Talk:Reconquista: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale. Portugal To-do: Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport’s own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Improve Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests Assess Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Section size for Reconquista (46 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 10,367 10,367 432 432 Concept and duration 15,941 15,941 929 929 Background 72 5,430 0 536 Landing in Visigothic Hispania and initial expansion 1,691 1,691 130 130 Islamic rule 3,667 3,667 406 406 Early Reconquista 25 12,870 0 1,352 Beginning of the Reconquista 4,502 4,502 449 449 Frankish invasions 8,343 8,343 903 903 Reconquista as Crusade 7,780 7,780 612 612 Northern Christian realms 790 28,399 69 2,319 Kingdom of Asturias (718–924) 7,158 7,158 722 722 Kingdom of León (910–1230) 5,795 5,795 498 498 Kingdom of Castile (1037–1230) 3,483 3,483 335 335 Kingdom of Pamplona / Kingdom of Navarre (824–1620) 1,968 1,968 183 183 Kingdom and Crown of Aragon (1035–1706) 3,578 3,578 282 282 Kingdom of Portugal (1139–1249) 5,148 5,148 205 205 Minor Christian realms 479 479 25 25 Southern Islamic realms 91 7,135 0 795 Umayyads 1,174 1,174 140 140 Taifas 1,219 1,219 153 153 Almoravids 1,891 1,891 246 246 Almohads 633 633 77 77 Granada War and the end of Muslim rule 2,127 2,127 179 179 Infighting 17 6,491 0 642 Christian infighting 3,791 3,791 408 408 Muslim infighting 2,683 2,683 234 234 Christian repopulation 4,184 4,184 519 519 Christian military culture 33 7,775 0 996 Non-religious motives 2,122 2,122 216 216 Christian cavalry and infantry 2,850 2,850 376 376 Equipment 1,179 1,179 175 175 Technological changes 1,591 1,591 229 229 Conversions and expulsions 1,786 3,877 123 249 Spanish Inquisition 2,091 2,091 126 126 Classifications and later consequences 3,228 3,228 20 20 Legacy 4,750 17,518 274 1,191 French emulation 1,392 1,392 101 101 Festivals in modern Spain and Portugal 649 649 63 63 Persistent effects 1,267 1,267 111 111 Reverberations 5,669 5,669 398 398 Far-right motif 3,791 3,791 244 244 See also 32 32 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 28 28 0 0 Bibliography 7,884 7,884 0 0 External links 1,236 1,236 0 0 Total 140,199 140,199 10,592 10,592

There is a serious bias/sympathy towards Islam in this article. The general tone would lead me to believe, if I did not know otherwise, that the Arabs/Berbers/Muslims were the indigenous peoples of the Iberian peninsula of recorded history 172.59.197.144 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to frame conflicts in the area in “indigenous” vs “non-indigenous” terms since the Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, although the term indigenous is never absolute and should be established in a relational fashion. Whatever the case, I don’t think the general tone of this article suggests something along those lines. Due to the deliberate choice about the central topic of the article and its framing (which I do not approve of), the bulk of the content is going to deal with conquests by Christian parties of territories nominally ruled by a Muslim polity. For Muslim conquests of territories ruled by nominally Christian polities, there are other articles, such as “Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula“, or the less enduring “Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191)” or “Almoravid campaign in central Iberia (1109–1110)” in which you are invited to contribute too. Perhaps from that point stems your conflictual relation with the article. Needless to say, I hope that this neutrality complaint is not a demand requiring that events such as the ethnic cleansing of the local population of Málaga in 1487 be conceptualized as an expulsion of Nasrid “invaders” by Castilian “indigenous” groups.–Asqueladd (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The declaration of Pope Calixtus II had legitimized war against non Christians in the Iberian Peninsula as a Crusade equal that in the east, so even if Afonso Henriques did not receive a Crusade bull from the contemporary Pope the campaign is covered by Calixtus’ declaration and the article should reflect that. Cloud swimmer 04 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Ayala Martínez in his peer-reviewed article Pontificado, Cruzada y Reinos de León y Castilla (siglos XII-XIII)| about the relations of the Kingdoms of León, Castile and the papacy in the crusade context (quite on topic, if you ask me), states that the pope did not grant any bull legitimising the crusading nature of the operation, so it should be quite relevant to outlining the nature of the operation and the material privileges yielded by the partakers. You seem to disregard what the source says, making a bold wide claim, that reads quite close to original research, plus the wording is also a bit poorly chosen given that no pope in the middle ages would declare an operation under the non-existent term of “Reconquista” as anything. Could you quote verbatim what passage (and which author too for that matter) are you citing by referencing “Crusades: Medieval Worlds in Conflict. United Kingdom, Ashgate, 2010 p. 89”.–Asqueladd (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by edits continually erode the already flawed introduction of this article in order to minimise any type of scholar analysis that places the concept within a historiographical framework, at best including that analysis as an ornamental epiphenomenon, at worst simply blanking it piece by piece. In doing so, the article outlines a coat rack topic with dumbed down content aligning with reactionary (and largely historiographically stale) views. We deserve better.–Asqueladd (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I’d note that the lead is too long. I’d normally tag this, but I’ll hold off here for now in the hope that this can be remedied swiftly. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think that the current lead’s length could be put to better uses, in its length the current introduction currently operates mostly as a holder for dropping blue links of battles and polities, missing the forest for the trees. And regarding the lead’s scarce mentions to “big” concepts outlining “a forest”, it happens to clumsily mix the so-called Repoblación of the northern Meseta north of the Duero with the settlement policies involving military orders beyond the Tagus.–Asqueladd (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Christian realms section and the subsequent one on “Southern Islamic realms” are also both really dubious and appear to fail to recognise that the main purpose of an interlinked wiki is that you don’t need to explain every linked term. They totally disrupt the narrative flow of the page in actually explaining the core subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be going through the history in a chronological pattern, not domain by domain. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming the lead section issue, regarding the paragraph illustrating the problematization of the construct as a mere ornamental epiphenomenon, it cannot be said that it makes good use of many of the sources it cites.–Asqueladd (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As your cn tag suggests, the traditional interpretative emphasis of the term has been not on the restoration of a temporal entity, but on restoring lost Catholic territory to Christendom. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to define what “traditional” and “recent” means when mentioned in this paragraph but what the cited García Sanjuán source can be used for is accounting that in the 18th-19th centuries the narrative developed a hitherto absent national angle.–Asqueladd (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those terms are dicey and do need defining in context. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The association that the article attempts to make between the Spanish army and the “far right”, is defamatory.

They try to mix things up and show an image of soldiers carrying out their activities with Francoist flags, which is done with malicious intent, in addition to talking about the Legion, which is a unit that has little to do with the Reconquista, an event that took place 400 years before its creation. Grancapitan1 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar the passage Día de la Toma de Granada, the annual commemoration of the surrender of Sultan Boabdil in Granada on 2 January acquired a markedly nationalistic undertone during the early years of the Francoist regime and, since the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, it has served as glue for extreme right groups by facilitating their open-air physical gatherings and providing them with an occasion which they can use to explicitly state their political demands can be enhanced by an illustration, the concerned image and the caption do the job. Without even considering the very contemporary nature of the construct “Reconquista”, your last claim is irrelevant and intellectually insulting insofar the image illustrates a subsection “far right motif” in the “legacy” subsection, and it is clearly not illustrating something that happened 400 years ago. I however can agree that, unlike the image, the “Boyfriend of Death” mention does not seem to be warranted in the section by the context provided by the source, even if the far right links of that and many other Spanish Armed Forces units is difficult to deny.–Asqueladd (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish armed forces are exemplary in their defense of democracy, and the units that comprise them are too; otherwise, Spain would not be a democracy, In which case it’s not a topic that I think would interest someone who wants to know about the Reconquista very much.

And as I said before, in the image you can see that there is a link between them by placing a soldier surrounded by pre-constitutional flags Grancapitan1 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The caption adequatedly indicates that the parade is attended by far-right sympathizers, as the Fascist flags indicate. It does not comment on the ideology of the parading elements. We are here: Every year the city celebrates the day of the Toma, a public commemoration organised by the municipal corporation with the participation of military and ecclesiastical elements. Almost since the beginning of democracy, this celebration has been marked by a strong controversy between progressive sectors, who reject the public commemoration of an act of conquest and violence, and the more traditionalist, conservative and ultra-right-wing groups, enthusiastic defenders of the fiesta, attached to the vision of the past that is linked to the notion of the Reconquista as the origin of Spain García Sanjuan p.74..–Asqueladd (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a comprehensive article, although we cannot ignore the fact that the professor who wrote it has a certain ideology, Beyond this, I still maintain that the capture of Granada and its celebration should not appear in an article about the Reconquista; there is another one about the capture of Granada where it would be more appropriate. Grancapitan1 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so according to you, the addition of celebrations of something that you consider to be “Reconquista” and that those who celebrate it also consider to be “Reconquista” should not be mentioned in the article about the so-called “Reconquista” because reasons. Well, instead of moving goalposts, you could have started there with that epistemological dead end and not wasted other editors’ time.–Asqueladd (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]