This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I posted the following over at Talk:Adams–Onís Treaty, but in hope that it will get seen by more people on this talk page I'm also posting it here. To be clear, the stuff about adding a "citation needed" tag refers to the Adams–Onís Treaty page rather than the Spanish Empire page. But the issue and maps made showing it are relevant to this page too. Anyway, thanks!, here it is:

I've been seeing more and more maps showing a "Nootka Territory" with well-defined borders (like on reddit, and usually an image from Wikipedia), but I have been unable to find a good source backing up either the borders or even that there was a "Nootka Territory" as anything other than an informal name for the general region. So since this page makes some claims on the topic I added a "citation needed" tag. I will continue looking for sources myself. Maybe others can find something if I can't.

I tagged this sentence: In negotiations to resolve the crisis, Spain claimed that its Nootka Territory extended north from Alta California to the 61st parallel north and from the Continental Divide west to the 147th meridian west.

There is even a map next to this, showing what it labels "Territorio de Nutca (Nootka territory; claimed by Spain; 1789-1795)". I have numerous problems with this map:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NutcaEN.png

One, the use of Spanish implies that this was an official territory of the Spanish Empire, but I have yet to find any source saying it was more than an informal name for part of northern New Spain. Two, "claimed by Spain; 1789-1795" strongly suggests that this region was not claimed by Spain before 1789 or after 1795, which is most definitely false. Third, the use of precise boundaries, which nicely lines up with the sentence I'm looking for a source about. However the map image itself, on Wikimedia Commons, provides no sources whatever, other than "Own work".

As far as I have been able to determine, Nootka Territory was never an official thing, nor was it given precise boundaries, or any boundaries at all. If a good source exists that says these things I'd love to know.

One more thing. The sentence I tagged describes the precise boundaries shown on the map (and other maps like it on other pages), but note it says these precise boundaries come from negotiations to resolve the [Nootka] crisis. But so what? During diplomatic negotiations lots of things get said, proposed, rejected, claimed, denied, etc. The final result of the Nootka Crisis negotiations was the three Nootka Conventions, none of which even mention the existence of a "Nootka Territory", let alone define its boundaries.

In summary, I'm looking for sources that describe Nootka Territory's boundaries, or even Nootka Territory as an official thing at all. If boundaries were described in diplomatic negotiations I'd like to know the context and whether it actually resulted in anything official or important.

It is hard to prove a negative, but if no sources can be found I worry that Wikipedia is spreading false information, especially in the form of maps. A nicely made map can look super-official, but most maps on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cite no sources at all. On the Spanish colonization of the Americas are maps like this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Espa%C3%B1ol_y_Portugu%C3%A9s_1790.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_North_America.png

These both also show a "Territorio de Nutca" with the same precise boundaries. The second one, although very pretty, even says at the large northern boundary: "61°17'N northernmost Spanish claim in Nootka Conventions". You can read the actual Nootka Convention agreements online (there are links at Nootka Convention) and nowhere is any boundary defined at all. At least a "source" is given for this map, but it is a long talk page on another map image. There is a lead there, which I will check out, although the blurb there suggests it was something from the diplomatic negotiations rather than anything resulting from them. Pfly ( talk) 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm an experienced map maker and I can answer you. First of all, take a look into this 1817 Spanish map and check the "Posesiones españolas" texts: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Provincias_Ynternas_Nueva_Espa%C3%B1a_1817.jpg The position of the texts and the coloruing clearly indicates Spanish claimed inland territories and not only coastal areas. There are three "Posesiones españolas" labels, one of them is even situated in the eastern side of the continental divide, due to the proximity to the Missouri River, which was fully claimed as part of the Louisiana. Then we have the "Poseciones [sic] inglesas" further to the East. Regarding to the delineation of these territories, I can point to the historical map representation of the Americas in the 1997 Larousse dictionary which takes the continental divide -as suggested from the 1817 map- and a horizontal line around the 60th parallel which I explain later. Nagihuin ( talk) 07:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish claim in the Nootka territory was effectively bounded in the East by the British claim on the Hudson's Bay watershed, which was the territory claimed as "Rupert's Land" by the Hudson's Bay Company. So the continental divide is a good compromise. If you don't take into account that British claim, the Spanish claim could be effectively extended even further to the East!, as Aranda suggested in conversations with John Jay as late as the 1780s (he suggested, more or less: "we could take the full West to East extent of Florida and Louisiana and extend that to the North Pole as a claim" -read my source on Rayneval's memoranda in the "big pretty map" of Spanish North America). Remember Spain claimed the entire Western Hemisphere in Tordesillas and waved that type of claims even in the 1790s. Only in 1670, in the Treaty of Madrid, British souvereignty in the Americas was recognized but only in occupied lands, but both powers never drew a clear line between their dominions. To sum up, take the Tordesillas claim minus the British Hudson's Bay watershed claims and due to the 1670 Treaty, and at least from the British perspective, the Spanish claim on Nootka was bounded by the continental divide. Nagihuin ( talk) 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It may be true that "Nootka Territory" never was a formal name used by colonial administrators but also "Mongol Empire" or even "Spanish Empire" weren't used, it was the "Catholic Monarchy" or the "Kingdom of the Spains and the Indies". All the formers are just historical names, the one we are talking about it's the name for the territories around Nootka, and it must be understood in that way. Check this 1857 reference. https://books.google.es/books?id=GddNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA209&dq=%C2%ABterritorio+de+nutka%C2%BB&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcgN7zueTmAhWOzIUKHYUjBAIQ6AEITjAG All of those territories depended on the Viceroyalty of New Spain. We could add them to the Californias, or the Provincias Internas de Occidente, or maybe Nueva Galicia from where many expeditions departed (San Blas), but it would be even worse. It was just a new territory to be organized. Nagihuin ( talk) 19:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The 61º 17' north boundary -i eventually found the 61st parallel reference and I've given it as a source in the description of the big map- is probably set by the Mondofia and also Fidalgo incursions into the depths of the Alaskan bays. Nagihuin ( talk) 19:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

So, TLDR version, source for eastern boundary, there are plenty of them, for instance http://www.hbcheritage.ca/things/artifacts/the-royal-charter (Royal Charter assigning the entire Hudson Bay watershed to British companies: Granted by King Charles II of England on May 2, 1670, the Royal Charter gave an exclusive trading monopoly over the entire Hudson Bay drainage basin to “the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay.), source for northern boundary, https://books.google.es/books?id=-5U-AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA410&lpg=RA1-PA410#v=onepage&q&f=false Niles' National Register, vol. 69-70, William Ogden Niles, 1846 “In all the subsequent communication of the Spanish minister to the French, and in all the correspondence of Spain with England up to the hour of signing the Nootka Sound convention, the same language is in substance held on the part of Spain, claiming up to 61º, and England never denied it”). I worked extensively to find the 17' figure minimal correction, I couldn't find it (update: I found two references, a journal article by Stephen Colston, Beyond the Aztecs, Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 76, number 2, pp 257 to 282, and another one in Historia de Iberia Vieja, Mourelle de la Rúa, el «almirante» olvidado, by Javier García Blanco. Both point to the 61° 17 minutes figure of north latitude), but the 61st line runs through the middle of Alaskan bays and Spanish sailors reached the northernmost shores of all bays, as it is written in some texts, so the figure of 61º 17' which is given in some Wikipedia sources can be a real thing, it just needs more investigation. Nagihuin ( talk). The 1789-1795 dates are not fully incorrect, they are just too strict to the material presence of Spanish military in the area, the claim was at least nominally risen from 1775 -Heceta landings in Sitka- to 1819 - Spanish passes the claim to the US in the Adams-Onís treaty-. Nagihuin ( talk) 19:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all that. You make a lot of good points. I'll have to spend some time digesting it all. One comment though, on the 61° thing: I saw that "Niles' National Register" source cited somewhere, and read it. I think it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is a transcript of a speech made by Edward A. Hannegan, an Indiana senator, to the US Senate in February 1846. This is right at the height of tension between the US and UK when the US was threatening to annex all the Pacific Northwest to 54°40', and Senator Hannegan was one of the leading expansionist voices urging Polk to not accept anything short of 54°40' even if it meant war with the UK. In other words, his speech should be taken as extremely biased and made entirely for the purpose of justifying the US right to annex the Pacific Northwest. It was in his political interest to emphasize Spanish claims over British. Maybe what he said was true, but as a source it should probably be treated as unreliable (which might also call into question the connection of 61° with the Nootka Conventions, since this speech seems to be where that idea comes from). There are lots of little details in his speech, apart from the sentence quoted, that strike me as twisting things for "political spin". Still, I think there is some kind of truth to this 61° or 61°17' thing, most likely. You mention other sources and the need for further investigation. I agree with that! Pfly ( talk) 10:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

