Talk:Reconquista/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction grammar

The last "sentence" of the introduction is a mess. It's incomplete or a combination of different sentences. Please, someone who knows what it's trying to say, clarify and simplify. Thanks. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 15:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Carlstak (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak for the fixes. Still I do not think the last sentence of the lead is more clear now. Mistakenly, I was thinking derekbd made reference to the first paragraph. The last sentence is now more ambiguous, as I see it. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, Iñaki. In the previous phrasing, "Since the mid-19th century, the idea of a reconquest took hold in Spain associated with its rising nationalism and colonialism.", it is not clear what the dependent clause, "associated with its rising nationalism and colonialism" refers to. In my phrasing, "The concept of a Christian reconquest, associated with Spanish nationalism and colonialism, took hold in the 19th century and was consolidated in Spanish historiography by the 20th", it's clear that the concept of a reconquest is "associated with Spanish nationalism and colonialism". Do you disagree with this formulation? As far as I can see, my version retains all the information present in the previous version, with the addition of the assertion by García Fitz that the concept of a reconquista was consolidated in Spanish historiography by the 20th century. Carlstak (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

In your solution, the clause "associated with Spanish nationalism" is an extra information, a comment, so to say, i.e. the sentence is "The concept of a Christian reconquest took hold in the 19th century" (provides info on the period that it happened), plus an additional comment. In the original wording, it states (main information) that "the concept of a Christian reconquest arose for its links with the Spanish nationalism, which was gaining momentum in the 19th century". That is the main information, and that was happening in the 19th century. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The extra information in the clause "associated with Spanish nationalism" came from the second García Fitz citation (that is, from the same source as the first, but on the following page, p. 146: "...the concept of Reconquista, as it emerged in the 19th century and was consolidated in the historiography of the first half of the 20th..." The "additional comment" you're talking about came from García Fitz, not me. I don't see a non sequitur here. Carlstak (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your idea, but I do not think it transmits a clear, understandable idea as it is outlined in the source. I refer to the end of page 144 / start of 145, where I think the idea is more clearly expressed. "The inclusion of the concept of Reconquista in the Spanish historiography during the 19th century provided a strong basis for the formation of a Spanish national identity and Spanish nationalism, against a backdrop of romanticism and sometimes colonialism." Iñaki LL (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've simply added a statement paraphrasing García Fitz that further clarifies his assertion that the concept of Reconquista was developed in the 19th century and consolidated in Spanish historiography in the 20th. I honestly don't understand why you don't get the meaning, because the text I added simply juxtaposes the paraphrasing of two statements made by García Fitz about the "concept" of Reconquista, which seems to me to be very similar to the text you're quoting. In my opinion the previous version was not clear. I think I can paraphrase the text you quote in a way that satisfies both of us, but I've had one glass too many of wine to deal with it it now. Let me sleep on it and I'll offer a rephrasing for your consideration as well as commentary by anyone else who might care. Carlstak (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I submit:

"The concept of Reconquista, consolidated in Spanish historiography in the second half of the 19th century, was associated with the development of a Spanish national identity, emphasizing nationalistic and romantic, and occasionally, colonialist, aspects."

I believe this preserves all your points in a more natural and concise English phrasing. Carlstak (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I've replaced the former phrasing with this version. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversing the Reconquista

There are some Muslims advocating reversing the Reconquista, according to some recent televison commentators. This is a very vague statement, but it should be included in this article, five centuries later. We need good references for this statement.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

etymology?

Where does the name come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.92.180 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Classification of belligerents

In the Infobox military conflict I removed parameter combatant2, which is used to distinguish "major groups on each side of the conflict". However, during the eight centuries of the Reconquista period, alliances were not stable and varied frequently, to the point that kingdoms listed on both "sides" of these "major groups" fought together against others, or kingdoms in the same side were enemies.

Srnec has restored the parameter saying that "the groups are pretty clearly distinguishable", but provides no criterion for that classification. The view of Reconquista as a prolonged religious fight between Christian and Muslim sides is the contested concept of the XIX historiography and should not be used for establishing categories in Wikipedia's voice. We would need a source establishing that these groups of combatants are considered two major sides in a single prolonged conflict also by the people who consider Reconquista a concept built post-hoc, as this is a contested idea and we can't accept it as fact, to maintain a NPOV. Diego (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The term "Reconquista", when describing conflict, only describes conflict where the goal is to replace Muslim rule with Christian. It doesn't describe, e.g., Castile invading Aragon. The fact that sometimes Christians (or Muslims) were found on both sides is not important in the long run. A better solution is to remove the infobox altogether, which I'd support. Srnec (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer that, as well. Diego (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I disagree with your edit summary: "having an infobox showing two sides is saying that two sides exist, which is the POV disputed by scholars". The basic division between Christian and Muslims is not in dispute and is central to any understanding of the history of this period. As I alluded to in my edit summary, you might as well say that World War II didn't have two sides because the Soviets invaded Poland, the British fought the French in Madagascar and the Bulgarians changed sides. I support removing the entire infobox because it's a reductive summary not suited to a topic like this (700 years of history). Srnec (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the infobox for both reasons. It is a very long period with different circumstances and different ideological approaches and interests, ever more Manichean. The Church of Rome played a key role starting 11th century, as the authority of Rome. There are different clashes in a geostrategic game, with religion used as ideological justification, as Machiavelli noted about Ferdinand.

Up to the 10th century, those showing allegiance to the Muslims were considered heretics of Christianity. World War II is a specific, consistent period of time (1939-1945), as you, Srnec, point at the end of the paragraph. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Mamluks = "slave soldiers"?

In the second paragraph of this article, the Mamluks are briefly mentioned, followed by an explanatory parenthesis: "(slave soldiers)". Reading the article about the Mamluks, I find that "[t]he term is most commonly used to refer to non-muslim slave soldiers and Muslim rulers of slave origin. The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military caste in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers." This Mamluk Sultanate lasted from 1250 to 1517 - so perhaps the "African Mamluks" mentioned here are in fact professional knights sent from Egypt - it's hard for a non-specialist like myself to say. The parenthesis is therefore more confusing than clarifying, particularly since this is the only place in the article where Mamluks are mentioned. In my opinion, the parenthesis should therefore either be deleted altogether, or amplified - e.g. with a footnote. It would also seem natural to expand somewhat on these Mamluks and their role in the conflict, in the article's main text.

Filursiax (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The term Mamluk, especially when capitalized, most commonly refers to the Mamluk dynasty that ruled Egypt and Syria from about 1250 to 1500. It's misleading to use the term to describe the composition of the Andulusian military. One recent reference (Catlos 2018) describes the force as "consisting of Berber recruits, Christian mercenaries, Muslim troops..., slaves, and Andalusis"; slaves were only mentioned as one component and not described as Mamluks. NO supporting references are provided in the article. I think the term Mamluks and the accompanying "slave soldiers" should be eliminated entirely. Glendoremus (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Recent changes (bold edit; attempt to "compromise") concern the addition of polities and other cruft to the infobox. I'd say those changes go against the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (...) "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Dragovit made a case in his/her talk page about the taifas of Badajoz and Zaragoza being "much larger and stronger than Emirate of Granada" (thus supposedly meriting a mention). The latter is an opiniated take (at this point very much personal and unsourced: others could say Granada was actually more enduring and less of a rump state) but in any case, the edit actually highlights a tension: the infobox possibly attempting to convey historiographical frames rather than portraying an actual battle. I should say, there may be probably some merit in including the all-encompassing, historiographical and generic term of "taifa kingdoms" to the current version of the infobox.

In any case, I say, get this over with once and for all and remove the whole infobox for good (not least because this article may deal with a fraught historical narrative for a protracted period at least as much as with a notion of "battle"). Pinging. @Dragovit:, @Iñaki LL:, @Diego Moya:, @Srnec:.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe the current version of infobox is insufficient and unnecessary. It contains incomplete information about reconquista, which is at the level of amateur or popular-like elementary school, but not scientific or educational, does not accept all the historical facts and inaccurate. It is preferable to remove the insufficient infobox. Everyone can compare the current version with my editing, then see that it is much more sophisticated, more informative, more educational and higher quality in many ways. I compared all the articles on Reconquista's battles and put this information in the infobox, these are not my personal presumptions. It is common practice that infoboxes also include allies and supporters. I added taifa kingdoms like Badajoz and Zaragoza, because they were much larger and stronger than the Emirate of Granada, but the Emirate of Granada is mentioned in the infobox and Badajoz or Zaragoza not. I I believe that these larger taifa states (Zaragoza, Badajoz, Toledo, Sevilla and Granada) should be included in the infobox as the main belligerents, because were bigger and powerful than Emirate of Granada and also County of Porgual that are in the infobox. Other smaller and weaker taifa states I added to collapsible list, where it should not bother anyone. The Kingdom of Asturias is also absent, although it was very much involved in the beginning of the conflict. And what about the Crown of Castile? It's not there either. I believe that the reverters did not look at the battles at all and did not take these facts into account. I also used a newer coding "Flagicons" than the anachronic "File:" and selected those flagicons files that are more used, accurate and prefered vectorized. File "Bandera_Navarra.png" is a modern flag of the 20th century and not a medieval kingdom, also it isn't a vector version. Also the flag of León is inaccurate, is more modern in later Habsburg design of the 15th century after Reconquista. I do not know what the problem is, my edits are always the result of my some deeper research and if I make a mistake, I immediately fix. --Dragovit (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the infobox entirely. Srnec (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Because is it easier solution for you? Or is it a form of revenge? :) The previous day you reverted few my edits in various articles in same time and I think it's your form of revenge, that's why I called before it vandalism. You must know that I spent several hours doing that. Removing the entire infobox is a last choice. It's better to keep it because it's useful and helpful tool, but not without essential facts as I said. None of you have argued, why is it such an obstacle to enter more data into the infobox? Is it all about appearance and aesthetics of the infobox? Do you feel sick when you see too many letters in one place? Should it be removed because persons like us can't or don't want to make arrangement and baheave like kids on a playground? --Dragovit (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove the infobox entirely; it's a mindless oversimplification. Instead of creating endless lists of little flag icons, folks should dig into the text of the article and make some real improvements. Glendoremus (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it's a mindless oversimplification, but the list I created isn'nt endless, it's complete list to see who was there or not, that's the difference. It's the main reason why the infobox is there placed, not as decoration, and therefore should fulfill its purpose. Simple. The purpose of infobox is to show the data. It's quite inappropriate to require it to contain only some of the data or only part of it. Who should decide about it? Why is the County of Portugal more significant than the Taifa of Zaragoza? We could ask countless such questions. --Dragovit (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not long ago, this has been discussed. The whole 750-plus year period cannot be outlined in an infobox aimed at summarizing key data of a (two or three sided) war. It is a complex period with different sides, internal feuds, diplomatic efforts related to the role of Rome and the use of religion against enemies, internal and external, with Castile as the leading military force, attempting to take over the idea of Roman Hispania and turn it into a political project.

That said, I also support removing the infobox. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it can be also theoretically solved. I want to try to keep the infobox, I consider removing as a step back and as a last resort. My solution is that I enter centuries as a titles to paragraphs of the infobox, it would take more time and effort, I'm willing to do it, but it would take more space there and therefore I'm sure that colleagues here will revert it immediately. I think they want something completely different and that's why we can't make agreement. --Dragovit (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove I think infoboxes are often useful, but in this case, it's best dispensed with. 15:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why aren't people SIGNING COMMENTS here?

I see many comments here, but before this date no one has signed a comment. This leaves questions as to who is saying a thing, as well as eliminating date stamps, which can themselves be useful for understanding comments. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit annoying. These are all comments that were written quite some time ago. More recently, entries are automatically signed and dated if someone fails to do it themselves. Even more annoying, these entries don't seem to get archived automatically, probably because they lack a date. I see that many, more recent discussion threads have already been archived in the meanwhile. Maybe an administrator can clean this up? Glendoremus (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Santiago de Compostela

"even sacking the great shrine of Santiago de Compostela."

I was unaware that Santiago was or contained a "great shrine" in the 9th century. deisenbe (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe:: The article mentions the late 10th century, not the 9th century: "In the late 10th century, the Umayyad vizier Almanzor waged military campaigns for 30 years to subjugate the northern Christian kingdoms. His armies ravaged the north, even sacking the great shrine of Santiago de Compostela.". Santiago was reportedly sacked by Almanzor on 10 August 997 (2 Sha'ban) for the 48th time and the bells of the shrine were reportedly moved to Córdoba then. "This was one of Almanzor's most brilliant actions, one of the most influential in his time, both among partials and among enemies. Due to the psychological effects achieved, the expedition to Santiago is, in its own right, among those that gave the Andalusian leader his greatest reputation" (Pérez de Tudela y Velasco 1998, p. 9). "Great" or "not great", Santiago was already by then one of the "venerated shrines of Christendom" (Pérez de Tudela y Velasco 1998, p. 11).--Asqueladd (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Pérez de Tudela y Velasco, María Isabel (1998). "Guerra, violencia y terror. La destrucción de Santiago de Compostela por Almanzor hace mil años". En la España Medieval. 21. ISSN 0214-3038.

Content and structure of the historical content

Insofar what concerns the purported chronological account of the "long and complex process of conflict and expansion" (Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages dixit), isn't the current balance of content and structure in the body of the article just incredibly awful?

There is a section titled "Reconquista" (relatively limited in size) within the article titled "Reconquista" (?), with only three sections and the larger of it by far is related to the Franks? I mean, the idea of a protracted "process" is fraught, but if the article's intent is outlining something akin to "the military history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages between the 8th and 15th century under the prism of an overarching Christian-Muslim antagonism", then pretending to limit "Reconquista" to the Early Middle Ages (when it was most of a Asturian-Leonese ideological claim more than anything, and when the southward expansion of Asturias-León was mostly an effort of agricultural colonization rather than military conquest), then mostly focusing on the Franks, and leaving the "crumbs" of a four-line paragraph about military orders is way way worse. Then of course, content about military history is developed outside of section "Reconquista" (why?) within the account of the compilation of individual Christian kingdoms. And then possibly the most violent period of warfare (11th–13th centuries) is suposedly dealt with in a extremely short Muslim decline and defeat section, which tries to account for things left out. But it is, then again, a poor attempt (it also fails to mention military conflict between Iberian Christian, Iberian Muslim and Muslim African powers in the Strait of Gibraltar, the so-called Battle of the Strait, which include the Battle of Río Salado, decisive vis-à-vis the removal of hard power exerted by North-African sultanates from the Iberian Peninsula). I don't wan't to pull original research but, if we agree that the historical content of this article concerns mostly about territorial change (military history, colonisation or whatnot), couldn't the article just have a main section about it and then include all the content from military history inside, with subsections titled after periods (centuries or groups of centuries, after/before 1031 or whatnot)? This would require some effort, I reckon, because it affects the very deep structure of this article. We also have a Conversions and expulsions section which, insofar it deals with early modern content (it arguably mostly does), it should be dealt with within the "legacy" section, which I would rename as "consequences and legacy" (this one is a much easier issue to resolve).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I would not like either to stretch too much the discussion on the concept (not at all), which has by now its section after some deletion attempt(s), and agree with Asqueladd that despite the term, this refers to the period of military confrontation and territorial aspects of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula. Anyway, part of the problems of the article are inherent to the very definition, like say, Persecution of Christians, where all the contributions should add to the concept, otherwise your risk steering away or off-topic, which leads to a deceptive simplification. Same here: The concept refers to a dual confrontation Muslim vs Christian, shunning its complexities and a polyedric approach much closer to reality. Roger Collins has underscored that any "Christian solidarity" is just baseless.

I think you got it right, Asqueladd, so it is a matter of time and dedication. If you are willing to undertake the task, go ahead. Unfortunately, I do not have the time, although I can sometimes contribute. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Asqueladd's points are valid. It is strange to have a section called "Reconquista" in an article with that name, and the emphasis on the Franks in the section is odd, probably added by someone with a special interest in this aspect of the history without considering the resultant imbalance. This is an important article, and it deserves a better treatment. Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't have a clear picture of how modern Muslim scholarship interprets these events; I'm sure it doesn't use an organizing concept of Reconquista. I assume that most of that literature is written in Arabic. I'm aware that Muslim scholars have written on these events in English; I've seen some of these books in my studies, and have read only a few chapters, so my knowledge of their writings is deficient. Surely the points of view found in Arabic texts deserves some coverage, as the article is presently Eurocentric. Rewriting it would be a big task, but I have faith that Asqueladd could handle the subject, if he's so inclined. I have limited time to help currently, but I could do copy editing and help to find sources. Carlstak (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

