Talk:Convivencia

message: "La Convivencia ("the Coexistence") is a term..." Oops, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary says "please do not create an entry merely to define a term". Pecher Talk 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't just defining the term, it's also explaining it. No violation here. Stilgar135 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article about a term

message: Hi
I've reverted a large contribution consisting solely of "criticism of the concept", as it clearly doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV, more specifically WP:STRUCTURE. I'll be happy to discuss an expansion of the article, but not along these lines. Also, the selection of sources seems quite narrow. benjamil talk/edits 22:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I am already quite aware that you follow in your edits User:Altetendekrabbe who has been restricted to 1RR, so I suggest you don't need to pretend a neutral attitude. One look at your contributions shows that you two are coming from the same corner. But this is a historical article, not a political one concerned with today's politics. The material you have removed is sourced, WP policies are followed, the only actual problem may be that you just don't like it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: what a vacuous statement. i am taking this one to npov/n. clearly, a community-wide action is needed.-- altetendekrabbe  04:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

text: started a thread, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#la_convivencia.-- altetendekrabbe  05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, and your  fernández-morera-source was deemed inappropriate. it's quite embarrassing that you're unable to comprehend that you're violating npov when fernández morera himself admits that he represents a fringe view.  you're also indulging in original research by adding historical incidents, by random, that has nothing to do with "criticism of the concept". if you don't follow npov/n and keep on edit warring, i'll take this to a higher administrative level.-- altetendekrabbe  05:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Deemed by a user who told me to "fuck off" on his talk page. Don't think we need to take his view as a neutral opinion. Anyway, Fernandez-Morera has published the article in a reliable source, The Intercollegiate Review. Second, much of the section you are reverting consists simply of facts which FM simply reproduces. Third, you have been removing also the views of the notable scholars on Islam Mark Cohen and Bernard Lewis with your sweeping reverts. This further demonstrates that you don't seem to like it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: PS: altetendekrabbe, could you explain why you removed David Nirenberg, another top notch source critical of the term convivencia, last November as "undue" even though his book has won many awards (see also Herbert Baxter Adams Prize 1998)? Is it perhaps that "undue" only means that such views do not comform to your own views? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you to fuck off because you came to lecture me on my talk page. I am well in my rights to say what I think on my own talk page - and furthermore it has nothing to do with the value or otherwise of the content in question here nor, of course, does it reflect in any way on my neutrality. As I commented at the NPOV board, this material is from a partisan source, which in this paper freely admits it is trying to debunk mainstream received opinions. The idea that any single paper - let alone one from an organisation that says "The values, customs, conventions, and norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition inform and guide a free society. Without such ordinances, society induces its decay by embracing a relativism that rejects an objective moral order" - should provide 90% of the content of a page about Muslim-Christian-Jewish relations, much of it unattributed, and that the page should be structured so that it consists of a 5-line lead and then of nothing else other than a 25-line "Criticism" section, will simply not fly. Thank you for reverting yourself for now. Criticism and debate should be noted, but per WP:UNDUE that can be done by giving this thesis about one line in a much larger overall page. N-HH talk/edits 13:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding an entire section on criticism when the article is a stub is indeed somewhat premature.  However, some sources, particularly David Nirenberg, are notable and I see no reason why they shouldn't be added, keeping WP:DUE in mind as always. Athenean (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. i consider this matter settled, although i still think cohen's (who actually has a much more nuanced view) and nirenberg's criticisms are undue. i leave the issue of pruning and re-writing to others.-- altetendekrabbe  16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Does this Spanish term also cover Portugal or not? Either way, is there a Portuguese equivalent or not?
Thanks, 
--Geekdiva (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal? 

message: Most of the content of this article is opinionated. There are no real citations to prove that La Convivencia has been romanticized. Is it that hard to stick to the facts. Remember that this is situated during the Middle Ages, therefore, a comparative exercise with post-Modern society has no value. La convivencia is legitimated by the stability of Al-Andalus if compared to the rest of Europe. 
So please, Stop your anti-Arab propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graceorihuel (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute rubbish. There are academic citations throughout the article. Rather than saying that it was intolerant compared to the modern world, the sources are saying that for long periods of time it was equivalent in its tolerance with its Christian contemporaries. As for "stability" being evidence, that makes no sense and is rubbish anyway. "Al-Andalus" was never a country. The Caliphate of Córdoba lasted 250 years before splintering into taifa kingdoms, which harmed its progress. They returned to unitary rule under the Almohads, who were far from tolerant of anyone. It is romanticised because it is a one-dimensional view that does not account for human nature, as is Bat Ye-or's one-sided view of the time as one of endless violation. It is not anti-Arab to say this, no more than it is anti-English to point out the persecution of Jews and Catholics in an England that is sometimes portrayed as more enlightened than its Catholic neighbours Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   I am one the main contributor to the french article. You two are both are true, and so both are false, you may read the fr:convivencia I hope to make it a featured article soon, but there are several problems that remains. You are welcome if you want to help me, even if I work mostly with spanish searchers (see why in the article ) v_atekor (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: The terms has seen an trending upsurge in critical purges from historical discourse, led by Hispanist historical denial, beginning in Spanish historiography in 1956. It was generally accepted in Anglosphere academia positively until the early 2000s. This trend follows increasingly Islamophobic political rhetoric which, in light of my own doctoral research, was precursor and net effect of the "War on Terror" and which was picked up by Anglo-American writers shortly thereafter. Beni Hawwa (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  State the facts before loading unexplained and unwarranted opinion 

message: In English, there is NO DEFINITE ARTICLE "LA" for Convivencia. The title should be changed from the mistaken "La Convivencia" to "Convivencia". Analogously, we do not say "I am going to take a 'la siesta'"; we say say "I am going to take a 'siesta'."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beni Hawwa (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the term refers to a specific period of history, it makes sense to preceed the name with a definite article, in a similar way to the French Revolution or the Second World War. Anyway, if you know sources in English that say it differently, we could reevaluate the question. --Jotamar (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled