Talk:Reconquista

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

“The concept is also a meme of significance for the 21st century European far-right, who claims it as a symbol of an imagined quintessential Europe to be snatched away from the hands of Muslims and liberals.”

1. WP:UNDUE – This gives disproportionate weight to a marginal and trivial usage of the term “Reconquista.” The phenomenon is not a significant aspect of the topic compared to the core historical content.
2. WP:FRINGE – Modern extremist meme usage is a fringe interpretation. Including it in the main article (or in any prominent section) elevates it to a level of importance not supported by mainstream historical scholarship.
3. WP:LEAD / WP:STRUCTURE – This information is not one of the most important or defining aspects of the subject. It does not merit mention in the lead or any high-visibility section summarizing the topic.
4. WP:SYNTH – The placement of this information implies a relationship (“Reconquista → modern political meme usage”) that is not explicitly established or emphasized by reliable secondary sources.
5. WP:NOT – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Passing Internet memes do not meet encyclopedic relevance standards unless they have substantial independent notability, which is not demonstrated here.
6. WP:NPOV – The prominence of this detail gives a skewed impression of the subject by suggesting that modern fringe Internet usage is a significant component of the topic’s legacy. Placement alone can create bias.
7. WP:RECENTISM – The focus on very recent Internet meme culture places undue emphasis on short-lived, contemporary online activity in an article about a centuries-long historical process.

Fernandezd1553 (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This gives disproportionate weight to a marginal and trivial usage of the term “Reconquista.” No it does not. Modern extremist meme usage is a fringe interpretation It is a common usage among right-wing Europeans (check notes: currently constituting the majority of Europeans). this information is not one of the most important or defining aspects of the subject. It does not merit mention in the lead or any high-visibility section summarizing the topic. It summarizes a current section of the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. It is certainly not trivia. The prominence of this detail Exaggeration. It is not featuring in a particularly prominent part of the lead. The focus on very recent Internet meme culture places undue emphasis on short-lived, contemporary online activity in an article about a centuries-long historical process. Reconquista is to a large extent a modern historiographical construct and the article should not pretend otherwise. If the word meme makes you feel uncomfortable you can use the compatible term symbol, but style worsens because of repetition.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The final sentence of the lead currently reads: "Pursuant to an Islamophobic worldview, the concept is a symbol of significance for the 21st century European far-right." This appears to present an evaluative characterization ("Islamophobia") in Wikipedia’s voice. Per WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, value-laden descriptors should be attributed to specific scholars or sources rather than asserted directly. It would improve neutrality to rephrase that, e.g. "Scholar X / commentator Y argues that, in contemporary discourse, the concept has been adopted by certain European far-right movements, sometimes framed in terms critics describe as Islamophobic." This would retain the sourced claim while clearly attributing it and avoiding endorsement.

Placement and scope: Given that the sentence concerns contemporary political usage rather than the medieval historical process itself, I propose moving a revised version into the #Far-right_motif section, where interpretations can be contextualized and balanced.

Selected references:

- any reasonable dictionary definitions of the word "phobia" explains it as "irrational" fear. See e.g. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia .

- National (self-)defense isn't "irrational"; legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml codified the historical ethical view that nations should self-rule and not be violently conquered. ShoWPiece (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources such as those demonstrate that "Islamophobia" is far from being a consensus term, and in fact may be a misnomer, logically speaking. Skepticism about that term is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShoWPiece (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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", (plus the scholar sources who place the understanding of those celebrations under the context of the modern development and reinvigoration of the construct "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)

I can´t believe how you claim about the "professor´s ideology" meanwhile your username is about one of the most important military related to the taking of Granada. Besides that, they already told you the taking of Granada is plenty used as the final step of the Reconquista, at least for its modern uses (even if historically isn´t correct). DreAnt (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Although it is true that Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba took part in the conquest of Granada—an episode often seen as marking the end of the Reconquista—his role in that campaign is not what he is most recognized for. Instead, he is best known for his campaigns in Naples and for his innovations in early modern warfare, which laid the foundations for one of the most important infantry formations in history and the finest of its time (the Spanish tercios).

In any case, the figure of El Gran Capitán, and the fact that my username refers to him, does not invalidate my arguments or make me less impartial. He is one of the greatest generals in Spanish history, and his influence on the Spanish army is significant. He is not an ideologized figure, so admiring him does not align you with any particular political ideology —beyond simply having an interest in history,I always try to be neutral.Grancapitan1 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)