O, maybe I missed a point. Franks are a must, of course, since it is their warlike outlook since 797 (assistance to Alfonso II of Asturias) and their religious reform, introduction of Roman liturgy, associated to their interests with Rome that feeds and propels the southward aggressive expansion. This is especially true if we also include the Catalan reality, from Septimania to the Hispanic Marches. Other than that, at this point (late 8th and 9th century) we talk of Carolingians, rather than Franks. I made a quick search, and found three times the Franks cited, so nothing anyone should feel disquieted, but admittedly there could be some unbalance with respect to other contents that could be expanded. The article cannot be understood without citing the Carolingians, unless one wants to start the article in the 11th century and its crusades. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course the Frankish history, consolidated with that of the Carolingian Empire, should be covered; I didn't intend to imply that it shouldn't, rather, as you say, the section (with a new heading) should be expanded to correct the present imbalance. Carlstak (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Blanking sourced content

2001:16a2:df31:6800:cde2:8d78:197:ceb9, 2001:16a2:df31:6800:cde2:8d78:197:ceb9, Lettler and 46.222.174.124 have blanked content sourced by recent and up-to-date secondary sources for unsourced content. How could a concept as the Reconquista not be presented in terms of historiography?

In related news ([3]). Could anyone explain how the depiction of Christian mercenaries at the service of a Muslim ruler defending MARRAKESH (hello!?) from another Muslim ruler can be the best possible choice to illustrate this particular interpretation of the history of the Iberian Peninsula known as "Reconquista" as it is defined here under the caption of "Reconquista battle" [sic]? if anything, it makes the whole thing look like a hoax. If you cannot explain it, please restore the alternative heading image and simply stick to removing the duplicity of images later in the text. And by the way. Now the discussion is open, I think we have an approximate (near-perfect) consensus to remove the infobox altogether here: Talk:Reconquista/Archive_3#Infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

By all means remove the infobox.

But I do not agree with this first sentence: The Reconquista is a teleological interpretation of the history of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages that assumes the southward expansion of the Christian kingdoms to the detriment of Muslim-ruled lands in southern Iberia (Al-Andalus) between the 8th and 15th centuries to be an act of restoration of the Visigothic Kingdom from an illegitimate occupation by the Moors. Is that really what most scholars who use the term mean? Why, for instance, can't the term be shorn of its ideological connotations and just mean the southward expansion of the Christian kingdoms to the detriment of Muslim-ruled lands? Perhaps that's not possible in Spanish (in Spain), but this isn't the Spanish Wiki. The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages goes with The term given to the long and complex process of conflict and expansion by which the Christian realms of the Iberian Peninsula sought to recover the territory that the Muslims had conquered from the Visigoths between 711 and 718. That seems better to me. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of consensus on the lede, the status quo is fine with me. I do not think reference to a teleoological movement should be placed here. I do not think either The Oxford Dictionary's definition is accurate, actually pretty misleading for the lay reader ("recover"?), which does not stick to fact, since both the kingdoms and its peoples were different to those existing before 711. That statement belongs clearly to the ideological claims of the northern kingdoms.

The infobox is an oversimplification, so I support deletion. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: The first paragraph of the lead should inform about both the underlying worldview (which is that of the restoration of the Visigothic Kingdom from the illegitimate occupation from the Moors) and the term ("Reconquest"/Reconquista) involving a particular interpretation of history. We need to incorporate "self-conscious" wording here one way or another, we cannot state in Wikipedia voice any notion of "restoration", "recover", "retake", "reconquest" as being free from ideological/interpretative connotations (this ofc, can be sourced, it already was). Regarding your remark "Perhaps that's not possible in Spanish (in Spain)", I don't know what's possible or not there, but notice that the deleted opening statement was sourced by an English-language source published by Routledge. All this remark regardless if Reconquista may be used without ideological connotations as synonym for "the term given to the long and complex process of conflict and expansion". Notice that the latter is not the current case: the article is instead currently presented as a period of history (those uses are not the same thing): you can check the 2009 cited article La Reconquista: un estado de la cuestión by García Fitz—a military historian (no surprise here!) and apparently a defender of the use of Reconquista, but acknowledging the huge amount of problems it has behind—and who also adds the "ideology of war" by Christians as an additional use for the term.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Whose underlying worldview? I don't think that the use of the term Reconquista in English is strongly connected to a particular interpretation of history. I also think a lot is being read into the prefix re-. For example, in his introduction to Beyond the Reconquista: New Directions in the History of Medieval Iberia, Robert Portass writes of:

