozarabs) that had remained for centuries in the occupied territory. From their point of view, they were the true heirs of the Visigoth kingdom, and their constant appeals to the Christian kingdoms for aid were a problem for the Muslim authorities, one that arose periodically and was resolved with varying degrees of persecution as well as mass deportations. However, some academics have stated that the term is inaccurate, because the Christian kingdoms that "reconquered" the peninsular territory were formed after the Islamic invasion, despite the attempts of these kingdoms to represent themselves as direct heirs of the old Visigothic kingdom. The neologism Reconquista reflected their desire for political legitimacy, as well as an attempt to justify their conquests by asserting that their monarchs were the rightful heirs of the Visigothic kings.

Comments? Carlstak (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

<edit conflict>@Deisenbe: Let me disagree. I do not oppose adding further information, but I only read the introducing sentences in Spanish... It is irremediably ideological and conditioning the reader's view, it baffles me. Check out this: "un verdadero proceso restaurador y liberador, no solo del territorio, sino de la numerosa población cristiana hispano-visigoda (mozárabes)1​ que permaneció durante siglos en el territorio ocupado". What is this, a National-Catholicist lecture in a Francoist school? "Proceso restaurador y liberador"??? Let me call it shameful, if you call it "occupation", you may want to call also the Visigothic period an occupation of Hispania by barbarians. More than 40 years of harsh Francoist dictatorship have left deep scars in the Spanish psyche no doubt.

For a start, the Church of al-Andalus collaborated with the emirs in Cordova, and it is somewhat pretentious to claim that Mozarabs wanted to be "liberated" by the northern realms. The Church of Toledo stack to the Mozarabic rite resulting from the Adoptionist schism. Also many Hispanic Goths just became Muwallads.

As for the bias, the article focuses mainly in dualistic interactions between al-Andalus and the northern Christian kingdoms in a way that it looks a bidirectional dispute, and well, it is not, kingdoms were attacking and allying with each other in all directions, but these are unaccounted for in the article, that is why I say it is initially biased, because it focuses in events that justify the article. Do not get me wrong, I agree there is a more or less consistent expansion movement south by Christians kingdoms, since the 11th century, but the Reconquista is basically a period.

Yes there seems to be shining excerpts in Spanish that can be retrieved, but all of it is not gold. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

At this juncture, I'm surprised that Deisenbe is so enamored of the Spanish text, because as it stands now, it's a jumble of conflicting viewpoints, some of which are not at all supportive of his critique of the English WP article. Carlstak (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I must say, after translating the Spanish text, in which I have made an attempt, probably short of the mark, at correcting some of the distortions mentioned by Iñaki, that I have to agree with the gist of what he's saying. I'm presently working on a rewrite utilizing some of the usable parts of the Spanish text, which does have grievous faults.

This is the rest of what I have so far, trying to write something more NPOV:

After the collapse of the Caliphate at the beginning of the 11th century, the Christian kingdoms opted for a policy of tax dominance (parias) over the taifas instead of seizing Muslim territory to the south, and suffered their own struggles between the different crowns (and between their own royal dynasties), which only reached agreements to collaborate against the Muslims sporadically.

The early reaction in northern Cantabria against Islam is used by apologists for the concept of Reconquista to support the idea that the Reconquest began almost immediately following the Arab conquest of the Iberian peninsula. The Battle of Covadonga followed the founding by Pelagius, a Visigothic nobleman, of an independent Christian principality in the northwestern region that grew into the Kingdom of Asturias and became a bastion of Christian resistance to the expansion of Muslim rule. His defeat of the Muslims (most likely in 722) has been credited by some historians as catalyzing the Reconquista of Christian rule in the entire peninsula. Even the defeat of the Muslims by the Franks at the Battle of Tours, characterized by later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe. is adduced by apologists as supporting their position.

References

What do you think of this, Iñaki? Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak for the translation. Still I think the second subsection is more interesting but equally confusing. I guess excerpts of it can be retrieved for its incorporation into the current text in "Concept and duration". Perhaps the text you translated above can be accomodated in a first subsection of "Concept and duration" I would tweak, personally, some things anyway.

As for the second subsection of the Spanish WP section on the matter, I think the last comment is pretty enlightening. It is a very intricate phenomenon that some are trying to reduce to a consistent, collectively conscious movement during 7-8 centuries, and that is not the case. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Carlstak for my reply to him. More later on the Spanish article. deisenbe (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I have not reread the whole article, I have reread the Spanish section “El término «Reconquista»: historiografía y tradición”, thinking maybe I missed something, but I stand on it. It could be touched up, but it runs circles around the English section in both balance and documentation. It is not “a jumble of conflicting viewpoints”. It does deliberately present both sides of the dispute, and I think at least the attempt has been made to be comprehensive and fair.

“un verdadero proceso restaurador y liberador, no solo del territorio, sino de la numerosa población cristiana hispano-visigoda (mozárabes)1​ que permaneció durante siglos en el territorio ocupado". (“A true process of restoration and liberation, not just of the land, but of the numerous Christian Spanish—Visigothic population (mozárabes) that remained for centuries in the occupied territory”.) Yes, this sounds like saying that Spain was in fact Visigothic and Christian and those Christians needed to be rescued and the Christian kingdoms reestablished.

However, later in the same paragraph it says: “Sin embargo, algunos académicos3​ han manifestado que el término podría ser inexacto, pues los reinos cristianos que «reconquistaron» el territorio peninsular se constituyeron con posterioridad a la invasión islámica, a pesar de los intentos de estas monarquías por presentarse como herederas directas del antiguo reino visigodo. Se trataría más bien de un afán de legitimación política de estos reinos, que de hecho se consideraban reales herederos y descendientes de los visigodos, así como de un intento por parte de los reinos cristianos de justificar sus conquistas al considerarse herederos de los reyes visigodos.

(“Nevertheless, some scholars have said that the term [Reconquista] could be incorrect, since the Christian kingdoms that “reconquered” the peninsula were created after the Islamic invasion, despite the attepts of these monarchies to present themselves as direct heirs of the former Visigothic kingdom. [According to these scholars] we are dealing with an attempt to legitimize these kingdoms, which did consider themselves heirs and descendents of the Visigoths, and to justify their conquests because they considered themselves heirs of the Visigothic kings.”

If that isn’t balanced, I don’t know what is. deisenbe (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, the Spanish section is elaborated, not doubt of that, but I doubt whether it sheds more clarity. I have dedicated quite a lot to the 7-9th centuries and as far as my knowledge goes, some definitions are pretty astray, still impregnated by all the National-Catholicist rhetoric of the early- and mid-20th century. Fortunately, this is a field in which a lot of progress has been made during the last three decades.

The problem I see with the paragraphs you present above is that "un verdadero proceso restaurador" bla-bla-bla is presented as truth, uncontested, while next it dwells on the Neogothic ideology, as stated by some scholars. So the introducing sentences are presented as truth, not as reported by some scholars, as attributed in the second paragraph.

Also, Deisenbe, I would have expected you to bring a valid approach based on an Andalusian analysis, or at least Arabic, but I am confused, since what I see is further Western views. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, for a reference optionally this is a very good one. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I downloaded the pdf and I've started reading La Reconquista: un concepto ambiguo y discutido La Reconquista: un estado de la cuestión. So far, I agree that it is very good, and that it would be an excellent reference for improving the "Concept and duration" section. Carlstak (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I wrote this before I saw Iñaki's response, as I was composing my reply to Deisenbe before Iñaki's was posted, so it was an edit conflict:

Thanks for your reply, Deisenbe. Regarding the text you mention that says, "la Reconquista constituyó, por parte de los distintos reinos y señoríos surgidos en el aislamiento del norte montañoso de la Península, un verdadero proceso restaurador y liberador, no solo del territorio, sino de la numerosa población cristiana hispano-visigoda (mozárabes)​ que permaneció durante siglos en el territorio ocupado."

My reading of that is "From its very beginning, the Reconquest constituted, on the part of the different kingdoms and counties that emerged in the isolation of the mountainous north of the peninsula, a true process of restoration and liberation, not only of the territory, but of the numerous Hispanic-Visigothic Christian population (the Mozarabs) that remained for centuries in the occupied territory." This states positively, without qualification, as if it were established fact, that this is what the "Reconquista" constituted.

You left out the following statement, which also says positively, without qualification, "Resultaban ser los verdaderos herederos del reino visigodo," i.e., "They turned out to be the true heirs of the Visigoth kingdom". True, the text says later, in my rendering, "However, some academics have stated that the term is inaccurate, because the Christian kingdoms that "reconquered" the peninsular territory were formed after the Islamic invasion, despite the attempts of these kingdoms to represent themselves as direct heirs of the old Visigothic kingdom."

The text acknowledges this opposing view, but it certainly appears to me that several such statements are made positively, as if they were actually the case, before mentioning that some academics have an opposing point of view. It seems to me that you are not admitting this obvious (to me and Iñaki, anyway) bias of the Spanish text. Carlstak (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Carlstak This in an interesting dispute. Things like this help make WP rewarding (to me) I reread it twice more. I just read it differently. But you’re right, it should be changed so that it can’t be taken as favoring the Catholic view. @Iñaki, It’s definitely not my _intent_ to be defending the Western view, nor the Andalusian view, nor the Jewish view. My goal, which is a process, is to be as impartial as I can. I don’t think the Andalusian view has gotten enough exposure. And it sure isn’t in the English article. I think I detect more than one hand in the Spanish article.

Are the four of us the only ones interested in this? I’m sure we four could arrive at a consensus.deisenbe (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rather disappointed that more editors haven't participated in the discussion. I would have thought that such a contentious issue as whether or not a sustained movement called the Reconquista was a historical reality would have attracted a few more editors. On the other hand, we have four reasonable and informed editors participating, which should make it easier to form a consensus. I feel confident, based on what I'm seeing so far, that we can achieve it. Carlstak (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Christians and other non-Muslims

Does anyone know of an example of non-Christian users of the term, or concept, of Reconquista? The Arabic article which I got to from the left margin translates Reconquest as سقوط الأندلس. Suqoot (I don’t know what the correct English transcription is, especially lacking vowels) al-Andalus, the Fall of al-Andalus. But the text is a translation of the English text, as I noticed on the only other article I sought out Arabic WP for. I do not read Arabic and used Google Translate, which gives you “an idea” of what’s being said.

The Jews didn’t call it Reconquista either. They had a different perspective because 1) they were exiled in 1492, 2) there had been progroms (1391) and 3) they understood themselves to have been in Iberia long before the Christians (, before the birth of Christ, so they, the Spanish Jews, could not be blaimed for the crucifixion. (Archeological evidence does not support this.) And I advanced the rather daring theory, building on Bargebuhr, that one of the multiple foundations which are very visible on the exposed side of the Alhambra is that of the Jewish temple, not a Jewish temple but the third one, the first two hving been in Jerusalem. What survives of it is the famous fountain of the 12 Lions — inexplicable in Muslim culture, they didn’t sculp or paint any animal. But the 12 tribes of Israel, each represented by a lion? It fits. Ask for references if you want.

The Hebrew WP uses the term Reconquista and is short extracts from the present article.

But coming back to the topic, any reason not to delete “and other non-Muslims”? deisenbe (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The original term and concept seems to be is Western Christian, so out of caution, that only should be fine as far as I am concern. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I say leave it. As I noted in my edit summary, the pre-existing text "is a name used" is present tense, not past tense, as in "was a name used". Are you saying that no Jewish or atheist historians or writers presently use the word? The word is still quite in play, as evidenced by this very article. It is not a fossilized relic. You're Jewish, Deisenbe, and you use the word quite a lot. Carlstak (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I cited an author above who is Muslim and uses the word Reconquista in English. The important thing is that the term is used by scholars in reliable sources in English. I prefer a "straight" opening à la Glorious Revolution, the glory of which is not universally recognised, of course. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. In that case I think the best usage would be "The Reconquista is a name used to describe the period..." Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It needs specifying, it is strictly a Western concept, and a pretty marked, alienating one in origin at least, no matter if others have come to use it. As I see it, it requires citing its origin and main use by Western Christians, at least. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Srnek, what do you mean by “a straight opening”? What words would show that?

I think what is going on here (the disagreement) is a question of time period. I quite agree that modern Jewish or whatever historians use it today. But in the sixteenrh cenntury, say, it was only used by Christians. Do we agree that the term was used by Christians only for centuries, until modern historical scholarship begins? I don’t know offhand what would be the date for that but I think modern Muslim or Jewish historiography begins no earlier than the later nineteenth century. deisenbe (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that the majority of readers probably won't read much past the lede, I think that it should reflect the fact that the word concept that the word refers to was used exclusively by Christians for centuries, until modern historical scholarship begins. Regarding Iñaki's preference for specifying that it was a Western concept, what about scholars of the Eastern Orthodox churches? Did any of them ever write about the Reconquista? Would they count as "Eastern" or "Western"? Not trying to be a smart ass, but that sort of thing is where I would see a problem with using "Western". Carlstak (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering exactly the same thing. deisenbe (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to this, I would not like to lecture anyone on basic concepts. There are numerous epistemological problems which I would not like to dwell on in order not to postpone discussions sine die (all this Christian/Muslim stuff, for one, should appear minimally really, when talking about ideological matters, or bishops and monks, or religious claims made by the protagonists...). We are talking about Spanish and by extension Western historiography starting in the mid-19th century. "Reconquista" did not exist before the 19the century, or was hardly used, yes crusade, no Reconquista. "Reconquista" is basically made up by Spanish nationalist theoreticians and scholars of the 19 and 20th century, and adopted by the rest of Western academy, and later, through translation, by the rest (of the world). Iñaki LL (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki, you are wrong when saying "reconquista” was invented in the nineteenth century. The _word_ (a neologism) appeared in the nineteenth century, but the _concept_ is far earlier, just expressed as "restauración de España" or "Santiago, y cierra España”. And I believe others. I’ll drag out references if you want. It wouldn’t be hard.

And I disagree that "We are talking about Spanish and by extension Western historiography starting in the mid-19th century." What we’re talking about is what happened in the Iberian peninsula from 711 to 1492. deisenbe (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me disagree, Deisenbe. The concept as you put it is vague and like a chewing-gum, it existed, yes, it was a series of campaigns, in the same way as the Crusades were taking place, "restoring Christianity in the Holy Lands", but much nearer, and with the aggravation that is was in the courtyard, so to say, round the corner. References can be found on the pdf I added.

On "We are talking about Spanish (...)", I was referring to the introducing sentence. At any rate, that is why I created "Concept and duration", because framing the topic is as important as the events accounted for (content). Iñaki LL (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

So we don’t even agree on what the article’s about. (19th and 20th century Nacional-Catholic historiography?) And this is 17 paragraphs over 3 words. Pretty discouraging. deisenbe (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about completing "Concept and duration" (section above), and the introducing sentence, right? ("Western Christians", "Western Christians and other non-Muslims", or "Western historiography"...) Other than that, I have outlined my take on the concept as a whole and the epistemological issues (terminology, concepts, etc.) I find. However, I am not dwelling on the latter, for that I wrote a book where I presented my case. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand what Iñaki is saying, but I still disagree that "Western" belongs in the sentence. I know he means that it is a concept developed in the "Western" world of the Classical Greek and Roman philosophical tradition, and it may even be true that the theological traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church and other partakers of the Eastern Orthodox communion are in a direct line of descent from the Classical tradition, but in discussion of such a controversial subject in the article, we should be as precise as possible, and I fear that the presence of "Western" might lead some readers astray in their understanding of the concept.

Iñaki is correct, of course, that the actual word Reconquista was not used until modern scholarship on the subject began, but Deisenbe is correct that the concept that the word refers to was used for centuries prior. Couldn't this be rephrased to accommodate both facts? Carlstak (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak for your attempt. Here is mine: I understand "Western" the whole European culture, as shown in this article, plus east European. To be honest, I think that when we include for example Bulgarians, or Ukranians, we are talking about their translation of "Reconquista" related texts from 20th century Western academia. (The same could go for Mongolians!) Also, there are nowadays historians or other who are just not Christians, but they belong in that tradition/culture. It is all about the Western tradition and culture, specifically its historiography, how it depicts history. So how does this translate into the introducing sentence? I consider "Western and Christian historiography" good enough. Too technical? How about "Western and Christian historians"? Iñaki LL (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If any original scholarship was done after the Muslims invaded Iberia in 711 by Christians of the "east" concerning the struggles between Christians and Muslims in the Iberian peninsula, I assume it was done by Orthodox scholars in the Byzantine Empire who were writing in Greek, whether in the Balkans, Anantolia, or the Middle East. You insist on including the word "Western", but I haven't come round to considering it necessary. If a consensus develops that supports it, then so be it. Most English-speaking lay persons probably aren't familiar with the word "historiography", so I would prefer "historians" instead. Carlstak (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The origins of the term (19th century) are important and belong in the lead (with more extended coverage in the first section), just not the first line. The name is used by Muslims. I cited one earlier in this conversation! Of course, he was writing in English and that was probably the determining factor. "is a name used in English" would be better than "is a name used by Western Christians and other non-Muslims", but also a bit redundant (this is English WP after all). The fact that scholars of all kinds writing in English use Reconquista without apology is enough. We don't need to qualify who uses it in the first sentence. (And it's a bit odd, given the topic, to rely on a term as disputed as 'Western'.) Srnec (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reconquista is used in Spanish, too, as well as Portuguese, Srnec. Otherwise, agreed. Carlstak (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"In English" cited by Srnec should be fine with me in order to avoid all the hassle. That does not exclude Spanish or other languages anyway. The origin of the concept and term and its usage in other languages if needed could be clarified later. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Absurdly high bodycount for Battle of Rio Salado in infobox

For some reason, this page cites the number of casualties of this battle as 400k, which would pretty much make it the most deadly battle in history until Verdun. The actual article on the topic suggests only 100k people were involved total. The citation looks pretty damn shaky here too. 2A02:C7F:4473:F600:EF33:700A:B601:7601 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the figures and their sources. Two of the sources were clearly unreliable and the third Wales and the Crusades: c. 1095-1291, appears to be an odd choice for casualty figures concerning the Reconquista. Also, since there are no figures for the Christian casualties then there is no reason for Muslim casualties. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing them. This is a major problem for articles on this period. Sadly, a number of editors dedicate to add publications who take primary sources at face value, with figures of military expeditions and death tolls of over 100,000 up to 300,000, just ridiculous. Expeditions of over 20,000 were really rare. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

An IP is now edit warring to restore the same poorly(and unreliable) sourced figures into the article's infobox.[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In response to the edit warring by the IP, who clearly is not a "new user", the sources in question are not reliable;

• War, Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2009.
  

No page number, author(s) do not have any specialization in this time period. Unreliable source.

• Wales and the Crusades: c. 1095-1291, Kathryn Hurlock.
  

No page number, author has no specialization in the Reconquista. And why are we using a book concerning Wales and the crusades as a source for casualties in the Reconquista??

• An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles from 1479 B.C. to , David Eggenberger.
  

Author has no specialization in this time period. Unreliable source.

• Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human History, Matthew White.

Another unqualified author with no specialization in this time period. Not an historian. Unreliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Image of the article

The picture of 'Surrender of Granada' by the famous Spanish painter Pradilla I think is more recognizable and iconic of the Reconquista. JamesOredan (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit, it is again oversized despite my comment here. Also, there is no improvement on the previous image, Pradilla's is a later idealized image for the glory of the victors. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when an idealized picture is something negative? The vast majority of historical paintings are, and do not cease to be symbolic or important. It does not seem to be a compelling reason.

Also, when I saw your page I realized that you are the typical Basque nationalist trying to avoid anything related to Spain, even administrators have reproached your attitudes for your issues and abuses.

For my part, the best thing is going to be to avoid administrators like you. JamesOredan (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there is no improvement, the quality of the image is good, more balanced, and it is more genuine and contemporary. Your history and work and mine's are there for anyone to check, clear enough. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(Also, stick here to content and please follow WP:INDENT). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

All right, Basque nationalist. JamesOredan (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop personal attacks now! Iñaki LL (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate paragraph

A paragraph goes the following, "The authors show how territory quickly re-taken during the Reconquest was given to nobility, whereas territory slowly re-taken was more equally distributed and settled. Lands dominated by nobility have worse long-term development outcomes and greater inequality".

The bold is mine. Given the history of this article and others related to Spanish history, I doubt, although I may be wrong, that the provided source says "re-taken". Can anyone double-check that? Whatever it says it is conspicuously inaccurate to state that land is "re-taken" unless it belonged to the person in question or it is close in time or belonging to, say, the parents or relatives of the person who takes over the place. Anything else is to lay a claim or/and a construct. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The source says, mainly, "reconquered" (but also "conquered" and "reclaimed"). The word "re-taken" does not appear (nor does "taken"). They speak of a "rate of Reconquest". I see the term "frontier expansion" used occasionally as a synonym for Reconquest. Srnec (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Srnec. Obviously no "re-taking" here-yes, for example, in the Siege of Barbastro in 1065/66. An alternative wording could be "Territory quickly occupied during the Reconquest... whereas territory slowly occupied"... I rule out "reconquer" as ideological (laying a claim to), but am open to other options. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph because I think phrasing it in terms of "territory quickly re-taken" and "territory slowly re-taken" is somewhat confusing. I have replaced "re-taken" with "conquered" and "incorporated" ("taken" and "annexed" would also work). I think "occupied" sounds too temporary. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That is an improvement no doubt. However, "incorporation", which can be diplomatic or violent, dilutes a major consideration, the fact that they are military, violent deeds. I think that point cannot be left aside. "Conquest" should work, but I do not find it in your edit. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hm. It was there in an earlier preview. I have added a sentence of explanation. Srnec (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)