Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:12, 27 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Former countries B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Spain B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Philip II of Spain, king of England

Philip I was king of england. I'd put England like spanish colonia too. spurce: http://en.wikipedia.org/Philip_II_of_Spain, http://en.wikipedia.org/King_of_England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.55 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

already answered before Trasamundo (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Map Spanish America kingdoms 1620

I have readded the map for Spanish America in 1620. It was removed because "Spanish American Kingdoms??-furthermore inaccurate: conquest of Sonora began c.1630, Baja California c.1680, and Nuevo Santander in the 18th century" These comments are themselves incorrect. The region of New Mexico was explored as early as the 1540s and permanent settlements established by the end of the 16th century. While it is true that Sonora was largely barren of Spanish settlement, it was still claimed by Spain. The same is true of both Baja California which was explored as early as the 1540s and Nuevo Santander which had been explored by 1600. Finally, the title is correct. The Spanish did not call their oversea possessions colonies. They used the term "reino" meaning kingdom. The proper title for New Spain was the Kingdom of New Spain. the term viceroyalty is an English phrase applied because the highest secular official of the kingdom was a viceroy. I am more than happy to adjust the map for possible inaccuracies but it is a good depiction of the extent of Spanish claims ca. 1620. Moreover, this map corresponds to the boundaries shown in other published sources. Lockhart, James; Schwartz, Stuart (1983). Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America And Brazil. Cambridge University Press. p. 255.Grin20 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Conquest of Sonora began c.1630, Baja California c.1680, and Nuevo Santander in the 18th century" These comments are themselves incorrect. Ahem::

• En 1636, bajo el gobierno del virrey Candereita, se inició la conquista de la provincia que recibió el nombre de Sonora. Sebastián Vizcaíno fue nombrado en 1598 gobernador de California, pero su plan para colonizar y evangelizar la península apenas tuvo efectos. El primer informe detallado de una exploración por el interior de la península es de 1683-1685. (In 1636, under the rule of the viceroy Candereita, began the conquest of the province received the name of Sonora. Sebastian Vizcaino was appointed governor of California in 1598, but his plan to colonize and evangelize the peninsula just took effect. The first detailed exploration of the interior of the peninsula is 1683-1685.)
• Tomamos la fecha de 1748 porque en este año procede el mencionado Escandón a ocupar formalmente lo que se vino a llamar la Colonia del Nuevo Santander. (We take the date of 1748 because in this year the alluded Escandon comes to occupy formally what came to be called the Colony of Nuevo Santander.)
• New Mexico?. What is concerned New Mexico with the preceding places? I have not mentioned New Mexico. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro was in that area, it's logical that permanent settlements was there.

Nevertheless, such arguments of territories claimed and explored were rejected years ago for this article. These territories of doubtful character were refused because of its confused, interpretive character and susceptible of original interpretation (WP:NOR). Mixing claimed areas/fictional jurisdictions with colonized/ruled areas gives a poorly adjusted idea of the Spanish presence in America: the pretension does not indicate his possession. In addition, the criteria of what is claimed and what is not, and the extension of such hypothetical territory, they are quite speculative and subjective and they vary even for the same place.

• If that map includes areas claimed in the north of America, it is not understandable why in the south of America such areas are not appear. The argument of explored territory is not valid: if a territory was explored then it does not develop into a territory of the Spanish empire, for example, the Spanish explored the oriental coast of the Pacific in 18th century up to Alaska, but that does not show to Alaska as a part of the Spanish empire, the same case can be applied for the Amazon.
• The graphical depiction in books is not reliable. If this map appear written in a book, it does not make him superior to other maps written in books that have a different depiction. In fact, in other books, the maps are displayed with another depiction with demarcations conformed to my comments, qualified without fundament as comments are themselves incorrect (!!!) Which is the criterion to choose a map over another one?: the written sources. For example, maps of the Portuguese empire are depicted forming long coastal strips along Africa and the India, nevertheless, if the written sources describe and explain the Portuguese empire composed as a chain of forts and castles, the written sources have the accuracy, although I find several maps with long coastal strips. And as the written sources they establish that the conquest of the north of New Spain was later to 1620, where the is incorrect issue?
• As for the title, you have just confirmed yourself that it is a primary source. The proper title for New Spain was the Kingdom of New Spain. the term viceroyalty is an English phrase applied because the highest secular official of the kingdom was a viceroy. In the articles of wikipedia it has to use the denominations that appear in English-language reference works. If these works use the term viceroyalty largely it cannot used the minority, specialized and erudite term as common. The use the term viceroyalty has a sense: unlike the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon and the Kingdom of Navarre -which had their medieval institutions and therefore their own identity as kingdom-, the kingdoms of the Crown of Castile did not have them then, and they would be equivalent to provinces. The simple translation of reino (reyno) for kingdom hints a kind of dynastic union and the presence of specific foral institutions within the Crown of Castile, which is a total nonsense.

Definitively, it cannot place maps in this article without regarding previous discussions and agreements, established to ensure that there is no original research and to avoid turning back again the article into a bickering about speculations of what would be claimed or would not be claimed territory, and its extension, since any text can justify claims up to what someone wishes. When that map adjusts to the approximate extent of the territories controlled/ruled by the Hispanic monarchy (Portugal included) in 1620, or switch to a later date that coincides with those limits or other more accurate, then such map will be acceptable. Trasamundo (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic of maps of New Spain reminds me—the main map on the New Spain page, in the infobox, is particularly bad (File:New Spain.svg). It shows "claims" and, by implication, "controlled territory" in an odd and apparently arbitrary way. I wrote about it a while ago at Talk:New Spain#The map and its caption are confused. I've thought about working on new maps for this and other similar pages, but have other priorities. Given this discussion here now, I thought I'd mention it. The New Spain map is an SVG remake of an older PNG map, . On its Commons page linked above it says the map was "built from" this map. Check out that map's talk page, where its accuracy is much disputed. Anyway, my point is just to say that the main map on the New Spain page is in much need of an improved replacement. Pfly (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed the map is very bizarre, it is an exemplification of territories claimed in a subjective way. I'll see what I can do. The problem is not only for America but also for the Philippines. Trasamundo (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A belated thanks, Trasamundo! The more I look at maps on Misplaced Pages—not just relating to Spain but mostly historical nonetheless—the more I find them troublesome. I've tagged a few maps at the Commons for accuracy disputes, but in general I think we all should get a little more serious about holding Commons maps to the same standards of reliable sources and verifiability as we mostly do on Misplaced Pages. A couple of maps I recently tagged: , Spanish Empire in 1640 at the latest shown way too large (and that map is used on many many Misplaced Pages pages), also , which shows "territory" in 1750, likely too much for Spain but also way too much for Russia in 1750! Anyway, thanks for your New Spain map, Trasamundo. Pfly (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"God is Spanish" (1596–1626)

I'm wondering if this is really a good heading for this time period. If a reading is skimming through the piece, they may assume that the Spanish Empire had no flaws during this time, especially if they had already read the article about Spain's Golden Age. This was also a time where the Spanish had to deal with the realization that they had their own agency and in some cases, they could not rely on God to take care of them. Many would argue that after the Armada was defeated by the English, Spain went into a decline. Not only did they lose the prestige that they had once carried, but from this time on, they had stretched their resources so far, that it was about to snap and their empire would soon shrink. Before too long the Portuguese would disappear as well as colonies in the Americas. Spartemis (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis

I would completely agree with you when it comes to the heading. After the defeat of the Spanish armada people became much more secular. Although the armada was not destroyed people began to understand that the actions of humans had a much greater effect than divine intervention would. This change to thought had a lot of Spain rethinking its beliefs and if God supported Spain's cause or not. However, I think that to say Spain was in decline would be untrue. It's true that Spain was going through a time of many problems, but that doesn't mean that it was in decline. A period of adaptation would be a better way to describe this time in Spain's life. All countries have problems at one point and to say that Spain was declining might be overstating matters. Voitik2 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Length of introduction

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

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

File:Mexico-city-cathedral.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Mexico-city-cathedral.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A new map

I propose that a new map should be found for the main map image for the article. I propose this because it includes "territories of the Iberian Union". The Iberian Union was a personal union, not an official unification of the two kingdoms. This being said, the Portuguese territory and her colonies were never part of the Spanish empire, they were the Portuguese empire. They both shared a king, for a time, but that did not make the Portuguese empire a part of the Spanish empire, but they were run side-by-side. The current map is misleading. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Our readers are not idiots and the legend of the map is quite clear that the dark blue areas are the Portuguese territories during the Iberian Union. Readers who want more details will just follow the internal link. You've just replaced a very detailed map by this not so detailed map which ironically also includes the Portuguese territories and then by this one which carries only a tiny fraction of the information that was there before. And all this for Portuguese pride? Come on... By the way, did you notice that the Portuguese Misplaced Pages uses that very same map for pt:Império Espanhol? Pichpich (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who gives a care what Pt.wiki says!? Everyone brings up what is on pt.wiki, well we are on en.wiki! And this is not Portugese pride, could it be Im actually trying to work for improvement? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If you want to bring in other wikipedias, Spanish wikipedia (which would be the wikipedia to bring in for this article, if one was to bring in another wikipedia, which I dont think one should) they use:

