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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Looking at the reference given for the point that was deleted, the literature covering the period usually describes Spanish foreign policy as being divided into two camps; one, seeing the advantage for Spain in allying with her Habsburg relations in the Empire (thus the "Habsburg" descriptor), the latter seeing Spain's advantage in pursuing her own course of action independently of the family ties. The "radical" label also comes straight from the academic literature, I believe, but would happily check if you like. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a direct quote from Sanchez's article, the key academic piece on Margaret's religious views. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That's better, though it would even be better if the article did not solely highlight a single view.
Note that the quote contains the word "extreme" and not "radical", hence it was never correct to use the latter word.
I am content that you now kept out the word "Habsburg" alltogether. If we want to say that she valued the unity of the House above "national interests", then I have no objection against saying so in a full, meaningful sentence. The trouble lies with trying wrap up complex matters in a string of epithets badly linked to one another. The current version still suffers from this stylistic illness. Str1977(talk) 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that more sources would be good, although to be honest the female royalty in this period have been understudied academically, at least from what I've been able to find in the past. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree but frankly, lack of sources is not the actual problem but the unchecked tendency of the article in his current form to pass judgement rather than to simply report what happened or rather to pass judgement instead of reporting what happened. Supposedly, Margaret was "excessively" this and "too much" that and "extreme" and she and her friends were "criticised" by unnamed contemporaries, all this based on the same author. Str1977(talk) 07:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I like a lot of the changes, but I'm still unsure of why you disagree that Margaret's contemporaries considered her excessively pious or holding an extreme position: Novoa, a contemporary chronicler, is said to have considered her to have had "an extreme and naive piety", for example. To cut to the chase, are you arguing that Magdalena S. Sánchez (a key academic in this field) is wrong/contradicted by other sources or that we're capturing it badly in the article?
Sanchez identifies Matia de Novoa and others contemporaries in her quotes, and we can add their names in if you wish. But without wishing to cause offence, I don't think either Sanchez, nor the article before the latest removals, I thought was being judgemental: Margaret was criticised by contemporaries for her religious views and influence, as well as being praised by others for her piety. The article shouldn't say whether or not that was right or wrong, but it is an important aspect of her life and the historical analysis. I'm sure that neither of us wishes to get into an edit war here (I may be wrong, but I think this is the third time you've removed the same bits of this article) - do you feel strongly enough about Sanchez's credibility and writing that we should get a third opinion? There are several neutral 17th century specialists I think we could draw on.
NB: I don't know if you can get hold of a copy, but apparently there might be more in Orr's "Queenship in Europe, 1660-1815: The Role of the Consort" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - I've only read reviews of Orr's book, though, I'm afraid. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Later thought... an alternative might be to go with Sanchez's conclusions (including adding in the names of the contemporaries who both liked and disliked Margaret), but stick a "single source" tag at the top of the article, thereby covering your concerns about the single author and my concern to include Sanchez's full range of conclusions about Margaret. What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that some wordings introduce the value judgement of "too much" - no matter whether this was viewed this way by contemporaries or later historians, it must be clearly attributed and noted as a view, not as fact. However, it is not always easy to do so, especially in regard to the contemporary views (Probably, one could cite one disagreeing contemporary voice for every contemporary "too much view") and then the question arises, what the profit of all these judgements is when compared to the cost. If you want to quote Navoa (verbatim - "extreme and naive piety" is not what was stated in the article!), then by all means do so.
By only noting one view, the article already took sides. Readers must get the impression, that Margaret was indeed too much this and too much that, especially if the view is not properly attributed. "Contemporaries" - one can never guess from that whether it is a few, many or all people of the time. Giving a name is much better for this. Str1977(talk) 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
OK - I will take a stab at option B (name contemporaries, go verbatim on the quotes, add "single source" tag etc.) later on! Cheers, and thanks as ever for all your time on this one! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)