Jump to content

Talk:Spanish Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map (yes, again again again again) : On the Mapuche and Argentina

[edit]

The current map is just incorrect. The Mapuche were never subjugated, and south of Argentina and Chile was never conquered by the Spaniards. We need a map that recognises this recognised fact. This problem exists with many maps of the Spanish empire, anachronistic or not: They show the territories claimed by the Spanish Empire, not those really controlled by it. 80.187.121.197 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, no one cares when it's about the Mapuche, and everyone cares when it's about Portugal, apparently, judging by this talk page's archives. This map of Philip the second's reign is more accurate. 80.187.68.41 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemony

[edit]

Hello, I think it's more than necessary to add a mention to the page of the clear hegemony that the Spanish Empire maintained during the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, which ended after the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 in favor of France. I think it could be written something like this: "It was undoubtedly the most powerful and hegemonic empire of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, becoming known as "The empire where the sun never sets." If the British Empire edition states, "At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it became the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power," why not in the Spanish Empire edition? It is clear that it was also the most important empire of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opening a discussion here as I advised[1], please achieve consensus here before attempting to reintroduce material other editors have already reverted, like you just did here. See WP:STATUSQUO.
I have no opinion on this topic aside from that the edit war needs to stop. Pinging recent editors to this discussion: @Barjimoa @Roger 8 Roger @JaierRT @Inherli fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the discussion is underway. I invite people to respond so we can reach an agreement. My position is clear enough. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The intro is fine as it is, it already (and correctly) says the Spanish empire was one of the most significant and powerful of its time and of all time. I am against using hyperbolic claims such as "THE most powerful" or "without a doubt had a clear hegemony" etc. First, in its time there were other empires just as significant (such as the Ottoman empire, the Chinese empire under the Ming dynasty etc. etc.). Secondly, it's POV and not encyclopedic language.Barjimoa (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that rule of thumb, why does the British Empire's website mention that it was the most powerful empire in the world for a century? You've mentioned non-Western empires, and on top of that, one (the Ottoman Empire) that the Spanish Empire managed to defeat, thus preventing it from devastating and invading half of Europe? And on the other hand, why don't you add, as you said, "(and of all time)" after "its time," if it's true? DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of pointlessly editing the page, I'd like people to respond to this discussion so we can come to an agreement. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the creator of this discussion has since been banned for two weeks for edit warring. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire and Spanish American Independence

[edit]

I reviewed the section about independence and found it confusing. I’m sharing a proposed version that could be added to the current text, with sources, to help make things clearer in the coming days if there is no objection. I’ve written it paragraph by paragraph to make it easier to discuss:

  • In 1808, the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, as part of his Continental Blockade strategy against the United Kingdom, compelled the abdication of the Spanish monarchs in the events known as the Abdications of Bayonne. He imposed the Bayonne Statute and installed his brother, Joseph I, as King of Spain and the Indies. These events marked the replacement of the House of Bourbon by the House of Bonaparte, just as the House of Habsburg had been replaced by the Bourbons a century earlier. They were considered illegitimate by both European and American Spaniards and led to a power vacuum throughout the Spanish Empire.
    • Heckscher, William S. (2014). Jarrett, Mark (ed.). Revisiting Napoleon's Continental System: Local, Regional and European Experiences. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 23.
  • The War of the Spanish Succession in the 18th century had already reduced the Spanish Empire to a second-tier global power, transitioning from the Habsburg to the Bourbon dynasty, though the empire retained its territorial integrity. The Bourbons’ abdication in favor of the Bonaparte dynasty similarly sought to preserve the unity of the empire; however, Napoleonic Spain was ultimately defeated in the Peninsular War.
    • Lynch, John (1989). Bourbon Spain, 1700–1808. Basil Blackwell.
  • The liberal revolution in both America and Spain against Bonaparte, supported by the British Empire, triggered a continental confrontation between two newly sovereign entities: the Cortes of Cádiz and the American juntas. Napoleon was defeated in Europe and, in 1814, signed the Treaty of Valençay with Ferdinand VII, by which the latter regained his claim to the Spanish throne, restored absolutism, and repressed the Spanish liberals—but failed to defeat the American revolutionaries, who received continued British support.
    • Rodríguez, Jaime E. (1998). The Independence of Spanish America. Cambridge University Press.
  • In 1820, the Rafael del Riego Revolt in Cádiz sparked the Trienio Liberal (1820–1823), forcing the Spanish monarchy to restore the Spanish Constitution of 1812. As a result, metropolitan troops originally designated to suppress the independence movements in the Americas were redirected to uphold the liberal regime in Spain, leading to the collapse of Spanish resistance in the Americas. The last metropolitan expeditionary forces sent to continental Spanish America departed in 1818. A decade later, in 1829, King Ferdinand VII devised an unrealistic plan to reconquer Mexico. The small force of 3,000 men surrendered shortly after disembarking at Tampico.
Disclaimer: The following text was written by me, with grammar corrections made by AI.Pipo1955 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Call to review:@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four.--Pipo1955 (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Pipo1955, I'll review.
"In 1808, the French emperor ..."
  • Source states that Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 in pursuit of the "Continental System" not "Continental Blockade" which are different, and the distinction is made clear earlier on the same page: "The Continental Blockade and System are often user interchangeably, but they are distinct if related in origin."
  • No mention is made of Bayonne.
  • No mention of Joseph I.
  • No mention of the Bourbon, Bonaparte, or Hapsburg houses.
"The War of the Spanish Succession in the 18th century ..."
  • Where the information is located in the source hasn't been specified. Page numbers, or other equivalent markers, are needed. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:SFN.
"The liberal revolution in both America and Spain ..."
  • Again, page numbers or equivalent location indicators are necessary.
"In 1820, the Rafael del Riego Revolt in Cádiz ..."
  • No mention of "Trienio Liberal" in source.
  • The source states the revolt was "Launched ... in the name of the 1812 Constitution", but makes no mention of that constitution being restored.
  • The notion of anyone being "redirected to uphold the liberal regime in Spain" is not supported, quite possibly the opposite is stated as the source says "Civilian liberals ... drove the rebellion forward" and "it set the pattern for Spain's liberal revolutions". Possibly I have misunderstood?
  • No mention of expeditionary forces or 1818.
  • No mention of King Ferdinand VII.
  • No mention of Mexico.
  • No mention of 3,000 men and Tampico.
All statements unfit for inclusion.
"The following text was written by me, with grammar corrections made by AI." – Large language models have no concept of "grammar", they are predictive models. Even when prompting a LLM to only focus on grammar, the LLM will do as it always does and predict the output of a sequence of tokens. Even innocuous requests can introduce hallucinations and errors. I see evidence in the above submissions that a model has done more than "corrections", and strongly caution against usage of an LLM for creation or curation of text to be included in an article. More can be read at WP:LLM, but the essay is non-exhaustive.
Please do not ping me for any future reviews of text which utilizes a generative model in any form, thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not presenting any arguments. Why are you disputing those citations? You can not request sources for everything. In any case, I don’t see a real discussion here, you seem unfamiliar with the topic of Spanish American Independence and are sabotaging the edit.--Pipo1955 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those claims are unsupported by the provided citations for the reasons carefully illustrated above. The statements and sources as given do not fulfill the obligations imposed by the verifiability policy. We are reaching WP:CIR territory here. You have been warned and warned, my original revert's edit summary also requested you provide sources per verifiability, and my above explanation leaves no room for doubt on where sourcing requirements were not met. Do not include unsourced content into this page willfully against consensus and against the verifiability policy. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pipo1955 you have now proceeded to introduced the change against consensus and against the verifiability policy[2], and have also edit warred to keep the inadequately sourced inclusion in.[3][4]