So what is your answer now? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a giant debate over the map on the Spanish Misplaced Pages a few years ago and that map was finally chosen. It's too bad, I think, because it is blatantly wrong in many ways. That map's Commons page explains that the color red indicates "Spanish posessions" and the color pink "claimed territories and posessions with de jure authority". It does not explain what exactly is meant by "possession" or "de jure authority". Presumably red areas were at some point under de facto Spanish administration while pink areas were Spanish "by law" (de jure). But whatever is meant the way North America is depicted is laughable. The red color extends to areas like present day North Dakota and Montana, where Spaniards never went, let alone administrated. The entire west coast is shown as red, up to and beyond Vancouver Island and including all of the Puget Sound region. Apart from Nootka Sound and, arguably, very briefly, Neah Bay, Spain never "possessed" any of this. The pink areas of "claimed territories and possessions with de jure authority" is even more problematic—the way the Great Basin and a coastal zone north to about Cape Saint Elias is shown as pink. Spainish claims to northern North America were never explicitly limited to any particular region. The entire continent was claimed and only given up as necessary in various treaties. Spanish claims to the entirety of western North America were not limited until the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty. Spain performed rites of possession as far as Unalaska Island, which gave them a very weak de jure claim to the entire coast south of the Bering Sea. They did not, however, perform any such ceremonies in Idaho or the British Columbia interior. Yet these areas are shown as pink on this map! In short, that map is a disaster of original research. Pfly (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The map I believe is the most correct is this one:

Do you agree? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Better, but still not as good as the one already being used on this page, which not only shows things like Nootka Sound but is impeccably sourced. I think maps, like articles, ought to cite sources. Pfly (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The one currently used is best because it's more detailed. Instead of imposing one interpretation of what it means to possess, control, have authority over or whatnot, it gives a detailed map of all areas that one might conceivably consider part of the Spanish Empire and makes chronological as well as political distinctions. It's the richest of these maps. Pichpich (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact of beginning a post to affirm without doubt that this map is misleading is like to going to light a factory of light bulb, with a candle, as if no one had conceived such affirmation.

Well, three years ago, after bloody discussions, the question of Portuguese empire was answered and clarified as is shown in the archive of this talk page. There was a consensus to include it inside the article, and even it was debated the most exact words to using inside the article. As soon as there was included the question of the Portuguese empire inside the article, it was developed (by myself) a map for this article accordingly. Precisely to avoid misunderstandings and to offer explanations of different beliefs, the sources of the depiction appears with the map. And therefor, as the answers were written some years ago, I don't hope to add anything more, except my gratefulness to the interventions. Trasamundo (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Either map proposed here by Cristiano Tomas is better than the current map. It has a lot of information but it's not adequate for the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.79.160 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been suggested that we discuss the issue of the map here in the Talk Page. Well, here it is. The point is six colors is confusing and lacks uniformity. It is also too much detail for the introduction. Such a map should go somewhere else in the article. The lede map should present a general overview of all territories of the empire in one color (in one or two tones) not six, just like most other empire maps.

This has already been discussed at great length on many occasions. See the section above, "The multi-colored map", and archived talks such as http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_3#Too_many_colors, among others. The points you raise have been addressed in great detail. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I also don't want to repeat the same arguments over and over and over. Pfly (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what those arguments could have been but it is ridiculous to have such a colorful map for the introduction, no offense. That degree of detail must go somewhere else in the article. See the British Empire map, the Portuguese empire map, the French empire map, etcetera etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Carlism

The Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism. The flag of spanish armies commonly used the coats-of-arms of the "king" or the "place", not the Burgundy cross flag alone. Much more important, ¡Spanish empire is not an Army or military unit!.--Santos30 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To say that the cross of Burgundy is an emblem of the Carlism is like saying that the swastika is the emblem of the Germany Nazi, and what is it that it demonstrates? did not those emblems have previous uses? The cross of Burgundy originated in the House of Burgundy, which the Spanish kings were successors.

The Cross of Burgundy was the military emblem Spanish armies since the sixteenth century:

• Se ve por primera vez en España, el símbolo comun de la Cruz de Borgoña o aspa de San Andrés (troncos rugosos en los que fue crucificado). Este signo distintivo pasaría de inmediato, y por varios siglos, a nuestras banderas...
• solían llevar de antiguo la cruz de san Andrés o Cruz de Borgoña, que caracterizó a los tercios españoles y que los Borbones respetaron en sus regimientos.
• La cruz de Borgoña o de San Andrés, de oro o plata sobre fondo negro primero, y luego rojo sobre amarillo o blanco, comenzó a ser usada más tarde por las tropas de su hijo Carlos I rey de España y V como rey de Alemania. En 1525, tremoló en la batalla de Pavía, combate entre las tropas imperiales de carlos I de España y V de Alemania y las del rey de Francia Francisco I, durante la guerra entre España y Francia por la supremacía en Italia, y desde allí se convirtió en un símbolo fundamental de la simbología española.
• King Philip V's 1707 Ordinance regulating the design of standards retained the Cross ogf Burgundy.
• Se trataba de la conocida Aspa Roja de San Andrés o Cruz de Borgoña, que era y siguió siendo el emblema archiconocido de las tropas españolas durante siglos.
• Doña Juana agregó a sus armas el Aspa de Borgoña, signo e insignia de la Casa de su marido, por su madre, y que a partir de entonces toma estado y continúa durante siglos siendo emblema de nuestra patria.

Throughout the centuries there were several flags and emblems, but if there was one who identified the Spanish power and Spanish presence throughout his empire, not only in America but also in Europe and Oceania, it was the emblem of the cross of Burgundy.

It should not be understood as the flag of the Empire, but as the most representative and identifying flag of a historical epoch. Spanish empire is not an Army or military unit but the article essentially deals with conflicts, military campaigns and wars. The military importance has a preponderance that I have not given it, but it appears in the same article, and therefore the military emblem reflects and is fully consistent with the actual warlike content of the article, as the most representative image. Well now, if the point is that the meaning of the flag can be confusing then the footnotes should be used to make clear that it is a military emblem, the way is not the suppression. Trasamundo (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand this addition. It does not fit within the sense and meaning both of the sentence and the paragraph. One thing is referencing, and other one is to put the sources anywhere and anyway, ignoring the sense of pre-existing text. Trasamundo (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow Misplaced Pages:No original research !. Do not lost my time and yours, put references. Those Ref in spanish do not demonstrate that you say. Put a published source, not your ideas. It is clear that Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism and a late military spaniard flag. Americas and Philippines, almost all of the map of spanish empire (in red), was discover and conquer under the flag of the crown of Castile, not Burgundy cross. But most important is an article of Spanish empire, not a military unit as the "Tercios" in your ref. --Santos30 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• At every island Colon came to, as he boldly claims in his Journal, he went through an elaborate ceremony of taking "possession" of the land and planting the flag of Castile and Leon.

• It was certainly not the least dramatic moment in the history of early America when Balboa, in a frenzy of joy, seized the flag of Castile, and, holding it aloft, plunged his body into the waters of the ocean, claiming it for his King.

• Slashing with his sword, under the red flag of Castile and Leon, Hernan Cortes leads one of his firts attacks against mexican indians coastal.

• The monarchy in Castile took real jurisdictional authority over Mexico Tenochtitlan.

• The War flag with wich the conquistador Francisco Pizarro entered in the city of Cuzco. (see flag of Pizarro with coat armas of Castile)

• The flag of Castile was seen in the remotest latitudes, — on the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the far-off Indian seas, — passing from port to port.

--Santos30 (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If after placing several references to publications you are able to say that they are not publicacions but my ideas. If these references indicate the use at that time of the cross of Burgundy had nothing to do with the Carlists, you are able to say that It is clear that Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism, and if these same references indicate that its use dates since the sixteenth century you are able to say that a late military spaniard flag. If after explaining previously the placement of that military flag are not like the banner of the Spanish empire, but as the most representative and the most continuous used during a long historical period, which agrees with the warlike content of the article, and yet I tried to advance a solution , but you are able to repeat again and again the same old story, then I understand that this should be WP:DISRUPT and WP:GAME, which worsens with WP:CANVASS , and WP:EDITWARRING.

But I will debunk some misconceptions:

No one denies that the ultamarine possessions in America, Asia and Oceania, belonged to the Crown of Castile. But the Spanish empire were not only those overseas possessions, as it appears in the article: the European and Mediterranean territories had their role within the empire, did they belong these territories to the crown of Castile?