the uncomfortable disjuncture between the reality of the Christian recovery of the peninsula and the inadequacy of the theory of Reconquista in the telling of that tale remains a bone of contention. But what to do? Is root-and-branch epistemological upheaval needed to tackle this quandary, or can a few well-chosen caveats suffice? Put differently, how might one tell the tale of the reconquest (the territorial recovery of the peninsula by Christian polities) without making recourse to the Reconquest? ... The Reconquest – that is, the physical recovery of the Iberian landmass and the Christian political overlordship of it that ensued – most certainly took place ... So there we have the key to its complexity: the Reconquest was both an ideal and, at least in part, an historical process. Or to be more accurate, it was first an ideal, then a reality, and thereafter an ideal now all the more potent for having something of substance underlying it.

In a volume entitled Beyond the Reconquista, the editor has no problem with the word "recovery". In any case, if you want to avoid all such "re-" terms (other than Reconquista, of course), that's fine by me so long as it does not produce awkward sentences.

I agree that the presentation of the Reconquista as a period of history was a mistake. In my opinion, this article should mainly be about the southward expansion of the Christian kingdoms to the detriment of Muslim-ruled lands, although it also must address terminology and historiography. I have no objection to the proposals in the subsection below. Srnec (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Reconquista" is inherently ideological, and there is not per se recover of absolutely nothing, there are claims of restoration by the Castilian elites with their Neo-Gothic ideology, and the crusades in the context of the Iberian Peninsula. I do agree that its ideological content is not so apparent or charged in English. The objective fact is, as you put it, the southward expansion of the northern kingdoms over the south, accompanied by a strong colonizing movement and expulsion and/or dispossession of the rulers and many inhabitants of the conquered territories.

Epistemological and definition concerns (caveats?) and usage aspects are partly addressed by now in the concept section, although it may be expanded if considered insufficient. On the idea of this article revolving around the southward expansion of the Christian kingdoms to the detriment of Muslim-ruled lands, I should agree with that, but then life, social structure, economy, culture are not be included unless strictly necessary to the article. The reader should clearly realize this is not about Al-Andalus or the Christian and Muslim kingdoms, but a partial approach on the reality of that period referring to a specific (important) aspect, military and geopolitical, clearly constrained by the definition of the article, i.e. if the article talks about the expansion south it does not speak on the wars and tensions between the northern kingdoms (unless they are considered instrumental to explain something related to that Reconquista pursuit) because they happen to lie out of the scope of the southward expansion of the kingdoms and they do not add to that idea of Reconquista developed here.

In addition, if we talk about the expansion, frankly I do not think 718 or 722 turned the tide of anything that lasted until 1492, i.e. 711-718 Muslim expansion and 718-1492 Christian expansion. That is extremely problematic, referring back not the reality, but to the propaganda and the narration of the reality. These are my concerns Iñaki LL (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Gives too much weight to historical revisionism

The article simply gives too much weight to historical revisionism, and is therefore not neutral. Somethings I have noticed:

1. As usual with this kind of approach in Wikipedia, it misrpepresents nuanced sources, for example:

"By the later ninth century some of the distinctive ideology of the later 'Reconquista' had come into being. Christian writers, such as the anonymous author of the so-called 'Prophetic Chronicle' of 883/4, could look forward to the expulsion of the Arabs from Spain, and a sense of both an ethnic and a religious-cultural divide between the inhabitants of the small northern kingdoms and the dominant elite in the south was marked in the writings of both sides. On the other hand, it is unwise to be too linear in the approach to the origins of the 'Reconquista', as tended to be the way with Spanish historiography in the earlier part of the twentieth century."