I would ask that you explain your rationale, do you believe your edit to be adequately sourced? What about the lack of consensus? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are trolling me and sabotaging both my edit and the article. I have requested to bring this to the administrators’ noticeboard. Pipo1955 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have reached a complete communication breakdown. Before you make a filing would you not like to try some other dispute resolution options like WP:3O or WP:DRN? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you see fit. Pipo1955 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to use a process like third opinion, not just me. Would you be willing engage with a third opinion? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m willing. Request the input of an user interested in this topic: Spanish Empire or/and Spanish American wars of independence. Pipo1955 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute resolution process allows for a requirement for a subject matter expert, but I will put in a request for a third opinion. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding the issue of what the sources actually say, the text that was added repeats existing material - as was noted in one of the edit summaries that reverted the material. There is a WP:ONUS to gain consensus for addition of new material. Consensus has not been achieved nor, on the basis that it repeats existing material, do I see any reasonable expectation that it will be achieved. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is repeating? Pipo1955 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the two paragraphs that begin "In 1808". Cinderella157 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s start from the premise that the article should focus on the Spanish Empire. I think we can all agree on that. Let’s take a look at the sentence:
    • "In 1808, Napoleon managed to place the Spanish king under his control, effectively seizing power without facing resistance. This action sparked resistance from the Spanish people, leading to the Peninsular War. This conflict created a power vacuum lasting nearly a decade, followed by civil wars, transitions to a republic, and eventually the establishment of a liberal democracy."
    These are assertions without sources, which was the essential point of this dispute. The content omits references to the abdications of Bayonne or the role of Napoleonic Spain. It omits the role of Napoleon’s emissaries in the Spanish American viceroyalties. It does not acknowledge the formation of local juntas, the fragmentation of imperial authority, omits the Apodaca-Canning Treaty and omits the role of the British Empire. Omits the United States. The statement, a half true, that the conflict "created a power vacuum that lasted almost a decade" does not specify the nature of the crisis, which involved the dispute of legitimacy over the Spanish throne. It omits the prior legitimacy crisis between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons, now repeated between the Bourbons and the Bonapartes. This content, and what follows, fails to address the Spanish Empire, as the contributor, though familiar with independence movements, overlooks their connection to the Spanish, French, U.S., or British empires.(Disclaimer: DeepL for grammar) Pipo1955 (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your concern is that existing content is not properly sourced, than add citations from reliable sources to that content rather than adding sourced content that duplicates existing content. If you feel it is necessary, then edit the exisiitng content to be in agreement with the sources you cite. Donald Albury 14:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but the editor Fifteen Thousand has changed their initial request: ‘’’“if citations are provided then I’ve nothing further to discuss. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)”’’’. Their request has changed, and I believe they are disrupting the editing of this article. Please see below. Pipo1955 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The wars of independence in Spanish America were triggered by another failed British attempt to seize Spanish American territory, this time in the Río de la Plata estuary in 1806."
    For example, no one in this conversation has taken notice of this statement in the article, which is completely incorrect and false (and yet it remains there). Does anyone support this? Pipo1955 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any curious passing editor can view the full context of our conversation here. In the above quoted text "citations" was a link to WP:CITE which refences and links to the reliable sourcing and verifiability policies, and prior in that discussion I had already provided links to and guidance on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources.
    "Their request has changed" – You explicitly pinged me to review your proposed edit as seen here, and upon performing the review that you requested I found that the proposed edit contained many, many claims which were not supported by the provided sources. I found that some of the provided sources were lacking necessary page numbers or equivalent markers as are required at WP:CITESHORT (this is part of that WP:CITE guideline I linked you) and WP:BURDEN.
    "I believe they are disrupting the editing of this article." – I would be glad to hear which if any of my specific actions here have been disruptive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to disrupt the project or otherwise violate the spirit of those rules while technically obeying them. For example, repeatedly removing material under the claim that it is unreferenced, while ignoring reliable sources provided, or demanding excessive citations beyond what policy requires, may be considered disruptive. Pipo1955 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "repeatedly removing material under the claim that it is unreferenced, while ignoring reliable sources provided" – This, strictly speaking, has not occurred.
    "or demanding excessive citations beyond what policy requires" – I do believe the content I objected to as being unsourced here was far from skyblue and required sourcing per WP:BURDEN. Although now with the third opinion that the content in question is unsuited for inclusion as its repetitive, further discussion about it is moot.
    Your concerns have been addressed specifically many times, and you've been referred to the relevant policies many times. I'm unsure if there is some LLM-induced issues here with communication, but please listen.
    If you have something new to discuss which has not already been covered in regards to this article I'd be glad to hear it, and if you want to further discuss any perceived behavioral issues my talk page is open, as are the noticeboards. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page number request

[edit]

@Inherli could you add accompanying page numbers, or equivalent markers, for all references in this edit as described at WP:SFN and WP:BURDEN? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you demand a source from the editor as an argument if you yourself have presented no argument against it? It is not enough to claim that something is controversial without providing a source or a well-founded argument. Nor to replace one controversy with another. Wikipedia’s policies require that objections be substantiated. If the information already has a reliable source, whoever challenges it must justify it with another source or a clear reason. Pipo1955 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't badger me, the rationale is stated above and the request not even addressed to you. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apply your own argument to yourself. Pipo1955 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations, an editor wanting to add or retain any challenged content must provide a reliable source supporting that content. There is no requirement on anyone to provide a source that disproves any part of that content. If you want to the challenged content to be retained in the article, you must provide a full citation, including pages numbers, where appropriate, to a reliable source. Donald Albury 23:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAME Challenging content without a clear explanation or engaging with the sources is disruptive editing. Wikipedia policies require objections to be reasoned, not arbitrary. Pipo1955 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted the edit as being inadequately sourced since appropriate markers haven't been provided. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong: Philippines

[edit]

Spain never fully control the islands (most part of Mindanao never became Spaniard), it wasn't until 1913 when USA had full control of the entire archipelago, after their victory over the Moros during the Moro Rebellion. 19:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC) 83.58.25.147 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Britain never controlled all of Canada; Portugal never controlled all of Brazil; these are somewhat nominal designations before very recently. Remsense 🌈 论 19:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context is important here. Indeed, Britain nor Portugal fully controlled their territories, but other nations recognised those territories as part of their empires plus, both nations could send armies there with no problem.
In Philippines the situation was different, there were nations (Moro states) that never fell to Spain nor recognised its authority, plus many nations (not so friendly with Spain) recognised that Mindanao wasn't part of Spain.
Canada and Brasil had tribes that still were in the Stone Age, at best in the Iron Age. Mindanao had muslim states with an actual civilization. 83.58.25.147 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're going to be like that about it, I don't have any further interest in drawing parallels. Sorry. Remsense 🌈 论 19:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree context is important. User generated maps are useful unless they distort the reality of notable events that happened, such as when ownership by a European state was questioned by others. I generally don't like user made maps that insert modern state boundaries over land well before those modern states existed, but again, context is important. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think just about any map showing the "territory controlled" by an empire is going to be quite obfuscatory. Remsense 🌈 论 22:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But is not the whole point of Wikipedia to show or, at least, try to show History as impartial as possible?
Of course maps of the empires should be only about "territory controlled", if not we could end in the 'Reductio ad absurdum' situation where the map of the Spanish Empire is the one showing the distribution of territories between Spain and Portugal under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494). Basically all American continent except the part of coast of Brazil should be colored as "Spaniard".
Litte reminder: reclamation =/= controlled territory (modern example: Taiwan; China reclaim it as Chinese despite not actually controlling it, if China tries to exercise control, Taiwan had its own army and USA backing it).
Spain also reclaimed whole state of British Columbia, and as you can see in the map, it is not colored as red because Spain could not control it nor other nations recognised it as Spaniard territory.
Again, context matters, Britain and Portugal had the man-power, resources and international recognition to be present in their territories; Spain in Mindanao had nothing.
Mindanao was controlled by a western state, USA, for the first time in History in 1913, that is the reality, the rest is (jingoistic, in this case Spaniard) fan-fiction. 83.58.25.147 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To make it explicit, I don't want to talk to you further about who has "civilization" or not. Remsense 🌈 论 18:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get it, you refuse to keep a civil debate with me, because I use the term 'civilization' in the way the people of the times we're debating about (XIX century and early XX century) use it? Interesting. I guess you didn't read the "Context is important here" part of my explanation. 83.58.25.147 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's "obfuscatory" because it's simply inaccurate and worthy of a social media page, not an online encyclopaedia which specifically claims that the possibility for anyone to edit keeps things in check. If being against a map because it is in one way or another inaccurate is wrong, then that's just accepting inaccuracy… maybe just replace or remove (while making a better one) it instead of staying with the status quo. 80.187.121.27 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: On a different note, the page still falsely shows southern Argentina and Chili as being part of the Spanish empire. Why? That’s just false…80.187.115.1 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it false? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Mapuche were never conquered by the Spanish. It was later, after independence, that the new nations conquered the territories approximately between Magellan and what today is northern Chili and Argentina. 80.187.121.27 (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&oldid=1294580149"