It did not exist the flag of the crown of Castile, it was the banner of the king, as king of Castile obviously, but throughout the centuries the king's banner varied with the kings, and they existed variants, complete and abbreviated. Since I know what causes this discussion I guess you've seen the sources of royal proósito standard in America in Spanish Misplaced Pages. The historical period of the article goes beyond the discovery and colonization of America, but still, the conquerors carried the royal standard:

• It carried the royal flag of Castile.
• unfurled with imposing ceremony the royal standard of Castile and Leon

However, although it is interesting that the American territories belonged to Castile, this article does not deal simply with America, but throughout the empire, and that includes other areas not subject to the crown of Castile, areas that had more important for the Spanish rulers than the entire American continent.

The fact is that over several centuries, if there is a symbol that appears and remained throughout the whole empire, not only in Indies, and that identifies the Spanish presence and power, it is a Spanish military emblem that shows the Cross of Burgundy as I referenced earlier, but I can add more:

• The Burgundian emblems thus came to be among those most prominently displayed by the Habsburgs of both Spain and Austria, and after the War of the Spanish Succession by the Bourbon kings of Spain.
• The Spanish Cross of Burgundy flag, a red St.Andrews cross on a white field, was the next flag to fly over Louisiana.
• The Spanish and Dutch vessels may be distinguished by their flags — the former bearing the cross of Burgundy, the St. Andrew's cross ' raguly,' the latter a flag with stripes of red, white and blue horizontally.

Trasamundo (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken Trasamundo. The Flag of Castile and León is for the Kingdom (territory), not for the king (person). Some of the King's blazon have a cross of Burgundy, but cross of Burgundy never appear in the flag of the Castile. Burgundy is a flag of military units, King's blazon or Carlism.

You put a several references to publications but any of this talk about a flag of Spanish empire. The last talk about vessels, Louisiana and a kings's blazon. But any of your references say nothing about a flag of Spanish Empire. And who say that "other areas had more important" -than Americas and Spanish East Indies-?, who? you?. Your other references in spanish do not demonstrate that you say in english (neither in spanish). Put a published source, not your ideas. Citation needed: burgundy was a flag of Spanish empire or something, clear. Or delete the flag of Carlism, Tercio or King's blazon.--Santos30 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The European and Mediterranean territories had their role within the empire, but the most important territory was Castile.

• Castile, by far the most important component of the Spanish Empire.

• the -flag- one displayed by the Carlists contained the X-shaped Cross of Burgundy.

There are not a published source about Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire.--Santos30 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion make me see that your map Trasamundo is wrong too: where are the kingdoms of Spain in your map?!.--Santos30 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If during the Ancien Régime existed a flag of the Kingdom of Castile as kingdom, in Misplaced Pages in Spanish they will be pleased to know those references, they will be also delighted to see how would be the so-called flag of the kingdom which is not mentioned in the laws of Indies. In wikipedia in Spanish wait several days with this same issue.

I would like to know where I have said that the banner with the cross of Burgundy is the flag of the Spanish empire. I would like to know where I have said that the cross of Burgundy was used in the royal arms as king of Castile. I said that is the cross of Burgundy is more representative and more used continuously, and it is entirely consistent to illustrate the content of the article to place in the template. The sources I have provided above show its importance, relevance and prominent use in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on land and at sea. In addition, the Tercios were dissolved in 1704, and the cross of Burgundy continued to be used later. Since the infobox country does not prevent putting an relevant banner in the absence of one official, the placement of the cross of Burgundy is justified by sources that accredit its relevance and validity, and for the use of the template.

Another response to a statement that I don't have done. I never said that Castilla was not important, I said that European areas that had more important for the Spanish rulers than the entire American continent, and it was thus effectively : Every war in Europe cast the Spanish Crown into desperate straits and forced it to resort to ever more counterproductive and hasty methods of collecting revenues. Moreover, Spain's lack of funds made her incapable of helping the colonies, especially the minor ones, so that all local emergencies had to be met out of local funds. In addition, in any history of Spain it can see the importance that Spanish policy gave European possessions instead of the American ones. Trasamundo (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Trasamundo you say "more representative", but citation needed. Can you put or not a published source about Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire, yes or not?.--Santos30 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Title:Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931–1939. You can see in the COVER the cross of Burgundy. I never see it in a COVER of a book of Spanish Empire.--Santos30 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No one denies that the cross of Burgundy was a Carlist symbol, but that has nothing to do with that the cross was also used by the Dukes of Burgundy, and it was commonly used in the Spanish Empire.

• The viceregal banner of Mexico that royalists flew was white with a red Burgundy cross. This was the flag of the Spanish Bourbon monarchs and was common to Spain's Latin American colonies
• Royal standard taken by the French at the capture of Cartagena de Indias in 1697. This elaborately flown on feast days and other formal occasions, the ordinary standard usually being white with the red ragged cross of Burgundy.
• Cross of Burgundy - 17th-century name for the Spanish flag, which had long featured a red raguly saltire cross on a white blackground, ever since the 1530 coronation of Spain's Hapsburg monarch Charles V as Holy Roman Emperor.
• The beautiful old flag of Burgundy -a red St Andrew's Saltire raguly- was the emblem of the Knights of the Golden Fleece, one of Europe's most illustrious orders of chivaldry. It is little known by modern Burgundians but in its day, because of dynastic links, this flag has also flown over Spain and its former dominions, including Belgium and Latin America.

To establish that due to being a symbol of the Carlist party, the cross of Burgundy could not be used in the Spanish empire is not an original research, it is an original invention. Trasamundo (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

After a long discussion about your original research of Burgundy flag you Trasamundo can not give a published source with citation for Spanish Empire. I give very clear citation and picture for Spanish Empire flag:

• The Spanish Empire flag. This is the royal standard of Carlos V which appeared at the head of every band of Spanish explorers, as Spain had no national flag at the time. The field is white and bears the arms of Castile and Leon, with the royal crown at the top of the shield and around it the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece. At a point near Mugu Lagoon, in Ventura County, on October 10, 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrilo raised the flag of the Spanish Empire and took possession of California for Spain.
• Spanish was brought to the new world by explorers who colonized the new territories under Spanish flag for Spanish Empire.

--Santos30 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I must be a joke to show this textbook for students of the subject of Spanish language as a historical source.

As for the journal of the military department of the State of California, I see on page 1: The Spanish National Ensign 1785-1822 which is the first mistake because that that is the national flag of Spain established by decree of Queen Elizabeth II the 13 October 1843. As for the alleged royal standard of Charles V first note that it doesn't say standard of the kingdom of Castile but royal standard, secondly it only indicates that it is for the explorers but the Spanish empire spans over the period of conquest of America. As for the mistakes of the alleged royal standard of Charles V: 1-the oval coat of arms were fashionable in the eighteenth century, 2-The banner is white, symbol of the French Bourbon dynasty imported to Spain by Philip V in the eighteenth century, and 3-surrounding the shield there is two collars, the exterior is that of the Order of the Golden Fleece, and the interior that of the Order of the Holy Spirit, this latter collar was worn by the Spanish sovereigns of the Bourbon dynasty. In conclusion, that alleged royal standard of Charles V belongs to the eighteenth century and not to Charles V which would have the Double-headed eagle. Unfortunately for you, everyone does not have your vexillologic knowledge to pass anything as true.

Whether you like it or not, whereas you only focus on explorers and conquerors, I have given more than enough evidence of continued use of the cross of burgundy throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth centuries against your invention of an exclusive Carlist symbol, I have quoted sources about its use on land and sea, I have demonstrated its use as ordinary and common and and it was used not only in the New World (as also it appears here the Spanish cross of Burgundy flag flew over Span's colonial empire in the New World) but it flown over Spain and its former dominions, including Belgium and Latin America. Trasamundo (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanish empire is not by any european title because The kings of Spain on 1556 lost the title of Emperor (Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor). But we have a clear evidence that flag of Castile-Leon is the spanish flag of Age of Discovery, the flag of Spanish empire from Americas to Philipinas. All the flags of spanish conquerors and explorers have the same simbol of the kingdom Castile-Leon alone, a simbol of the Kings of Spain that could be alone in their flags. Furthermore, the simbol of Castile-Leon alone is the first national spanish flag.

• Americas and Spanish East Indies was incorpored to the Crown of Castile, the most importan kingdom of Spanish Empire. Empires Of The Atlantic World, JH elliot, pp120

For the contrary, there are not any evidence to use the cross of burgundy alone for Spanish Empire. Cross of Burgundy is a militar blazon to add for the flags of spanish military units or the flags of the kings. But this flags have others simbols: personal (as Austrias, Bourbons), or cities (as Castile, Aragon), armies, etc. It is rare the cross of Burgundy alone in Spanish flags. Cross of Burgundy alone is a simbol of Carlism, and a simbol in Francoist Spain, and, very important, a simbol of Nazi people of (SS organization).

We can not use military or fascist simbol (cross burgundy alone) as a flag for Spanish empire. You Trasamundo, along this discussion can not give a published source with citation for Spanish empire. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, but I think it is better the simbol of Castile-Leon, because it was: the main Kingdom of Spain, the kingdoms of Americas and Asia, and the first national flag of Spain.