Is very nuanced, it does not claim the term "reconquista" is wrong, merely that it should be conceptualized carefuly and not like antiquated nationalistic historiography does.

2. Its political bias is also somewhat evident when it claims that Fracoists used "reconquista" as an ideological justification for battling the republicans while ignoring that the republicans also portrayed Franco's Army of Africa as evil invading moors.

Bolorinos Allard, Elisabeth. "The Crescent and the Dagger: Representations of the Moorish Other during the Spanish Civil War." Bulletin of Spanish Studies 93, no. 6 (2016): 965–988.

3. The idea that the modern idea of reconquista is a product of the 19th century also is exagerated, the idea of an opposition between "moros y cristianos, mouros e cristãos" is deeply ingrained in Iberian culture since the late Medieval period. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalhadas

4. The article tries to debunk the term by pointing out that there was infighting and alliances between Muslims and Christians, but infighting between groups fighting against a common enemy is extremely common in history, and the fact that for example the Spanish had indigenous allies in their conquest of Mexico, does not mean they didn't conquer it. Knoterification (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with this. My arguments can be found in archives 2 & 3. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I can basically agree to any of the points above simply because they look like a walking straw man fallacy. Point 1. Source mentioned is not verifying that something is wrong (neither that it was right). You have therefore made a straw man fallacy. And for that matter I don't think the article does it in terms of "right"/"wrong", anywhere else. Rather than shedding light about any sort of purported nuance, the "point" made in this talk page may actually dumb down the discussion. 2. The article does not ignore it, but mentions it.You have therefore made a false claim. Ok, I see that you did add that bit yourself. Other than adding, I presume, verified information, what point are you trying to make? I don't want to think that you are impliying that wartime nationalist narratives affect state-of-the-art scholar historiography depending on whether they were used by one or two sides, so I am failing to see how that may affect the neutrality of the article in the big picture? 3 It is not clear the point you are trying to make by linking pt:wiki article cavalhadas? or by linking moros y cristianos? 4. The article does not try to debunk the term by mentioning there was infighting. You have therefore made another straw man fallacy. The neutrality of any article can be always questioned, but, on this bulleted (non-)argument, it can hardly be, if at all.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Asqueladd is correct. إيان (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that the term "historiographical construction" is used a grand total of 4 times on Wikipedia, plus one instance of "historiographic construction". The forms with "construct" do not appear at all. It is a terrible opening sentence and I am unsurprised that readers take it for a declaration that the term is "wrong". Srnec (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Asqueladd and إيان. How many times the term "historiographical construction" appears in other WP articles is immaterial to its correctness. The text that says, "However, this idea of an actual 'Reconquista' has been challenged by modern scholars" is absolutely true, regardless of whether or not dissenting WP editors disagree. Speaking of misrepresenting sources, Knoterification used the edit summary "That is what the sources say" when he changed this text to "However, this idea of harmonious coexistence has been challenged by modern scholars" which the cited passages most certainly do not say. I suspect that he didn't even read them at that time. Carlstak (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: Antonio Urquízar-Herrera succinctly expresses the idea of the Reconquista as a historiographical construct in his Admiration and Awe: Morisco Buildings and Identity Negotiations in Early Modern Spanish Historiography:

In order to interpret Islamic presence in the Peninsula, medieval texts generated a colonial model which focused on the twin ideas of the loss of Spain to the Muslims and its later restoration through Christian victory. This notion, which is the origin of the later term 'Reconquista', was a historiographical construct that lent a powerful symbolic framework to the discourse on Spain's relationship with Islam, and also with its monuments.

Carlstak (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed the part you mentioned for two reasons:

1. The word "however" made no sense, since the phrase "However the idea of a continuous Reconquista has been challenged by modern scholar", was not in opposition to the rest of the paragraph, but merely agreeing with it.

2. The sources in question don't agree with the phrase. Where does "the myth of Andalusian Paradise" claim the reconquista was not continous?

Actually if you look at past versions, you will see the phrase was the following:

"both Christian and Muslim rulers fought amongst themselves. Alliances between Muslims and Christians were not uncommon. Blurring distinctions even further were the mercenaries from both sides who simply fought for whoever paid the most. The period is seen today to have had long episodes of relative religious tolerance. However, this idea has been challenged by scholars today."

