Talk:Reconquista

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

This has been a perennial discussion (such as here), and the article would benefit from some stabilizing, somewhat binding consensus. I am hoping for robust engagement with the latest scholarship and the most reliable sources. إيان (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be presented as a vision of history/perspective/historiographical narrative. Current opening statement shuns the approach to the concept in academia in favor of the poor "series of military campaigns". The content in the body of the article would also require serious reassessment in regard of the chronological balance at the very least, or more dramatically, in regard of a full deprecation of this article as the default recipient for military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Historiographical narrative per Asqueladd. It may take some bold editing to get more engagement from other editors. I suggest proceeding in stages, with due notice on this talk page, outlining intended changes. I would support "a full deprecation of this article as the default recipient for military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages", although I imagine that would catalyze some outrage, and bring out the reactionaries.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point about the reactionaries. All the more reason to gather some excellent references to start. إيان (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the creation of Military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages to host such information. This looks like a useful source to consider:
 * It might be a good idea to round up some of key texts in preparation for these changes. What do you all think? إيان (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The question is vague and unclear. Vegan416 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Historical fact. Vegan416 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm all in on this. I'm relaxing with some refreshments right now after a long workday,;-) and should be able to devote some time and attention tomorrow. I'm sure Asqueladd will have something to say. Carlstak (talk)
 * I'm all in on this. I'm relaxing with some refreshments right now after a long workday,;-) and should be able to devote some time and attention tomorrow. I'm sure Asqueladd will have something to say. Carlstak (talk)

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


 * For competing perspectives in the academy, see Carlos de Ayala Martínez, The 'Reconquest': A New Proposal of Defnition (2024), and Alejandro García-Sanjuán, Cómo desactivar una bomba historiográfica: la pervivencia actual del paradigma de la Reconquista (2019). The former summarizes the latter thus:"Professor García Sanjuán [identifies] three different groups of researchers: [1] those who reject it as unacceptable given its irremediable ideological undertones; [2] those who, in accordance with the more traditional interpretation, though to varying degrees, understand and accept the ‘reconquest’ as that formative period of the Peninsular reality without which it impossible to understand the realities of Spanish history; and, finally, [3] those of us who propose to recover the term by applying it exclusively to the ideological dimension to which we are referring..."Is the term "Reconquista" more or less problematic than "Byzantine"? "Feudalism"? More or less ideological than "Glorious Revolution"? "Reformation"? The debate is entirely about the right words to use. The historical facts are not in dispute. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear! Vegan416 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a little difficult to parse the problem that requires an RFC. To summarise, as a naïve reader, the “Reconquista” appears to be the term used for the series of campaigns. If the campaigns actually happened, and this term is the term used for them, then I see no need to clarify except to say that the term is modern, and was not used at the time. If the term has political implications, that needs to be made clearer, though many terms that have political implications are still the proper term to use (eg, Holocaust).
 * While the RfC is far from well-constructed, I don’t think it needs to be revoked at this point. Obviously asking editors to refer to policy and to regard the most reliable sources is unnecessary, but a clearer case needs to be made for a more specific change. All history pages are regarded as historiography to some degree, including this one; if the change desired is the word “historiographical” then it should be made clear why the reader needs this phrasing. — HTGS (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain consensus is that the Reconquista is historical fact, I see no need to change it.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * if the change desired is the word “historiographical” then it should be made clear why the reader needs this phrasing. This has been discussed in the archived thread linked above I'm fairly certain consensus You are certainly wrong about such purported consensus, tho. To begin with, Reconquista is an ambiguous historiographical construct accounting for at least three meanings (as per one of its partial defenders) And second, the validity of such construct for one, two or all three of such "meanings" is questioned in academia (as per one of its partial defenders). --Asqueladd (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment As the discussion shows, the RfC is very poorly formulated. What is it that is in dispute here? Does anyone dispute that the Iberian Peninsula was gradually conquered by the different Christian kingdoms? Or does anyone dispute that Reconquista is the WP:COMMONNAME for it? As I already said, this does not seem to be a proper RfC and it is not clear what change is proposed. Jeppiz (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the RfC is unclear to you, it probably means you are not familiar enough with the scholarship on the topic to opine usefully. إيان (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you able to answer Jeppiz’s questions? They aren’t complicated.
 * Most people who participate in RfC’s are generally intelligent and considered, and more importantly, they are donating their time to help resolve your issue. It certainly doesn’t endear people to you when you choose to condescend instead of engaging with them. — HTGS (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear! Vegan416 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in familiarizing yourself with current scholarship on the subject and then returning to the discussion, you might start with some of the recent English publications of Alejandro García Sanjuánː
 * إيان (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? Or does this one person represent the whole of "current scholarship"? 209.183.211.50 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * HTGS^ إيان (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @إيان
 * No. @Jeppiz is correct. Nobody here really understands what you want. So, the problem is with your poor phrasing of the RfC and not with our knowledge. Frankly, as it stands now, your RfC sounds like some indecipherable postmodern bullshit. If you want to get more meaningful answers you should point to the exact sentences in the current version of the article that you object to, and suggest the exact text you want to replace them with. And then people will be able to make a simple and clear decision. Vegan416 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, it sounds like your issue is that the description of the series of conflicts described in the article as the Reconquista is WP:POV. Have you considered investigating possible alternate titles and then suggesting a rename, or perhaps a split? Splitting the article into one for the historical conflicts and one for the concept of "Reconquista" makes the most sense, but you would need to first identify a clear, acceptable title for the conflicts themselves. The article is also huuuuge and really covers two topics, so a split makes some sense. Anyway, FWIW, I support the basic idea that "Reconquista" is best covered as a historiographical narrative (there is plenty of sourcing discussing it that way) but you would need to spin off the simple factual history of battles and such into its own article, and would need to figure out what the best title is for that article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. @Jeppiz is correct. Nobody here really understands what you want. So, the problem is with your poor phrasing of the RfC and not with our knowledge. Frankly, as it stands now, your RfC sounds like some indecipherable postmodern bullshit. If you want to get more meaningful answers you should point to the exact sentences in the current version of the article that you object to, and suggest the exact text you want to replace them with. And then people will be able to make a simple and clear decision. Vegan416 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, it sounds like your issue is that the description of the series of conflicts described in the article as the Reconquista is WP:POV. Have you considered investigating possible alternate titles and then suggesting a rename, or perhaps a split? Splitting the article into one for the historical conflicts and one for the concept of "Reconquista" makes the most sense, but you would need to first identify a clear, acceptable title for the conflicts themselves. The article is also huuuuge and really covers two topics, so a split makes some sense. Anyway, FWIW, I support the basic idea that "Reconquista" is best covered as a historiographical narrative (there is plenty of sourcing discussing it that way) but you would need to spin off the simple factual history of battles and such into its own article, and would need to figure out what the best title is for that article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add an Infobox?
Perhaps it would be good to add a Template:Infobox military conflict? To get a overview over the belligerents, results and similar. GusGusBrus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current consensus leans against it. The topic is a contested concept in historiography, althought lately the lead section has been doing a poor job at accounting for that feature. Go figure why an infobox may be a bad idea.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)