I propose Misplaced Pages:Third opinion.--Santos30 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trasamundo your map is wrong too: your map does not show the kingdoms of Spain.--Santos30 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the mean flag in Christopher Columbus' expedition was white with a green cross and the letters "F (ernando)" and Y(sabel)": "The Admiral got out the royal flag, and the captains the two flags of the Green Cross, that the Admiral had hoisted in all the ships as a sign with an 'F' (Ferdinand) and a 'Y' (Ysabel). At the top of each letter was its crown, one on one head of the †, and the other on the other". . You can see this flag over here: "Bandera Capitana del Almirante de Castilla (1492)".

First that all, we must remember that the current concept of flag was developed until the late eighteenth century. Anyway:

1) "A very popular Spanish flag (Fig. 3), reflecting the claim of the kings of Spain to the Duchy of Burgundy, was the raguly saltire known as the cross of Burgundy, red on a white field. This flag, with or without the arms of the Spanish Empire in the..."

2) The banner with red Burgundy cross was a familiar sight during the last century of Spanish rule in Latin America. On each arm is the crest of Fernand and Isabella.

3) The south wall of Castillo San Marcos, with the San Agustin bastion to the rear featuring the pre-1785 Spanish flag, the red ragged cross of Burgundy on a white field.

4) The fort had not yet been captured as Spain's white flag with the red ragged cross of Burgundy is flying over it.

5) ..."the ordinary standard usually being white with the red ragged cross of Burgundy".

Template:Quote2col

I agree with Trasamundo, Cross of Burgundy was very popular throughout the centuries to identify the Spanish Empire. By the way, I do not know any use of the Cross of Burgundy flag by the Nazis. Why did you say that? Jaontiveros (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here you are the Nazi SS.
• Title:Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931–1939. It is a flag of Francoist Spain.
• Flags of the World (ed.):The Burgundy cross,... used by Spain, especially at sea, for many years. In much more recent times, it was used by the Carlists (Requetés) during the Spanish Civil War and afterwards, and by the Traditionalist Party (Partido Tradicionalista) during the post-Franco years.

I propose again Misplaced Pages:Third opinion--Santos30 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

By defintion in the introduction: The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español) comprised territories and colonies administered by Spain in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. It originated during the Age of Exploration and was one of the first global empires. Then, Spanish empire is not the Naval, Army, or fortification or any military unit of Spain. Again and again, the "Spanish empire" needs a flag, and by definition it is the territories and colonies (those include the kingdoms of Spain missing in Trasamundo's map). Spanish empire is not the idea of Trasamundo: "Spanish power against their opponents" (with the military flag of cross of burgundy). --Santos30 (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it happens. And so? Have you ever read The Da Vinci Code or the historical and modern uses of the Cross of Burgundy flag? You can take a look to the Flag of Alabama → (...Furthermore, Alabama's legislation describes its red saltire as St. Andrew's cross...the saltire of the Alabama's flag most closely resembles the saltire of the flag of Florida, which has its heritage in the Spanish Cross of Burgundy...) or to the Flag of Florida → (...the Burgundian saltire was used in Florida to represent collective Spanish sovereignty between 1513 and 1821...).

"The saltire design, known as the Cross of Burgundy, was a symbol of Philip I, Duke of Burgundy and father of Charles I, who became Spain's king in 1516. Variants of the Burgundy cross flag- including some versions with smooth-edged saltires- became widely used by the Spanish military on both land and sea. This is the principal flag that flew over Spain's colonial empire in the New World until 1785".

"Cross of Burgundy Flag is the principal flag that flew over Spain's colonial empire in the New World until 1785, when a new flag was adopted (the red-yellow flag)" .

"In Puerto Rico, the “Regimiento Fijo,” the local infantry regiment that saw action during the British invasion of Puerto Rico in 1798, the Franco-Spanish war of 1809 and the war of 1812 in Louisiana, flew this flag. The regiment was disbanded in 1815 by King Fernando VII. The flag is still flown at San Felipe del Morro and San Cristóbal Castles in San Juan as a tribute to this regiment".

The cross of Burgundy was the first real symbol that was adopted to represent Spain in the 15th century. Although foreign to the people at that time the Cross was to become the symbol of the Spanish in the years to come. It was Philip the Handsome and his wife that got the Cross of Burgundy into notice by adopting it as the national symbol of Spain. The design of the flag features red roughly pruned knotted branches that are crossed. These are situated on top of a white background and seek to represent the crucifixion of Saint Andrew. There was a time period when the Coat of Burgundy became the secondary flag for Spain as the coat of arms one was taken as the national identity. It was brought back into action by the Carlists...The cross of Burgundy also appeared as the symbol of Spain on the international plain. Not only was it used as the symbol of Spain during wars and expeditions it was also the symbol of the country during its years of colonization of the Americas...The colonial period for Spain also saw the use of the Cross of Burgundy as it was taken as the flag of the viceroyalties of the new world. The nations that had once become part of the Spanish Empire due to the colonization expeditions of Spain now consider the Cross of Burgundy flag to be part of their historical heritage.

"..imported to Spain by the House of Austria and abundantly used in the flagship of Charles I and later Spanish kings this cross became the symbol typical Spanish military and was forced emblem on the flags of military use until the fall of the monarchy in 1931... military use dates back to Austria, linked to the House of Burgundy, becoming the significant symbol of the Hispanic tradition...Today, as a support, is incorporated into the personal weapons of Juan Carlos I of Spain. Jaontiveros (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not added anything new. There are better examples of the flag of Castile-Leon over north America.

• Flag of Castile-leon in the history of the flag of US.
• Flag of Castile-leon in the history of the flag of Luisiana.
• Flag of Castile-leon in the history of the flag of Texas.

Answering your question ("Well, it happens. And so?"): the cross of Burgundy is an element carried to Spain after the discovery and conquest of America. Philip the Handsome carried to Spain the cross of burgundy with the flag of his guard. Then you are mistaken, cross of burgundy is one element of spanish flags and coat of arms, accessory, because the spanish flags have a lot of elements. In your example, the cross is one element of the Coat of arms of the King of Spain (accessory), but the flags and coat of arms have a lot of elements! (the main is the four quarters with the first is CASTILE, the most important element blazoned). Never I see the cross of burgundy (alone) as simbol of the Kings of Spain, and never in the military units of Spain (cross alone). Never alone. The cross of burgundy (alone) never was a flag of Spanish empire. Any published source has said. But the books show that the red cross of Burgundy over a white flag is a simbol of Carlism or fascist Requetés on Francoist Spain.

For the contrary, the element of Castile-Leon (alone) was a simbol of the main Kingdom of Spain and ultramar kingdoms and colonies of Spanish empire, and the first national flag of Spain, and the main element in the present (Kingdom of Castile in the first quarter).--Santos30 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"After the discovery and conquest of America"? Sorry, but you are wrong: Philp the Handsome died at 1506 and his son Carlos I used the Cross of Burgundy, then...Hernán Cortés conquered Tenochtitlan in 1519, Alvarado began the conquest of Guatemala in 1524, Pizarro conquered the Inca Empire in 1532, Valdivia conquered Chile in 1541, and Montejo conquered Yucatán in 1546. The Spanish Empire was consolidated in the 16th century.

"Never in military units of Spain (cross alone)"? Well, it depends...each battalion could identify their own flag but always with the cross of Burgundy as a basic element: "Royal Ordinance 1707: "It is my will that every body bring the flag with the white Colonel Cross of Burgundy, in the style of my troops, I sent add two castles and two lions ..."; "Royal Ordinance 1728: In each battalion of our troops will have three flags ... the Colonel will be white with the coat of our royal arms and the other white with the cross of Burgundy, and in some and others may be put on the tips of the corners weapons kingdoms and provinces where they have the name, or particular currencies would have had or used by old ..." . So, in New Spain, the flag of the Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de México had a Cross or Burgundy as main element . Same thing with the Flag of Valdivia (Chile), or Chuquisaca Department (Bolivia), the First Board of Governors in Quito (Perú), etc. You can take a look to several options with the Cross of Burgundy but without lions and castles over here or here.

I told you before: "the current concept of flag was developed until the late eighteenth century", so, the Flag of Spain (roja y gualda/red and yellow) that identifies the country was official up to October 13, 1843, when the Spanish Empire was almost broken. Jaontiveros (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross of Burgundy Flag at the Museo Nacional de Historia in Mexico City (used during the Viceroyalty of New Spain). Cross of Burgundy Flag of the Regiment of Patricians (Argentina) following the Royal Ordinances . Jaontiveros (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions Jaontiveros and I am glad because in this case we agree. As it has been said by Jaontiveros and myself the first national flag of Spain was established in 1843.

The only thing that supports the use of quartering of castles and lions is simply a particular belief based on a simple deduction: as the new world was included to the Crown of Castile then the flag of the Spanish empire is the kingdom of Castile.

• Based on this deduction the kingdom of Navarre, which belonged to the Crown of Castile would have been the quartering of castles and lions.