PS, sorry for saying I had "numerous problems" with your map. I'm a lot more okay with the whole topic now than I was in September. Also, your maps are well done. I especially like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_North_America.png (although I did find a few very minor mistakes in the Pacific Northwest, like "Estrecho de Haro Haro Strait 1775"; date should be 1790. And "Isla Fidalgo Fidalgo Island 1775"; again the date, but also, Fidalgo wasn't named by the Spanish or even found to be an island at all until Wilkes in 1841 (and it isn't part of the San Juan Islands). A few more things like this, all very minor; it's an awesome map overall). I was going to say something about wishing maps at The Commons cited sources more, but then I remembered you have a long and impressive list on the talk page of the "big map". Thanks for that. Pfly ( talk) 11:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Spanish Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:446:C280:6600:51B4:3AD0:5A92:5AFB (
talk) 00:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing requested, nothing to do. - Donald Albury 01:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This was the Royal Coat of Arms of the Spanish Empire, why is not this in the Infobox? ( The Sr Guy ( talk) 14:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC))

For starters, that's not what the description states. More possible answers to your inquiry may include opposition to pars pro toto, lack of representativeness and/or mere convenience.--Asqueladd ( talk) 21:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

^^While the burgundian cross flag was synonymous with the empire and used in almost all of its colonies, no single coat of arms ever came close to being so (owing to the fact that the spanish monarchs coat of arms was one of the most constantly changing of major european monarchs). Even if there was one remotely close to that status, it certainly wouldn't be the coat of arms in the link above. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Spanish Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"... facilitated by the spread of diseases...". It's highly unlikely that the native empires would've have been overthrown had Old World diseases not wiped out a large percentage of the indigenous population. And those that didn't perish and managed to survive were left in poor physical health. So the spread of diseases was probably the main reason the defeat of the native empires occurred and without it events would have turned out very differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:6080:14E:2984:D:DB90:D8F3 ( talk) 05:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I would remove the red-yellow-red flag. It seems strange to show a flag with Eagle of Saint John right next to the Cross of Burgundy when they were two radically different states with massive differences in landmass (not to mention Francoist Spain has an article of its own).

It is true that Spain had some pockets of territory in North Africa but I don't think Spain was considered an "empire" at the time just like the UK isn't considered an Empire anymore despite it holding overseas territories.

Another possibility is using a red-yellow-red flag, no eagle since the coat of arms changed multiple times in the 19th century. I'm not used to writing English so I hope I'm explaining myself alright. Regards Alcismo ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this section would fit better in the Colonial Spanish America article, but I would like to hear feedback about doing that. Amuseclio ( talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio

I would delete it altogether. It looks like a bunch of baloney to me. Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 17:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm removing it since it is wrong. The Netherlands were not part of the Spanish empire in the 18th century and it is likely to anger any Dutch person who sees it. There is one individual wikipedian here pushing for its inclusion with no real argument beyond "seek consensus on talk. Beyond that, no reason for a factually incorrect map to be shown here, unless an argument in favor is provided. -- Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 14:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Frijolesconqueso: this is not how consensus works, you can't simply write something in the talk page and then delete the edition just because you want. You have to wait for other opinions. Anyways, you are deleting a map that has been there at least over the past half year. Look at this June 2020 edit, the map was there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=962218339&oldid=961841124 I really doubt anyone would care to be "angry" just because of a simple map, and the map shows the Spanish Empire during the 18th century (1701-1800) check Habsburg Netherlands and Spanish Netherlands as they were Spanish until 1716 so that map is factually accurate as 1701 started the 18th century.

Another wikipedian has explained this to you, including me I can count 3 different wikipedians adding the map you are deleting. Explain now why are you willing to delete that factually correct map, give an argument in favor why we should delete that map.

I found this map in Wikipedia Commons showing Spanish Netherlands when it had the biggest extent. The 2nd map shows the Spanish Netherlands in the early 18th century. -- ConcelloLugo ( talk) 08:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. The map of the Spanish empire in the 1800s you are trying to include shows the Dutch Republic as part of the Spanish Empire which evidently it was not. What was part of the Spanish Empire at this time were the Spanish Netherlands which corresponds to Flanders in Belgium. The map is wrong. I think you already know this and all of this is about you not liking the map of the Iberian Union and wanting one which excludes Portuguese territories. If you want a map of the Spanish empire in the 1800s without Portuguese territories I have no issue, just find an accurate one. But in the meantime we cannot have incorrect maps on Wikipedia. Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 11:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ConcelloLugo the maps you are providing in this talk page literally confirm what I'm saying. Perhaps you haven't looked at the map closely? Unless you provide an argument or rationale for keeping the map, I'm taking it out. I assume that once you have a detailed look at the maps you will understand that Belgium and the Netherlands are two different countries just as New Mexico is not part of Mexico but the United States the Spanish Netherlands were part of modern day Belgium not the Netherlands. Of course, I'm assuming good faith but I don't know how to explain it more clearly. -- Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ConcelloLugo perhaps you haven't noticed that your first image is from 1560 not the 1800s?-- Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ConcelloLugo Do you have any further comments? Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 12:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What's with the map discrepancies in the opening pictures? The maps are both about empire yet the second one has large parts of the first missing ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.15.237 ( talk) 08:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that replaced "Moorish" with "Nasrid" and "moors" with "Arabs", with an edit summary stating that "'Moors' is insult". Neither "Nasrid", which is the name of a dynasty, nor "Arab" are equivalent to "Moor" or "Moorish". The article Moors states in the lead:

The term Moor is an exonym first used by Christian Europeans to designate the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily and Malta during the Middle Ages. The Moors initially were the indigenous Maghrebine Berbers. ^[1] The name was later also applied to Arabs and Arabized Iberians. ^[2]

While I understand that "Moor", in a wider sense, is considered derogatory, I do not believe that, in the context of this article, one can simply replace "Moor" or "Moorish" with "Arab", or the name of a dynasty beyond the context of that dynasty's rule. Open for discussion is what to call the Moslems of the Magreb and the Moslem-ruled states of Iberia, whether they are of Arabic, Berber, or Iberian descent. - Donald Albury 17:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

An user has recently undone an addition at the introduction of this article mentioning the importance of the article's subject. My comment here below is to justify its insertion, the reverting of the deletion and to prevent further ones.

For his deletion, said user argues that « we're not here to exalt it ». However, for what we are certainly not here is to accomodate anybody's perception of what refereced specialists on the matter may consider about the article's subject, in particular the achievements and the legacy of the Spanish Empire, not to be deleted because they are intrepreted by someone as an exaltation.

Besides, it is of common Wikipedia practice to make some introductory comments – of different extent and detail - of the historical relevance and consquences of the article's subject, and this for any kind of Wikipedia entry, i.e. Control of fire by early humans, Bible, Buddha, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Michelangelo, Don Quixote, Mozart, United States, Evolution, Electricity, Penicillin, Ford Model T, Telephone, Empire State Building, United Nations, Apollo 11, Madonna, World Wide Web, Smartphone, just to mention some examples among thousands.

Regarding the article's subject topic, a historical polity, we find - logically - comments on legacy at the introduction for many other polities such as Ancient Egypt, Achaemenid Empire, Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, Caliphate of Córdoba, Mali Empire, Inca Empire or British Empire. Check for instance the intro of Roman Empire displaying detailed information on that polity's legacy in an eight lines-long paragraphe.

We shall wonder why the above mentioned contributor tries to deny such a practice regarding the Spanish Empire page...-- PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk) 21:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph you added expresses (positive) value judgments about the Spanish Empire. It includes the sentence Due to its achievements and world-wide consequences to date, the Spanish Empire is considered by many as one of the most influential polity ever, and its overseas legacy seen as the greatest feat of Humankind. and lengthy verbatim quotes from a scholar which, yes, outright exalt the Spanish Empire. This is neither WP:NEUTRAL nor WP:DUE in the second paragraph of the WP:LEAD.

As for describing its legacy, the appropriate way of doing that is by outlining specific lasting impacts of the empire. You brought up the Roman Empire article, and that's a good example. Note that it lacks value judgments, instead describing the facts without putting either a positive or negative spin on it. The paragraph you added, by contrast, sings the Spanish Empire's praises.

We actually already have a paragraph describing the legacy of the Spanish Empire in the WP:LEAD—the last paragraph (which is of course a much more logical placement). That paragraph does much the same thing as the paragraph about the legacy of the Roman Empire in that article, describing specifics (such as the dominance of the Spanish language in much of the Americas) in an impartial tone. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TompaDompa's assessment here, hence my revert.

NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The key part here is all the significant views. Giving such prominence to a single scholar from 1893 doesn't reflect the current consensus of the field. As has previously been pointed out, the lead already discusses the legacy of the Spanish Empire in a more neutral fashion. Vahurzpu ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This a recurring problem in this article. From time to time we see additions like "it was THE most dominant empire" or "THE most powerful empire since Roman times" etc. even if there is simply no consensus among academics and historians to make these hyperbolic claims. And it continues even if we have already debated this, multiple times in multiple pages. Last time i was personally involved in a debate in this page was here( /info/en/?search=Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_5#Edit_warring), but i've seen a couple of edit wars in the last months too. Let me say one more thing abut these kind of edits: they are counter-productive, they damage the article's quality and credibility. After all, it's not like this intro fails to mention the importance of the Spanish empire. It already says that it was "one of the most powerful" and "one of the largest", since we have undisputed literature to affirm it. But that's more than enough, and it's also the academic language one expects to find in an encyclopedia. Barjimoa ( talk) 16:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS has removed the descriptor " colonial empire" from the WP:LEAD, arguing that the Spanish Empire's status as such is in dispute and should therefore not be included in the WP:LEAD per WP:NPOV. I don't believe this assertion of theirs accurately reflects the balance of what sources say about this. Just as a starting-off point, searching for "Spanish colonial empire" (with quotation marks) on Google Scholar produces a few thousand search results, and the Oxford World History of Empire includes Spain in its list of European colonial empires. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa. Google searching 'Spanish Empire' gives circa 251 million results; 'Spanish old regime empire' circa 10900000 entries; 'hispanic empire' circa 343 million; just to evidence that your google search, apart from beaten, is non quite pertinent as neither are mine.

Having said this, I do not challenge at all the fact that the Spanish Empire has been or continues to be depicted or classified as 'colonial' by many very respectable sources but, as already indicated in the revision comment, that it is just a quite partial way to define it for the reasons hereafter:

Firstly, the Spanish Empire was composed in first lieu by a good bunch of kingdoms. From the Crown of Castile we count the Kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Toledo, Navarre, Galicia, Cordoba, Murcia, Jaen, Seville, Granada, Canary Islands and the Indies); On the Crown of Aragon's side, we have the Kingdoms of Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sicilia, Naples and Sardinia. This notorious facts should prevent anyone to define the Spanish Empire as merely colonial. Therefore, pretending the Spanish Empire “was a colonial empire” is not just biased but blatantly untrue. And this is so evident that no encyclopedia affirming the contrary can be taken seriously...or has a purpose to make such a statement...

Please, kindly consider that, whether then or today, anyone who goes and dares to tell a Navarre or a Sicilian or any other national from the above mentioned kingdoms that they were a colony of the Empire would most probably be lynched, respectively, driven to a mental health institution. This would also work for any scholar drafting a famous encyclopedia or pamphlet on the matter. Something else is the very freedom of each one to interpret History or to attribute any adjective to a concept as he/she wishes, which leads us to the next issue.

Second, as indicated in my revision comment as well – and provided enough references, the debate on the colonial nature of the Spanish Empire is been open for a long time since many scholars have and continue to challenge it, to the point that even the National Academy of History of Argentina, a phenomenal part of the Spanish Empire at the time, and today with more than 40 million citizens, decided, after analyzing the subject matter, not to use it for a number of good reasons, not to be debated here, among them the anachronistic, ideological use of the term 'colonial' referred to the Hispanic Empire, or the lack of respect it implied for nationals (most proud of its Hispanic heritage)

Recalling Ricardo Levene's successful proposal on the 'colonial' question: “On 2 October 1948, the Argentine National Academy of History debated the proposal put forward by its president whereby he “suggested that the authors of works of research, abstracts or texts on history of the Americas and of Argentina, substitute the expression ‘colonial period’ for ‘period of Spanish rule and civilization,’” among others. Finally, the proposal was accepted, with Ravignani’s dissenting opinion, although the expression ‘Hispanic period’ was favored to the one originally put forward. The minutes are transcribed at the end of Levene's 'Las Indias no eran colonias', Madrid (1951) 153–156.”

Only with the Levene's manifest case above, the several thousands of Argentinean scholars following the consensus of their national academy of History henceforth plus the millions of people thus educated in their teachings and academic or informal materials, is more than enough to support what I claim: describing the Spanish Empire as a colonial empire is refused by many, despite other opposing traditional views which millions of people do not follow; and the debate is well open for your repeated attempt to impose a well-spread yet particular view shall be dismissed. ( WP:NPOV)

Earth is easy to define, thanks by the way to Spain proving its sphericity with Elcano completing the first world circumnavigation in 1522. Spanish Empire does not. Unless you deny the sphericity of the matter...and go flat.-- PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk) 03:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your assertion that the Spanish Empire was not a colonial empire because not all of its possessions were colonies is WP:OR. I put it to you that the consensus view among modern mainstream scholars is that the Spanish Empire was a colonial empire. If its status as a colonial empire is as contested as you say it is, it should be easy to provide up-to-date WP:RELIABLE sources which explicitly say that the Spanish Empire was not a colonial empire (i.e. not just that a particular part of it was not a colony). Oh, and the Earth being spherical was known during antiquity. Eratosthenes even estimated its circumference with remarkable accuracy. TompaDompa ( talk) 10:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Just an aside, the myth that Europeans believed the Earth was flat until disproved by Columbus/Magellan/etc. was invented by Washington Irving. - Donald Albury 14:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sphericity of Earth was well-known and assumed by elites and academia since Antiquity based on repeated calculations. Spain, as I said, read well, proved it, meaning the old conviction/belief was confirmed empirically, likewise the existence of the God particle, based on a strong theoretical corpus, was only confirmed when effectively discovered at CERN.

Back to our subject matter, I have provided above a major reference which content is synthesized in its title “The Indies were not colonies” and the subsequent consensus of the scholar community of that country, which alone demonstrates that, apart from majority views, another signifiant minority do exist. Thus, my assertions are based from WP:RELIABLE sources and far from being WO:OR. Your claim against this evidence is simply false and the debate should be closed...unless you persists in your flat thing.

