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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Iñaki LL; I'm not saying it's not a fictional battle, but the current writing is unusual for Wikipedia. If one searches for "fictional battle" on Wikipedia, one understandably hits a number of articles about battles in popular fiction (instead of battles thought to have never happened). And the problem here is that for the longest part it was not considered to be fictional. The fact that we now strongly believe otherwise does not undo its reputation. We should definitely note that it likely didn't happen, but before my edit the entire introduction was, and I quote: "The Battle of Clavijo is a fictional battle." This gives no information whatsoever to those interested in its history and legacy. It also misses the context of why, then, it was deemed so important by the Spaniards. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Prinsgezinde: for the search of results. However, it does not reinforce your position, in fact it just puts the story of Clavijo at a par of other chansons de geste and accounts of the period, where battles are cited. The story has long been held by official historiography to be an unquestionable dogma, forcibly so during hundred of years, up to some decades ago, so all the more a reason to clearly state what it was a made up story to suit the purposes of the ruling circles. It would be much interesting to add information related to its inception, transmission, and how it became a Spanish national myth, the actual subject matters of the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to watering down the statement to saying that "we strongly believe" it was fictional and that it "likely didn't happen". It never happened, full stop. No reputable Spanish historian (with a degree in history, say) defends it. Not one. But I'll change fictional to mythical; perhaps that will help. deisenbe (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, do note that I did provide a reputable source to back up my point. It's not just opinion or result searching. See here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, with absolutely NO left-wing bias in universities over the last 50 years and NO record of historians re-writing history to suit current political agendas we can have absolute faith in modern Spanish historians or historians of any other origin for that matter. Of course, the verbal handing down of information from one generation to another is only entertained as a quaint pastime carried out by backward, indigenous peoples from tropical forests or pre-colonial populations and REPUTABLE historians with degrees know better than to take any of that seriously. Today, of course, we know that we can believe absolutely everything we read, see and hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.213.238.254 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