• The laws of Indies do not refer to speak about either the quartering of castles and lions or the flag of Castile-Leon but the royal standard.

• The fact that the Crown of Castile was the main one, was due to its political, military and economic weight. But the using this argument of own convenience to apply it to the coat of arms and arbitrarily to select an item from the shield (but the flags and coat of arms have a lot of elements! (the main is the four quarters with the first is CASTILE, the most important element blazoned) is simply comical.

• But that doesn't deny that quartering of castles and lions was used as shortened royal arms. Following this request in commons I discern that Santos30 had made a ​​personal deduction the establishs the quartering of castles and lions of the Charles II's royal banner of Medina del Campo is valid for all, (For the contrary, the element of Castile-Leon (alone) was a simbol of the main Kingdom of Spain and ultramar kingdoms and colonies of Spanish empire) without considering that there was a variety of royal standards, without going too far the forementioned king Charles II's royal standard of Cartagena de Indias bears the whole armorial .

• In Misplaced Pages in Spanish are waiting for being amazing with those sources which show that symbols of medieval crown of Castile spread for ever and ever in Spanish America, without regard to the specific use the royal standard by conquerors merely. It's simple indicate the specific use of the quartering of castles and lions at this point and to deduct for convenience an use indefinitely.

Beyond the use in particular times and places from a variety of royal emblems, after all the Spanish empire also included European domains not inclued in the crown of Castile, which were the center of Spanish politics for two centuries as it is dealed with extensively in the article, while was left to his fate the defense of the American territories, as I quoted above.

While all that is shown is a hodgepodge of deductions about the quartering of castles and lions, Jaontiveros and myself have shown the relevance of the cross of burgundy that fully justify their inclusion and permanence in the infobox. The infobox country does not require that be included official emblems. Taking as an example the article France, there it appears an unofficial emblem as a substitute of the coat of arms. There is no official emblem for the country or the Republic of France, but the emblem that appears in the article is to identify France with respect to other nations, and this is equivalent to the cross of Burgundy and the Spanish empire. And since the Spanish empire as such, was not a official entity with more reason there isn't any obligation to employ an official emblem, but one emblem that had significance for its identificative use. Despite taking an symbol to represent and identify the French Republic without being official, in the article of France has not been any kind of discussion about it. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, does not rule here because the only doubt is a hodgepodge of beliefs and personal deductions. Trasamundo (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: This addition is a patch that breaks the sense of what is being read in that paragraph and the next paragraph. That reference and the information is already included within the article. The article should have an encyclopedic writing and this criterion is above of placing in the lead section an forced adding to justify the claim of putting a Castilian flag in the infobox. Trasamundo (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Trasamundo the doubt is because there are not any published source for use the carlist flag in Spanish Empire.

Facts:

• No historic flag of Spanish Empire exist. Never any reference has said that "Red Cross burgundy+white flag" was a flag of Spanish empire.
• Cross of burgundy in red, shows as element alone, in a white flag is a symbol of Carlism or fascist Requetés.
• The references shows that Cross of burgundy is one element, only one element, of military flags and Kings coat of arms of Spain. But there are a lot of elements blazoned in those flags. Cross of burgundy, regulated on 1700, never never shows as one element red alone with white flag as Fascist flag.
• Castile and Lion is a symbol of the main kingdom of Spain and ultramar kingdoms and colonies of America and Asia in the Spanish empire. Castile and Lion is the first national flag of Spain (1785), Castile and Lion is the main element of Coat of arms of Spain today in the present (kingdom of Castile in the first quarter -and not any cross of burgundy-).

Jaontiveros, not only the main territories, the most important events and personalities of Spanish Empire was under flags of Castile-Lion: Christopher Columbus, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, Ferdinand Magellan, Miguel López de Legazpi. The Spanish Armada fight under the flags of Castile-Lion on 1588 in Europe. .

No reason to put a flag of Carlism or Francoist Spain (Red cross burgundy in a white flag) in this article. Cross of Burgundy element must to be with other elements to be a historic flag. Other color for the flag and other elements (the main element of Spain is Castile-Lion). --Santos30 (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose again Misplaced Pages:Third opinion for this problems:

• Flag of Carlism (white flag with one element of cross of burgundy alone)
• Wrong map without kingdoms of Spain (Castile-Lion, Aragon).

--Santos30 (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There are other options to put cross of Burgundy without fascist flag:

--Santos30 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We have already said, not one, but several times that the present idea of ​​a flag, in order to represent a State, began in the late eighteenth century. The first flags to represent a country were the United States and France flags. Of course, during the Spanish Empire ¿1492-1898? there were many coats of arms, blazons, naval ensigns (pabellón naval), infantry flags, militia flags, Tercios division flags (Spanish troops), etc. The puropose of this discussion is to define the most representative, the most used or the most popular one (from 1492 until 1898). I have already shown some references that mention the Cross of Burgundy (St. Andrews' cross or saltires) like a widely used flag by Spanish armies around the world in the navy, infantry, forts, Tercios division, militia, and even used for very important people at the viceroyalties., , p.23

Well, it seems that you are very worried about the Carlism and Fascism. That persistent argument is irrelevant, let's see in this way: the pentacle is a symbol used by Satanists or Neopagans, so what? pentacle was a Christian symbol too, medieval Chrsitians believed that symbolizes the five wounds of Christ. Even more, 4000 years before Christ this symbol had been used as a cult of nature (the planet Venus traces a perfect pentacle on its ecliptic every eight years). Similar story with the swastika, you don't need to go so far, just read the article at Misplaced Pages.

You showed this reference about Nazis Unit using the Cross of Burgundy, well if you read the page 5 you will find the reason. Carlists used the Cross of Burgundy like an emblem of the monarchist cause p.31, but that doesn't change that the Cross of Burgundy or St. Andrew was widely used during the Spanish Empire .

Before the Habsburg, 35 families in Castile and 32 families in Navarre used the Cross of Burgundy in theirs coats since the Middle Age p.23, later on Philp the Handsome, Carlos I and many kings more.

I presume at this point, you have already read in many books that the Cross of Burgundy flag was first used by the soldiers in the battle of Pavía (1525) . By the way, Hernán Cortés used this banner , remember they were religious men , on the other hand the Spanish Navy used the Cross of Burgundy flag by several years .

The Cross of Burgundy respresents the ancient royal family in the present Coat of arms of the King of Spain. Is a symbol of the ancestors of the king, the Catholic monarchs of Spain. Today, you can find the Cross of Burgundy in the Spanish Air Force, like a fin flash in the tail of the airplanes or in the coat of arms of some brigades , .

Are they fascists? of course not, you really must read this link, is something very well known . Jaontiveros (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, Jaontiveros you are mistaken. The coat of army of king Juan Carlos I of Spain was decided by Francisco Franco on 1971. It have the cross of burgundy (symbol of Carlism) and the yoke and arrows (symbol of Falange) as symbols of "Movimiento Nacional" here here, here, here.

• Jaontiveros beautiful picture of the flag of Hernán Cortés. Thank you very much!. This is one side of the flag, the other is the coat of armas of Castile-Lion you can read here

• To rescue the symbol of burgundy, you must to avoid the white flag (flag of carlism). Alternative 1-symbol cross of burgundy without flag (3 options in gallery), 2-another option is the first flag of Spain 1785 (British Empire uses a flag of 1801).

--Santos30 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that this discussion does not lead anywhere, I am going to clarify the matter:

Although at no time it hs been said that the flag of the cross of Burgundy is the flag of the Spanish empire, simply that it was the most representative and identificative of the Spanish Empire, however, Santos30 couldn't care less what it has been said, and he continues to put words into someone else's mouth.

It has been demonstrated its character as a Spanish symbol as in . It has been demonstrated its use both during the time of the Hapsburg and the Bourbon as most prominently, common, ordinary standard. Also its use over the Spanish former dominions. Therefore has been proved its relevance for the article of the Spanish Empire. This relevance is recognized today, so the historian Juan Miguel Zunzunegui writes in his historical novel: un estandarte de la cruz de Borgoña, escudo del imperio español

Despite the references mainly contributed by Jaontiveros which show that the Cross of Burgundy could show alone. had long featured a red raguly saltire cross on a white blackground, Santos30 couldn't care less and he'll say that it had to have something else, but coming from someone that approved a flag of the eighteenth century as the standard of Charles V or says that the first national flag of Spain dates since 1785 when at that time only changed the naval flag... and of course it was a Carlist symbol.