However, it will be my pleasure to provide more reliable references refuting the colonial stamp; also from Oxford, for your (un)comfort, though the book is always open at the same page....Please, think in advance about the place you wish to include the references I am to provide, since you recalled not to clutter the WP:LEAD with too many.

Beside, since the matter seems to be of your utmost interest, I kindly invite you to also make a pertinent google research to find materials challenging the Oxford World History of Empire or any other mainstream literature, mostly following Anglo-saxon narrative... if only to allow you to show off that you leave a mainstream thing behind, and become part of an increasing minority (+ 1 with you soon), think things over on your own, and thus become a better person. ;)

Finally, as proposed before, the nature of the Spanish Empire, including its alleged colonial character, is a huge discussion which deserves due consideration taking into account all significant views in a particular chapter but not as to break WP:NPOV by defining point black the Spanish Empire as colonial.-- PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk) 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Earth being spherical was confirmed empirically in antiquity by observing that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a Lunar eclipse is always circular, regardless of the position of the Moon relative to the Earth. That's actually much stronger evidence than a circumnavigation is, since several other shapes (such as cylinders and tori) can be circumnavigated, but the only shape whose shadow is invariably a circle is a sphere. See Spherical Earth.

The sole source you have provided is one that is 70 years old and says that Argentinian scholars back then preferred talking about a Spanish period of their history rather than a colonial one. That's a pretty far cry from providing up-to-date WP:RELIABLE sources which explicitly say that the Spanish Empire was not a colonial empire (i.e. not just that a particular part of it was not a colony). Anyway, I do believe we are at an impasse here. I'll request some additional input from WP:NPOVN and Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@ TompaDompa: thanks for pointing this out. You're completely right that a 1948 primary source is not adequate. After looking through JSTOR, it appears the suggestion that the Spanish empire was not "colonial" in character is a fringe view. There are some extensive discussions about what "colonial" entailed in terms of the Spanish Empire, and sources distinguish the term from "imperialism". I restored "colonial empire" and provided three extra sources from recent, published scholarship. The rest of the lead needs shortening too, per WP:LEADLENGTH. Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A number of edits in the last days/weeks (i assume by one user) have created dubious claims and the following problems here:

• This was added: in 1808, the Spanish king was tricked and Spain was taken over by Napoleon without firing a shot. It's rather vague. What does it mean exactly? The page on the peninsula war says that Napoleonic armies invaded Spain in 1808 and does mention a number of military clashes between the Spaniards and the French. I guess "the trick" is that Napoleon betrayed a previous alliance? I left this standing, maybe someone can add details about this.

• I don't know if this was already here, but now a note in the infobox says: "the Catholic Church was the State religion of the Spanish (European (White)) Empire". Two problems with this: 1)the Catholic Church is not a religion, it's an institution. 2) why add European/White empire? What's the point of this exactly?

• In the previous weeks, some sourced informations concerning battles/military clashes in the Cuban revolt and in 18th century wars have been removed. I don't know if those edits were made in good faith or not. I didn't reintroduce them, as i don't know if these events were actually important.

• Perhaps it's important to state this again: the Portuguese empire and other Habsburg dominions were not part of the Spanish empire. This would be a complete misunderstanding of personal unions: Philip II being king of Spain and king of Portugal does not make Brazil a Spanish colony; Charles V being Holy Roman Emperor and king of Spain (and Archduke of Austria and Duke of Burgundy) doesn't make the HRE a Spanish possession (or Spain part of the HRE for that matter). This has been debated over and over.

• I have removed a line claiming that the Spanish empire was historically called the "universal monarchy", since it's another misunderstanding of historical sources. The documents we have never call the Spanish empire that way. Universal monarchy was a medieval and early modern concept akin to world government. Several monarchs (including, but not only, Spanish monarchs) dreamed of creating a universal monarchy (from here the confusion of the edit, i guess) but obviously never succeeded in doing it. There's abundant literature about this.

• I have removed this line, which was unsourced and violated the result of multiple debates we had as well as the NPOV of wikipedia: "Under Charles V and Philip II, Spain exerted a dominance over Western Europe which was unprecedented since Roman times." Apart from the fact that Charles V, once again, represented more than Spain and arguably embodied primarily the Holy Roman Empire, it's also a dubious claim: 1)both Charles V and Philip II were actually prevented from exerting that dominance by France, various revolts, and (later) England; 2)Who are we to assume that Charlemagne was not more powerful than Charles V? Or that Henri II and Frederick II were less dominant than Philip II in Western Europe? How does one objectively prove that?

Overall, i feel like the article's neutrality is declining.

Barjimoa ( talk) 08:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Barjimoa: if you're concerned about the neutrality of recent additions or you don't think they're an improvement, revert them per WP:BRD and invite editors introducing the content to discuss it here. The onus is on them to gain consensus for disputed changes. If you're concerned the changes might being made with the purpose of compromising the overall tone and are a net negative to the article – especially if edit summaries aren't being provided, as appears to be the case – then it's worth considering reverting the changes in their entirety and asking editors to justify them. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, i will do it. Barjimoa ( talk) 08:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:103.227.254.51, you keep introducing dubious content into this article, in contrast to the results of numerous previous discussions and despite the lack of academic consensus to back up your claims. I have adjusted again the intro and the map below (see our discussion above). Perhaps you have not looked at the history of this talk page and at the edit summaries provided by me, User: Donald Albury, User: Cristiano Tomás (btw you have reverted some of our corrections without explaining yourself in the edit summary, so, at least to me, it's unclear why you do so).

1)Here ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_5#Edit_warring) users have agreed to describe the Spanish empire as as one of the most powerful of the 16th century and 17th century and as an early European global empire together with the Portuguese one, but not as THE most powerful. The thing is that it's simply impossible to pick one country as the most powerful between the various European and world powers of this period. This sentence you keep adding ( "under Charles V and Philip II, Spain exerted a dominance over Western Europe which was unprecedented since Roman times") is a blatant violation of that and also contains other several questionable claims on their own:

-as we have agreed here ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor/Archive_2#Issue_with_JamesOredan,_who_has_just_returned_after_a_block_because_of_sockpuppeting), and here ( /info/en/?search=Talk:The_empire_on_which_the_sun_never_sets) you cannot equate the Empire of Charles V with the Empire of Spain, since he was not only King of Spain but also Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, and especially Holy Roman Emperor.

-The standard scholarship is that Charles V and Philip II (as much as they were powerful) tried to assert their dominance in western Europe, but were prevented in doing it by revolts and by other powers such as France and England. Furthermore, how can you prove that Spain was the most dominant power in W.Europe since the fall of Rome (what about Charlemagne? what about the HRE?), how do you prove it?

Btw, sockpuppets are all over literally all these previous discussions. Another problem we historically have on these pages.

2)Here ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Spanish_Empire#Spanish_Empire_map_including_Portuguese_Empire) and here ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Diachronic_map_of_the_Spanish_Empire.svg), users have pointed out that the map you have added in the article cannot be presented solely as "Spanish empire": there are non-Spanish possessions in that map. I've seen you have put "Spanish and Portuguese empire" in the thumb, but it is still misleading. It shows Austria and Germany. So you should have written "Spanish empire, Portuguese empire, other Habsburg possessions, and Holy Roman Empire". Really problematic, to say the least.

3)See above for other points I made. I'd like you to explain also the other edits you made.

Barjimoa ( talk) 08:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:103.227.254.51, again, now added unsourced informations and reverted User:Cassiopeia for no reason. At this point i think it's vandalism. Barjimoa ( talk) 09:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Writing this because someone reverted my edit without an explanation as to why. As I was saying, the Spanish never set foot on any of the Portuguese colonies, there was no Kingdom of Spain at the time of the Iberian Union, nor kingdom of Portugal, there was a union of both kingdoms. That map is misrepresentative of the Spanish Empire. By including this map you are implying the Iberian Union was Spain, which was not. We could as far as to include continental Portugal or the Azores there, as the Spanish did invade those areas, but never the Portuguese colonies as they were still managed by Portugal at the time of the Union and were never contacted (aka colonized) by the Spanish. In each of those blue areas there is zero Spanish influence. I know it says Monarchy but putting that as the main map of the Spanish Empire is nowhere near accurate.

Even on the list of largest empires, the Iberian Union counts as an empire itself, not related to the Portuguese or Spanish Empires.

This is a great map for the Iberian Union, not for the Spanish Empire. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The first map is so cluttered as to be completely useless for any infobox – it's completely illegible. It also mixes time frames to such an extent that it is terribly misleading. That being said, the other map is not ideal, either. The editor in the section above may be a WP:SOCK, but they are correct in stating that the Spanish Netherlands did not comprise the same territory as the modern-day Netherlands. There is also no temporal overlap between the Spanish Netherlands and Louisiana (New Spain) – the two were separated by approximately half a century. The inclusion of the Territorio de Nutca is also questionable. Perhaps this map would be better? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with that map, it is sure more representative than the two before and does not raise confict about the inclusion of certain areas. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 21:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

An IP started to abuse the same parts like the user was reverted before, the IP should explain itself as well here, as those changes have no consensus, will be reset to the status quo ante version.( KIENGIR ( talk) 00:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

I agree the current map is horribly busy and quite misleading. I support file:Imperio Español (1714-1800).png for the infobox. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 04:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think the map for the infobox should be anachronous. Meaning that is shows all areas of the world that were once part of the Spanish Empire. This would be better so article viewers can quickly see that Spain once colonized Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea among other regions. Plus this would make the Spanish Empire more uniform with other major European empires. For instance the British Empire, Portuguese Empire, and Dutch Empire all have anachronous maps in their infoboxes. Empirecoins ( talk) 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to change the other ones to maps of their greatest extents. TompaDompa ( talk) 07:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Same. anachronous maps are, well, anachronistic. Barjimoa ( talk) 20:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

---

It has been a long time since I abandoned the discussions on Wikipedia, but after all that the map issue implied at the time, I am going to make a comment.

In 2009 there was a long discussion of months about the inclusion or not of the Portuguese territories between 1580-1640. The Portuguese slogan is always the same: there was a union between two kingdoms Spain and Portugal, and Portugal preserved its own institutions separate from Spain including its colonial empire and therefore Spain did not touch anything of that Portuguese empire. This is simply a nationalist ideological approach that does not correspond to reality because in the 16th-17th centuries Spain was not a kingdom, but a Monarchy with different kingdoms in union with aeque principaliter where the monarch governed the whole in accordance with local institutions. Aragon, Catalonia, Naples, Sicily, Valencia, Sardinia, Milan, the Netherlands, Franche-Comté, all had their own particular institutions, just like Portugal, and everything, as a whole, was directed from Madrid in a polysynodial system of Councils. The nationalist slogan only looks after number one and it ignores the rest of the political framework that existed at that time. The Portuguese nationalist vision can even go further and eliminate Spain and Portugal and create a new entity called the Iberian Union, which mysteriously preserves the same polysynodial architecture of the Spanish Monarchy.

In 2009 I provided a lot of sources on this topic [1] [2] and again in 2017 I remembered it again [3]. The map that I depicted precisely highlighted the Portuguese possessions, differentiating them from those of Castile (yes, Castile) to avoid the confusion of mixing them, and at the same time trying to respect the polysynodial system of the Spanish Monarchy that the Portuguese nationalist vision always ignores. In January it is proposed to change it, and with ZERO sources the map changes placidly, what a shame! One may prefer an anachronistic type of map and another a larger type of map, but making changes on falsehoods is really embarrassing.

I am not going to discuss this matter further because I have not participated here for a long time. And while we're at it, with a map of greater extension, Patagonia should be removed: in 2010 [4] I already provided sources that explained that there was a real border around the Salado river and that border protected Buenos Aires. But who cares, hopefully someone reads them. Trasamundo ( talk) 20:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You can't expect a lot of accuracy from a world map, especially when it depicts an extended period of time along which many things happened. I think that the current map gives the user a rough idea of which territories where nominally controlled from Madrid, not from Lisbon, and mingling it with the Portuguese empire because of a technicality is just confusing and misleading for readers. -- Jotamar ( talk) 12:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2019 and 24 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystalw1225, Jackyvail14, Ericadl99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Where in English language sources do we see the term 'Hispanic Monarchy' or Catholic Monarchy'? There is no way of checking the Hugh Thomas publication (page?) and the other two sources are in Spanish. I don't think we should use translations from a foreign language here for something so specific. Even if English sources can be found the terms need to have significant common usage in English, which I suggest is not the case. Shall we remove those terms from the lead sentence? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

as in any case the original Spanish name must remain, what is the problem in knowing its English translation? Vicentemovil ( talk) 22:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have seen numerous erroneous or false maps of the Spanish Empire on several Wikipedia pages, these maps have their origin in Alternative History forums and chats:

- Spain never owned Nutca or Patagonia;

- from Louisiana (huge territory with only a European population of 50k people), Spain controlled the current territory of the state of Louisiana and some isolated forts and settlements on the banks of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers;

- from Florida, Spain controlled only Pensacola, St. Augustine, and the areas around these settlements, not the inside.

Also Louisiana and Florida had no stable borders. 2.141.113.65 ( talk) 10:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_Empire_at_its_greatest_Extent_1783.png#/media/File:Spanish_Empire_at_its_greatest_Extent_1783.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjames1024 ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the Austrian inheritance of Charles V and that of Portugal by Philip II are shown, it would be relevant for the Lancastrian Tudor realms to be shown, at least as temporarily relevant as the Holy Roman Empire. This would also include the claim to Newfoundland (through Cabot) by Henry VII, who was allied with Ferdinand and Isabella, thus obtaining English exemption for participating in what otherwise was a Castilian monopoly that ended when Elizabeth refused to follow her sister Mary in marriage with Philip II. The marriage treaty specified that their heir was entitled to Lower Germany (i.e. Flanders) and Burgundy, as Don Carlos was to have the rest by primogeniture.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol12/pp1-20

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-queen-mary-and-king-philip-had-a-son.239225/

https://www.quora.com/In-British-schools-Philip-II-of-Spain-Felipe-II-is-not-taught-as-a-King-of-England-even-though-he-held-that-title-as-co-monarch-with-Queen-Mary-Why-is-this

Elizabeth chose to resume Henry VIII's Cleves interest and shut Spain out of the Netherlands (through Leicester), Virginia (through Raleigh) and New Albion (through Drake) for her own. Finally, the Lancastrians claimed Sicily before Aragon did and before claiming Castile itself, so it's interesting to see the evolution of Anglo-Spanish geopolitics that culminated in the ephemeral Tudor-Habsburg 'double monarchy'. All the Angevin/Plantagenet claims were united by this alliance: Fulk in Jerusalem, Henry II in England and Ireland, Richard of Cornwall in Germany, Edmund Crouchback in Sicily, Edward III in France, John of Gaunt in Castile. 107.77.232.70 ( talk) 16:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

[5] Previous consensus was the end of the Spanish Empire was the withdrawal from Spanish Sahara in 1976. We have a new editor who considers it ended in 1898 with the loss of Cuba and the Philippines in the American-Spanish War. They feel the 1976 figure is "realy wrong" and reverted my revert of their bold edit. Bringing to talk for discussion as to whether to accept this bold edit or revert to previous consensus. As WP:BRD was not followed, I have given them a 3RR warning here, sticking to my personal policy of 1RR. W C M _email 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The date that the empire ended must be consistent with what reliable sources say. I am rather dismayed to find that the section Spanish Empire#Territories in Africa (1885–1975) has only one citation. So then, who can point to reliable sources that put an end date on the empire? - Donald Albury 17:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is probably pointless because it depends on how you define that empire. Personally I think that the evacuation of the Sahara is as good as 1898 but, from a historiographic perspective, I find the loss of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and the Pacific Islands more relevant due to its impact in the Spanish national psyche and because if framed the events of the first third of the 20th century. In contrast the evacuation of the Sahara was accepted by the Spanish population as inevitable and the only drama was that the population of the Sahara did not get its independence, something that shames a lot of Spaniards today. I would cite Tomás Pérez Vejo who has thoroughly reseaerched the topic.

This book, including a chapter by Pérez Vejo, is a good source.

La España del siglo XX en 7 días

The chapter is: 3 de julio de 1898. El fin del Imperio español

Madrid, Taurus, 2020, 256 pp.

This article summarizes his views:

[6] https://librosnocturnidadyalevosia.com/3-de-julio-de-1898-el-fin-del-imperio-espanol-tomas-perez-vejo-taurus-2020/

The following quote explains what I meand

"The Spanish colonial empire only existed after the disintegration of the Catholic monarchy, a political organization distinct from the later Spanish nation state. It was the disappearance of the former that originated the birth of the latter, with the distinction between colonies and metropolises characteristic of nineteenth-century colonial empires, which we erroneously tend to attribute also to the empires of the Old Regime, all of marked anational character. This precision explains why for Spain the loss of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and a string of islands in the Pacific was much more important than that of practically an entire continent, from Cape Horn to the current border between Canada and the United States. The difference is that some territories, the American mainland, were lost by the king and the others, the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, by the Spanish nation." Dirdam2 ( talk) 17:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the section on Santo Domingo and Cuba in the Spanish Empire article.

The image of bones with the capture "Human skulls and bones in Havana Harbor, 1898. An estimated 225,000 Cubans died in Spanish concentration camps." is improper. The intention is to shock readers with an image that is reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps. However, as the source --the US library of Congress-- clearly states, the image was taken at an ossary in the Cristóbal Colón cemetery where remains of poor people whose families could not afford proper burial where accumulated during works to expand it. [7] https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=LCCN&searchArg=2013647272&searchType=1&permalink=y

While Weyler's reconcentración policy caused much hardship and deaths through famine and disease due to poor lodging and logistics it is unlikely that all the remains would have been cleaned of flesh and piled up in a cemetery in Havana.

The image is a form of vandalism and in may opinion should be eliminated.

I have tried to eliminate the image but another editor repeatedly puts it back without citing sources or entering a discussion and initiated an edit war causing my account to be blocked. I would appreciate it if someone else deleted the image and inserted other images that are truly related to the reconcentración policy.

Moreover the number of 225,000 deaths is unlikely since the policy affected some 400,000 Cubans, and is disputed. Indeed there is no realiable number as professional historians recognize.

Also, the references should should be citations of academic research on the "Reconcentración", not a website of dubious credentials. For example, here are some sources:

[8] https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=phr [9] https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/download/HICS9898110239A/19796/20739

Moreno Fraginals, Manuel, Cuba-España, España-Cuba Historia común. Grijalbo Mondadori. Barcelona, 1.995 . ISBN 84-397-0260-4

Emilio de Diego García , Weyler, de la leyenda a la Historia. Fundación Cánovas del Castillo , Madrid, 1.998. ISBN 84-88306-48-2

Gabriel Cardona y Juan Carlos Losada, Weyler, nuestro hombre en La Habana . Planeta, Barcelona, Segunda edición 1.988. ISBN 84-08-02327-6

Stucki, Andreas. Las guerras de Cuba. La Esfera ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-8490608524

I think it is now up to other editors to decide whether they want to perpetuate the use of a manipulative image or offer a more scientific analysis of the events. Dirdam2 ( talk) 15:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It does indeed sound like the image is inappropriate. Might File:Weyler_reconcentrados.png be more appropriate?

I think it would be good if Reconcentration policy were expanded, as there are never going to be more than a few sentences on the reconcentration in this article. 00:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Furius ( talk) 00:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen those photographs before and they are identified as victims of the reconcentración. It seems like the children portrayed are victims of severe malnutrition but also a disease or malformation but I am not a medical doctor. If the source is reliable they could be used but I would double check.

I have also found these photos which seem legitimate.

http://www.circuloguinero.org/contentES/aTraves/ayer/reconcentrados.html

I agree that the reconcentración should be analyzed in a separate article and not in a general article on the Spanish empire. Also the analysis needs to be objective. The Reconcentración was executed by Weyler who deserves most of the blame but the torching of farms by the mambises also helped to bring about famine and misery. These people were victims of a bloody civil war. The Spanish soldiers were also victims of poor nutrition and disease since they effectively were living in close quarters with the reconcentrados. Poor sanitation, insecure logistics and poor housing wrought havoc among an already impoverished and malnourished population. That was the case with my own great grandfather who landed in Santiago at the time and immediately fell sick with disentería and nearly died. There is a Spanish language article on the subject. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcentraci%C3%B3n Dirdam2 ( talk) 22:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It could be used as the basis for an English language article. Dirdam2 ( talk) 22:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the same photograph has been used. It is very hard to expunge fake information once it has been broadly disseminated. But there is no need to use fake images to describe an event that was an atrocity without any doubt. There are legitimate images that should be used instead. Dirdam2 ( talk) 22:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Cuban historian, Manuel Moreno Fraginals, "On the one hand, General Valeriano Weyler in bringing the war against the civilians who cooperated with the Cuban troops ordered a process of reconcentration of peasants into the cities and then proceeded to eliminate crops and cattle of any kind. With this policy he achieved in part his goal of interrupting the supply of the independentist troops, but soon he met with overcrowded cities beyond their acomodation and food possibilities. Lacking agricultural production, famine grew vertically whilst a minimum of hygienic conditions disappeared. The typical Cuban endemics gained ground affecting not only the civilian population but also the soldiers that Spain poured over the island and against which the young Spanish soldiery had no antibodies. The mortality amongst the Spanish army reached incredible limits: the hospitals were full and a new one, of large proportions,had to be built in Havana, near the Castillo del Príncipe, which was given the name of Alfonso XIII. For their part, the civilian population was sacrificed but that did not stop the independentist army from fighting". From his book Cuba/España España/Cuba. Historia Común. 1995. Grijalbo Mondadori. ISBN 84-397-0260-4.

My translation from the Spanish language. Dirdam2 ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Due to the lack of in-line citations in the Spanish article, I'm a little hesitant about using it as a basis for expanding Reconcentration policy. It's much better to use sources like Moreno Fraginals, since you have them. I will change the image in this article now, if it hasn't been done already. Furius ( talk) 23:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Spanish language article is poor. It needes improvement. I might attempt to do so based on the sources mentioned by [10] https://serhistorico.net/2018/02/16/valeriano-weyler-y-la-reconcentracion-cubana-heroe-o-carnicero/. I can then try to prepare an English language version. 80.174.107.139 ( talk) 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a good plan; if you let me know whenever you're ready to prepare the English version, I'm happy to help with the translation (my Spanish is bad, but I'll do what I can). Furius ( talk) 01:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also a good summary, with references to sources from professional historians is

https://serhistorico.net/2018/02/16/valeriano-weyler-y-la-reconcentracion-cubana-heroe-o-carnicero/

I think it provides a well documented and balanced account of the Reconcentración and Weyler's actions. Dirdam2 ( talk) 23:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

In the 'Imperial economic policy' section, this pic appears:

However, according to the discussion on its main page, it's not Spanish, it's not a galleon, and it's not by Dürer. Is there any good reason for keeping it? MinorProphet ( talk) 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Spanish Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Clodfelter":

• From Sack of Rome (1527): Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed. ISBN  9780786474707.
• From Philippine–American War: Clodfelter, Micheal, Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618–1991

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It says that "In conjunction with the Portuguese Empire, it was the first empire to usher the European Age of Discovery and achieve a global scale,controlling vast portions of the Americas, Africa, various islands in Asia and Oceania, as well as territory in other parts of Europe"

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The first empire to usher the Age of Discovery (70 years before Spain) and achieve a global scale (50 years before Spain) was Portugal in 1515, with territories in Brazil, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania (Timor). What vast portions of Africa did Spain control? What territories in Persia or Arabia did Spain have? What territories in East Africa, India and the Indian Ocean did Spain have? Ludicrous! Not to mention that Spain only got a foothold in SE Asia after 1550, 50 years after Portugal!

By 1515, Portugal had a presence all over Africa, Brazil, Canada, Persia, Arabia, India, China and all over SE Asia. Spain only had just set foot in the Caribbean. Hadn't even began its conquests of Peru and Mexico, and would only conquer the Philippines in 1565, 66 years after Portugal had built it's first colony in Asia.

And what colonies did Spain have between the Canary Islands and the Philippines? 0! It's a massive stretch between the North Atlantic African coast and SE Asia where Spain was never present (except for the tiny colony of Equatorial Guinea, exchanged with Portugal 200 years later).

Spain had nothing in West Africa, nothing in South Africa, nothing in East Africa, nothing in the Indian Ocean, nothing in the Red Sea, nothing in the Persian Gulf, nothing in Persia or Arabia or India, nothing in the Bengal Sea, and practically nothing east of the Philippines (leaving out most of Asia). Portugal was the only out of the 2 empires that had a widespread presence in Africa, Middle East and Asia (colonies in more than 50 countries on those 3 regions), with a continuous coastal presence between Morocco and Japan by 1543. Spain not only never had any presence in the Middle East, but its presence in Africa and Asia was limited to both extremities of those continents (North Africa and SE Asia), with nothing in between! It's ludicrous to say Spain was the first global empire!

Clearly the person who wrote this is a Spanish nationalist. 81.84.162.251 ( talk) 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The second map is right but doesn't have brazil and the first map is not the maximum extent 2001:818:E924:D000:2CA2:5DA7:9E46:AAE8 ( talk) 10:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. This, on the other hand, fails WP:RSCONTEXT, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. It's a textbook example, even. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The author of the latter is also clearly way out of their depth when talking about territorial extents of historical polities. No serious source attributes 24 million km² to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

And removing the maintenance tag without addressing the issue is not helpful. Ping JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the maintenance template, and left a warning on the IP's talk page. I find it interesting that an IP with only 20 prior edits would be interested in removing a maintenance template as their first edit in five days. Donald Albury 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have spent the morning conducting extensive searches to corroborate the conflicting claims without much success. EB here would confirm the lower figure. EB is acceptable as a WP:RS, particularly when helping to establish due weight between contradictory sources (see WP:TERTIARY). WP:THESIS also cautions us in regard to using a thesis. Taagepera gives the area of the Iberian Union (ie 1640 figure) as 7.1 M km². Prados would give it as 24 M km² for about the same time. The 7.1 figuge would seem consistent with this map - File:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg, while the 2.4 figure would probably require a map resembling this - File:Spanish Empire.svg. There is clearly nuance to the larger figure - probably the distinction between what was controlled and what might have been claimed. Considering the prevailing P&G, the lower figure should be preferred in the first instance. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted to the lower figure as the status quo for the following reasons. The status quo appears to have been quite long-standing. There proposal is challenged and there is a WP:ONUS to establish consensus for the higher figure. The higher figure in the infobox creates an inconsistency between the infobox and the article text. Consensus can change - through discussion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is not a good source as it is biased on this subject. The source I have provided on page 109 mentions 24 million km2 and on page 138 you can read the map that supports the territorial data. My citation is more objective and more descriptive as well as providing a detailed description of the territories and therefore I think it is unreasonable to disqualify it. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 10:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is not a good source as it is biased on this subject. The citation I have provided on page 109 mentions 24 million km2 and on page 138 you can read the map that supports the territorial data. My citation is more objective and more descriptive as well as providing a detailed description of the territories and therefore I think it is unreasonable to disqualify it. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 10:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you believe Encyclopædia Britannica to be biased here but not Iberofonía y Paniberismo. I put it to you that the opposite is much more likely. At any rate, no serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities attributes effective control of 24 million km² to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union, and no serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities uses any other measure than land area under effective control. The figure you put forth represents a WP:FRINGE view. The source you replaced, on the other hand, is a highly-regarded and widely-cited piece of scholarly work. It is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology. When it comes to source quality and reliability in this context, there is simply no comparison. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A claim that the Spanish Empire (as the Iberian Union) extended across all of South America would arise from the Treaty of Tordesillas. However, there is a disjunction between this claim and settled areas over which control was asserted as shown in this map File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png. Such a claim arising from the treaty has been selectively applied to just South America. A source does not become unreliable because it is WP:BIASED but we are warned about WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims and WP:FRINGE theories that depart from the general consensus. As I said, I have looked into this quite extensively and EB (a WP:RS) does support the lower figure. Are there other sources for similar figures? Are there sources independent of the two sources being discussed? If published prior to 1997 for Taagepera and prior to 2018 for Prados, the sources would be independent of those authors - though the converse may not apply. One source should not be preferred over another unless there is good reason based in P&G. At present, P&G favours the lower figure. On the other hand, there is nuance to the greater figure, which cannot be captured in the infobox easily - ie per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not a place for detail. It would certainly need to be discussed in the body of the article in more detail. Area is not a mandatory field. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Etemad's Possessing the World: Taking the Measurements of Colonisation from the 18th to the 20th Century, p. 135 gives a figure of 12.3 million km² for Spain's colonial possessions (i.e. excluding Spain itself) in the year 1760. Other than that, it's probably going to be difficult to find quality sources that are independent of Taagepera's research; scholarship on the territorial extents of historical polities relies heavily on it, as it occupies a central position in the literature on the topic in a way that is similar to the position of McEvedy and Jones' Atlas of World Population History in the literature on historical population estimates. For instance, The Oxford World History of Empire, p. 93 gives a figure of 7.1 in 1640 (from Taagepera) and 12.3 in 1760 (from Etemad). TompaDompa ( talk) 02:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

To paraphrase, there is a body of evidence (some explicitly presented) supporting about 13.7 M km² as the peak area around 1780 and 7.1 M km² for the Iberian Union and this is generally attributed to Taagepera. The sources you are indicating are of good quality. This would strongly indicate that there is a consensus in good quality sources to accept the lower figure. Unless evidence of similar weight can be presented supporting the higher figure, the reasonable conclusion is that the higher figure falls to WP:FRINGE. As such, it might be reported in the article with appropriate WP:WEIGHT (eg as a footnote) but it should certainly not be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

For good measure, this 1948 source says that the Spanish Empire broke all records about 1763, with an area of approximately 5,400,000 square miles, which would be about 14 million km². TompaDompa ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa as discussed my reference, which is the most updated so far, clearly explains that the territory owned by the Spanish empire until 1668 was 24 million km2 on page 109. This explanation is reinforced by a map on page 138.

This research is from a PhD and explains in detail the surface of the Spanish empire.

