Talk:Reconquista

Untitled

An event in this article is a January 2 selected anniversary

Modern uses of the term

There has also, of late, been a movement in the United States to term some pro-immigration Latino politicians as reconquistas. Largely this is used as a derogatory term, alleging that these politicians are actually part of a movement to re-conquer the United States for Mexico.

This "comment" is purely POV and should be removed from the main page. Also, who are the "Latino" Politicians?

---

La Voz de Aztlan is fairly extreme group who overly advocates creation of a new nation Aztlan, from Mexico and much of the southwestern US. The are alleged to have ties with MEChA, a more mainstream, but still conversial Chicano activist organization. A number of current Mexican-American politicians have been linked to MECha, most famously former Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante of California, who was a member in the 70's.

As for POV, the term reconquista is in fact being used in Southern California, against politicians perceived as being weak on illegal immigration. I have personally heard Cruz Bustamante, State Senator Gil Cedillo, and Los Angeles Mayor-Elect Antonio Villaraigosa characterized in this way, mostly by local radio commentators.

I do not see any huge bias, as the statement is factual and does not advocate a particular POV. I am not, however, convinced it belongs in an article about European history. Disambiguation is probably better.

adding in more information

i have got a book written by Henry Kamen - Spain 1469 - 1714 A Society of Conflict Third edition, In this book Henry claims when Grenada fell about the time of 1492 the moors in Castile numbered "half a million within the realm, 100,000 had died or been enslaved, 200,000 emigrated, and 200,000 remained as the residual population. Many of the Muslim elite, including Boabdil, who had been given the area of the Alpujarra mountain as a prinvipality, found life under Christian rule intolerable and passed over into north Africa" pp 37 - 38

SHould this be included?

The Fall of Granada

A person who does not understand the difference between an historical period (like "The Reconquista") and an historical event (like "the conquest of Granada") should not attempt to write or edit any historical articles because that person does not understand the basics of history as a discipline. Nor is it up to editors of Wikipedia articles to give their opinions about anything, including whether they agree or disagree with this periodization. They may cite respected dissenting historians.

Demography.

Has the demographic result of the Reconquista been studied?

Lead

@إيان and Arcillaroja: This has been discussed before. See the archives. I am comfortable with neither "period" nor "historiographical construction" as the definition. I think I would prefer:

The Reconquista (Portuguese and Spanish for "reconquest") was the protracted process by which the Christian kingdoms of Iberia conquered the Islamic kingdoms between 711, when the Umayyads first conquered Hispania, and 1492, when the last Islamic kingdom, Nasrid Granada, surrendered.

Ideally there would be no citations in the lead. The article currently does not have a 'Historiography' section. I think discussion of the construction and development of the Reconquista idea belongs in one.

Also pinging @Iñaki LL, Asqueladd, and Carlstak: —Srnec (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would refrain from calling it "process" (southward territorial expansion is better). I insist that many quality sources do endorse a meta-approach which can result in the opening statements to wording like "term that refers to". The article currently does not have a 'Historiography' section. The "concept" subsection is actually somewhat "historiography"-like, or at least historiography lite. In any case, way more attention should be paid to the content in the body. I personally don't have much energy for editing the article unless we get a broad consensus on a roadmap about the issues of the article and how to improve it, though.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an important article to any encyclopedia, and one of the most challenging to compose in a way that satisfies the different camps in academia. It absolutely needs work. I agree with Asqueladd that "southward territorial expansion" is better than "process"; it's also better than either "period" or "historiographical construction". I would endorse a meta-approach as he says, but I do not think wording like "term that refers to" is a good choice. I certainly agree with إيان that al-Andalus and Muslims must be in the lede. I know that Asqueladd is up to the task of improving the article, should he choose to take it on. I know that Srnec and إيان are quite capable too, but I'm sure they have different approaches, so as Asqueladd says, there must be a consensus reached, a general agreement to map the way forward. That's the rub. I had a nice long vacation, and now I'm back on a project(s), so I would have limited time and energy to help. Good luck. Carlstak (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I agree with Srnec in that no references are required in the lead, as they may constrain articulation of broader concepts discussed down to detail across the article body ("in Wikipedia articles, the first sentence is usually a definition, the lead is longer, and it ultimately provides more information, as its purpose is to summarize the article, not just introduce it" (1). The lead and concept section have been altered and discussed repeatedly, and sadly at leat lately there is no improvement. Much as I do not dislike "Refers to", as stated by Asqueladd, I think it is deprecated in lede definitions (off the top of my head, anyone correct me). The current concept section provides key points to understand the article, comprising there the concerns related to historiography and a glimpse to present-day cultural and political implications.

The term and concept "Reconquista" has been by now broadly defined as the period of Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula, but I will not oppose "the southward territorial expansion of the northern Christian kingdoms", as pointed above, with all the necessary nuances and explanations. Strictly speaking, that would exclude the Arab-Berber expansion period of 711-718/721, which simply points to the inherent contradictions of this 19th century concept, at least partially a construct, and would require another article for the 711-718/721 period. In sum, back to status quo before the latest edits. As for the compromise put forward by Srnec for the first line definition, I take to be pretty accurate, I only would add northern Christian kingdoms, along the lines noted by Asqueladd, the southward territorial expansion.

Improvements to the article? Welcome, of course. I am tight and can only make small contributions. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for pinging me. I'm glad we're having this discussion.

What is the issue with describing the topic as a "historiographical construction", when it is in line with modern scholarship? The article clearly can't present the "Reconquista" as a matter of objective historical fact when modern scholarship exposes it as a national myth, and I cite La reconquista : una construcción historiográfica : siglos XVI-XIX. and Beyond the Reconquista : new directions in the history of Medieval Iberia (711-1085). and others.

The issue with Srnec's proposal: The Reconquista (Portuguese and Spanish for "reconquest") was the protracted process by which the Christian kingdoms of Iberia conquered the Islamic kingdoms between 711, when the Umayyads first conquered Hispania, and 1492, when the last Islamic kingdom, Nasrid Granada, surrendered. is that it was not a united, coordinated process, and it can't be presented as such. There were different kingdoms with different ruling dynasties and different and shifting allegiances, often against each other and at times with Muslims. The period in question also spans 781 years—for reference that's more than 3 times the age of the United States. They were also different kingdoms: the Ummayads conquered Visigothic Hispania while Nasrid Granada surrendered to Castile and Aragon almost a millennium later, challenging the claim of a "Reconquista".

If this article is going to endeavor to present the topic as historical fact, then it has to be radically reimagined and rewritten to maintain WP:NPOV. إيان (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If I'm correctly understanding Asqueladd's statement, this problem is addressed by the "meta" approach of neutrally describing the Reconquista as a concept, or "construct". That way all positions can be accommodated, at least theoretically.;-) I realize that this is a shorter way of saying "historiographical construction", but I think that particular phrasing is confusing to a lay reader, the typical reader of a WP article, who probably won't read much past the lede. "Concept" gets the idea across simply enough. "Historiographical construction", and what it means, with all its attendant nuances, could be explicated in the body. Carlstak (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a meta-approach is the best way to neutrally approach the topic. The question then becomes one of wording. I agree that "historiographical construction," while nice and precise, is not the kind of lay-language necessary for the lede. I support "concept" for the lede, with info on "historiographical construction" later on in the body. My contribution first got removed citing Wikipedia:Refers to, though, so we'll have to be thoughtful about that. إيان (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Not in the introducing sentence, but the lead section needs to summarize all the relevant points to the topic in discussion, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (Manual of style). The MoS statement easily accommodates the historiography question and present-day cultural and/or political approaches. Of course, not too long. Do you feel, Srnec, up to the challenge? (If you agree with the points cited in the discussion) That would be appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I will try, but I want to do a little re-reading first. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC) I won't be getting to this anytime soon. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your wording proposition. Unfortunately I have no time at the moment so I can't contribute as much as I would like to. In general terms, I would avoid controversy in the lead. Just state what it's about. Not what it should be called according to this or that progressive or conservative scholar. Calling it a concept is perfectly fine. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. "Historiographical construction" seems to me to be a rather fuzzy term, and right now Lead almost implies that it was a historical process almost belonging to a myth. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I still think that avoiding the "refers" in the opening statement is doing us little service (because it distances us from the treatment by the most self-aware sources), but this is a proposal that avoids "refers to" in the opening statement and likewise endorses the "trifid" usage explained by García Fitz in the article "Reconquista, un estado de la cuestión" in the third statement.

The Reconquista is the vision of history that frames the middle ages in the Iberian Peninsula in terms of the overarching southward expansion of the northern Christian kingdoms of the peninsula to the detriment of territory under Islamic rule (Al-Andalus). It is an ambiguous and disputed concept. The term Reconquista has been ambivalently used to circumscribe the historical period from the 8th to the 15th century (generally pinpointed by the milestones 722 and 1492, respectively signalling the semi-legendary Battle of Covadonga and the end of the Granada War) from a Christian point of view, to inform about the aforementioned intermittent territorial expansion and Christian-Muslim conflict, or to underscore the ideology of war promoted by Christian elites based on legitimist claims of restoration of the Visigothic Kingdom that, at some times, partially drove the warring efforts. The most significant period of Christian territorial gains through warfare ensued from the 11th to 13th centuries—when the Western European Christian civilization was entirely pervaded by the fait militaire— in central and then southern parts of the peninsula, most notably including the expansion of the Castilian-Leonese kingdoms.

The ideological component, nurtured from the 9th century on and featured in Christian medieval chronicles under an exclusionary discourse, is underpinned by the ideas of ruin of Hispania (Spanie ruinascode: lat promoted to code: la ) that resulted from the Umayyad conquest of the peninsula, legitimacy of war and divine providentialism. The much later association of the concept to the nationalist idea of Spanish national liberation enshrined the term of Reconquista in 19th-century Spanish historiography to the expense of the traditional term of Restauración ('Restoration'), a development that came to cement the Reconquista's status as an ideological tenet of the national-catholic discourse. Together with that of the Crusades, the rhetorics of Reconquista is also contemporarily used as a rallying point of the 21st-century European far right, informing of an Islamophobic political discourse. @Iñaki LL, إيان, Carlstak, Srnec, and Arcillaroja:--Asqueladd (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree with your suggestion. The Reconquista is absolutely a historiographical construction, but very few other pages describing periods of history that are also historiographical constructions (such as the entire Middle Ages, for instance) feel the need to so prominently mention it in the opening paragraph. There's a way to write the lead without the need for scare quotes (as "reconquered" was written and "protection" is currently written) and vague wording that should satisfy NPOV. If the historiography needs to be mentioned in the lead, the bottom should be the place for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how to put my post below the citations used above, but if anyone is aware how I'd love to know. Wertwert55 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Asqueladd for taking the pain of attempting the lead, I take it to be very valid and balanced, but a bit too verbose. I would simplify the first sentence. The neo-Gothic ideology impregnating the crusade could also be cited, the imperial idea of an Hispania based on Castile and its alleged authority derived from a Roman-Gothic past. I see no objections to the historiographic side of the concept as phrased above at the moment. Sorry, Wertwert55, I would´t know how to attach the files to the paragraph. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Asqueladd's proposed text is balanced. I think it would need to be polished up a bit, editorially speaking, for concision and flow, but the gist of it seems fine to me. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please, note that the Catalan version of this article avoids completelly the term "Reconquesta" because it's an ideologically biaised interpretation of those centuries from a Spaniard political mind in XIXth century. They changed its title there to "Conquesta feudal hispànica" (translated: Feudal Hispanic conquest). It explains it's not only a mere territorial expansion but a deep social structure changing because political power was swifted from Islamic law to feudalism and to Vatican Rome and territorial expansion was a consequence of it. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please, note that an article about "Reconquista" is arguably always going to exist in en:wikipedia, whether it is deals with a flagrant ultranationalist hoax or with a valid historical development (or somepoint in between, or a mix of both), so I suggest (for now) to focus on the content, pursuant to how authoritative secondary sources approach the topic 'Reconquista' (rather than on haphazard renaming proposals, because as anybody may understand if something did not exist, renaming it with a different and obscure title is going to solve jack squat). The article you are pointing at basically deals with the same topic as this one (and its structure is not dissimilar to this one's either), other than adding some content about settlement/colonisation which may be welcomed (otherwise biased towards developments in northern Iberia). It even goes as far as framing the concept as an instance of "military campaign" (lasting for 8 centuries?) in the infobox, which is absolutely "bollocks". We actually avoid doing the latter here (since we agreed on removing the loony "military campaign infobox" template from this article a while ago). Scholar reluctance to endorse the term Reconquista (or warning about the term's turbo-ideological background) should be focused on questioning the term inline (with due weight) or even re-factoring the concept's nature, rather than on looking for alternative whimsical names to address the same thing. Other than the title renaming (which I find unwarranted), I also take your "warning" as an invitation to expand the article with content other than military porn and I kind of agree with that.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm agree with some observations you explain here. It's a large article and the lead and the title were changed first, although the infobox is still telling there that it was a long military campaign, as you said, and I also think it should be removed. I didn't intended to warn you, but the term "conquista feudal de Hispania" is a scholar term perfectly used in Spaniard Academia, not an "whimsical name", as you can see when you search academic publications related to this topic (such here, here, here, here, or here, none of them are never absolutely referreing to "Reconquesta"). I rather intended to tell that using "Reconquista" has better to be absolutelly avoided as a lead title in Wikipedia because it's not cientifical nor academic. Thanks for your answer and have a nice day. :) --Joanot Martorell ✉ 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)