Santos30 by no means has demonstrated that the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period extended for ever and ever. Santos30 creates an original research through of the deduction that if the overseas territory were included in the crown of Castile is able to extend the symbols simply on the basis that the explorers and conquerors used a standard of the kingdom, and from there it invents its use for centuries, but the Spanish empire was not only the discovery and conquest, mantaining a belief that the symbols used in this period could be kept for ever and ever at any time and place is a naive but invalid deduction; but also, whereas it has been demonstrated the use of the cross of Burgundy for centuries, Santos30 has not demonstrated anything about the quartering of castles and lions, not as abbreviated armoirial of the king, but as standard the kingdom that was used in America, in spite of the laws of the Indies did not mention it and the only mentioned is the royal standard. And secondly it also fails because the explorers and conquerors only used the royal standard, as Balboa, MagellanCortésColumbus... Even the reference shown by Santos30 to evidence the flag of Castille and Leon by Spanish Armada only mentions the royal standard , and also Se hizo por entonces para el Parlamento un juego de tapices que representaba varios episodios de la armada: John Pine los reprodujo en grabado y en muchos galeones españoles se ve la bandera blanca con la cruz de Borgoña. I suppose that Santos30 must have a real mess to understand that it was the royal standard. I said above that but throughout the centuries the king's banner varied with the kings, and they existed variants, complete and abbreviated, and relating to this an user have expressed the same concern on his talk page

I know that santos30 will say I'm wrong, and although he still has not demonstrated the use the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period throughout the centuries, not as abbreviated arms of the king, but as standard the kingdom, Santos30 takes it for granted, verifiability must be something that Santos30 requires for others but not for himself. But fact that los reinos de Indias se incorporan a la corona, no al reino de Castilla nullifies completely the invented claim of Santos30 to extend automatically that standard of kingdom wherever.

Yet despite the political weight of the Crown of Castile, the article is not called Castilian empire, but Spanish empire, simply because it covers a space larger than the crown of Castile. If the Crown of Castile had more weight does not mean that historical events that occurred in the Spanish empire was spread by many different contexts, even with bigger political interest for ruling authorities, and outside the geographical area of ​​the crown of Castile, but not the Spanish empire.

During a historical period of several centuries there was a representative emblem along the same, which was the cross of Burgundy as has been mentioned by Jaontiveros and myself, and certainly the infobox does not prevent to place it as an representative emblem. There was the administrative entity of the Spanish empire, so it is not able to draw at all costs an official flag of an entity that was not official. The emblem of the cross of Burgundy can be used by its representative and identificative character, in the same way as the French national emblem is not the official emblem of the country but it is used as such. The military nature of the cross of Burgundy symbol is perfectly feasible for the infobox not due to be military but for being representative, and indeed the Roman aquila appears in the infobox of the article Roman Empire and it is a military symbol of the Roman legions.

Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page. Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?. Trasamundo (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

--Santos30 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• A) Coat of arms of king Juan Carlos I: Apparently the Royal House says otherwise: "Take the shield accolade Burgundy Red Cross, the symbol of Burgundian and Habsburg ancestors". Anyway, the Royal Decree published in the BOE (Official Gazette) on July 1th, 1977 makes no mention of "nationalist movement" or something else; , and I guess you'll agree that a Royal Decree represents the will of the king. That´s is and that´s all about the present royal coat.
• B) "...you must to avoid the white flag...": Just because you do not want it?, I do not think so:
  

1) King Felipe V, Royal decree of February 28, 1707: "It is my will that every body brings the flag Colonel white, with the cross of Burgundy, in the style of my troops".

2) Tercios: "The most commonly used by Tercios of Spanish infantry during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the white color that represented the real power, with the blades of the St. Andrew's cross or red Burgundy, which first flew in the Battle of Pavia.

3) History of Puerto Rico: "The white flag with the cross of Burgundy, was adopted in Spain, by decree of Philip V, on February 28, 1707".

4) Cuba: "They sail along the coast of west toward Grosse Point Bois .... always following the boat hoisted at its top, the flag with the cross of Burgundy".

5) Italian wars: The first one had his troops in the war of Italia, it was just white with red Burgundy Cross, followed by another white in the upper third, near the pole, coat of arms is quartered Flags ..... Archduke of Austria who called himself Carlos III. White with Cross of Burgundy, in the center, inside an oval...

6) General History of the Philippines: "...one more than the others and with a white flag with the Cross of Burgundy..."

7) Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata: "The white flag with the cross of Burgundy and the coat of Buenos Aires, with white and blue in each tip the same" ....

8) King Fernando VI, Royal Decree 1748 (about Navy): "This flag, which is distinctive of the Ships of the Navy, may not use the owners, but the white with Cross of Burgundy.

9) History of Navarra: "Furthermore, a decree of Ferdinand VI, dated Seville, January 20, 1732, further practical use of the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy".

10)Viceroyalty of New Spain: "This was the famous Red Blade or Cross of St. Andrew of Burgundy, who was and remained well-known emblem of the Spanish troops for centuries". "It was also used in New Spain a flag with the cross of St. Andrew, red and yellow on white field".

11) The Surrender of Breda: "... refers to Spain, and more particularly to the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy knotted in the form of a red blades of San Andrew, a sign of the house of Burgundy, under which fought the thirds of Flanders..."

12) Cataluña: "Catalan merchant vessels during the reigns of the House of Austria and Bourbon until 1785, hoisted the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy, but the creation of the national flag by King Carlos III, they changed...

13) Hidalguía: "...The old white flag with the Cross of St. Andrew or blades of Burgundy of our invincible Tercios and the conquest of the Indies, had also lost..." .

• C) Why are you asking for a third opinion if you are changing right now the flags in several articles? → I really do not understand this behavior. Jaontiveros (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Im not see your last points:
• Americas was incorpored to Crown of Castile and whats your problem there?. You can open a new discussion there.
• The spanish military white flag (year 1705) have the king's coat of arms. It is not the same that the flag of Carlism. But what I dont understand is why you never ask nothing about the first flag of Spain (year 1785), and persist insisting in the flag of Carlism. Why?. The British empire have the first flag of britain (year 1801).

We can put spanish symbol of cross of Burgundy here in Spanish empire (Trasamundo consensus), maybe better with the first spanish flag 1785 to avoidance any doubt, but not the white flag of carlism or other Fascist or Nazi symbols. Sorry no.--Santos30 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuation

Some points to make:

• The Cross of Burgundy (CoB) flag was widely used in the Spanish viceroyalties in the Americas. The sources provided by Santos at no point dismiss the usage of the CoB flag in the Americas. Several flags were used by the Spanish armies, institutions, and colonists.
• During the Wars of Independence (in the Americas), the royalist forces carried the CoB flag into combat.
• The argument made by Santos regarding the usage of the CoB flag in the cover of a book (and how that supposedly demonstrates it is solely a Carlist flag) is completely absurd.
• Here is a good source on the subject: (Translated from Spanish) "The red and white were, during several centuries, the distinctive colors of the Castilian Kingdom. Even though the Spanish banner adopted yellow and red as its official colors in 1785, during the reign of Charles III, these did not impose themselves into Spanish military units (which at the time of emancipation continued to use the old banners of Castile) definitively until the late 19th century." Page 28
• See also: "The Cross of Burgundy was the main Spanish symbol probably since the 11th century when Queen Doña Urraca married with Raimundo of Burgundy, from which all Spanish monarchs descended, until the catholic kings of the 15th century; again again starting in the 17th century with the marriage of Doña Juana with Felipe, Archduke of Austria, grandson of Charles el Temerario." (Page 29 from above source).

My position is that the Cross of Burgundy flag (the rectangled one) should be brought back into the articles from which they were removed by Santos. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 04:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not you but, could be latinamerican people here in WP who support the cross of burgundy red-white in the viceroyalty only to delete de red-yellow national flag of Spain that is similar today. The cross flags reverted because ¡no have the coat of arms of the king with the white flag!. It isnt flags of Spain. It could be modern flags to recreate (not historic) flags of fortifications as Puerto Rico, or worst modern flags of Carlism, or fascist symbol of "orgullo Criollo". The cross of Burgundy needs spanish coat of arms to be historical as you can see in the regulations of the spanish flags.

• Page 15 Your reference (Tertiary source of Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) say: "Francia, al igual que España o Inglaterra,había tenido banderas y escudos anteriores, dependiendo de lacasa real que la gobernaba, pero estas no representaban a todaFrancia y a todos los franceses, más bien eran las insignias desus monarcas.". Then no flag represent any nation state before French or American Revolutions.
• [Page 28 Your reference say "El rojo y blanco en la tradición Castellana" and talk about the colors of the ¡republican flag of Peru!. But not talk about cross of burgundy it self. It talk about the ¡red and white colors! of San Martin's flag and the cross of Burgundy, or crown of Castila, or the red symbols of Inca, ever in relation to try to explain the colors of the Flag of republic of Perú put by liberator Jose de San Martin, but ¡No body knows! it is a theory.
• We know that the red cross of Burgundy (with king coat of arms) was and ensign of Armed forces of spanish empire. And after 1700 the cross and kings arms was under a white flag (Bourbon) and uniformised all Armed Forces, as Bourbons uniformised all Spanish Empire.
• We know that the Crown of Castile have heraldyc red (Castile) and white (León) in their coat of Arms.
• We know that all Americas was provinces of the Crown of Castile.

Then, outside battles or military or war articles or modern uses, there are no reason to put a war cross of Armed Forces of Spanish empire over the civil administrations of the crown of Castile. The war cross of Burgundy will be in the battles and armies or fortifications of Spain. But not Viceroyalties or any civil administrative territories in Americas. This is the reason why I revert your edition in Spanish American wars of independence but it is possible to put flag of Burgundy in Armed Forces of Spain. See.

--Santos30 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) See diferences:

--Santos30 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, "Orgullo Criollo" is not a Latin American movement, but rather a problem solely concerning Mexico. Neo-nazis in Peru, for instance, use the swastika flag of Nazi Germany.

The articles of the viceroyalties, such as Viceroyalty of New Spain, have a section for the flag (without the coat of arms) and another for the coat of arms.

As can be seen in the Kingdom of France article, France also did not have a national flag. However, that does not mean the article has to remove its flags (or present the French tricolor as an "at the end" flag). All that is needed, in the French Kingdom's case, is an explanation at the bottom that the flag is the King's Standard.

Just because you write "Carlism" at the end of your flag descriptions, it does not make it a reality. The Cross of Burgundy was not solely a Carlist symbol, just as it is not solely a fascist symbol.

Page 29 from the source I provided is quite clear on its mention of the Cross of Burgundy flag.

No official flag existed for the viceroyalties. The reason I used the Cross of Burgundy in the Spanish American wars of independence articles is because that was the war flag used by the viceroyalties. I also think that this flag should go back on the articles of the Viceroyalty of Peru and Viceroyalty of New Spain (as well as the Captaincy General of Chile; which was a military administration more than a civilian's administration), as the Cross of Burgundy flag was the historically most used by these places throughout their history.

You have asked for several "third opinions", and all of them have been favorable towards the return of the Cross of Burgundy flag to the articles from where they were removed. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to delete all the flags red-yellow of Spain in relation of Peruvian history maybe you have a problem that we can not solve here.

Third opinion for the article of Spanish Empire yes, and thank you, but you came late because already we have a consensus to put the military red cross of Burgundy here. Without the modern white flag. We know that cross of Burgundy was a military symbol of Armed Forces of Spain. In the Spanish American Wars of Independence, to arrive a consensus with you, I added the military cross of Burgundy of the Royal Army of Peru. . But about Viceroyalty of Perú, as I tell you in your discussion, Viceroyalty is not an armed forces organization, it is a civilian administration of the Crown of Castile, then the symbol must be the coat of arms and at the end the flag of Spain Cesáreo Fernández Duro read here. About the traditions of the origin of the colors red-white of the flag of Perú it is irrelevant for Spanish empire or Viceroyalty of Perú or any other spanish dominion.--Santos30 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the use of the square Cross of Burgundy (CoB) flag on military conflict infoboxes? Chiton (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree in all military uses of course.--Santos30 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Map without kingdoms of Spanish Empire

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

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

There are ways of saying things: It is not the same to say that the map could provide more information if certain information will be added, than to say that the map is wrong, biased, and accuse me that I am applying a nationalist bias , evildoers always think the worst of others. In the first case would look at how could I insert the information; but with this rude manners that show your bad faith and incivility, what I am going to do is to wait for other opinions about its importance, and after that, if I have time and desire, maybe I do it if someone with politeness ask for it. Trasamundo (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I can do the kingdoms in your map, and put this information about the crown of Castile and their territories of Spain, Americas and Phillipines in the article. But I hope no other Misplaced Pages:Edit warring.--Santos30 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several ways to add information, and the changes in the map has three fatal flaws:

• It breaks the sense of the map. The sense of the map is to try to show the history of the Spanish Empire diachronically but at various epochs, that is to say, the different extensions of the Spanish empire in several significant years. There were several complaints against depicting several colors and if that wasn't bad enough to add another color without agreeing with this historical criterion with which it was done and approved the map, is not a valid way.

• Spain has disappeared. It is necessary to think that any student or person interested in the topic could need this information.

• The depiction of the modification is terrible, it is intuitive and lack of accuracy. If the rest of the map has been a rigor to give accuracy to the information shown; in this case, with this addition, there can be no exception.

Since the added breaks the historical sense of the agreed map, and since the amendment is not rigorous, then the addition is not valid.

There are other less aggressive and more aesthetic ways to present and add information, with a more rigorous depiction, and respecting previous criteria. But I cannot be in the "here and now". Please be patient.

Besides all this, This map infringes the commons license, if it is not corrected, then I will ask its deletion. Trasamundo (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes your map was a lot and long disputed but it was for other reasons.

In your map modified by me Spain is not dissapier it have two colors.

No problem to wait. But the new map will have:

• A clear difference in iberian peninsula between crown of Castile and crown of Aragon.
• A clear difference between extra-peninsular possesions of crown of Castile and extra-peninsular possesions of crown of Aragon.

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

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

Take your time, but your current map is POV because:

• Spain is a national state, not equal to the unified kingdoms of Hispanic Monarchy before the first constitution of Spain.
• On year 1493 Papal bull Inter caetera gives the Americas to Catholic monarchs and their heirs of crown of castile, excluding the crown of Aragon.

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

The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Misplaced Pages in Spanish due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Misplaced Pages in Spanish, arrives to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.

• The map is not either a platform to support the sockpuppet's POV or a platform to support philosophical disquisitions. The map simply depicts territories along different periods, and provides barely additional information on specific epochs.

• The Constitution of 1812 and the work of the Cortes of Cadiz was nullified in 1814.

• So much is the desire of the sockpuppet Santos30 to impose their POV that is able to ignore the source that he provided precisely indicates that Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile in 1519. The bull Inter caetera provided no specific territories but merely a claim over hypothetical territories to the kings not to the Crown.

• The article Spanish empire is not a platform to dicuss about the notion of Spain and I will not go into that issue. This compulsive obsession to eliminate the term Spain was discussed earlier and was rejected for contravening the policy in Misplaced Pages in English here and here, and that user effectively acknowledged such behaviour contravened the policy of wikipedia

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

Nahhh. Your problem is your obssesion with "Spain", and your obssesion to give the older tradition as a Country, better if it is pre-historic, as other nationalistic spaniards in Wp-Es that say that no body in Misplaced Pages-En knows more than he. But this is not the place to discuss about the problems of Misplaced Pages-ES.

The question is since the discovery of America (1492) all the territories were granted to the crown of Castile and León by Papal bull Inter caetera (1493). Castile was incorporated into the development of Spain in the Iberian peninsula during Spanish empire. But the new Spanish state emerged from Peninsular War was rejected by Latin American countries that made ​​a retroversion of the sovereignty to the People of Americas from the heirs of the kings of Castile (not the modern Spain).

Then you delete all of this important information, no matter the lose of information for all Americas, because your obssesions with Spain as more older and unified country of the world, that ever exist along the pre-history to the present.

• The map no need a eternal spain (nationalistic). The map need explain the relation between Americas and kingdoms of Iberian Peninsula.

• The Constitution of 1812 was nullified in 1814. And restored 1820. Maybe you forget that Absolutism and Carlism was defetead.

• The bull Inter caetera of 1493 provided territories discovered and hypothetical territories to the Catholic kings and to the heirs of Crown of Castile (¡Excluding the heirs of Crown of Aragon!). The decree of Charles V in 1519 "spelt out" (cited required here) the Papal bull of 1493 but no change nothing.

• The article Spanish empire is not a platform to dicuss about the notion of Spain. OK. Do not make YOU on that.

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

The map sbasically depicts the territorial extension of the Spanish empire through the centuries. What you need to support your claims is not a problem for readers of wikipedia.

The Constitution of 1812 was in force 1812-1814, 1820-1823, 1836-1837. And the wars of American independence took place during constitutional and absolutist periods.

The bull inter caetera did not grant America or Asia to anyone, simply territories to be discovered, so it cannot be placed to justify a map that depicts determinate territories, because that is Original research. The bull Inter caetera did not grant anything to the Crown of Castille but the kings of Castile, so that when queen Isabella of Castile died, her husband Ferndinand II of Aragon remained as lord of his part of the Indies as King of Aragon until his death in 1516. And in 1519 Charles I incorporated the Indies to the Crown of Castile. If not even you respect your own sources... Trasamundo (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your map bassically is POV with eternal Spain. The map needs explain the Spanish empire. I give you a solution with your map.

• American independence start with the beginning of liberal modern Spain. Not later. The internal periods of the modern Spain is irrelevant for Americas.

• No!, because Americas (and cited required say): "United with, and incorpored into, the crown of Castile and León". And, No! when Isabella died Fernando can only transmite Americas to heirs of the crown of Castile Joanna of Castile (and his son Charles V), Fernando cannot transfers to his own descendance.

Trasamundo what part of "The Catholic kings (Isabel and Fernando) and to the heirs of Crown of Castile" you can not understand?. Article must explain the relations between Americas incorporated to the Crown of Castile as a part of Spanish empire. But your nationalistic obssesion with eternal Spain explain that you made a POV map, without iberian kingdoms, and delete all important information about this issue of America.

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

As any map in wikipedia about the expanse of empires, its aim is to depict the territorial expansion, not to serve of agreeing with your claims to illustrate a point.