On the other hand, all the references you have provided do not include Amazonia as a territory of the Hispanic empire, which is demonstrated in the following references: here, here, here, here (page 24), here (Page 24+26+33+34+36+37+41-58), here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (page 405-406), here, here (page 307), here, here that reinforce the reference I have provided as well as weaken and disprove the ones you have provided. Thank you and good luck in the search for the truth. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 07:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You must be joking. Firstly, do you really believe the recency of the source is the be-all, end-all criterion for source assessment? Secondly, The Oxford World History of Empire is a more recently published source than Iberofonía y Paniberismo. There is just no way that you can seriously think that Iberofonía y Paniberismo represents the latest research on the subject. The rest of your argument is just your own personal WP:Original research. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa unfortunately I don't see any reference denying my references which are the latest studies on the subject with a much more exhaustive consideration than the one you have provided. Furthermore I would like to please ask you to stop using arrogant language with me and to behave with the seriousness that the matter requires with your interlocutor. Thank you JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your "references" include a bunch of Wikipedia articles and what might charitably be described as circumstantial evidence. You're making arguments based on the sources rather than relying on the sources as they are—that's WP:ANALYSIS. You clearly have no idea how to assess and evaluate sources for appropriate use on Wikipedia. You can't even keep your own assessments straight, advancing Encyclopædia Britannica as a good source when you think it supports your position and decrying it as biased when you think it doesn't. The assertion that Spain had effective control over the entirety of South America at the time of the Iberian Union is so far outside the academic mainstream as to be risible. Meanwhile, actual serious scholarship on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities firmly disagrees with you, as has been pointed out by among others me and Cinderella157. You are wasting everybody's time here, including your own. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa you still haven't provided solid evidence against my reference. Furthermore you are using personal attacks to me which is unacceptable. Please respect your fellow members. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 18:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa at this point, in order to avoid going over the same issue when it has already been demonstrated, it is better to close the matter at 24 million km2. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: you clearly do not understand or do not properly apply how to assess and evaluate sources for appropriate use on Wikipedia. You do not even seem to understand how sources are used on Wikipedia, since you ask for "evidence". Wikipedia does not care about your arguments (or mine) on the topic, Wikipedia cares about what the consensus view among sources on the topic is. I have explained this to you. Cinderella157 has explained this to you. [11] [12] Slatersteven has explained this to you. [13] The consensus view among sources on the topic is at odds with your view. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa, you have been repeatedly ask for sources other than the thesis which explicitly state 24 M and/or explicitly cite the thesis in respect to the area. This would show acceptance of the view in the thesis among scholars (per WP:FRINGE). Instead, you have provided links by which you would argue your opinion that the thesis is correct. That is not how sources are weighed on WP. This is also quite clearly not what was asked for. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella and TompaDompa. You are trying to accuse me of all evils in order to nullify my references. I have provided a PHD reference and as you do not have any reference contradicting mine but a bunch of references contradicting one each other you pretend to accuse me of vandalism, fringe theories, ididnthearthat so to block my references. Dismissing academic research because you disagree with it by accusing the other side of all sorts of wrongdoing is not acceptable in an academic discussion. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Dismissing academic research because you disagree with it by accusing the other side of all sorts of wrongdoing is not acceptable in an academic discussion. – That's correct, but that's not what we're doing, and this isn't an academic discussion. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit at 17:28, 18 June 2023, JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa has again reverted to the 24 M figure, which continues to create an inconsistency within the article. I have taken the next step of opening a discussion here at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and my OP liberally plagiarizes your posts from here TompaDompa. Please treat this as an acknowledgement. :) Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least the "Iberian World" figure needs some explanation for the reader, which can't be done in an infobox, so don't put it there. fiveby( zero) 14:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to participate in the discussion, but only to claim the need to include an anachronous map of the Spanish Empire in the Lead.

The current one only shows the territories during the 18th century (After the War of the Spanish Succession), which is objectively incomplete. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa ( talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Now I have read all your interventions in this thread and I must admit that the language of TompaDompa is simply unbearable, biased and arrogant. TompaDompa is quite an inquisitive user on this topic, he uses Taagapera (1997) as if it were the Bible and avoids other users to use any other alternative source at all costs. Articles like the List of the Largest Empires are simply impossible to edit due to this user's despotic attitude.

I reject his arguments and I stand in favor of JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 14:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa ( talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you think there are conduct issues, the appropriate venue to raise them is at WP:ANI rather than engaging in WP:Personal attacks here. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You pinged me above, but I will answer here. Unfortunately with Venezia we have already had many problems, so I'm not new to this. The one appeal I want to make is that personal attacks must absoluetely be avoided, always talk of the topic only. On the area size, I see the specialized sources here listed vary between 12, 13, 14 million Km2. The one putting it at 24.0 million Km2 is less specialized and looks way off, so it certainly can't be taken as the correct one. Barjimoa ( talk) 20:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Barjimoa, I knew you were going to chase me here, you are very predictable. You are the only troublemaker here and you already lost in a recent discussion for not wanting to accept the basic Wikipedia rules for the Lead.

Anyway, thanks for your great input. I suggest to edit the Mussolini article, it sure need your edits. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 00:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa ( talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't accuse users who try to keep this a correct encyclopedia and a civil place to be chasing you. Respect the consensus and sources, don't make inflammatory comments and personal attacks, and no one will "chase you". Also, and this is not the first time you do it, please stop implying I am a fascist because I have edited Mussolini's article among the many I edited. It's offensive, I edit history articles in general, and I mostly do it to clarify things or, when needed, correct mistakes. Therefore I have never been a troublemaker, if anything a good chunk of my time is lost for solving problems created my troublemakers. Making these accusations or calling User:TompaDompa a despot is absolutely irrelevant and it's another instance of personal attack defying the talk we are having. I let this stuff pass once more, but please don't do it again and stay on topic.

In this case, going back to the topic, can you tell us why my reasoning and that of Cinderella157 is wrong and how come the alternative source is more specialized and correct than the others provided? I'm not an expert on it, but it very much looks like the contrary. Note that if you are right, then the list of largest empires article, which has had these numbers for a long time by looking at its history, would be significantly wrong. I am open to change my mind if your argumentation is satisfying and specialized sources back your claim; cause i don't care at all if the Spanish empire is 24 million Km2 rather than 13 millions, but it has to be proven. So far I am not convinced. Barjimoa ( talk) 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, your edits are public, no need to cheat, they are easily visible.

Anyway, I don't care at all about the extent of the Spanish Empire, Its probably 10, 13, 17, 24 or 40Km2... I really don't care.

What I denounce is that there are veteran users with a lot of free time (aka TompaDompa) who have shielded articles to avoid being edited by other users, which goes against the essence of Wikipedia.

Of course the List of the Largest Empires article is stable and old, but because it's an article that can only be edited by TompaDompa. There have been many attempts to edit the article by other users with alternative measurement sources (for the Spanish Empire and for many other Empires), but in this article his only fetish source Taagepera (1997) prevails, unilaterally deleting all those alternative sources that he doesn't like. The article is in fact an article almost just for Taagapera's views, its just surreal. I even thought that Taagepera could be a relative of his, due to the insane obsession with this specific author, eliminating almost everyone else in the academy.

This user is already well known, I am just one of many who have denounced his abuse of power. I'm not writing anything new on Wikipedia Venezia Friulano ( talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa ( talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It seems there are certain users who think they have more rights for spending their entire free time on Wikipedia, no sorry but that is reserved for administrators, we are all users and we should be treated equally.

But for some, they want to keep their edits prevailing and the ones who dare to change anything face instant reversion or even reports to admins just for having a different vision. It's not fair, we all should be treated equally. LucenseLugo ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Venezia, but again, don't make personal attacks. What's the point of it? It certainly has no value whatsoever in the ongoing debate. Also we should wait to see how the debate ends before we edit exactly the things that are being discussed. Barjimoa ( talk) 14:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI or knock it off. WP:Personal attacks are not acceptable. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)