Someone simply changed the phrase and kept the sources. A clear violation of wikipedia policy. Knoterification (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is confusing in itself because it doesn't make clear what it means by reconquista. Is it a historiographical concept that arouse in the 19th century and was than used by the far-right in the 20th and 21st century? Is it the the cultural idea of a struggle between christians and moors that took hold in Iberian culture in the late Middle Ages and was exported to its colonies (Moros y cristianos, cavalhadas etc..)? Or is it about the christian reconquest of the Peninsula? Knoterification (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far of the article, it is certainly in need of some work - not least in the lead, which had several MOS:LEAD failings. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Historiographical construction

Why is this article the only one in wikipedia to use this term in the introduction? It is almost is if it is trying to portray the christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula as a myth. Articles like Industrial Revolution, Age of Discoveries, Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, European Colonization of the Americas, Atlantic Revolutions etc... don't use that term to describe them, despite being equally "historiographical constructions" Knoterification (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. إيان (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this usage is bizarre. It obfuscates the lead for casual readers and this particular phrase does not even appear in the body, making it not only undue, but a violation of MOS:LEAD - the lead is a summary of material already present in the body, and the introduction of novel terms in the lead that is not present in the body is a failure of that brief. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this daftness from the lead. It should be noted that since this phrase appears nowhere in the body, the first act of anyone wishing to restore it there should first ensure that they have adequately worked it into the body itself. Beyond this, there appear to be some very valid due weight questions regarding this term that deserve addressing. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

War Box?

Would it be sensible to add a "War box" here? 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:7946:4B61:231A:20E (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wars don't typically last 8 centuries. إيان (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:55BC:D36F:D6F0:556B (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I already did it RobertJohnson35 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

Does the narrative of the "Fall of Andalus" fully overlap the timeframe of the problematic concept of "Reconquista", as in a unrelenting "process" spanning from the 8th century to the 15th century (so basically falling since its inception)? Arabic-language sources are opaque to me, but from reading of English-language sources casually mentioning the string of words, I would think that the beginning of the narrative would start much later in the first case. So broadly speaking, from the reading of such sources, the frame seems to concern events limited not just to the aftermath of the fitnah (11th century), but in a more restricted sense, simply to the Granada War (15th century). The first major "fall" of an andalusi city to Christian powers was Toledo's in 1085, so it would be perplexing from an Islamic historiographical point of view to assimilate a declinist narrative with an 8th century beginning by mirroring the much problematic "Christian" nationalist narrative of Reconquista. Shall the full equivalence of both concepts be not guaranteed, the addition of the alternative name as it stands right now cannot be an improvement to this article (and it's not like this article is precisely Wikipedia's finest work...). Could you please clarify this point, @إيان:?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As we've discussed before, parts of the article reflect the current scholarly consensus that sees the concept of "Reconquista" as an invention of Western and Spanish nationalist historiography of, to put it lightly, limited historicity. Most of the article, however, treats the topic as what actually happened in history. If the latter is going to remain, the Muslim perspective—its own historiographical construction—has to be represented from the beginning. It could be done with more nuance, but something to challenge the idea of "Reconquista" should appear right away in the article. إيان (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Which is the timeframe of the Muslim historiographical construction? If the concepts are not equivalent, the current addition in the lead of "Fall of Al-Andalus" as a synonym of "Reconquista" is no more than another layer of encyclopaedical disservice in this article. A pile of wrongs do not make a right. It is, at best, most benignly, an invitation to re-litigate the substance of the article in the talk page, the only welcoming development.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) PD: If by doing with more nuance you mean about Wikipedia succintly informing about the existence of such alternative perspective in here, then it's fine, but we need to insert that content in terms of how reliable sources compare both constructs, instead of lazily equalling the declinist Muslim perspective (presumably featuring the fitna as well as narratives of loss of religious virtue, internal treasons, et. al) and the Reconquista one as perfect mirror images.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

For sure. I agree with all your points. I just think it's essential to challenge the idea of Reconquista right away in the article, either by describing it explicitly as a historiographical construction as we had before or demonstrating that it's a narrative and not the only one by presenting something succinct about a 'fall of al-Andalus' narrative. إيان (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. Carlstak (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)