In the same source that you you've provided Someone can see on pages 22-23-24 that the Indies were incorporated to the patrimony of the kings of Castile not to the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon, and in addition to that king Ferdinand of Aragon remained lord of his part of the Indies as shared possessions after the death of Isabella. Certainly every time you intervene, you show yourself up. Sockpuppet Santos30, don't you know the difference between the person of the king of the institution of the Crown? Trasamundo (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Im not talk about illustrate a point. Your map with eternal Spain is Original Research and broke Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.
• Yes I know the difference (and you?) because Crown of Castile it is not a nation state as modern Kingdom of Spain, that begin after Liberalism, and we talk about Monarchy. When the persons of the kings died (Isabel and Fernando) the Americas goes to their heirs of Castile and Leon (Not Spain). As The Cambridge History of Latin America, cited say : "not in the kings of Spain but in the kings of Castile and Leon".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No reason to delete map with kingdoms. I never said non existence of Spain, I not deny the existence of Spain. I said that your map with eternal Spain that delete the kingdoms of iberian peninsula is an original search and broke the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. The important clarification on the map that Spain has the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon agrees with the literature and is very important. This clarification not eliminate Spain. Nothing else has changed on the map. As anybody can see:

• No reason to delete the strong relationship between Americas and Castile. Your POV saying that Americas was incorporated only "administratively", trying to make smaller the nexus between America and Castile, is another original search. Cited John Elliott,Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830 say that Americas was: "United with, and incorpored into, the crown of Castile and León". Literature say that Americas is part of Spain by Castile exclusively, but not Aragon. This is a very important information about Americas. With this information I'm not trying to illustrate any point of view. I not deny the existence of Spain, and not say non existence of Spain.

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

Santos30 will think that he is writing to idiots. I do not know whom he tries to cheat saying that he has never denied the existence of Spain when his own actions reveal the opposite and when he has the need to delimit the concept of Spain according to his own particular criterion but such pretension is not an object of the subject of the article and the need to clarify according to his own particular criterion is simply a way to illustrate a point that he itself has declared to have . In the past there was a user who supported this same position , that user was warned here and here, and that user effectively acknowledged such behaviour contravened the policy of wikipedia Therefore Santos30's stubbornness is a breach of wikipedia policy and sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.

Santos30 lies when he expresses that I delete the strong relationship between Americas and Castile, this information is already included and with the same sources provided by Santos30, but it is not possible to put it anyhow without considering the sense of the preexisting text. The lead section must offer a concise overview according to English-language reference works, which do not care to delimite the concept of Spain. Even the same references that Santos30 takes to justify the incorporation of Castile, they indicate without problem that America was Spanish. In the early years of Spanish rule the bishops had their hands an important instrument of control, over settlers ans Indians alike It is this fragmented character of authority, both in church and state, which is one of the most striking characteristics of Spanish colonial America. the government of colonial Spanish America was more 'modern' than the government of Spain.

However, Santos30 does not try to give a general overview but he tries to add interpolated clauses in the lead section to support their particular concept of Spain when such approaches have already been dismissed as opposite to the policy of wikipedia, and when such statements are against the reference works and the subject matter of the article. Such behavior is to illustrate a point. I don't care if Santos30 denies it once or a thousand times, because his editions are oriented toward clarify something according to his own POV. While the lead section should provide generic information without going into details, the interior sections of the article are to develop appropriate information related to the topic of the article, and of course I'm not going to oppose the development of the article when it be done in the terms of the bibliography used, and not adding interpolated clauses strategically placed to match the view of who wrote them.

An example of how Santos30 ignored at will the policy of wikipedia and how to edit to illustrate his point of view is the bull of 1493. Santos30 has provided several sources indicating that in the bull the pope gave kings of Castile territories to be discovered., which agree with the text of the original bull. It is not the same a patrimonial property of the king than a patrimonial property of the Crown: When King Alfonso V of Aragon obtained the throne of Naples, the kingdom of Naples was not part of the patrimony of the Crown of Aragon, but the King of Aragon, and therefoere after the death of King Alfonso V, the Crown of Aragon passed to his brother John II and the kingdom of Naples to his son Ferrante. But since this statement is not convenient for Santos30, he takes a textual phrase of a Elliot's book as the summum of the veracity, but such phrase taken to convenience by Santos30 is not written by Elliot but it is simply a paraphrase of the particular view of Juan de Solorzano Pereira in a book published in 1776 as it is indicated in the footnote n.15. The lack of rigor of Santos30 to the distinction between patrimonial property of the king or patrimonial property of the Crown demonstrate his edits are oriented to illustrate a point. Here another reference indicating that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile in 1519. La incorporación de estas Indias fue en razón de gananciales, pero según el dominio concedido por las Bulas Pontificias y los respectivos testamentos de Doña Isabel (1504) y de D.Fernando (1516), tales bienes pasaron a ser patrimoniales de la Corona de Castilla, sucesivamente ratificado por los monarcas sucesores, comenzando por Carlos I, en 1519. In fact it is the decree of 1519 that of appears in the Laws of Indies and not the bull of 1493, because the bulls had no practical value per se if no one accepted and enforced them: I do not want to know what imaginative misbehaviors it might do Santos30 with the bull that deposed the king Pedro II of Aragon or that granted the Canary islands to Luis de La Cerda. In addition, Santos30 tries to extrapolate a comment about a specific document of 1493 to justify their own point of view. What in a source is the analytical comment of a document must be considered the comment for this document exclusively and is not the excuse that Santos30 tries to use for any occasion that is convenient for him. This fact of taking the contents of a document to support a particular view is original research.

The next Santos30's lie is to indicate that I defend that Americas was incorporated only "administratively", trying to make smaller the nexus between America and Castile. Another falsehood. I said The claims of Santos30 to alter the text of this article with consensus since several yeaars, to put additions which deny the existence of Spain based on the specific fact that Indies was incorporated administratively to the Crown of Castile are simply the original research, as biased. In short, while I had explained what is his POV, Santos30 lies and he attributes me his own behaviour. I'm not trying either to minimize or maximize such link but that the article continue to keep the neutral point of view respecting the English-language reference works which uses the terms Spain, Spanish,... It is obvious that Santos30 tries to illustrate the strong relationship between Americas and Castile but it is his own opinion because on the contrary I can read that the Indies in legal theory were part of the crown of Castile.. The aim of Santos30 is not to provide the information that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile, because this information is already included with the same references that he provided. He just takes that fact but not of a neutral way but to justify his particular view of Spain, and therefore the resultant wording of the article would not match to the general bibliography but it would support Santos30's particular view, and thus he illustrates a point.

Santos30 continues lying when he is implying that the kingdoms have been deleted in the map, and that I have deleted them. This information has never been present. The aim of the map is not to illustrate political structures but to show the territorial extension in different moments, as I have already indicated several times, and the textual information about political distinctions is a complementary information to enrich the map and it must be inserted according with the depiction. In the past I already indicated that it is possible to add text information about the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon, and in fact I am taking charge of making a depiction with accuracy. Nevertheless Santos30 continues his particular paranoia of accusations of a map of eternal Spain, he will think to have reason by force of repeating the same ridiculous argument again and again. If the bibliography uses the term of Spain of a wide and general way, as I have already indicated, then for Santos30 all the books will be mistaken, and he will hope that someboy takes him seriously. The brown color shows the extension of the current territories of Spain as today, and I do not conceive how Santos30 can be capable of affirming without any blush that the Spanish territories at present have to be depicted with two colors, is there a map of the current territories of Spain with two colors? Not satisfy with inventing a current map of Spain depicted with two colors he has the courage to accuse me of original research without hanging his head in shame.

In the end it is a nonsense to continue to maintain a discussion with Santos30 to include that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile when that information is included. It is nonsense to continue to maintain a discussion with Santos30 to include an additional infomation in the map when I'm working on it. It is nonsense to keep any discussion with santos30 when what he does is lie and despise the wikipedia policy by means of including interpolated clauses repeatedly without any consensus over an text with consensus since several years in order that the article be in agreement with his particular view about he has deduced, when the general bibliography indicates of a wide and general way that the Indies were Spanish, and thus he breachs the neutral point of view. I am not interested in the particular conceptions of Santos30 which he himself has expressed them but he cannot alter the article in order that the article agrees with his own opinion. I am not interested in what Santos30 has deduced and decided what is important to illustrate because the relevancy is provided by the general bibliography not for particular opinions, therefore there can't be consensus when the breach of the wikipedia policy is so flagrant. In addition Santos30 also shows his lack of respect for the policy of wikipedia when invoked a prior consensus to prevent and stop changes to the article but when he tries to impose his own changes and his claims, then he doesn't mind previous consensus and he undertakes edit wars. And now I'll wait how much time Santos30 will wait to take the first step to put the same tendentious addings one and again without any consensus to begin another edit war in order that the article be blocked. Trasamundo (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection

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

Protected again

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

• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Spain articles
• Top-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics