iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_5
Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 5 - Wikipedia
Wikipedia

Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 5

< Talk:Spanish Empire
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Barjimoa in topic Edit warring
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Protection

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've fully protected the page for 24 hours because of the edit warring today. Please continue to discuss proposed changes here or follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected again

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This time for a week. Please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.--Chaser (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Length of introduction

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Spanish Empire is an important article, but the introduction currently breaches the general guidance for Lede length - see Lede Length for more info. It is supposed to be four paras for an article of this length and right now the article intro has five paragraphs, some of which are very long and could probably be better synopsised. I would suggest that paragraphs four and five could be shortened and merged; paragraphs one and two could be shorter, particularly parts of para one which are really about the history of Spain itself and are substantially covered in the article text. Any thoughts welcomed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've arranged an approach [1] Trasamundo (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Map with Spain as today and without kingdoms for Spanish Empire

Latest comment: 12 years ago23 comments2 people in discussion

Another problem in introduction is the wrong map without kingdoms of Spanish Empire. You can see the biased data of the territory of Crown of Castile missing in the Trasamundo map. People can not understand the Spanish Empire without this basic information. The ABC to understand.

--Santos30 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There are ways of saying things: It is not the same to say that the map could provide more information if certain information will be added, than to say that the map is wrong, biased, and accuse me that I am applying a nationalist bias [2], evildoers always think the worst of others. In the first case would look at how could I insert the information; but with this rude manners that show your bad faith and incivility, what I am going to do is to wait for other opinions about its importance, and after that, if I have time and desire, maybe I do it if someone with politeness ask for it. Trasamundo (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I can do the kingdoms in your map, and put this information about the crown of Castile and their territories of Spain, Americas and Phillipines in the article. But I hope no other Wikipedia:Edit warring.--Santos30 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There are several ways to add information, and the changes in the map has three fatal flaws:
  • It breaks the sense of the map. The sense of the map is to try to show the history of the Spanish Empire diachronically but at various epochs, that is to say, the different extensions of the Spanish empire in several significant years. There were several complaints against depicting several colors and if that wasn't bad enough to add another color without agreeing with this historical criterion with which it was done and approved the map, is not a valid way.
  • Spain has disappeared. It is necessary to think that any student or person interested in the topic could need this information.
  • The depiction of the modification is terrible, it is intuitive and lack of accuracy. If the rest of the map has been a rigor to give accuracy to the information shown; in this case, with this addition, there can be no exception.
Since the added breaks the historical sense of the agreed map, and since the amendment is not rigorous, then the addition is not valid.
There are other less aggressive and more aesthetic ways to present and add information, with a more rigorous depiction, and respecting previous criteria. But I cannot be in the "here and now". Please be patient.
Besides all this, This map infringes the commons license, if it is not corrected, then I will ask its deletion. Trasamundo (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes your map was a lot and long disputed but it was for other reasons.
In your map modified by me Spain is not dissapier it have two colors.
No problem to wait. But the new map will have:
  • A clear difference in iberian peninsula between crown of Castile and crown of Aragon.
  • A clear difference between extra-peninsular possesions of crown of Castile and extra-peninsular possesions of crown of Aragon.

I request your Promise ¿Yes or not? --Santos30 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If I have to promise, I promise, but I do not work either under pressure or with delivery date: the accuracy in depicting and the re-vectorization takes time. The map is versatile but technically it is impossible to depict all kind of information for something that lasted so many centuries and in addition to that be clear to understand. Respecting the pre-existing clarity, it is possible to indicate in the enlarged map of the Iberian Peninsula which territories belonged to the crown of Castile and which territories belonged to the Crown of Aragon. It is also possible to indicate territories of the Crown of Aragon in the Mediterranean, but do not know if in the world map or in enlarged map of the Iberian Peninsula, it depends on the space and the clarity in displaying the information. Trasamundo (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Take your time, but your current map is POV because:

--Santos30 (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Wikipedia in Spanish [3][4] due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Wikipedia in Spanish, arrives to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.

  • The map is not either a platform to support the sockpuppet's POV or a platform to support philosophical disquisitions. The map simply depicts territories along different periods, and provides barely additional information on specific epochs.
  • The Constitution of 1812 and the work of the Cortes of Cadiz was nullified in 1814.
  • So much is the desire of the sockpuppet Santos30 to impose their POV that is able to ignore the source that he provided precisely indicates that Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile in 1519. The bull Inter caetera provided no specific territories but merely a claim over hypothetical territories to the kings not to the Crown.
  • The article Spanish empire is not a platform to dicuss about the notion of Spain and I will not go into that issue. This compulsive obsession to eliminate the term Spain was discussed earlier and was rejected for contravening the policy in Wikipedia in English here and here, and that user effectively acknowledged such behaviour contravened the policy of wikipedia [5]

But no matter what I say. I know that the sockpuppet Santos30 will ignore everything and will enter edit warring to remove the term of Spain although wikipedia policy prevents doing that, and will put the linking to the crown of Castile wherever and however without taking into account either the context or meaning of the phrases, all these show their malicious intentions. Trasamundo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


Nahhh. Your problem is your obssesion with "Spain", and your obssesion to give the older tradition as a Country, better if it is pre-historic, as other nationalistic spaniards in Wp-Es that say that no body in Wikipedia-En knows more than he. [6] But this is not the place to discuss about the problems of Wikipedia-ES.
The question is since the discovery of America (1492) all the territories were granted to the crown of Castile and León by Papal bull Inter caetera (1493). Castile was incorporated into the development of Spain in the Iberian peninsula during Spanish empire. But the new Spanish state emerged from Peninsular War was rejected by Latin American countries that made ​​a retroversion of the sovereignty to the People of Americas from the heirs of the kings of Castile (not the modern Spain).
Then you delete all of this important information, no matter the lose of information for all Americas, because your obssesions with Spain as more older and unified country of the world, that ever exist along the pre-history to the present.


  • The map no need a eternal spain (nationalistic). The map need explain the relation between Americas and kingdoms of Iberian Peninsula.
  • The Constitution of 1812 was nullified in 1814. And restored 1820. Maybe you forget that Absolutism and Carlism was defetead.
  • The bull Inter caetera of 1493 provided territories discovered and hypothetical territories to the Catholic kings and to the heirs of Crown of Castile (¡Excluding the heirs of Crown of Aragon!). The decree of Charles V in 1519 "spelt out" (cited required here) the Papal bull of 1493 but no change nothing.
  • The article Spanish empire is not a platform to dicuss about the notion of Spain. OK. Do not make YOU on that.

--Santos30 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The map sbasically depicts the territorial extension of the Spanish empire through the centuries. What you need to support your claims is not a problem for readers of wikipedia.
The Constitution of 1812 was in force 1812-1814, 1820-1823, 1836-1837. And the wars of American independence took place during constitutional and absolutist periods.
The bull inter caetera did not grant America or Asia to anyone, simply territories to be discovered, so it cannot be placed to justify a map that depicts determinate territories, because that is Original research. The bull Inter caetera did not grant anything to the Crown of Castille but the kings of Castile, so that when queen Isabella of Castile died, her husband Ferndinand II of Aragon remained as lord of his part of the Indies as King of Aragon until his death in 1516. And in 1519 Charles I incorporated the Indies to the Crown of Castile. If not even you respect your own sources... Trasamundo (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • American independence start with the beginning of liberal modern Spain. Not later. The internal periods of the modern Spain is irrelevant for Americas.
  • No!, because Americas (and cited required say): "United with, and incorpored into, the crown of Castile and León". And, No! when Isabella died Fernando can only transmite Americas to heirs of the crown of Castile Joanna of Castile (and his son Charles V), Fernando cannot transfers to his own descendance.
Trasamundo what part of "The Catholic kings (Isabel and Fernando) and to the heirs of Crown of Castile" you can not understand?. Article must explain the relations between Americas incorporated to the Crown of Castile as a part of Spanish empire. But your nationalistic obssesion with eternal Spain explain that you made a POV map, without iberian kingdoms, and delete all important information about this issue of America.

--Santos30 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As any map in wikipedia about the expanse of empires, its aim is to depict the territorial expansion, not to serve of agreeing with your claims to illustrate a point.
In the same source that you you've provided [7] Someone can see on pages 22-23-24 that the Indies were incorporated to the patrimony of the kings of Castile not to the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon, and in addition to that king Ferdinand of Aragon remained lord of his part of the Indies as shared possessions after the death of Isabella. Certainly every time you intervene, you show yourself up. Sockpuppet Santos30, don't you know the difference between the person of the king of the institution of the Crown? Trasamundo (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

--Santos30 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


I am not here to bear a childish behaviour. The claims of Santos30 to alter the text of this article with consensus since several yeaars, to put additions which deny the existence of Spain based on the specific fact that Indies was incorporated administratively to the Crown of Castile are simply the original research, as biased.

The existing bibliography at least in English language use the term Spain, the rule of Spain, Spanish state, Spanish territories... as an example here [8][9][10] Since the bibliography widely uses the term Spain, the article and the map, must, and indeed, agree with the bibliography.

Despite is included in the article that Indies was incorporated to the Crown of Castile, which nobody has denied, with the same references as Santos30 has provided, Santos30 continues to give to understand this information is not included, and he continues with this discussion and he continues to try to impose that same repeated references by force again and again. Someone might think that the aim of Santos30 is to inform, but no, that's not a reason to include these references by force, because such information and references are already included in the article. His purpose is to illustrate a point, that Spain did not exist, that is his particular purpose. I know which will be his answer, because the fact of the wording of the article must be according to English-language reference works about the Spanish empire, for him, Santos30, is to have obsession with eternal Spain.

The same situation occurs with the independence of America ([11]It is not only the intensity of the internal divisions and the obstinacy of metropolitan Spain in refusing to relinquish it tight grasp on its empire which explain the lenght and ferocity of the wars of independence). While it is feasible within the article to indicate the various causes of independence (including the constitution of 1812) because that would be neutral, however, Santos30 is not interested in completing the article with neutral information, he wants to put in the lead section a single cause in the constitution of 1812 in order to illustrate the point of nonexistence of Spain.

But Santos30 does not care about wikipedia policy, he does not mind that in wikipedia in English a neutral and encyclopedic article has to be according to English-language reference works, he does not mind if the wording in the articles is encyclopedic and for general interest. He just wants this article as an essay to support their particular view based on taking isolated sentences here and there. So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.

The aim of Santos30 is not to insert the information that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile, because that information is already included, but his interest is simply to deny the existence of Spain, he could not care less the bibliography in English or the purpose of this article is not to define Spain. His strategy of including at all costs his particular aim by means of facts over a text with a previous consensus since several years, has caused edit wars, this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia. I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia trying to place his viewpoints again and again over a text with a previous consensus, so he will recommence another edit war and the article will be blocked again, but the wikipedia policy establishes that Santos30 cannot alter the pre-existing article without consensus, and although I have agreed to keep some of the contributions of Santos30, certainly all that he has previously indicated has made that I confirmed my total rejection of the other part of his contributions, to which I have given their respective and appropriate explanation, what Santos30 is not interested in understanding. Trasamundo (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • No reason to delete map with kingdoms. I never said non existence of Spain, I not deny the existence of Spain. I said that your map with eternal Spain that delete the kingdoms of iberian peninsula is an original search and broke the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The important clarification on the map that Spain has the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon agrees with the literature and is very important. This clarification not eliminate Spain. Nothing else has changed on the map. As anybody can see:
  • No reason to delete the strong relationship between Americas and Castile. Your POV saying that Americas was incorporated only "administratively", trying to make smaller the nexus between America and Castile, is another original search. Cited John Elliott,Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830 say that Americas was: "United with, and incorpored into, the crown of Castile and León". Literature say that Americas is part of Spain by Castile exclusively, but not Aragon. This is a very important information about Americas. With this information I'm not trying to illustrate any point of view. I not deny the existence of Spain, and not say non existence of Spain.

--Santos30 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


Santos30 will think that he is writing to idiots. I do not know whom he tries to cheat saying that he has never denied the existence of Spain when his own actions reveal the opposite [12][13] and when he has the need to delimit the concept of Spain according to his own particular criterion [14] [15] but such pretension is not an object of the subject of the article and the need to clarify according to his own particular criterion is simply a way to illustrate a point that he itself has declared to have [16]. In the past there was a user who supported this same position [17][18][19], that user was warned here and here, and that user effectively acknowledged such behaviour contravened the policy of wikipedia [20] Therefore Santos30's stubbornness is a breach of wikipedia policy and sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.
Santos30 lies when he expresses that I delete the strong relationship between Americas and Castile, this information is already included and with the same sources provided by Santos30, but it is not possible to put it anyhow without considering the sense of the preexisting text. The lead section must offer a concise overview according to English-language reference works, which do not care to delimite the concept of Spain. Even the same references that Santos30 takes to justify the incorporation of Castile, they indicate without problem that America was Spanish. [21] In the early years of Spanish rule the bishops had their hands an important instrument of control, over settlers ans Indians alike [...] It is this fragmented character of authority, both in church and state, which is one of the most striking characteristics of Spanish colonial America. [22]the government of colonial Spanish America was more 'modern' than the government of Spain.
However, Santos30 does not try to give a general overview but he tries to add interpolated clauses in the lead section to support their particular concept of Spain when such approaches have already been dismissed as opposite to the policy of wikipedia, and when such statements are against the reference works and the subject matter of the article. Such behavior is to illustrate a point. I don't care if Santos30 denies it once or a thousand times, because his editions are oriented toward clarify something according to his own POV. While the lead section should provide generic information without going into details, the interior sections of the article are to develop appropriate information related to the topic of the article, and of course I'm not going to oppose the development of the article when it be done in the terms of the bibliography used, and not adding interpolated clauses strategically placed to match the view of who wrote them.
An example of how Santos30 ignored at will the policy of wikipedia and how to edit to illustrate his point of view is the bull of 1493. Santos30 has provided several sources indicating that in the bull the pope gave kings of Castile territories to be discovered.[23][24][25], which agree with the text of the original bull. It is not the same a patrimonial property of the king than a patrimonial property of the Crown: When King Alfonso V of Aragon obtained the throne of Naples, the kingdom of Naples was not part of the patrimony of the Crown of Aragon, but the King of Aragon, and therefoere after the death of King Alfonso V, the Crown of Aragon passed to his brother John II and the kingdom of Naples to his son Ferrante. But since this statement is not convenient for Santos30, he takes a textual phrase [26] of a Elliot's book as the summum of the veracity, but such phrase taken to convenience by Santos30 is not written by Elliot but it is simply a paraphrase of the particular view of Juan de Solorzano Pereira in a book published in 1776 as it is indicated in the footnote n.15.[27] The lack of rigor of Santos30 to the distinction between patrimonial property of the king or patrimonial property of the Crown demonstrate his edits are oriented to illustrate a point. Here another reference indicating that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile in 1519. [28] La incorporación de estas Indias fue en razón de gananciales, pero según el dominio concedido por las Bulas Pontificias y los respectivos testamentos de Doña Isabel (1504) y de D.Fernando (1516), tales bienes pasaron a ser patrimoniales de la Corona de Castilla, sucesivamente ratificado por los monarcas sucesores, comenzando por Carlos I, en 1519. In fact it is the decree of 1519 that of appears in the Laws of Indies and not the bull of 1493, because the bulls had no practical value per se if no one accepted and enforced them: I do not want to know what imaginative misbehaviors it might do Santos30 with the bull that deposed the king Pedro II of Aragon or that granted the Canary islands to Luis de La Cerda. In addition, Santos30 tries to extrapolate a comment about a specific document of 1493 to justify their own point of view. What in a source is the analytical comment of a document must be considered the comment for this document exclusively and is not the excuse that Santos30 tries to use for any occasion that is convenient for him. This fact of taking the contents of a document to support a particular view is original research.
The next Santos30's lie is to indicate that I defend that Americas was incorporated only "administratively", trying to make smaller the nexus between America and Castile. Another falsehood. I said The claims of Santos30 to alter the text of this article with consensus since several yeaars, to put additions which deny the existence of Spain based on the specific fact that Indies was incorporated administratively to the Crown of Castile are simply the original research, as biased. In short, while I had explained what is his POV, Santos30 lies and he attributes me his own behaviour. I'm not trying either to minimize or maximize such link but that the article continue to keep the neutral point of view respecting the English-language reference works which uses the terms Spain, Spanish,... It is obvious that Santos30 tries to illustrate the strong relationship between Americas and Castile but it is his own opinion because on the contrary I can read that the Indies in legal theory were part of the crown of Castile.[29]. The aim of Santos30 is not to provide the information that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile, because this information is already included with the same references that he provided. He just takes that fact but not of a neutral way but to justify his particular view of Spain, and therefore the resultant wording of the article would not match to the general bibliography but it would support Santos30's particular view, and thus he illustrates a point.
Santos30 continues lying when he is implying that the kingdoms have been deleted in the map, and that I have deleted them. This information has never been present. The aim of the map is not to illustrate political structures but to show the territorial extension in different moments, as I have already indicated several times, and the textual information about political distinctions is a complementary information to enrich the map and it must be inserted according with the depiction. In the past I already indicated that it is possible to add text information about the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon, and in fact I am taking charge of making a depiction with accuracy. Nevertheless Santos30 continues his particular paranoia of accusations of a map of eternal Spain, he will think to have reason by force of repeating the same ridiculous argument again and again. If the bibliography uses the term of Spain of a wide and general way, as I have already indicated, then for Santos30 all the books will be mistaken, and he will hope that someboy takes him seriously. The brown color shows the extension of the current territories of Spain as today, and I do not conceive how Santos30 can be capable of affirming without any blush that the Spanish territories at present have to be depicted with two colors, is there a map of the current territories of Spain with two colors? Not satisfy with inventing a current map of Spain depicted with two colors he has the courage to accuse me of original research without hanging his head in shame.
In the end it is a nonsense to continue to maintain a discussion with Santos30 to include that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile when that information is included. It is nonsense to continue to maintain a discussion with Santos30 to include an additional infomation in the map when I'm working on it. It is nonsense to keep any discussion with santos30 when what he does is lie and despise the wikipedia policy by means of including interpolated clauses repeatedly without any consensus over an text with consensus since several years in order that the article be in agreement with his particular view about he has deduced, when the general bibliography indicates of a wide and general way that the Indies were Spanish, and thus he breachs the neutral point of view. I am not interested in the particular conceptions of Santos30 which he himself has expressed them [30] but he cannot alter the article in order that the article agrees with his own opinion. [31] [32] I am not interested in what Santos30 has deduced and decided what is important to illustrate because the relevancy is provided by the general bibliography not for particular opinions, therefore there can't be consensus when the breach of the wikipedia policy is so flagrant. In addition Santos30 also shows his lack of respect for the policy of wikipedia when invoked a prior consensus to prevent and stop changes to the article [33] but when he tries to impose his own changes and his claims, then he doesn't mind previous consensus and he undertakes edit wars. And now I'll wait how much time Santos30 will wait to take the first step to put the same tendentious addings one and again without any consensus to begin another edit war in order that the article be blocked. Trasamundo (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Santos30 will think that he is writing to Wikipedia.en. And you Trasamundo must stop your uncivil behavior.

About the Map:

  • As you say that the brown color shows the extension of the current territories of "Spain as today" then you acknowledge that your map is an original search and broke the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Spanish Empire was a dynastic Union.

About Americas and Castile:

  • [34] "According to the domain granted by Papal Bulls and the respective wills of Doña Isabel (1504) and D.Fernando (1516), such property became property of the Crown of Castile, successively ratified by monarchs successors, beginning with Charles I , in 1519." (Original: "Según el dominio concedido por las Bulas Pontificias y los respectivos testamentos de Doña Isabel (1504) y de D.Fernando (1516), tales bienes pasaron a ser patrimoniales de la Corona de Castilla, sucesivamente ratificado por los monarcas sucesores, comenzando por Carlos I, en 1519."). It is:
1-Domain granted by: 1-Papal bull (1493) 2-will of Doña Isabel (died 1504) 3-will of Fernando (died 1516).
2-Ratified by: decree of Charles I (1519) and the rest of heirs.
  • [35] The juridical status of the new transatlantic possessions was spelt out by the decree of Charles V in 1519 but no add nothing to the Papal bull of 1493. Because 1519 only ratified what the bull domain granted before in 1493.
Americas were incorporated to the Crown of Castile before the unification of the crowns of Spain in the king Charles I of Spain. It is very clarifying that the will of Doña Isabel (died 1504) acknowledges to Ferdinand the assistance in the discovery with a lifetime pension (half the money incomes from Americas). But all references say that the crown of Castile retains the domains of Americas that are transmitted to his daughter Joanna. Although the govern is exerts by her husband Philipe (King consort of Castile) and later by her father Ferdinand (Regency of Castile). The problems in the domains of the Americas were decided exclusively by the government of the crown of Castile, and not in the crown of Aragon. Nicolás de Ovando, governor of Hispaniola, is subordinate to Philip the Handsome, the King consort of Castile, and when Philip died 1506, Ovando then is subordinate to the regency of Castile of Ferdinand of Aragon. [36] [37] The Laws of Burgos, the Council of Castile, The Casa de Contratación (1503) are institutions of Castile.[38] Aragon is not seen in Americas. The government, laws, currency, institutions, language and titles of Americas is in Castile as all references and coherence said.
Then, Trasamundo you are totally mistaken. Americas were incorporated to the Crown of Castile before 1519, and not by the decree of Charles I as you say. This mistake must will be changed in the article. And must to be in the introduction that Americas was a part of the Crown of Castile by importance of discovery and Spanish American independence.

--Santos30 (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


The sources provided explicitly indicate and explain that the Indies were granted to the kings of Castile and was as joint assets. I do not know what kind of lessons of original research Santos30 pretends to impart when he ignores completely the sources that he has provided because they do not suit him. I do not know whom he tries to cheat hiding deliberately this phrase [39] La incorporación de las Indias fue en razón de gananciales, statement that remarks explicitly the opposite of what he says. What kind of credibility can offer someone who simply hides what is not suitable for him?
Moreover, the verb ratificar in Spanish is [40] to declare as valid writings, words,... and therefore, before they were ratified in 1519 both the wishes of the bull like wills cannot be legally valid until they were spelled out in 1519. However, I have to be consistent with what I said above, and the information of the bull and the decree of 1519 should not be interpolated lightly but they should be well explained in the article just as the sources establishes the information, but not based on personal interpretations and preferences. Finally I have done it, [41] just as the sources explain it. But this will not be enough to Santos30, because he has a particular purpose to illustrate a point.
As I said before, the lead section must offer a concise overview according to English-language reference works, which do not care to delimite the concept of Spain. What Santos30 has deduced and decided on their own what is important to illustrate is not a concern of this encyclopedia. But considering that America had its own legislation different from that of Castile, institutions of government different from the Castilian institutions, coinage was different so that even the pragmatica of 1686 concerned to the Castilian coins but not the Americans, and also the intervention of the monarch in the Indies was by the advice of the Council of the Indies and not by the Council of Castile, these examples show clearly that this obsession to indicate that strong relationship between Americas and Castile anyway and anyhow it is an obvious way to illustrate a point and try to reword the article in order that the wording supports his own point of view, when in a general way the bibliography indicates that the Indies were Spanish, the Spanish rule, Spanish colonies... Trasamundo (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Trasamundo do not delete references.[42]

  • As Spanish Empire was a Dynastic Union the article must clarify that Indies was incorporated to the kingdom of Castile before the unification of Spanish Crown. The bibliography is clear. What part of "The Catholic kings (Isabel and Fernando) and to the heirs of Crown of Castile" you can not understand?. or what is your problem Trasamundo?.
  • Cite required to said that the bulls "cannot be legally valid until" 1519? as you Trasamundo say here. This is another of your original research that broken the neutral point of view. The reference say "successively ratified by monarchs successors, beginning with Charles I , in 1519". Therefore by all kings successors! Not exclusively by Charles. Because the Catholic king Charles can not validate the bulls of a Pope!. A king validate a Pope in those years wow!. A litte of common sense Trasamundo please!.
  • It is definitive that in 1504 the testament of Isabella is legally and the renunciation of Ferdinand in favour of Indias to Joanna is legally (Villafáfila Treaty (June 27, 1506) between Philip and Ferdinand following which, cited: Ferdinand lost not only the government of Castile, but also the lordship of the Indies, leaving only "half of the income of the kingdoms of the Indies."[43] All references say that The held jointly by both spouses say that Ferdinand was a proprietary of a lifetime pension of the half of Americas money, but Americas never was incorpored to the kingdom of Aragon:
El proceso de incorporacion de las Indias a Castilla
Las Indias bienes ganaciales de los reyes catolicos

As Spanish Empire is a dynastic Union your map with "Spain as today" must be changed to Aragon and Castile.--Santos30 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since always Santos30 giving to understand equivocal purposes. I have deleted a chronicle of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas of the 16th century because it is a primary source, and I have replaced it with a current book in English.
I will not continue a childish discussion child in the style of I have more reason than you, I will not continue follow a path of personal interpretations, something that is very characteristic and identificative of Santos30 but not of myself. The sources establish explicitly clear contents about the incorporation of the Indies, and according to the sources the wording is done.
The aim of the map is to show the territorial extension in different moments. It is depicted with a color the Spanish territories up to War of the Spanish Succesion, over that colour is depicted the Spanish territories up to Spanish American wars of independence, over that colour is depicted the Spanish territories up to Spanish-American War, over that colour is depicted the Spanish territories up to Decolonization of Africa, and over that territories is depicted the Spanish territories as today, and in addition is depicted the Portuguese territories during the Inberian union. This is the map with consensus since several years.
I do not know what kind of argument is the brown color shows the extension of the current territories of "Spain as today" then you [I] acknowledge that your [my] map is an original search and broke the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It's nobody's fault in wikipedia that Santos30 ignores what they are Spanish territories or that he tries to ignore them, but it is entertained the determination that he has in denying the bibliography, that of a wide and general way indicates that the territories depicted in the map were Spanish: [44] the formal territories of the Spanish empire in Italy -Naples, Sicily and Mila- were closely linked to the informal territories or client states of the empire [...] For all practical purposes, he informal and formal territories formed a unified and tightly integrated part of the Spanish imperial system; [45] In the early sixteenth century, Spain annexed vast amounts of American territory; [46]when we remember that the Spanish Empire in Europe inclued Flanders and Italy and much of the Rhineland between them  ;[47] It is precisely because Spain's empire remained so large and attractive that tha European powers fought the War of the Spanish Succesion, the 'Great War' of the early eighteen century. It was during that conflict that Carlos'II successor, the first Bourbon king of spain, Philip V, lost Spain's European, but not its American, empire; [48] In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Englishmen and Anglo Americans who wrote about the Spanish past in North America uniformly comdemned Spanish rule. Implicitly or explicitly, they sought to vindicate English or American expansion into Spanish territory; [49] Ferdinand VII's return and immediate abrogation of the constitution exacerbated tensions between spain and its American territories. [...] Spain lost its empire in the Americas. I suppose that for santos30 the Spanish territories hold in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guinea, Sahara during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries depicted in the map they were also a dynastic union, and the map should give to understand it.
To say that the map is an original research is a senseless because the map is according to the bibliography, which indicates that the territories depicted were merely Spanish. These accusations come from someone with a evident purpose of illustrating a point sticking to a viewpoint that the community have clearly rejected, the are simply ridiculous.
For someone who has demonstrated repeatedly to despise the policy of wikipedia, I already know that it is useless to make him understand concepts like that the map must agree with the general bibliography and the sources provided, and not with the previous deductions. But given the fact that the map is with consensus since years, the fact that Santos30 is changing it without consensus based on what he is interested to emphasize, it is an clear evidence of his tactics of WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Trasamundo (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
About Indias and Castile the bibliography demonstrates clearly your mistakes.
About your mistaken map. Not mine your reversion is a Wikipedia:Disruptive editing because it is clear that Spanish empire is a Dynastic Union between Aragon and Castile and your map with current territories of "Spain as today" is an original research that broke the neutral point of view.--Santos30 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Title EDIT. for clarify the talk--Santos30 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with confusing Colors:

  • Brown:
The Iberian peninsular Kingdoms are in one color, but was improved with boundaries.
  • Red:
-Luisiana (New France) french territory returned before Spanish Amerian wars of Independence. NO red color.
-Trinidad and Tobago islands lost before Spanish Amerian wars of Independence. NO red color.
-Falklands island is a disputed territory discovery by british. NO red color.
-Patagonia it is not a disputed territory to my knowledge. Need red color.
-Boundaries of viceroyalties-captaincy are confusing and mistaken. Delete administrative boundaries of Americas it changes along time.

--Santos30 (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Catalan revolt

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Needs to be mentioned! TODO Bazuz (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is not mentioned along with the Neapolitan and Portuguese revolts? Trasamundo (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It is, you are right. I missed it. Bazuz (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Black Legend

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anti-Spanish propaganda was started in the 16th century when Spain was at its height of political power, by propagandists from rival European powers, namely the Protestant countries of England and the Netherlands, as a means to morally disqualify the country and its Spanish people. The Black Legend particularly exaggerates the extent of the activities of the Inquisition, or the treatment of American indigenous subjects in the territories of the Spanish Empire, and non-Catholics such as Protestants and Jews in its European territories. (Encyclopedia Britannica entry "Black Legend")

How is it possible that in an article about the Spanish Empire was no mention of the Black Legend? --Bashevis6920 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Translation or moment

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Sánchez Prieto, Ana Belén (2004) (in Spanish). La intitulación diplomática de los Reyes Católicos: un programa político y una lección de historia. Reference 58 say citation: "Y por lo tanto ha de entenderse que la mención a Fernando se hacía en cuanto rey de Castilla en virtud de la Concordia de Segovia, y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte."

  • Santos traslation: Under the Concord of Segovia, January 15 1475, Fernando was "Lord of the Indies" as king of Castile, and with his death the Kingdom of the Indias will join the Crown of Castile.
  • Trasamundo traslation: According the Concord of Segovia of 1475, Ferdinand was mentioned in the bulls as king of Castile and after his death the title of the Indies will be incorporated into the Crown of Castile.

It is not the same: "with his death" vs "after his death" when? in 1519? as Trasamundo POV? [50]--Santos30 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe better translation than "with his death" for "a su muerte" is "at the moment of his death". The Bibliography is totally clear to indicate that Indias was joins to Crown of Castile at the moment of treaty with Philip (1506), and returns again at the moment of death of Ferdinand (1516) once and for all. Not with Charles after beginning 1519.--Santos30 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

According to wordreference the correct translation es upon his death.
Since santos30 can afford translation to give lessons of translation, I will demonstrate how he invents what is suitable for him to illustrate his point of view ignoring the wikipedia policy of verifiability.
In this source appears: ha de entenderse que la mención a Fernando se hacía en cuanto rey de Castilla en virtud de la Concordia de Segovia, y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte.
Santos30's free interpretation to illustrate point: Under the Concord of Segovia, January 15 1475, Fernando was "Lord of the Indies" as king of Castile, and with his death the Kingdom of the Indias will join the Crown of Castile. Where does it appear in the source that Concord of Segovia granted the title of Lord of the Indies to Ferdinand, where does it appear in the source that the bull granted the title of Lord of the Indies to Ferdinand? Where does it appear in the source Lord of the Indies with quotation marks?
In this source appears: a raíz de la cual Fernando perdió no solamente el gobierno de Castilla, sino también el señorío de las Indias, quedando solamente con "la mitad de las rentas de los reynos de las Indias"
Santos30's free interpretation to illustrate point: but also the lordship of the Indies, withholding a half of the income of the kingdom of the Indies. Where does it appear in the source kingdom in singular with quotation marks?
In this source appears: La incorporación de estas Indias fue en razón de gananciales, pero según el dominio concedido por las Bulas Pontificias y los respectivos testamentos de Doña Isabel (1504) y de D.Fernando (1516), tales bienes pasaron a ser patrimoniales de la Corona de Castilla, sucesivamente ratificado por los monarcas sucesores, comenzando por Carlos I, en 1519.
Santos30's free interpretation to illustrate point: According to the domain granted by Papal bulls and the wills of queen Isabella of Castile and king Ferdinand of Aragon, such property become again property of the Crown of Castile in 1516 once and for all, which was ratified by monarchs successors, beginning with Charles I in 1519. Where does it appear in the source again in the source? Where does it appear in the source in 1516 once and for all? Trasamundo (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • [51] al pasar junto con el resto de los reinos a doña Juana tras la muerte de Fernando, quedaron definitivamente incluidos en la Corona.
If the same source indicate that Indias was joins to Crown of Castile:
  • 1-At the moment of treaty with Philip (1506), is implicit that it returns again in 1516.
  • 2-At the moment of death of Ferdinand (1516), if Ferdinand not resurrected then is implicit it is once and for all.

I will revert you, except your grammar correction that is better. Or not because is slightly worst: upon his death nonspecific the moment same Wordreference source.--Santos30 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What a shame! Santos30 who is not a authority in the use of English language [52] discards impartial traduction not mine because in his limited knowledge of English he thinks such translation does not fit what he thinks or he tries to illustrate.
  • [53] al pasar junto con el resto de los reinos a doña Juana tras la muerte de Fernando, quedaron definitivamente incluidos en la Corona.
And besides that, he adds interpolated clauses that are not written nor appears because he believes that it is implicit, and as he thinks it then he will think that the world should consider it implicitly. The text are brief phrases. Is it so hard to make a translation adjusting to what appears in the original source without adding personal considerations? Well, another evidence Santos30 breaks the policy of original research. Trasamundo (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • [54] y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte. When (Moment)? "A su muerte".
  • [55] tras la muerte de Fernando, quedaron definitivamente incluidos en la Corona. How much (Time)? "Definitivamente".
No, your traslation is mistaken Trasamundo. You cannot change the sense in spanish in your traslations.
"Upon" refers to any moment after. It is not the same as "at the moment". Be constructive and wait to an english native speaker opinion.--Santos30 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This troll was expelled and banned from wikipedia. [56] Trasamundo (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discovery not disputed

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

If "consensus" was wrong must to change. It is not logical expand your mistake as a bubble in all the maps of Wikipedia. Discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed, for example Cuba. It is not the same "De Jure" as Balboa and Pacific Ocean. Who disputed to Balboa? A lots of states: Portugal, UK, Netherlands, etc. Not logically in the year of 1513, that deserves no comment. A little of common sense Trasamundo please.

--Santos30 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that indicates that source is that a claim without effective ocupation goes to nothing. The considerations as claims de jure, rights of possession, juridical possesion were discarded years ago in the article of Spanish empire, as the next step would be to return to the days of the bloody map. No need to go far, because it can be seen in the talk page [57] Therefore, this article does not inclued maps which depict as Spanish possessions merely claims.
Because this map depicts the mainland America and Cuba as a Spanish possession then just completely ignores the consensus reached in this article. But this map is something else acceptable, and only it has to change the year of the legend. It is very easy to change the year for somebody with the aim of being constructive, but not even then, it is clear that the intentions of Santos30 is filibustering. No matter what somebody can tell to him, he will continue to enforce his own viewpoint clearly rejected by the community, we will to use the edit wars as his own visiting card, and I'll be happy to report him to an administrator due to WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Trasamundo (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No, this consensus talk about the map File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG and "De Jure". You can not expanded that consensus for other maps as the map of the crown of Castile at the moment 1506. I will revert you--Santos30 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No, Im not disruptive. Im not filibustering.--Santos30 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


The anachronous map is based on previous agreements and considerations adopted in this article by consensus before I depicted a line to the map. What Santos30 aims, it is that these agreements that were applied to the map I depicted in this article, they do not apply to him by his pretty face. A little of decency and common sense Santos30 please.
But Santos30's criterion is based on a particular opinion invented and deduced by Santos30 himself (A discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed), then a fortiori Santos30 cannot enforce that criterion without consensus. The same text used by Santos30 to justify does not support his statement. The text indicates that discovery can provide title does not indicate granted title, indicates that discovery is a claim, is a inchoate title, is the basis for claiming title. Nowhere appears that A discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed, such statement has been deducted by Santos30 on his own and therefore Santos30 is enforcing a criterion based on their own personal deduction, and this is an example of disruptive editing. I have offered a consensus that the change of the year 1499 to beginning of the 16th century. It's a very small change, negligible for someone constructive, but not for someone interested in filisbustering and quarrelling. Trasamundo (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Extend your map to others is imposse your POV. Not constructive.--Santos30 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
After the discovery of Columbus what State disputed the possesion of Cuba?. Respond and solves. This is constructive!. Not your reversion based in your original research.--Santos30 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This troll was expelled and banned from wikipedia. [58] Trasamundo (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Portuguese Empire

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The map showing the territorial extension of the empire should not include Portuguese possessions because even during the Iberian Union, both empires were kept separate. Califate123! (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

http://aglobalworld.com/holidays-around-the-world/portugal-restoration-independence/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Too much British propaganda in the article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The reign of Charles V saw a decline in the presence of Spain in the North of Africa, even if Tunis and its port, La Goleta, were taken in 1535. One after the other, most of the Spanish possessions were lost: Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera (1522), Santa Cruz de Mar Pequeña (1524), Algiers (1529), Tripoli (1551), Bujia (1554), and La Goleta and Tunis (1569).
[...]
The Ottomans recovered soon. They reconquered Tunis in 1574, and they helped to restore an ally, Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik I Saadi, in the throne of Morocco, in 1576. The death of the Persian shah, Tahmasp I was an opportunity for the Ottoman sultan to intervene in that country, so, in 1580 was agreed a truce in the Mediterranean with Philip II. [104]

This is completely untrue. The Ottoman were basically Mediterranean pirates. And the battle of Lepanto wiped them all out. They never recovered since, because nowadays we associate muslims with camels, but not with war ships (ironic, but it's still true). In fact the Spanish ruled only after the battle of Lepanto over the hole Mediterranean sea, and not before as you write. And beside that they ruled over most of South America, that's when English piracy grew very popular. I'm not saying that queen Elisabeth was a pirate queen, but almost since Francis Drake was a pirate. I know that Britsmen hate Spain, but that's no reason for these inaccuracies in the English Wikipedia. Because after all it was the British who worked together with the Ottoman Empire in a guerilla war on sea against the Spanish kingdom. Still it was finally France who crushed Spain (yeah, that Louis XIII-guy who nobody seems to like nowadays...) and not the UK. --178.197.228.81 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

New book.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

World Without End: The Global Empire of Philip II. By Hugh Thomas

Here is an article: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21606735-illuminating-defence-way-spain-expanded-its-reach-across-americas-border — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The naval war of 1475-79 was really a colonial war

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The title “Treaty of Alcáçovas and the first colonial war” is more correct and accurate than the previous “Early Portuguese-Spanish Conflicts over territory outside the Iberian Peninsula”. The naval war of 1475-79 was much more than a “conflict” and involved colonies, islands, the west African coast, Atlantic supremacy and the monopoly of gold and slaves (besides ivory and pepper). It was really a colonial war among modern European powers. The first one.

Alcáçovas -the treaty that finished this war- also represented the first sharing of the known world.

“Territory outside the Iberian Peninsula” is too vague.

As British historian Sir Peter Russel wrote: «putting on one side the skirmishes which regularly took place in the Canaries between castilians and Portuguese from 1425 onwards, this 1475-79 war was the earliest colonial war between European powers.» (cited in History in Africa, vol. 17, African Studies Association, 1990, p. 116). Also historian Herman L. Bennet, commenting the book of John William Blake: «…Europeans in West Africa, 1450-1560 … illustrate the nature and scope of Portuguese enterprise in West Africa, the abortive attempt of Castilians to create an empire there and…» (Africans in Colonial Mexico, 2005, p. 254). There can be no doubt about the purpose of the Catholic Kings to build an empire in Africa at the expense of the Portuguese: «After some preliminary skirmishing a regular war at sea broke out in 1475, when Isabella of Castile … ordered her subjects to wrest what they could of the spoils of Africa from their neighbours. The Portuguese emerged the winners in the murderous hostilities that ensued, and by the…» (John Ewbank M. White in Cortés and the downfall of the Aztec Empire, 1971, p. 39).

As for the colonial nature of the Treaty of Alcáçovas (which finished this war), see Peter Padfield: «Exploration stopped … as war broke out between Portugal and Castile, and the sporadic actions between Portuguese vessels and increasing number of Spanish intruders on the West African coast flared up into regular operations concerned with the seizure of bases in the Canaries [and in Ceuta, Morocco, as well as in the Cape Verde islands] and the control of the Guinea trade. The Portuguese proved more than a match for their opponents at sea, and after four years of savage fighting the Treaty of Alcaçovas, while allowing the Spanish their existing colonies in the Canaries, confirmed the Portuguese in the African monopoly … this was the first of a long series of European treaties concerned with colonies and trading spheres. » (Tide of Empires, 1481-1654, 1979, p. 26).

Hispanicultur (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No chronological order

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

And btw the chronological order of the article is completely rubbish, too. --178.197.228.81 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles is filled with intertextual rubbish as well! Simple footnotes referencing the relevant source would suffice. The article needs a major cleanup. Tresmegistus (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal Union

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Habsburg Dynastic territories located in Holy Roman Empire were not part of the Spanish Empire. You confused the term of Personal union and Colony. --Kirglach (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Michigan

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

New Spain conquered Fort St. Joseph in present-day Michigan in a 1781 Expedition. It's present-day location, the City of Niles, calls itself the City of Four Flags in reference to all the countries that once ruled it: France, Britain, Spain, and America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.168.114 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC8A:8720:703A:8402:7515:70BD (talk)

No. there was no intention to stay in the fort and this was destroyed quickly:
  • In late 1780, governor of Spanish Louisiana Bernardo de Gálvez sends Captain Eugenio Pourré and a small force up the Mississippi River from St. Louis. On February 12, 1781, Pourré's 65 Spanish troops and 200 allied Native Americans capture British Fort St Joseph on Lake Michigan, then return to St Louis. The one-day Spanish occupation of Fort St. Joseph allows Nies residents to boast later that theirs is the only Michigan community over which four flags (French, British, Spanish and American) have flown. Spencer Tucker (2012), Almanac of American Military History, Volumen 1. p 353
  • During the American Revolution, a Spanish-led raiding party from St Louis destroyed the fort in 1781. Alan Gallay (2015). Colonial Wars of North America, 1512-1763 (Routledge Revivals): An Encyclopedia. p 655
--Trasamundo (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the empire portrayed so small?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Spanish Empire was a bit bigger than what is shown, leading to misinformation. For starters, the Patagonia was considered spanish territory from the get go, with many posts and expeditions there all the time. Also, in the southern united states, Spain had territory as far as Georgia. Once again, around Oregon and Washington and even a little bit of territory in Canada. They had a lot of interest in this northwestern pacific region and their expeditions reached as far as Alaska.2001:1388:103:519B:754F:2491:1A2F:568D (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Though I am certainly not for a contest of which was the largest European empire since such a folly game is another way of glorifying imperialism, I agree with the argument posted here. For the longest time, the Spanish Empire was the largest European empire in the world. The British expanded larger ("where the sun never set") only in the 19th century and crumbled right after the World Wars, while the Spanish Empire expanded quickly in the 16th century and kept the bulk of its territory until the 1820s (more than two centuries). I think this issue should be addressed here. 71.63.91.85 (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No slavery?

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The topic of slaves and slavery is found in this article but only between the lines. While the Spanish Empire was built upon the shoulders of enslaved Americans and Africans, coerced workers who were indispensable for sustaining the empire, there is no section here explaining its importance. I plead here the case for redressing this omission.

It was Spain (it was not called Spain, when all this tragedy began, though) the first to enslaved indigenous people in the Americas. Ask Bartolomé de las Casas. It was Spain who brought the first enslaved Africans to Hispaniola, and then to other parts of the Americas. It was Spain who set the foundation of modern racism with its religious (inquisitorial) concept of Limpieza de Sangre, and the castas, systems of thought that sustained the Spanish rule over a majority of non-Europeans and non-Whites. Etc. Etc. Thanks. 71.63.91.85 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Full article on the Atlantic slave trade here. I guess Spanish slaving in Africa and Asia need covering too.Shtove (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Shtove, Thanks for responding. I know those articles well, but since hardly anything from them is included here, they seem historical events that have nothing to do with each other. Is like, one of the articles is lying or ignoring the other. The narrative of the Spanish Empire cannot be fairly done without integrating the subject of slavery at its core. I am not referring to make occasional mention of slavery and slaves, but to explain the critical role it had in constructing and sustaining the empire (e.g., the Asiento, which is mentioned only once and concerning the granting of the rights to the British). Moreover, we should include the Spanish contribution in bringing African slavery to the Americas, and on the ideological basis for race-based slavery (e.g., Limpieza de Sangre). And, even though the Portuguese were more directly involved with slavery in Africa and Asia, as you said at the end, we need a complete coverage (19th Century Cuban slave trade in West Africa, slavery in the Philippines). The point, as Grandin's latest book explains, is, to be honest about the central role slavery played in everyday life as well as at the higher levels of government.
Perhaps, a section on slavery might not be needed as long as the topic is well integrated, and its role reasonably explained.71.63.91.85 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a large literature on slavery in the Spanish empire which of course should be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Mann's 1493 is an easy read and puts it in economic context from the 15thC on.Shtove (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest more specialist academic literature to be honest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Please participate in RfC on this page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: You haven't linked to any RfC on any page (about page protection or otherwise).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
apparently, the RFC is the one above this entry. Apparently, this was the matter that lead to the edit war. I protected the page per a request at WP:RFPP. Hope this answers a question. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:. Apparently you have participated in the RFC. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you were posting an "FYI" pointer to another RfC, about page protection (i.e, something that was meant to read "Please participate in [[Link to some other page#RfC thread|RfC on this page]]". Derp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the infobox Spanish Empire image

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

The consensus is to use two maps.

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I believe that the Spanish empire should have a map of JUST the Spanish empire without the claimed territories, Habsburg dominions, and Dynastic unions. My image I've posted earlier is just that. The image is simpler to understand and decently accurate. The map that JavierNF96 posted is inaccurate in some areas, and is too vague in the pink color coding, as it can represent several different meanings. The map that Ruepc posted is much better and more accurate. However in my opinion, it should not be posted as the infobox picture, as it is misleading to what is actually the Spanish empire. An image like Ruepc's should be posted somewhere else in the article, hence it already is in section 2. Please share your thoughts and hopefully we can come up with a resolution. Thanks. Empirecoins (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the map currently in section II is the one discussed above, which was removed because it cannot be expanded to view the detail. I am removing it again. It is different than the one added by Ruepc, which can be expanded. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Laszlo Panaflex: -True. Now back to the main discussion...any thoughts? Empirecoins (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the Ruepc map, I agree with you that it works better in the "Sun Never Sets" section, which it illustrates well. I will use it to replace the map I removed. I'm not in a position to evaluate the accuracy of the remaining maps, but using just the base empire in the infobox seems like a sound idea. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Side note: the map that was in the infobox before the recent changes (this) is another one that cannot be expanded to view the detail. So it is also out of the mix. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok everyone. Ive created a new map of the Spanish Empire. I wasn't satisfied with my last map so I've created this. Here it is. I think it will go great for the infobox map. What do you guys think before I post it? Empirecoins (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright then, i'll add it now. that might spark some opinions. Empirecoins (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This message goes out to 90.94.208.147. Your map you are adding onto the infobox is incorrect. The Spanish Empire did not have possession of the Southern part of what is now Argentina and Chile. This is why Argentina only had this much land at the time of there independence. Also, the Spanish Empire had possession of what is now the Netherlands. See Habsburg Netherlands. This image is also of poor quality. Empirecoins (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As Doug Weller point out above, the IP 90.94.208.147 is likely JavierNF96 editing logged out. They have been pinged and asked on their talk pages and in edit summaries to join this discussion. Instead, they argue points raised here in an edit summary, while adding a disputed map. The very reason we have talk page discussions is to avoid fruitless edit summary arguments. Yet I count six times in two weeks that JavierNF96 has added a map under dispute or rejected here, without engaging in discussion once (and he was blocked for part of that time). This is textbook disruptive editing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is yet another map, "SpanishEmpire1790.svg", that cannot be expanded to view the details, added by JavierNF96, who has not joined in the discussion. These unreadable maps are of no use to general readers. Funny how all these maps are being added by editors who refuse to engage in the discussion here. This has become disruptive editing. If you have a problem with the maps, discuss here and stop arguing in edit summaries. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Use two maps. Notwithstanding issues with the one map being editwarred about, it would be helpful to have a map showing the empire proper and another showing its extended reach or broader interpretation. Maybe even do it as a single animated map showing the difference? Or maybe two animated maps showing both the literal and extended empires expanding and contracting over time?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Include both: that way, everyone is happy. –Sb2001 19:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've worked on this one if you want to use it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png The 1790 svg map can be expanded using the browser zoom or, if youre in a smartphone, using the "pinch to zoom" gesture. I can make a png version if needed. Honestly the southern tip of South America should be shaded, as it is half of Australia in many New South Wales maps of late 1700s, or the whole Louisiana in 1810 US maps, or the Arctic islands in the 1800s British Canada maps, or Siberia in the Russian empire maps of early 1800s... there are many examples of "claimed but not occupied" territories that are assigned to a certain power, in this case Portugal and Spain agreed to divide South America in the Treaty of Madrid and Treaty of San Ildefonso in a way in which all territories west of that line were assigned to Spain. Many maps do not reflect this and show Patagonia as unclaimed territory because there is an interest of foreign powers in diminishing the sphere of influence of others. For instance, the Amazon basin was not included in Brazil territory as late as 1950 in some USA maps... But the Patagonia was claimed by Spain and recognized by the other South American involved power, which was Portugal. Nagihuin (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nagihuin: Wait, I'm confused. I do realize that the southern tip of South America was claimed by Spain. But shouldn't it be shaded pink instead of red since it is only a claimed territory, and not a fully occupied Spanish Empire territory? Maybe I'm wrong and Spain did have full control, but I would like some explanation and reasoning instead of some informal ranting without references (JavierNF96). Empirecoins (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Empirecoins: That's a good question, and I've questioned that to myself many times. Let me explain this Patagonia topic. I myself have doubted many times but after studying many historical maps, I think it should be fully included into Spanish possesions as Louisiana is included in 1810 US maps, for instance:

-What is a fully occupied or effectively occupied territory? I consider that question really tricky to answer properly. For instance, are Arctic Canadian Islands fully occupied by Canada nowadays? What about the Australian Outback? And the Amazon basin in Brazil? When is a territory considered effectively occupied? There are territories even in our modern nation states which aren't still fully charted, with tribes discovered still today, and they're not occupied or settled or explored. Maybe a settlement with buildings means it is fully occupied. But, how much territory do you add in the surroundings? 1km, 10 km, 100 km? 1000km? How do you decide that? Is a road or a pathway built by a power something that qualifies that territory as "effectively occupied"? What about the surroundings of that road? What kind of territory do we need to qualify some land as fully occupied territory? A farm, a desert... is the Algerian desert fully occupied?

Those questions are horrribly difficult to answer. The thing is, we do have maps that do not follow the rule of "shaded area=fully occupy land". And there are plenty of them. For instance, let's see this map of 1788 Australia, when there was only one outpost built in Sydney. But we had nearly half of Australia shaded as part of the British Empire. How is that? We only had a couple of hundred squared meters fully occupied in Sydney!

Take as well into consideration all those maps of early USA like this one I add here. What's up with all that Missisippi basin? Was that fully occupied? Completely not. There were still hundreds of hostile Native American tribes which were not aware of these borders and they fought until their extermination to defend their land in the following decades. The last wars were won in late 1890. Does that mean that the USA maps shouldn't shade the Mississippi basin until 1900? It's shaded as a full American territory (not into statehood, but fully American anyway).

 
 

I think the "fully occupied territory" criterion is not only difficult to answer, but also not followed in important historical maps like those. So, what's the solution? There is not a complete solution, but I give you my opinion. My thought is that territories should be shaded as fully integrated in the empire or nation if they were "charted, claimed and recognized by powers capable of projecting force in the area". Although this triad of criteria is not entirely clear either, it may be better than the fully occupied criterion. And that triad of criteria is followed in 1810 USA maps or 1788 Australia maps. So Patagonia was charted, claimed by Spain and recognized by Portugal, the other South American power, in the late 1700s:

1. "There was native resistance". Yes there was. But there were native resistance in the Louisiana territory in the USA, right? Why then it is shaded as integral part of the USA, and Patagonia not part of the Spanish Empire?

2. "There was not settled". That's not right. It was also moderately settled (Carmen de Patagones, San José, Colonia Floridablanca, Puerto Deseado in the coast). Those are more settlements, in number, than Sydney in the 1788 which justifies that half of Australia shaded map.

3. "It was not recognized by foreign powers". That's also contested. Portugal did recognize Spanish rule west of the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 and the Treaty of San Ildefonso in the 1770s line dividing South America between them. Also, Spain didn't recognized the British rule in early 1788 Australia. But those maps of half of Australia shaded in 1788 are still there. The thing is, Spain couldn't seize Australia from the British (Australia was part of the Castilian hemisphere according to Tordesillas treaty, so they claimed it as late as 1790), and in the same way, foreign powers depriving Patagonia in their maps weren't also capable of seizing it. Yes there are some old maps with Patagonia coloured in another color different from the Pampa region. But there are also old maps that show Patagonia included in the Spanish sphere. How many old maps do we need to colour something in a way or another?

 

Maybe it is better to reserve the lighter shade to "claimed but effectively disputed areas" (instead of simply "claimed lands") with major intrusions and constant operations of foreign powers, like the Portuguese in the Amazon basin in the 1730s (claimed by Spain), which were founding cities and raiding here and there, or the Nootka territory where British and Russian vessels were thriving. But the Patagonian lands were just remote, native governed lands, with no large interventions of foreign major powers, just as the 1810 American Louisiana or the 1788 Australian Outback...

As I said, these are just my opinions after heavy research, but I have had different opinions myself, as you could see it in the earlier versions of the SVG map. Thank you all! Nagihuin (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nagihuin: Thank you for your explanation. I guess that's why its called a "disputed territory" in some cases. So, to end this RfC...your map will be on "the sun never sets" section. And this map will be in the infobox, since its just a base map of the empire. How does that sound? Or would you like me to shade in the Patagonia part of South America? Empirecoins (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with my map being in the place it is right now (I just want all my work to be shown somewhere), and I'm OK if you keep the map in that place and without changes because I understand different criteria. So everything is OK for me and no prob. ;) Nagihuin (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

When a well-founded consensus is ignored and broken the war arose

Again I attend a war of maps based on subjective impressions and brief comments without showing anything, and also, ignoring the situation prior to the conflict, something that is not allowed in Wikipedia.

Since 2009 this map [59] made by me has been the stable map in this article. This map was drawn up by me, something that has not been mentioned previously, and it was the result of very hard discussions in order to achieve something satisfactory. In 2015 Nagihuin's map [60], based on mine, was added, and this was no problem, in fact I tried to place it in the lead section but it is not allowed due to style. However, I have read several considerations about the map in the infobox without taking into account the situation prior to September 2017. That is, a surrealistic discussion is made as there would have been no map before September 2017, and a well-founded consensus has been ignored by subjective considerations and capricious tastes, without anticipating the risks, and this is very irregular.

Now I am going to indicate briefly why the map [61] that has been present around for years don't have to be changed:

In the first place, my map, being in SVG format, complies with the image policy WP:IUP, something that this map [62] does not do, and therefore my map on having a SVG format takes precedence.

In the second place, it is argued in a sentence that the Portuguese empire was not part of Spanish empire as if the rest of us were ignorant. It is very funny because the opposite (the Portuguese empire was part of Spanish empire) was proved in a contudent and reliable way many years ago, in fact among my many interventions I can take two as an example. [63] [64]

Before this reliable verification, the text of the article was changed, and was made in the lead section in a way that ensured the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in order that in the future the war of editions of that time would not be repeated. I cannot stop smiling to try to finish off to me almost ten years later with a single sentence.

Therefore this map [65] that does not contain the Portuguese territories does not serve for this article, because it does not comply with the content of the article, since the content of the article requires the inclusion of Portugal.

Third, another of the challenges I had to face in creating the map [66] was the way of including Portugal. Once demonstrated that Portugal had to be included, it was necessary to establish the best form. On the one hand the Portuguese users did not want to see their territory colonized by Spain presented on the map, on the other hand Portugal at that time was a domain of the Crown like Sicily, and therefore was no reason to differentiate the color between the Portuguese part and the Castilian-Aragonese-Burgundy part. The best option was to divide the map into historical periods, so, on the one hand the Portuguese would not see their former country subdued and dominated, and on the other, there was respected that Iberian Union was a historical period between other different periods and hereby it was respected to the neutral point of view.

When on 8 September the blocked troll took the unilateral decision to change the map ignoring these issues and trampling on a very elaborate consensus and strongly settled in the Wikipedia policy, to put subjective consideration, then all kinds of disputes that were judicious solved in the past, arose, and this is not a coincidence. Leave alone this map to that he attends both to the Portuguese identity and to the reality of the domains of the monarch at that time. Trasamundo (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trasamundo: I fully respect your choices and image. I will not interfere with it again. I'm only 16, so I wasn't around to see what was going on in 2009...JavierNF96 has been a real pain these past couple of months. Along with other Spanish history related articles. Your map looks great! Sorry for all the inconvenience. Empirecoins (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the Trasamundo map as the lead map of this article (even though I wink at him to reconsider the shading of Patagonia ;) , read my interventions here). I'm OK with my map (which includes hemispheric claims, "mare clausum", Habsburg territories and other interesting features very important to the comprehension of the global Spanish empire) being shown somewhere in the body of the article, like where it is now. Nagihuin (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reasonableness and broadmindedness. I saw in the past wars of editions, insults, trolls with permanent blocks, and I would not like this to happen again because of a subjective taste. On the other hand, to justify the depiction of the map I used sources that I dedicated to compiling here [67] I cannot do the perfect things but I try to do it as sensibly as possible. Trasamundo (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Spanish Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion
 

On further inspection of this map, I have to agree with TompaDompa that it is of little use. I have tried expanding it and even downloading the source file, but it appears unreadable to me. Is there a way to view it so the text is legible? If not it should be removed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laszlo!
It so happens that the current map of the Spanish Empire is entirely misleading, as it is missing colonies and detail. If it's not this map, then we should certainly consider updating it or choosing a different one!
Many thanks, --Anonymus 88 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not taking any position on the current map, but this one is unreadable, and therefore of no use here. I didn't notice that it was still on the page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The version of that map without the text is impossible to interpret due to the lack of a legend, and is therefore misleading (considering it also shows Portuguese territories). TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree this map is of little use but the Portuguese territories are there from the Iberian Union. Bobbbcat (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I honestly have worked on the map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg for ages and it has tons of details and information that are not provided in any other map. Just compare it with the others. I think all this work should be shown somewhere in the article, if not in the header, at least in the main text. The map is not intended to be seen from the distance, but to be zoomed in to see all the details, that's the way it is readable. Nagihuin (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Just use CONTROL + MOUSE WHEEL to zoom in in a web browser to see those details. Nagihuin (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've created this PNG version which is readable instead of the svg. Check it out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png Nagihuin (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The svg version of the map is the one I said is useless, and I still cannot expand it, even using the technique you describe. The file "Diachronic map of the Spanish Empire.svg" should not be added to the page unless there is an intuitive way to expand it. The png version ("SpanishEmpire.png") is readable, but please stop adding the svg version. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Laszlo Panaflex, check this out, tell me if you read it well. I've enlarged the scale: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg We could use this map which is hundreds of times more detailed. Nagihuin (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this the same as the "SpanishEmpire.png" map you posted a while back? This is currently in the Sun Never Sets section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Laszlo Panaflex, it's slightly different, this one is a SVG one (do you remember that one you couldn't see because it was very small? It is now enlarged). If you're not intro troubles while viewing it, or if u don't need to zoom or anything, then it's a better version than the previous SVG, and better than the PNG (vectorial gives better quality than pixels), so maybe I should change it and incorporate it in the article instead of the PNG version. I personally prefer SVG vectorial drawings. Nagihuin (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This new one is so large that all I can see is a little corner of it at a time. The one that is on the page now is clear and easy to expand and view. As I said in the discussion below, it illustrates the Sun Never Sets section well. I think it is fine as it is. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Map again

There have been three different maps added/removed recently, sometimes with no edit summary, sometimes arguing in summaries. Could we please have a discussion over the map to reach some consensus? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: It seems pretty obvious that JavierNF96 (talk · contribs) is editing logged out as 90.94.208.147 (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 11:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so JavierNF96 and his possible sock are adding this map. Editor Ruepc added this one, and editor Empirecoins added this one. Before this flurry of changes, this map was on the page. So we have at least three editors adding maps that are different from what had been stable for some time. Can we discuss which one to use and stop playing musical maps? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Laszlo Panaflex: Empirecoins asked me about the maps and I suggested an RfC. It would have to discuss the differences. If someone does start an RfC (not me) that would hopefully settle the issue. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So the current map seems to be suggesting that in 1790 the Seventeen Provinces and the Kingdom of Sicily were still part of the Spanish Empire. I would say that is incorrect. Dragon2K (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dragon2K: It is wrong, along with several other mistakes. I'm working on a new map that I will post shortly on the RFC section just below this talk section. I'll get everyone's opinion on it before replacing it on the infobox for this article. Empirecoins (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you are talking about the 1790 map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SpanishEmpire1790.svg I drew it. In 1790 the Duchy of Parma (not the seventeen provinces) and the Kingdom of Naples were ruled by the same Spanish Bourbons branch, that's the reason they are included in the 1790 svg map. Before liberal revolutions, nations were understood better as the territories ruled by a king or a dinasty, rather than being based in pure constitutional or administrative issues. Anyway, they are coloured in blue, not in red, to show the different administrative division (Kingdom of Spain and the Indies VERSUS Duchy of Parma and Kingdom of Naples. Nagihuin (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I've seen you're not talking about my map which is this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SpanishEmpire1790.svg.

You are free to use that map of mine, or also this one which is more complete: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg if you want to use it in the header, just removing or simplifying some text if needed.

I've drawn them both, I'm open to discussion.Nagihuin (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've created this PNG version which is readable instead of the svg. Check it out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png Nagihuin (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex, check this out, tell me if you read it well. I've enlarged the scale: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg We could use this map which is hundreds of times more detailed. 77.228.43.120 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

the Spanish empire in the time of Felipe II also had in its possession the territories of the Portuguese empire. The map needs to be modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.226.176 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Please review WP policy on the lead section and especially the opening paragraph, as recent additions are inappropriate, as well as making questionable claims. It equates the Kingdom of Castile with the empire, though the link provided states the kingdom ended in 1230 (and the third paragraph of the lead already discusses this more clearly). Going into its income source in the second sentence is undue weight, as is the tangent on religion. The previous version of the lead was concise, followed WP:LEAD, and was stable for at least a couple of years. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the body and should not contain content not discussed in the body. We now have further additions to the lead that are not covered in the body, a hodgepodge opening paragraph, misspellings, edit warring ... and admins restoring problematic additions. *sigh* Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. My apologies for causing some editors distress or confusion with my edits. I do want the article to be clear, factual, and grounded in sources. I can turn my attention to expanding the text in the main article so that it matches more closely to text I recently added the lead. As a professional historian of Spanish America and the Atlantic world, I see the article on the Spanish Empire as extremely important for understanding world history as well as for understanding how colonial Spanish America's experience has shaped that region. Spanish America is largely Spanish-speaking, Roman Catholic, and has export-led economies, all legacies of its being part of the Spanish Empire.`My goal as a Wikipedia editor is to improve articles in which I have expertise. Amuseclio (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

If you're talking about me, I wasn't acting as an Admin, and didn't notice it was a recent addition. I certainly think that the current lead is too long. I agree with the guideline that says no more than 4 paragraphs. And on the issue I seem to be stuck on, although I think that the bit about it being the first empire to be called The empire on which the sun never sets, I couldn't source it and it isn't sourced in the actual article on the phrase, which I find odd. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I again encourage you to review the policy WP:LEAD. Some of the current problems: 1) as I stated in the original post, the Kingdom of Castile ended in 1230, according to the link provided, and should not be equated with the Empire as it is now. The dynastic union is explained more clearly later in the lead, so this appears incorrect and confusing. 2) There is no discussion of the term Spanish Monarchy in the article; this sentence should be in the body, not the lead. 3) The statement about the main income source is likely undue weight in the opening paragraph, especially since it requires qualification as the Empire only held these territories for a portion of its existence. 4) The paragraph on religion is also questionable in the lead, with material not in the body. 5) Calling it the "foremost global power of its time" is peacock puffery, and incorrect; perhaps it was for a part of that time, but the article dates the Empire until 1975. The current opening paragraph appears to apply to the Empire at its peak, not as a whole, and does not follow the MoS. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If you’re referring to me, I’m well aware of what WP:LEAD says. It is of course a guideline, not policy, but that’s not really relevant here. I don’t think you’ve said anything I disagree with. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Doug, no, I was addressing Amuseclio. Amuseclio: to temper my remarks, your expertise is much welcome and needed here. As you discuss, developing the article first, then summarizing in the lead, tends to be the best practice. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I will revisit my edits in the lead and develop more material for the body of the article. 1) I will truncate the topic of religion when I return to editing the lead. But following the Christian reconquest of Spain, the expulsion of Spanish Jews (and later Moriscos), and the commitment of Queen Isabel of Castile to evangelizing the pagan indigenous in the Americas (and setting up the Spanish Inquisition to make sure converted Jews were true Christians), the expansion of Catholicism was an integral part of Spanish colonialism. It has been characterized as "militant Christianity" with military conquest in tandem with the "spiritual conquest," the title of a classic work on colonial Mexico. A standard phrase regarding Spain's motivation for conquests was "gold, glory, God. "Spaniards went to the Americas to enrich themselves, rise to the challenge of conquest, and spread Christianity: gold, glory, and God."(see Ida Altman, et al. The Greater History of Early Mexico p. 53.) 2) Concerning the "sun never sets" quote, I was not the editor who added the phrase and think that should be a proper citation if it is to be included in the lead. I agree that "foremost global empire" is puffery. Spain and Portugal were the first global empires and initially divided the world between them. 3) Isabel was Queen of Castile, the most populous kingdom of Spain. Most historians writing on the Spanish overseas empire are at pains to point out that since Castile (Isabel) funded the Columbus expedition that the rewards were to go to Castile alone. In his one-volume work Spain in America, Charles Gibson, a distinguished historian and former president of the American Historical Association,, states that "the New World had been discovered and acquired through the agency of Castile; accordingly all settlers should be Castilian, all benefits should accrue to Castile, and the laws of America should be Castilian laws. To be sure, the successors of Isabella did not totally endorse this view. The Spanish monarchs, beginning with Ferdinand [king of Aragón] even before the death of Isabella in 1504, were loath to limit American settlement and profit to Castilians. But the selection of the kingdom of Castile as the essential parent country for the American colonies was never seriously called into question until the eighteenth century."(p. 91) James Lockhart and Stuart B. Schwartz in Early Latin America flatly state "Spanish America is more properly Castilian America, held by the crown of Castile, conquered and settled by Castilian subjects. The individual experience of Castile thus becomes especially relevant [to the history of early Spanish America]."(p. 19). Sorry for any infelicitous formatting here. I don't often weigh in on talk pages. Amuseclio (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio 17 January 2018
The lead discusses that more clearly below already, along with the role of silver, and the link to the Kingdom of Castile is confusing because that page says that kingdom ended in 1230. There is a tendency to try and cram too much into the lead in general, and in the first paragraph in particular, which is why there are specific Manual of Style policies on those elements. "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" (MOS:BEGIN). "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (MOS:INTRO). I agree with Doug that the lead is too long, and it doesn't tell a very coherent story. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Both lead and article should tell a coherent narrative, and far too often, due to piecemeal editing, they don't. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I will get back to editing over the weekend and attend to issues raised here. I'll be expanding the text of the main article that include points I included in my edits of the lead. Sometimes the lead is all that people read (just as they will only read the introduction of conclusion of a book or article). Take a look at the lead on Dutch Empire. It includes mention of rivalries with other empires, which I think is entirely appropriate. Without puffery, the Spanish empire was one of the two first global empires. But it was challenged by rising European overseas powers (English, French, Dutch), and it was in decline (and Spaniards were concerned about it) in the 17th c. There is discussion among Spanish historians about the timing of the decline, since it lost territory to other European powers and mining receipts from Mexico and Peru declined. But the economic revival in the later period, attributed to the Bourbons, apparently began in the later 17th c. under the Hapsburgs. (See Carla Rahn Phillips's 1987 article in the American Historical Review). The Spanish Empire was mere fragment of what it had been after the Spanish American wars of independence. It ceased to be a world power in the early 19th c. Before I edited it, I found that the lead for Spanish Empire had a very narrow focus and did not place the empire in a larger world or Atlantic world context. Obviously, other people can edit the lead and can have other ideas. For my part, I'll be working on the body of the article to add relevant material and aim at making the lead and the article a coherent whole. Amuseclio (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

I agree with Laszlo Panaflex, the lead section is an article in itself, and it violates the Manual of Style, which are the rules to try to create some coherence in Wikipedia. Curiously, the previous version was elaborated by me, when on August 1, 2016 I cleared another cumbersome lead section. I really do not understand these ways of proceeding. Nothing in that case, I will have to put the template again. Trasamundo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


I trimmed the lead and will integrate some of the removed text into the article at a later date. I hope that editors who have participated in this discussion will look at the revised lead and assess whether the tag should be removed. For my part, I'll be working on the body of the article and not the lead. Amuseclio (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Citation overkill and unclear meaning in a sentence in the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A sentence in the lead is unclear. It reads: "Under this political configuration, irrespective of the denominations[13] given to the "dynastic union"[14][15] existing from 1580 to 1640, the Portuguese realm kept its own administration and jurisdiction over its territory, as did the other kingdoms and realms ruled by the Spanish Habsburgs.[16]" What specifically does "irrespective of the denominations" mean? This unclear clause has 9 references that aim support it (in reference 13). Reference 13 has the appearance of a single work when reading the text, but when seeing the references themselves they appear to be an example of what Wikipedia describes as Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The citation overkill might be the result of some previous edit war of which I have no knowledge. In the 9 works cited, none has specific page numbers. One listed is Leslie Bethell, ed. The Cambridge History of Latin America, a multi-volume work spanning the colonial to modern eras, making the reference so nonspecific as to be useless for verification.

I recommend an editor clarify what "irrespective of denominations" means and then trim citations to one or two, with specific page numbers, permitting verification of the sources supporting the clarified statement. Obviously one or more editors sees the point (i.e., "irrespective of denominations") as important, so it would be good to have its meaning clear. Amuseclio (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

That there are various different ways of referring to the period. But what on earth is all this doing in the lead here? That vast list of references is a pretty sure sign of a past nationalist edit-war, but the whole section is WP:UNDUE here. Move or just cut. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This is some of what I was complaining about above, before your recent development of the article. I agree that it can be moved or cut. Perhaps some of it could be in Further Reading. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the section for clarity, adding citations, and will move a number of the citations no longer in the lead to the Further reading section. Amuseclio (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Audiencias

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In my view, the section on Audiencias is currently far too detailed for a general article on the Spanish Empire. It does need to be described, since it is a key institution. I have added the link under the subsection heading to the main article, Real Audiencia. I propose moving the detailed discussion on different types of Audiencias and judges to the main article, so that those interested can read further.Amuseclio (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Spain and the American Revolutionary War

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suggest trimming the discussion on Spain and the American Revolutionary War, leaving the important points, but shifting the details to the separate Wikipedia article on the topic and adding a links between the two articles.Amuseclio (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Lawyer-bureaucrats in the Spanish empire

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think majority of the information in this subsection fits a general article on the Spanish Empire. I propose eliminating the subsection and then incorporating text on letrados under the Catholic Monarchs into the discussion of organization of empire. I also propose then moving the remaining text to the history section of the Wiki article on Higher Education in Spain.Amuseclio (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

I concur.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has reverted my deletion of the section without explanation. He seems not to have looked at the talk page to see my proposal to delete that section. I still don't think that it worthy of inclusion in a general article on the Spanish Empire. But rather than revert the edit, I request some guidance from other editors about how this should be handled. Thanks. Amuseclio (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I have invited User:Barbudo Barbudo to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I still think the section should be eliminated, since most of its information not relevant for the general article on the Spanish Empire. I would hope that User:Barbudo Barbudo would post to this discussion rather than just reverting the edit eliminating the section.Amuseclio (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Hi and I apologise for getting back to you so late Amuseclio! I reverted the edit mainly because you didn't transfer the section to the article on Higher Education in Spain as you said you would. I do also believe that the section is relevant in this article too, as it gives the reader background information on the whole process of educating an almost medieval population in order to run what was, alongside the Portuguese, the first 'colonial empire'. I firmly believe we should not change that section and leave it as it is. You could however, add a section on "letrados" WITHIN the lawyer-bureaucrats section if you consider it to be right. Sorry for the delay of my message and my perhaps slightly violent reversion! Best regards, --Barbudo Barbudo (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I *did* move the main text of the paragraph on lawyer-bureaucrats to the Wiki article on Higher education in Spain. Please view the history of that article. I added +3,331 from Spanish Empire on 20 February 2018. I reiterate my position here that discussion of the development of universities in Europe and Spain in particular is not sufficiently relevant for this article on Spanish Empire. I understand you disagree. You could write something succinct about the role of lawyer-bureaucrats in the empire that would fit better here. I happen to be active in editing this Wiki article right now; I am one editor among many before me -- and doubtless many more after me! All the best, Amuseclio (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Early Caribbean section

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this section should be more succinct. I would like to move material to History of the Caribbean and/or Spanish colonization of the Americas and have a shorter version of the main points of this section. I think right now it is too detailed for the general Spanish Empire article. Amuseclio (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

change in the Charles II topic the name of the monarch that invaded Spanish Netherlands in the nine years war from Louis XVI to Louis XIV, Louis XIV was king of France until the begining of XVII century not Louis XVI.

In the Nine Years' War (1688–1697) Louis XVI once again invaded the Spanish Netherlands. to In the Nine Years' War (1688–1697) Louis XIV once again invaded the Spanish Netherlands. source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France Sicmundi (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done NiciVampireHeart 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Map of the Empire

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Has anyone got a slightly clearer map of the Empire circa 1700? ie death of Carlos/Charles II. Much appreciated if you can link me to one.

Thanks!

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do you delete important data about the Spanish empire?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As for example that is called (Even before the British Empire) "the empire in which the sun never sets". You also erased that the Spanish Empire was the foremost global power in 16th and 17th, and whose maximum territorial extension was in the 18th (Specifically in 1790). You have also eliminated that the wealth of the empire was based on the gold extracted from Peru and Mexico.

Why have you eliminated all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.210.236 (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2018‎ (UTC)

The sources for this addition are a short blurb on a site that does not include its sources, a priest quoted in a book on US sea power, and another wikipdia page. These are not "official" or RS. 2601:8C0:37F:8160:59B6:3F6D:9B0E:7BD4 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The map of the Spanish Empire is incomplete

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The image of the map of the Spanish Empire is incomplete because it lacks many large areas of exploration, influence and settlement in which cities and towns were founded by Castilian settlers.

In addition the map is confusing and not very visual, it is difficult to see the letters unless you open the image.

I propose to add a more simplified and complete map. This map is very used by many Wikipedia:

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Diachronic_map_of_the_Spanish_Empire_2.svg JamesOredan (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the map has detailed labeling is an advantage, even if it requires opening the image. Other much-discussed maps on the page also require opening to see the detail. And areas of exploration and influence are not the same as being part of an empire. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The letters are absolutely unnecessary on a map. There is already a section of the territories and colonies of the empire. In addition the letters are very small, making it necessary to open the image.

But if you like it, it will not hurt me to keep it. What I would like is to color the areas of influence and temporary settlement, you can put it in another color to differentiate them from the "permanent" settled areas. This would be a more complete and correct map. It's what many Wikipedias do, it's not my invention.

The reason why I insist on the zones of influence is because in many of these areas the Castilians founded cities and towns. JamesOredan (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This gallery include the lesser coats of arms. The years given are for the coats of arms.

87.14.180.55 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Spanish colonies

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The coats of arms of the Spanish Empire's colonies were all of a uniform style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.180.55 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done It is not clear if you want this gallery to be included or you want to change something existing in the article. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Crown's main source of wealth was not gold and silver

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction we have this unsupported claim:

"The crown's main source of wealth was from gold and silver mined in Mexico and Peru".

This is wrong. It was an important source of revenue but it was never the main source of revenue, not even close. The main source of wealth for the crown were the taxes levied on its subjects and mainly in its European territories, especially Castile. A check of any quality academic work or a quality secondary source will show this. For example see the graph on page 11 of this study (the "Indies" also includes the precious metals): https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/colloqpapers/s07/Drelichman.pdf

Could some editor please remove the above mentioned sentence from the introduction. Thankyou

  • The importance of different sources revenue must obviously hae varied over the duraiton of the empire. According to Grafe, R., & Irigoin, A. (2012). A stakeholder empire: the political economy of Spanish imperial rule in America 1. The Economic History Review, 65(2), 609-651, in the period 1796-1800 the revenue from New Spain/Mexico alone was three times that of the revenue from Spain itself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
:So in the latter part of the18th century, just before the empire began disintegrating, but certainly not during the so-called Spanish Golden Age in the 16th and 17th centuries when the empire was at the peak of its power and influence. For most of the period, and in the time when it was the dominant power, precious metals were not the main source of crown revenue, other taxes were, so the statement is still highly misleading, even if accurate for a relatively short period.
  • The paper is interesting, but its status is uncertain (this is a draft), and it claims to be overturning the traditional and general view, with new figures, so I think we would want some secondary recognition of this. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The paper is an analysis of whether or not Philip II's debts were sustainable, that is not why I brought up the paper, I was only interested in using it to illustrate that in the 16th century (at least) precious metals were not the main source of revenue, taxes in European territories were.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.168.162 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's another source:

"Averaging revenues from 1521 through 1640, Castilian taxes...yielded 38% of crown revenues, followed by 15.6% from the Spanish Church, and only 10.7% from American bullion." page 150, Richard Lachmann, Capitalists In Spite of Themselves: Elite Conflict and Economic Transitions in Early Modern Europe, Oxford University 2002.

This period is in the latter part of the so-called Golden Age of Spain and underlines what I have stated above, that in the 16th and 17 centuries precious metals (silver and gold), though important, were not even close to being the "main" source of income of the crown as asserted in the introduction of this article. That sentence in the intro of this article is misleading.

Well I've removed it as it isn't referenced, there or lower down that I can see, & disagrees with sources produced. The previous sentence looks rather dubious - "Castile became the dominant kingdom in Iberia because of its jurisdiction over the overseas empire in the Americas and the Philippines.[6]" - Castile included the great bulk of the peninsula, and was in a personal union with Aragon, about half the rest, decades before the empire grew beyond small islands. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I brought it up because a very, very long time ago I read something on this matter, of the rise, then fall and then rise again of the bullion imports, but I couldn't remember where. Yes, that other sentence gives (me) the impression that "Castile" somehow "ruled" the other kingdoms. I suppose you could substitute "was the most important" for "dominant" to remove this interpretation, or just remove it altogether and let the body of the article deal with the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.244.76 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The map should be changed in the violet area ("lost with peace of utrecth in 1700s"). The state of Siena was Not included in the state of presidii, it was annexed by Florence. So that part in central Italy (and in the zoomed area) should be grey except for state of presidi which is very small.

That's a pretty huge mistake.

Barjimoa (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reduce size of article?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed the "too long" tag calling for the reduction in the size of the article, pending a discussion by editors of this page. It is a long article, but it has subsections that allow readers to navigate it. If after a discussion the consensus is that it should be reduced, then let it be so. Amuseclio (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

@Amuseclio: please review WP:SIZERULE. This article is almost twice the size of "almost certainly should be divided" into subarticles. Many sections already link to their main articles, but proper Wikipedia:Summary style should be employed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Francoist dictatorship flag

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There many Spanish flags symbols but same colors. --Caminoderoma (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Iberosphere" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberosphere. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see infobox. 14 languages, 9 religions, loads of flags, et cetera. Really? I only have a passing interest in this article so I wonder if some of the more regular editors have some time to spare? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove tag that lead is too long for article?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I removed one paragraph from the lead that did not seem vital, but the article is long and the lead is actually pretty concise, in my humble opinion. I would like others who edit this article to weigh in. Amuseclio (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

The lead could be roughly halved from what is was a few days ago. See [68] Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Aim for four not overly long paragraphs. The length of the main article below is not a measure for the length of the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually rather soft on this matter, but this is too long, and doesn't always seem accurate. There is too much emphasis on the Americas. I don't like para 2 especially - where are Africa, Italy & the Low Countries? Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have trimmed some material on the Americas in the lead. A brief mention of Africa, Italy, and the Low Countries dould be added. I think though there needs to be a community discussion of the length of the article itself. Amuseclio (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Article too long?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There was a tag placed a number of weeks ago by an editor whose only addition ever to the Spanish Empire article was tagging it "too long." The brief discussion between myself and that editor article seems to have been archived. I have come to agree with that editor and have moved a chunk of material on the structure of the Spanish empire in the Americas to the Spanish colonization of the Americas article. I think there needs to be a larger community discussion about what the article should include. As a Latin Americanist, I find that the article has an inordinate amount of material on Spain's conflicts in Europe. The Philippines section of the article needs to be trimmed in my opinion. I understand that the Philippines often gets left out of discussions of the Spanish empire, but I think that section could be trimmed, with a link to the main article on History of the Philippines. Anyway, I would like to open discussion and I hope that others will contribute. Amuseclio (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

It is certainly too long (as is the lead, still). I don't really think there is too much emphasis on Europe, which after all is what tended to dominate the view from Madrid, but too much of the European stuff is military narrative. Some might be shifted off to Military history of Spain. I agree re the Philippines. There is nothing on culture or art, which seems wrong. A really brutal solution is to split the article at 1714 or somewhere, ideally with a much shorter summary preserved under this main title. Better that than a geographical split, I think. Does anyone have a figure for the "readable prose"? Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think moving some material to Military history of Spain is an excellent idea. Another way to cut the article is to move text about the remnants of empire (i.e., post-Spanish American independence) into a separate article. I think looking at the articles on other European empires -- Portuguese, Dutch, French, English/British -- might give editors of the Spanish Empire article ideas on how it might be structured. I can certainly create text on culture and the arts -- and have been working on the Mexican art article. But right now I think the task at hand is to trim the current article rather than start adding more topics. Amuseclio (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Possible copyrighted material removed

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

An IP has deleted material from the article as a copyright violation, but did not indicate where the original was. I have not been able to identify what the original might have been. Does anyone have more inofrmation about this? - Donald Albury 13:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP has not responded to my direct request. As it is still active, having made subsequent edits, I have decided to revert their changes. There's also something eerily familiar about them... Favonian (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the reversion. - Donald Albury 15:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The source provided by the IP for the section on the conquest of Oran is a book with a 1st edition in 1996. That section was added to the article here by Ducticli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked a day later. That means the copyright violation has been in the article for hundreds of revisions. I suspect that tracking down the other copyright violations will be easier by looking at Ducticli's contributions. - Donald Albury 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I was wrong. It seems that Ducticli, in his only major edit, added less than half of the material deleted in this edit today. Another paragraph deleted today was from the same source, and the last paragraph from a different source. I am concerned that more material has been deleted than was necessary, but verifying everything is tedious. - Donald Albury 17:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 5 years ago67 comments6 people in discussion

There has been persistent edit-warring in this article in the last few days. This needs to stop. Thrash out the wording here on the talk page. If the edit-warring continues, I will lock down the article, and I can guarantee you that somebody will be unhappy with the state of the article when it is locked down. - Donald Albury 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barjimoa and SmithGraves: OK, the edit-warring continued, so I've locked down the article. Develop a consensus on what the wording should be here on the talk page, and then it can be edited into the article. - Donald Albury 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Donald Albury, i am sorry you had to do this. In my case, I am simply making the same couple of suggestions again and again, (not just here btw):

1-"The spanish empire was THE most powerful empire from 1500 to 1650". This sentence is hyperbole and pov. See one article I am working on: foremost power, there is so much overlap for that period in particular that you can't have such a solid claim. It would be much more correct to say that it was one of the biggest (without saying THE biggest for sure) or that it was one of the empires described as the biggest together with others: and the same should be done for the articles of ALL the other 16th century empires that have similar claims.

2-Whatever Charles V did in his position as Holy Roman Emperor or in his other non-spanish positions should not be counted as Spanish conquest, obviously. Excuse me all but i think that it's absolutely crazy to claim that the Sack of Rome by mutinous mercenaries was a Spanish conquest of the papacy. I had to delete this twice. What Charles V did as Charles I of Castile is one thing (and what he did as Charles II of Burgundy another thing again etc etc), but the Imperial Habsburg stuff should not be confused with the Spanish Habsburg stuff. I think that's just common sense, honestly.

In short, this article should focus only on the Spanish Empire and I think that hyperboles should be avoided. Barjimoa (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


Hi:

1- The Spanish Empire was (According to most scholars) the most powerful Empire in the world during the 16th and half 17th centuries. It is not my opinion, there are numerous sources that corroborate it. Spain during that time had the so-called Golden Age precisely because of its boom as a world power. It was a Global Empire that began with its expansion in the American continent reaching globality, something that the Chinese Empire and the Ottoman Empire were light years away at that time. And the Habsburg Empire is basically a composition fragmented in the mid-16th century, it is impossible for it to be the most powerful of the time above the Spanish Empire that did not stop expanding (In power and extension) in the world with Philip II during the 16th.

You affirm that the Chinese Empire of the time and the Ottoman Empire are mentioned as equal to the Spanish Empire at that time. However, the sources you provide are not weighty or reliable, and you do it without seeking consensus. In addition, the sources you used do not contradict that the Spanish Empire was the most preeminent Empire of the 16th century AND the first half of the 17th century, you only focus on the 16th with some minority appointments. When the vast majority of sources affirm that a power was the main or the most powerful (or foremost), there is nothing wrong with the use of these expressions. An example is in the British Empire article that described it as the foremost power in the world for a century although there are some sources that match it to other powers of the time.

I propose to act according to custom and keep the original previous version. You cannot add something so ambiguous and with so little consensus in the head of the article. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If Barjimoa's proposal obtains consensus or an alternative such as the expression: "According to many scholars, the Spanish Empire was the most powerful empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries" would well see the current state of the article.

However, there is currently no consensus and the current information in the article is only the Barjimoa edition. I think that until we get consensus we should go back to the previous edition. SmithGraves (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Stable version, which explains the options I had when protecting the article. I am not sure how many months back I would have to go to find a stable version. You can request any other admin to review my actions, and lift the protection or restore the article to an earlier stable version, but you don't get to choose which version. - Donald Albury 14:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think it is reasonable to give in a dispute so as to prevent an article from being frozen and that there may not be other editions that may be beneficial.

I propose this formulation of the phrase. I think they respect both sides:

- "It was the most powerful Global Empire of the 16th and early 17th centuries" (The others are not global empires)

- "It has been described as the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries by many scholars"

- "It was arguably the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries"

There is a fairly broad consensus by historians that the Spanish Empire of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was the greatest power of the time due to being a pioneer of globalization in the Age of Discoveries, Tercios dominated (until the Battle of Rocroi) the European battlefields, and the early and extensive colonization of the American continent and other parts of the world. SmithGraves (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction: "... and first half of the 17th century"* SmithGraves (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is that what you say has been said for many other empires of the period. I am not fixated on language as long as my overall points remain. The current version, that now does not mention in this article the other empires, is reasonable to me. Edit:altough it would be better to simply say that it was "one of the most powerful"...my point is that it should be clear that there is no consensus among scholars on this because a variety of empires have been described as the most powerful from the 1500s to the 1600s. So it's a strech to say definetely "this one was the most powerful". Barjimoa (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand what your point is, but I think there should be proportionality. There is much historical consensus that the Spanish Empire was the greatest power in the world at that time because it was the first (or one of the first with Portugal) Global Empire that colonized large parts of the world and won many victories victories in Europe with the "Third ", the so-called Golden Age is that. The same applies to the British Empire, it is considered the greatest power for a century although there are also some authors who have described that other powers were also.There are not many sources that say that the Ming Dynasty or the Ottoman Empire were the greatest powers in the world during the 16th and 17th centuries. SmithGraves (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that Say “this (insert Spain, China, habsburgs, Turkey, Portugal) was the most powerful global empire” of that period. Just a quick research gave me five scholars (see the foremost power). The book “A political history of the world” is a good Sumary in this. Perhaps the admin can find the wording. Barjimoa (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Barjimoa, I think you're quite confused.

The Ottoman Empire was not a Global Empire, nor was the Ming Dynasty a Global Empire. And the Habsburg Empire (where the Spanish Empire was included) broke down in the mid-16th century.

I think that your sources are not reliable or that you have not read them correctly. SmithGraves (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not confused...Hoslag in his book explains that Ming China ruled a quarter of the world's population while the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents. Therefore he says that the age 1500-1750 was their global age as much as that of Spain and Portugal. He calls the Habsburg Empire the premier global empire (and he lists it as including HRE, Spain, Portugal, their colonies, Hungary etc etc ). His book appears to be pretty solid and researched to me.Barjimoa (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


For example, a clear source would be this, because it says clearly and unambiguously the exact phrase: "This combination of European and non-European possesions made Spain the greatest power of the sixteenth and seventeeth century"

https://books.google.es/books?id=r4kdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Spanish+empire+greatest+power+16th&source=bl&ots=xknWlrlWeZ&sig=ACfU3U3CeKlxB6ON3xjUStmE2a2be91sow&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGrsWP4uLlAhXvA2MBHQ08BDE4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=Spanish%20empire%20greatest%20power%2016th&f=false SmithGraves (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You can find the same for the others. Just as an Example, let's take another one. Let's take the Ottoman Empire.
" At their peak (1520-1566), the Ottomans ruled the most powerful empire in the world"(https://books.google.it/books?id=WzdZ_IdctfsC&q=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&dq=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW052o8OLlAhWSaVAKHQQuAU84FBDoATAJegQIARBL A history of Western Society )
"By the sixteenth century the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful empire in the world."(https://books.google.it/books?id=xfUvAQAAIAAJ&q=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&dq=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM3KCC8OLlAhVKEVAKHarHCIk4ChDoATAHegQIARA2 )
"Suleyman the magnificent (1520-1566) ruled the Ottoman Empire when it was the most powerful on earth"(https://books.google.it/books?id=FXllDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA374&dq=suleiman+the.magnificent+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFur68gcTlAhUFKewKHahhDCsQ6AEIbjAJ#v=onepage&q=suleiman%20the.magnificent%20world's%20most%20powerful%20empire&f=false)
"At the beginning of the 17th century the Ottoman Empire was still the foremost power in the world" (https://books.google.it/books?id=knc7AQAAIAAJ&q=Ottoman+Empire+foremost+power+16th+century&dq=Ottoman+Empire+foremost+power+16th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY5fqN7uLlAhXP2aQKHRmrDdUQ6AEIPjAD )
"Ottoman Turks controlled the world's most powerful empire in the 1500s and 1600s" (https://books.google.it/books?id=8SALeq1p_QoC&q=was+the+world%27s+most+powerful+empire+in+the+1500s+and&dq=was+the+world%27s+most+powerful+empire+in+the+1500s+and&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFoITW8uLlAhWOjqQKHf9_DBIQ6AEIYTAI)
I could go on and on. The same applies to all the other empires I mentioned.Barjimoa (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury...the decision is up to you, i guess. I have made my case and I have read that of SmithGraves. Barjimoa (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My status as an admin gives me no special power to decide a content dispute. I would like to wait another 2 or 3 days to see if other editors who have contributed to this article care to join the discussion. If the two of you are still the only editors in this discussion at that time, there are other options for resolving a dispute available. - Donald Albury 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barjimoa: seems to be making the more reasonable argument. I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"I am not confused...Hoslag in his book explains that Ming China ruled a quarter of the world's population while the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents. Therefore he says that the age 1500-1750 was their global age as much as that of Spain and Portugal. He calls the Habsburg Empire the premier global empire (and he lists it as including HRE, Spain, Portugal, their colonies, Hungary etc etc ). His book appears to be pretty solid and researched to me."

The fact that the Ming Empire ruled over a quarter of the population does not mean that it is a Global Empire, because the vast majority of its population is in China. The region of China has always been a very populated area, that is a misleading fact.

The Ottoman Empire spread over 3 continents yes, but their territories are contiguous and very close to each other. By that same rule the Roman Empire is a Global Empire when it was not. A Global Empire by definition is an Empire with large overseas territories, and that is not fulfilled by the Ottoman Empire. The Spanish Empire expanded across all continents.

The Habsburg Empire was global, but I repeat, it disappeared as such in the mid-16th century. It is impossible for it to be the most powerful Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Half of the sources you have used do not display well or directly do not show the exact quotation. But aside from that, I have not denied that there are any authors who have ever written that another Empire is the most powerful of "X" moment. There are also authors who believe that there were more powerful empires than the British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but even so in their article it is mentioned that the British Empire was the foremost global empire for a century because most sources claim it was the British Empire.

I think that proportionality should be used. There are still more consensus, sources and common sense data that tip the balance towards the Spanish Empire because it was the only Global Empire (With the Portuguese). As much as there is some author who affirms in a book does not turn it into something doubtless or true. Without disrespecting the sources I see the solution of this problem in 2 ways:

1: It is specified that the Spanish Empire was the foremost GLOBAL Empire of the sixteenth century and first half of the seventeenth to distinguish it from other non-global empires such as the Turkish and Chinese.

This is the consensual definition of Global Empire: <<"Global" or "world" means that the territory under its sovereignty is spread throughout the world. The basic criterion is that when sailing in the world, the territory from the westernmost point to the easternmost point must be at least one half of the world perimeter (about 20,000 km, or 12,400 miles), "global" means Empire must pass at least 180 degrees longitude and at least 90 degrees latitude">>

2: Or, it is specified that the Spanish Empire was the most powerful Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries by many scholars.

None of the 2 options is a lie and is perfectly valid. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SmithGraves, where does the source you provided state, "Spain was the greatest global power of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century...", I am not seeing it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There are sources saying that the Spanish empire of Philip II was the most powerful and he ruled 1556-1598. The problem that I see here is that such sources exist for many other empires of the period too, especially if we extend it to 1500-1650. For example, for 1519-1555 the Habsburg Empire of Charles V (including HRE, Spain, Austria Hungary etc) has been called the most powerful of the world. Same for the Ottoman empire of Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Same for that of the Chinese Emperor Wanli (1572-1620). It's a typical case of no consensus. It's normal for this kind of stuff (see the articles middle powers and great powers and their talk pages). It's even more true for the past. Barjimoa (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why we can't simply just say that it was "a superpower" during that period. It doesn't diminish Spanish Empire nor it implies or denies that there was a foremost power.
"Most powerful global empire" can simply mean most powerful globally, hence it's an ambiguity and wouldn't clarify. In any case, the text already says that Spain was a global empire. Again, the problem is saying that this one in particular was "THE most powerful" giving that different sources say different things. Also, contiguos empires such as China and Ottomans are not necessarily non-global powers. It simply means that they were more like old-style empires rather than colonial ones Barjimoa (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Anything stated has to be backed by a source(s). I was simply asking for clarification from user:SmithGraves. As for calling the Spanish Empire a superpower, can we find a source for that? Yep. So, any more problems? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I would be fine with "it was a superpower during the 16th and 17th centuries, becoming known as the empire on which the sun never sets, and reaching its maximum extension in the 18th century."
What do you think Cristiano Tomás (talk) and SmithGraves (talk) ?
Barjimoa (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear (talk) The quotation I mentioned is in the introduction section, at the end of page 2. SmithGraves (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Barjimoa. The Spanish Empire remained a superpower also in the 18th century.

The most correct thing is to say that it was the largest Global Empire of the 16th century and half of the 17th century. That would not generate any contradiction. SmithGraves (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Largest or most powerful* like the stated sources. SmithGraves (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There are already sources that indicate that Spain was a Global Empire, and that it was also the most powerful in the 16th and mid-17th centuries.

I think we should put that and end the discussion. SmithGraves (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Kansas Bear (talk), here it is specified very clearly too.

"The Spanish Empire became the foremost GLOBAL power of its time ..."

Chapter 14. Section 3: The fulfilment of the curse in the Spanish Empire.

https://books.google.es/books?id=0qFfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT101&lpg=PT101&dq=Spain+foremost+global+empire&source=bl&ots=LL9QvAapUO&sig=ACfU3U3nUHy9y-5FDaLhbNfOaKgl0VbhGA&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4gsXLruTlAhUk8uAKHcUpDzEQ6AEwEXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spain%20foremost%20global%20empire&f=false

SmithGraves (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that "How to Neutralize Curses" doesn't sound like a scholarly work on the subject...the author is a known Evangelist fundamentalist, not a scholar. But again, maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. Yes, there are sources saying this for the spanish empire specifically....BUT there are many other sources that say the same for other empires. There is simply no consensus among historians and scholars for this kind of claims ("the most powerful empire" of that period). Here is a small collection:
1.This one says that it was the Ottoman Empire https://books.google.it/books?id=FXllDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA374&dq=suleiman+the.magnificent+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFur68gcTlAhUFKewKHahhDCsQ6AEIbjAJ#v=onepage&q=suleiman%20the.magnificent%20world's%20most%20powerful%20empire&f=false
2.This one says that it was the Habsburg Empire https://bookscentury.google.it/books?id=6IZbDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Political+history+of+the+world&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM-5WJm4zlAhWB-qQKHQXqCSMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Political%20history%20of%20the%20world&f=false
3. Another one for the Habsburg empire.https://books.google.it/books?id=ArdoAAAAIAAJ&q=Habsburg+Empire+the+superpower+16th+century&dq=Habsburg+Empire+the+superpower+16th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNv4bmu-TlAhVOe8AKHV5WB_kQ6AEIQDAD
4.Another one for the Ottoman Empire https://books.google.it/books?id=FXllDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA374&dq=suleiman+the.magnificent+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFur68gcTlAhUFKewKHahhDCsQ6AEIbjAJ#v=onepage&q=suleiman%20the.magnificent%20world's%20most%20powerful%20empire&f=false
5. This one says that it was the Chinese Empire https://books.google.it/books?id=HxR3FsDkmAQC&q=Ming+china+16th+century+world's+most+powerful+empire&dq=Ming+china+16th+century+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLkufU_8PlAhUF26QKHbLGBFoQ6AEIUjA
6 . This (excellent) book co-authored by several historians says that multiple empires had this claim in the 16th century: https://books.google.it/books?id=lV_JAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=History+of+16th+century+Europe&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjite3YveTlAhXFiFwKHVtRADoQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Empires&f=false
Etc etc etc.Barjimoa (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Barjimoa, you explained quite well, I have not denied that there are some authors who claim that "X" another Empire was more powerful in "X" period. That happens in almost absolutely any facet of the History.

However, the Spanish Empire is the only one that its a GLOBAL Empire. Neither the Chinese Empire nor the Ottoman were Global Empires, and the Habsburg Empire did not survive the sixteenth century, it disintegrated in the mid-sixteenth century and its globality was given by the Spanish Empire itselfs

Therefore, the only coherent way to differentiate (and proprational) is:

"The Spanish Empire was the foremost GLOBAL empire in the 16th and mid-17th"

Or

"The Spanish Empire was the foremost power in the world in the 16th and mid-17th according to many scholars" SmithGraves (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Both definitions are true, good and supported with sources. SmithGraves (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So, even if we exclude the Ottomans and China as global empires (and I'm not ready to concede that* given that the chapters on global empires by Holslag and H.G. Koenigsberger don't do that) the issue remains. Was Spain the most powerful global empire for an uninterrupted 150 years, from 1500 to 1650? It has been said for the 1556-1598 period under Philip II, true. But it has also been said that Portugal was the most powerful for the earliest decades of 16th century. And it has been said that their collective Iberian Union, from 1580 to 1640, was taken together to be the most powerful. And it has been said that the Habsburg Empire as a whole (even if we count it only for the period pre-partition, that's still a long period between 1519 and 1556) was the most powerful. Plus, this claim has been made even for the Dutch and the English post-1588 as well. That's the problem with the word "most" in history. Barjimoa (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
*Just to say why they make that point. World population in 1600. Under Iberian Union: 5.0%. Under Ottoman Empire: 4.5%. Under Chinese Empire: 28% (!). Mughal Empire: 20%. Barjimoa (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Was Spain the most powerful global empire for an uninterrupted 150 years, from 1500 to 1650?"

I answer your question: Yes, it was. I have passed several sources where it is stated that the Spanish Empire is the most powerful Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries. (Not only with Philip II)

The Habsburg Empire was almost completely formed by the Spanish Empire itself and the Iberian Union the same. That in no way contradicts something because the Spanish Empire is a major majority component of those.

The Chinese Empire and the Ottoman Empire were not global empires, and the data you provide is not at all required to be a Global Empire. A Global Empire needs overseas territories far from its Imperial capital, not "X%" of local population.

I have given in to modify the article (When it was already well) and I have proposed 2 quite realistic alternatives. We can clarify that the Spanish Empire was the most powerful Global Empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century or clarify that the Spanish Empire is described by many scholars as the most powerful empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century.

Both options are completely respectful and supported by sources. SmithGraves (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Your "yes it was" is one opinion. Some scholars agree, others don't. To sum up the sources that I have found, listed previously, the following empires have been called by various scholars "the world's most powerful" of that period (1500-1650)
  • The Chinese Empire, for various Imperial eras. For example, the reign of Wanli (1572-1620)
  • The Portuguese Empire, especially for the earliest decades of the period in question.
  • The Iberian Union (1580-1640) of Spain and Portugal collectively.
  • The Habsburg Empire as a whole (HRE + Spain + Portugal + Austria Hungary, and other tetritories) especially for the period of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1519-1556) before its division in German and Spanish parts.
  • There's even one scholar that says that the Dutch and the English became the most powerful as the period progressed.

That is what I know scholars have written. Previously Cristiano Tomás told me this in this discussion: "I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers." I am fine with it too. The key difference is between "the most" and "among the most". Barjimoa (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


There is no "Global Empire" apart from the Spanish that has been described as the most powerful of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. I have already repeated it several times.

In addition to that, it is perfectly valid to say that the Spanish Empire is described according to many scholars as the foremost power of the 16th and mid-17th centuries. Because there are literally many sources that describe it in that way.

Feel free to go to the Ottoman Empire, Chinese, etc articles and add in their headings the citations you want. But this is the article of the Spanish Empire and if there are many sources that describe it as the foremost GLOBAL power there is nothing wrong about it. In fact, it has always been the usual description in this article and other articles.

I have made 2 real proposals, supported by sources (Even textually) and respecting the divergence of your authors. I think thats enough.

SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already found that the "global empire" label has been attached to many or all of the other allegedely "world's most powerful" empires by multiple authors. Plus, just to understand the consequence of your proposal, what you are saying is that we should go to every article of these empires and say that "this (Spain/Ming/Ottomans/Portugal/Habsburgs) was THE top power in the 16th century"? I don't know, it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Yes, if we acritically take a bunch of sources that's what we could do...but wikipedian articles should reflect the consensus. If there is no consensus, it's better in my view not to report absolute claims. We could still say that these empires were powerful and explain their strengths and weaknesses in detail, without saying that each one was "THE" most powerful. That's my point. The language shouldn't lead the reader to think "oh, so this was THE most powerful". Barjimoa (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No no no. I think you got it wrong. I say that you feel free to add in the article of the Ottoman Empire that some authors consider that it was the most powerful during "X" time, etc. If you provide reliable sources and there are indeed authors who says it, there are no problems to do that.

However, neither the Ottoman Empire, nor the Chinese, nor the Portuguese, nor the Dutch, nor the Indian have been described as: "The foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries"

Therefore, I see no problem in that mention in the article of the Spanish Empire. But even if that creates a problem for you I have proposed another alternative that qualifies that the Spanish Empire is described by many scholars as the foremost power of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. SmithGraves (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I propose to use any of those 2 forms of description that appear textually in the sources or return to the state in which the article was always before the edit war. SmithGraves (talk)

In light of the points that I made during the discussion showing that many empires have been called the "world's most powerful empire" of the 16th and 17th centuries by different scholars and historians....and in light of the fact that many scholars and historians (notably Jonathan Holslag and Helmut Koenigsberger) aknowledge this fact by saying that multiple empires had a claim to be the top global power during the 16th and 17th centuries...I propose to say "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries". In alternative, we can keep the current version.
P.S. In any case the textual source brought by SmithGraces, "The Spanish Empire became the foremost global power of its time" from the book "How to Neutralize Curses", should not be used as the author is not a scholar on the subject (not a scholar at all, he is an healing evangelist...) and doesn't deserve the status of historical source. Barjimoa (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I find quite ineccesary and disrespectful the suggest that the status of an evangelist is incompatible with history. But I will not enter that debate.

Similarly, there are many other sources that textually support the description of the Spanish Empire. Among many others:

Page 57:

"The 16th and 17th witnessed the apogee of the Spanish Empire under the aegis of Austrians and it became the world's foremost power."

https://books.google.es/books?id=SAS_PgH6_qgC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=Spain+foremost+power+16th+and+17th&source=bl&ots=GH41oV1DPY&sig=ACfU3U2-Yr6mrg35jxr3I8P3tVMS3IgCbA&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmy5KJguXlAhUd4OAKHSkgBFkQ6AEwDHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spain%20foremost%20power%2016th%20and%2017th&f=false


"A partir del siglo xvi, cuando la monarquía hispánica surge como la primera potencia mundial.../English: From the sixteenth century, when the Hispanic monarchy emerges as the first world power..."

https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/anuario/anuario_14/crespo/p01.htm

No other Global Empire has been described as the "foremost power of the sixteenth or mid-seventeenth century". I repeat to you that the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese, etc are not considered Global Empires, because it is necessary to have overseas territories to be a Global Empire. And the Habsburg Empire and the Iberian Union are fundamentally the Spanish Empire if we talk about its global character.

<<"Global" or "world" means that the territory under its sovereignty is spread throughout the world. The basic criterion is that when sailing in the world, the territory from the westernmost point to the easternmost point must be at least one half of the world perimeter (about 20,000 km, or 12,400 miles), "global" means Empire must pass at least 180 degrees longitude and at least 90 degrees latitude">>

The current state of the article is a new and provisional edition that you have added. The original state that has always remained is the one before the edit war not your last edit.

I propose to use the description that the sources support about the Spanish Empire or to clarify that it is described in this way by many scholars. Or finally return to the previous state of the article before the edit war.

For example: "The Spanish Empire has been described as the most powerful Global Empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century"

or

"The Spanish Empire has been described as the greatest power of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century by many scholars"

Both options are widely supported by sources and are respectful with your other sources because they allow to make a distinction with the rest of the Empires you have named. If not, I would agree to return to the stable version before the edit war, which is the version that has been for years.

SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being an evangelist. But he is not an historian nor a political scientist. His job is being an "healing evangelist", a dude that goes around claiming he cures people from diseases and curses with his powers. Also "comparative ethos in mamagment" is not a histry book. And a website on the spanish language is not a scholarly work.
Setting that aside, my proposal remain the one I have explicitated in my previous comment, which I think is the only serious path we can take if we follow an unbiased historical method. Barjimoa (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well if you say so. I will not enter personal assessments to third parties, or to different topics.

Anyway, before and after that source I already sent many other sources. And that Spanish website you mention is the Instituto Cervantes, the largest Institution of the Spanish language and History (Along with RAE) and is widely used as source in Wikipedia, its quite valid and composed with academics.

The most logical and unbiased way is to apply the sources. And otherwise leave things as they were before the edit war.

I say the same. I keep my last message. SmithGraves (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but Comparative Ethos in Management, by Nikhil Barat, Bani P. Banerjee, is not a reliable source for history. Neither is the book by an evangalist. And the Ottoman Empire has been referred to as a global power.
  • "THE OTTOMAN ḤAJJ ROUTE IN JORDAN: MOTIVATION AND IDEOLOGY, Andrew Petersen, Bulletin d'études orientales, T. 57, Supplément. LE POUVOIR À L'ÂGE DES SULTANATS DANS LE "BILĀD AL-SHĀM" / POWER IN THE AGE OF SULTANATES IN THE "BILĀD AL-SHĀM" (2006-2007), page 31;" Of course this new status presented the Ottomans with new responsibilities which had not been encountered when they were a minor Turkish state. Three main challenges arose out of this situation; firstly they were now a global power with global alliances and enemies..."
I would have to agree with Barjimoa's suggestion, "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Good! We are at 3 opinions vs 1 now. I think it's just common-sense. Barjimoa (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Kansas, read well. Global power is not the same as Global Empire. What I affirm is that the Ottoman Empire, neither the Chinese were Global Empire, nor are they described as such. Look at the Wikipedia page "Global Empire"

Also, Kansas, I have sent many, many more sources apart from the one you mentioned. I'm very sorry, but I don't agree with the proposal.

The status before the editing war already had consensus (since 2015) and supported with sources.

SmithGraves (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This notion that Spain was THE only global empire among the global powers is kinda weak. Kansas is right, altough the source says global power and not global empire that's what it openly suggests and also what it implies given that the Ottomans were an empire as well.
There is also this one "The Ottoman state evolved from an Anatolian frontier principality in 1299 to become a world empire (extending from Eastern Europe and the Arabian peninsula to North Africa) in the 16th century."
https://books.google.it/books?id=iIxt8KT4NzQC&pg=PA3&dq=Ottoman+empire+world+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwievp29yeXlAhVGa8AKHUgaCVQ4WhDoATAIegQIARA9#v=onepage&q=Ottoman%20empire%20world%20empire&f=false
Also; if you say biggest global empire it can be interpreted simply as THE most powerful empire globally. And once again it gives the idea of a consensus to the reader, while the same has been said for other empires wheter in the form "world's most powerful" or in other similar forms. Barjimoa (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Defining the Ottoman Empire as a World Empire seems to me a real madness, because it is a relatively small Empire and its territories are contiguous and close to its capital. It has no overseas territories. If you go to the Global Empire article from Wikipedia you can see that the agreed criteria are different.

If the Ottoman Empire considers it a Global Empire, then the Roman Empire that was of similar size and shape also seems like a World Empire? I think it's amazing to think about it.

But regardless of that, you have obtained a source that in my opinion describes a non-global Empire as the World Empire. Okay, so let's throw away my first proposition.

Now, what is the problem in using my second proposition? That is, to clarify that "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars".

It is a reality that there are many sources that agree that the Spanish Empire was the greatest power of this era. And by clarifying that there are many, but not all, it does not generate any problem with other sources, nor does it deny that there may be many, few or very few sources that think that another Empire was the greatest power. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not few sources. It's many, that's the issue. My problem with your proposal is that we should then go to all the other empires as well and put a similar sentence everywhere. The result would be multiple GREATEST powers for the same time period. I'm not necessarily hostile to this kind of solution, but that's not how we procede when consensus among scholars is lacking. I want to see if we can get the best solution, aka the most logical, and keep wipedia free of hyperbolic claims. And the most logic solution would be to say "one of the most" for each one of these empires, as many many histories and encyclopedias do. Barjimoa (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Barjimoa, I would agree with your proposal, but there are many Empires with hyperbolic descriptions. Including the article of the British Empire.

What does not seem right to me is that with the Spanish Empire no such descriptions are allowed, but they are allowed with the rest. The way to proceed from Wikipedia has never been to suppress hyperbolic descriptions. Simply transcribe and apply the source.

That is why my second proposal makes a lot of sense, and obviously feel free to add the same in the Ottoman and Chinese Empire. There would not be so many editions in the 16th century empires. And I would be willing to help you edit those articles of Empires that are described as major powers of the 16th century.

Either we eliminate hyperbolic descriptions for all or add them, but something intermediate and discretionary is not a logical or criterion measure.

SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not an intermediate solution. I think it's the solution of most encyclopedias for example. And a majority of world history books simply don't attempt to say which one was THE most powerful because it's hard to establish which one actually was, given the variety of scholarly opinions on the matter.
My focus and knowledge is on the 16th century, and from the books i have read it was too complex to find a single foremost power. I don't know if the british empire was actually the most powerful for over a century (which century exactly btw, it doesn't tell). It looks like a suspicious statement, but a mistake there won't still justify a mistake here. And just like I have difficulties saying that this was THE most powerful, i would have the same difficulty saying it for Ottomans, China etc. Again a mistake here wouldn't justify a mistake in other articles.
Barjimoa (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we like it or not, if the criterion used in Wikipedia is the use of (or allow) hyperbolic phrases there is no reason to veto them in this article.

Therefore, my second proposal is much appropiate, because it is much more consistent with the used criteria. We cannot give a different treatment.

SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

According to, The Ottoman Scramble for Africa: Empire and Diplomacy in the Sahara and the , by Mostafa Minawi, page xiv;"and its subsequent engagement in aggressive interimperial competition for territorial expansion as an attempt at self-reinvention of this once powerful global empire."
page 2;"A quick run-down of its key territorial losses during the long nineteenth century offers a clear image of this once powerful global empire under unrelenting attack."
So, now we have the Ottoman Empire called a global power and a global empire, any more excuses? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
And, Political Literature and the Development of an Ottoman Imperial Culture in the Fifteenth Century, Linda T. Darling, Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, Vol. 1, No. 1-2 (2014), page 57;"The fifteenth century saw the Ottoman state develop from a border principality to a world-class empire." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I tend to be cautious about what articles say in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer something along the lines of the proposal by SmithGraves above, "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars". Perhaps we could also include something to the effect that other empires of that period had larger populations, but only the Portuguese and Spanish Empires (and later, the Dutch and English Empires) stretched across oceans. - Donald Albury 04:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury, Isn't that better expressed with the terms "overseas empire" or "colonial empire"? If we want to say that "According to many scholars, it was the foremost colonial empire of the 16th and 17th centuries" that's fine to me. We will avoid the fight on who was a global empire and who was not, and in general we will avoid ambiguities.Barjimoa (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is indisputable that the Spanish Empire was a Global Empire, I dont think there is debate in it and I maintain that the Ottoman and Chinese Empire are not Global or World Empires. However, I consider that both Donald Albury and Barjimoa's proposals are in essence and in form one of my first proposals I made at the beginning of this long debate.

I am quite satisfied with any of the 2 proposals, and I am available to help Barjimoa (if required) to apply something similar and proportional in other articles. We must wait to see the final opinion of Donald Albury on Barjimoa's proposal, but for me there is consensus with either of them. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 11:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

SmithGraves , Would this be fine to you?
The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español; Latin: Imperium Hispanicum), historically known as the Hispanic Monarchy (Spanish: Monarquía Hispánica) and as the Catholic Monarchy (Spanish: Monarquía Católica[1]), was one of the largest empires in history. From the late 15th century to the early 19th, Spain controlled a huge overseas territory in the New World, the Asian archipelago of the Philippines, what they called "The Indies" (Spanish: Las Indias) and territories in Europe, Africa and Oceania.[2] The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a description also given to the Portuguese Empire.[4] It was the foremost colonial empire of the 16th and 17th centuries according to many scholars. Becoming known as "the empire on which the sun never sets", it reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.
Barjimoa (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I have made the same proposal to kansas, who agrees. Barjimoa (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know the opinion of Donald Albury. But of course, it is essentially one of my first proposals. For me there is consensus with both propositions. SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

    • So, a sockpuppet...i should have guessed it...in that case we don't need to compromise with him anymore. I retreat the proposal made above to compromise with him. Barjimoa (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's put an end to this?

So...SmithGraves was a sockpuppet of JamesOredan...an user already blocked twice and with at least another sockpuppet. He had an agenda, i think. Thank you Drmies for discovering it.

Kansas Bear, you said this: 

I would have to agree with Barjimoa's suggestion, "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries"

Cristiano Tomás, you said this: 

:@Barjimoa: seems to be making the more reasonable argument. I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers.

Donald Albury, you said this: 

I tend to be cautious about what articles say in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer something along the lines of the proposal by SmithGraves above, "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars". Perhaps we could also include something to the effect that other empires of that period had larger populations, but only the Portuguese and Spanish Empires (and later, the Dutch and English Empires) stretched across oceans.

The current intro is: 

The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a description also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It has been described as the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries, a description also given to other empires of the period, becoming known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reaching its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]

In light of the sources and in light of the debate, My alternative proposal is: 

The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a definition also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It was one of the empires described as the most powerful of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Spanish Empire became known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]

I think it's a good way to put it IF you feel that a change is still necessary. Barjimoa (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with either of the above. The second version, 'The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a definition also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It was one of the empires described as the most powerful of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Spanish Empire became known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]' is slightly shorter, but that is not a big deal. - Donald Albury 18:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Barjimoa (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_5&oldid=1251398683"