This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cristiano Tomás (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 10 January 2012 (→A new map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:15, 10 January 2012 by Cristiano Tomás (talk | contribs) (→A new map)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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 | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Spain B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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. |
|
| 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 |
The question of Spanish control in Patagonia
Okay, following on the last section: Could you restate what it is you would like to see, Fireinthegol? After so much talk it is hard to tell exactly! Is it that you'd like the map to be red along the coast south of Río de la Plata to and including the Valdes Peninsula? I can't quite tell where the settlement of San José was, but Bahía de San José is on the north side of the narrow "neck" of the Valdes Peninsula. Is this right? By "coast" do you mean just a thin strip following the coast, or something extending farther inland? Am I right to assume you are arguing that this coastal reach between Río de la Plata and Valdes Peninsula was under Spanish control, rule, etc? I can't quite tell if you are saying it was under Spanish control or Mapuche control, with the Mapuche considered incorporated into the Spanish Empire. Pfly (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this map should be the main of the empire
Fireinthegol (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, hmm. That's much more of a change than I expected. I prefer the current map, sorry. Pfly (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that is the one that should be, as the mapuches and indios pampas sweared loyalty to the king of Spain but mantained autonomy, and the sioux north also had autonomy, even being subjects of the king. Fireinthegol (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This new map is in any case better than the current one, which is a joke. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.74.199 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- The main trouble I have is the vagueness of the label for orange colored areas: "Territories in which the natives had a certain degree of Autonomy". First, "territories"? Territories within areas ruled by Spain? That would be contradictory. Territories claimed by Spain? That would include all of the Americas west of Portuguese Brazil--since the map is "anachronous" and Spain really did claim of all North America at one time. Trying to map "claims" is a can of worms. Second, "certain degree of Autonomy"? How much is a "certain degree"? What reliable source could possibly be used to decide one way or the other for all natives across the entire Spanish Empire's lands and claims over all time? Even if it could be done, how would you determine the territory of native groups, especially anachronously? The Sioux, for example, did not have fixed borders. Plus they migrated over the historic era from what is now Wisconsin to the northwest high plains. The Comanche, likewise, migrated from what is now Idaho to New Mexico and Texas. In short, I can't see how one could map "Territories in which the natives had a certain degree of Autonomy" without having to resort to relatively arbitrary personal decisions. (also, when did the Sioux become subjects of Spain? I never heard of such a thing) Pfly (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Pfly, the TWO-COLOR MAP is much better and more accurate than the current "rainbow" map. 217.125.210.58 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why Patagonia doesn't count as Spanish, but the whole western United States does. Did Spain really have any kind of effective control over Utah and Colorado (or Minnesota and Iowa) beyond what it had in Patagonia? john k (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Fate of the Descubierta and Atrevida
I was researching the Patagonia questions and reading (with google translate helping my very poor Spanish) the Spanish Misplaced Pages page/section Organización militar del Virreinato del Río de la Plata (section:) Comandancia de Marina del Río de la Plata. It seems to say that in 1802 the fleet included Corbeta Descubierta and Corbeta Atrevida, both of 20 cañones. Is it possible that these were the Descubierta and Atrevida of Alessandro Malaspina? Maybe they were simply named in honor of Malaspina's corvettes. I've researched Malaspina's voyage and his corvettes quite a bit--and just recently created the page about them. I had trouble finding out what happened to the ships after Malaspina returned to Spain in 1794. Both were only 5 years old and apparently well built. They must have been put to some use after 1794, right? I tried to find info about their fate after 1794 but got nowhere. It is possible they ended up in the Río de la Plata fleet? Or, to ask a different way, might there be Spanish sources with info about their post-1794 fate? My ability to find (and read!) Spanish sources is not good. So I post here knowing some of you read this page and are good with Spanish sources and research. Any ideas? Thanks. Pfly (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The multi-colored map
As many editors have indicated, the current multi-colored map is poor and confusing. It does not show the territories of the Spanish empire with clarity or objectivity. The use of so many colors is inaccurate and unclear. It seems to portray many different empires instead of one. All other colonial empire maps in Misplaced Pages use one or two colors, not seven or eight: see the British, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Russian, and Italian empires. To solve this for once and for all I propose the red and pink map suggested earlier .83.50.254.101 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will change it back to the red and pink version. JCRB (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- No you won't whitout consensus. This map is the result of long and lobourious discussions, and is consensual. The Ogre (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I have seen, the multi-colored map does not have consensus either. The talk page is filled with criticisms against it, specially that all other empire maps have 1 or 2 colors, not 5 or 6. JCRB (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- No you won't whitout consensus. This map is the result of long and lobourious discussions, and is consensual. The Ogre (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
What irks me about both maps is the completely ridiculous double standard between Spanish claimed territories in Patagonia (not colored in at all!) and Spanish claimed territories in western North America (completely colored in!). Given that there were apparently Spanish settlements along the eastern coast of Patagonia, it seems almost certain there are territories along the Patagonian coast that were under far more effective Spanish control than North Dakota ever was. I don't see any basis for treating "Indians in the northern plains states and great basin who had probably never seen a Spanish person ever" as unproblematic Spanish subjects while "Indians in Patagonia who lived within a few miles of a Spanish fort" are unproblematically not Spanish subjects. 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Trasamundo has a very detailed explanation of how and why he depicted things on the map the way he did, over at the map's talk page at the Commons. I think his logic on the North America vs. Patagonia thing has to do with the "strength" of the Adams-Onís Treaty, "as border stable and recognized internationally", and the treaties involving Louisiana. He has a whole section over there titled "Why not Patagonia". I do agree that it looks a bit odd for places like North Dakota to be shown as Spanish, regardless of how Patagonia is shown. Then again, I shudder at the idea of trying to map the actual limit of Spanish control in North America. Not only was it more like a vast "zone" than a firm line, as on a map, but this map has already been subjected to much criticism for showing the Spanish Empire as smaller than it should be, at least compared to other empire maps on Misplaced Pages. Of course, most empire maps on Misplaced Pages are rather poorly done. This is the best one, I think. At least it is the only one thoroughly sourced and explained. Most empire maps on Misplaced Pages provide no source citations at all! Anyway, take a look at Trasamundo's explanations. He's put a lot of thought into all this. Personally, I am...well at least unsure about the depiction of North America. But I'm not sure how it could be changed without generating at least as much controversy as this map has already produced. I could be convinced that both Spain and France thought of Louisiana as something much smaller than what it became after the US purchase. But as far as I know neither country ever defined Louisiana in detail, and the US interpretation of it as the Mississippi's drainage basin became the de facto definition shortly after the purchase. As far as trying to show the northern limit of actual control, I could see trying to map something like the coast of California and relatively narrow zones reaching north to New Mexico and vaguely into Texas and Arizona. But then, weren't there significant areas in Mexico itself that were not really under Spanish control? Certainly the whole American empire was a kind of patchwork of control, with numerous gaps and holes all over. Faced with the impossibility and undesirability of trying to map something like that, one needs to paint "broadly" to some degree. Is using the Adams-Onis line the best way to do this? I'm not sure. It's certainly not perfect, but it seems acceptable to me. And sure, the contrast between how North America and Patagonia are shown seems like a double standard. But the two regions have quite different histories. They are quite different in the way each were ultimately transferred from Spanish control (however weak) to the United States, on one hand, and Argentina and Chile on the other. Trasamundo's detailed explanations about why Patagonia should not be shown as part of the empire seem sound to me. Pfly (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Trasamundo's command of English is such that it's very, very difficult to read his explanations in detail. What really strikes me, though, is that they seem to be pretty clearly original research. Even if I were to read through in close detail and agree with every argument he makes, he is still making original arguments on the basis of primary sources and the synthesis of secondary literature into new forms. Our map of the Spanish empire ought to be based on historical maps of the Spanish Empire in reliable sources; the maps found in textbooks would probably be our best bet. john k (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- My domain of English language appears in my user page, and this inconvenient does not invalidate that I want to say.
- I find offensive that you throw shadows of OR and SYN to a work carefully done, especially when you have not done any comment about maps that they do not have sources at all. I have had to read abundance of sources to be able to achieve a depiction as wise as possible. When the map was almost finished I published the sources and in the same page I intervened to introduce those sources due to interventions this talk page, but if my comments were omitted then the sources are still there to justify a job and they establish explicitly what they indicate, in fact my commentaries did not justify the map for themselves, although they can be useful, the sources are what justify the map.
- If I read several written sources that explicitly establish that the Portuguese empire was a chain of spaced stations and later I see a map with the African coast shaded of Portuguese empire, then, should I hit a kick to the written sources and take notice simply and exclusively of the map without knowing why is like that? The need to put sources to the map was expressed in timely fashion In this talk page, we have seen diversity of maps with different extensions of colours and even contradictory between them, and it was appraised the necessity to find written sources to clarify the situation, with more reason when the written sources establish and explain explicitly historical processes but a mere map cannot, and these sources would be able to useful to improve the article too.
- Probably the politics of wikipedia is to take maps randomly (from reliable sources of course), to do a mixture according to some particular criterion and later to have no idea about the reason of the depiction because no written reference has been consulted. The more surprising is when I present the map in February 2009, I put maps as this one where Patagonia does not appear as Spanish and the north limit agrees with the treaty of Adams-Onís and Louisiana. Why? the written sources has been published, very simple. Trasamundo (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The map you link to is far more generous in its southern boundary than your map. It shows the whole modern province of Buenos Aires as under Spanish control, while your maps cuts off immediately south of the city of Buenos Aires itself. john k (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the politics of wikipedia is to take maps randomly (from reliable sources of course), to do a mixture according to some particular criterion and later to have no idea about the reason of the depiction because no written reference has been consulted. The more surprising is when I present the map in February 2009, I put maps as this one where Patagonia does not appear as Spanish and the north limit agrees with the treaty of Adams-Onís and Louisiana. Why? the written sources has been published, very simple. Trasamundo (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The map from Princeton is wrong. The southern boundary across the Pampas was firmly established around the Salado river only at the turn of the 1830s. Previously, it was not a secured frontier, even in the vicinity of Buenos Aires. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- In this map, which I consider quite accurate, pre-independence southern frontier of Buenos Aires clearly appears way north of the Salado. --IANVS (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem of the maps is that they offer different depictions and it is necessary to resort to written sources to clarify, for example this map offers another depiction, something different.
- I am not going to comment anything about the southern border to clarify the issue, and this way I will avoid accusations of SYN, simply I will expose what written sources establish:
- Although the Spanish Royal Crown soon designated an Adelantado to explore and conquer these southern lands, the European and Creole occupation beyond the Salado River - only 200 kilometres south of Buenos Aires- took centuries. After the second and definitive foundation of Buenos Aires in 1580, almost two hundred years would elapse before the establishment of new Spanish settlements in Patagonia. Difficulties in advancing the colonial frontier hence added to the strong sense of boundaries that persisted well into the nineteeth century. Spanish Royal Crown could not advance the frontier south of the Buenos Aires-Mendoza-Santiago line-and, comparatively speaking, this line suffered only minor alterations during the rule of the emerging Creole governments.
- : Twenty years later the Crown began to construct a line of military forts across the region from northwest to southesat, thereby doubling the amount of land open to Spanish occupation. The area circunscribed by these forts, an ellipse approximately 80 to 100 miles wide by 485 miles long, ran from Arroyo del Medio to the nortwest of the city to the mouth of the Río Salado to the southeast. These forts - Rojas, Pergamino, Slato, Areco, Luján, Navarro, Lobos, Monte, Pilar de los Ranchos and Chascomús, - and their nearby rural population comprised the city's immediate hinterland. Beyond them to south and west lay hostile Indian territory. While the colonial authorities were able to increase the amount of land within thier effectively controlled area, it was not until 1822 that control of the land up to the Salado passed from Indian to Spanish hands.
- La frontera corría a lo largo de ciento cincuenta y cinco leguas (poco menos de novecientos kilómetros), guardando Buenos Aires. La Línea de defensa estaba formada por seis fuertes guarnecidos de blandengues y cinco fortines ocupados por las milicias rurales, a ración y sin sueldo. La distribución era así: fuerte de Chascomús, guardia de Ranchos, guardia del Monte, fortín de Lobos, fortín de Navarro, guardia de Luján, fortín de Areco, guardia del Salto, guardia de Rojas, fortín Mercedes, fortín Melincué, en Santa Fe. Esta línea se mantendría hasta después de 1810. A la larga, la frontera sur se estabilizó, como lo hicieron las otras del reino: en Córdoba, la marca se plantó en el río Cuarto; en Mendoza, en el valle de Uco.
- : Así la línea de defensa, sobre una frontera de 155 leguas, quedó integrada por seis fuertes custodiados por blandengues y cinco fortines defendidos por milicias. El cordón de guardias quedaba integrado pues, por los fuertes de Chascomús, Ranchos, Monte, Luján, Salto y Rojas, y los fortines de Lobos, Navarro, reco, Mercedes y Melincué.
Gentlemen, the issue at stake here is the use of many colors on the empire map. We can discuss the issue of fronteirs in Patagonia and North America, later. The question is that the Spanish Empire is the only European colonial empire in Misplaced Pages which is shown with multiple colors depending on when they were lost or transferred. This is absurd, not to say ridiculous or even biased. I suggest we solve this before discussing the actual extent of the empire. JCRB (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion the rest of the maps should improve so as to include more details/colours. Something that matters to me, regarding the current Spanish Empire map, is the indistinction between effectively controlled areas vs. undisputed claimed lands w/o effective control (Patagonia, Gran Chaco, etc.). I'd add one more colour to distinguish between this two sets of areas, so that i.e. Patagonia should be included as an undisputed claimed area w/o effective control and Gran Chaco region should be shaded in the same way, as it never was under effective colonial control. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote about this "too many colors" thing back in 2009, in the archives now, um, here: Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_3#Summary of the "too many colors are confusing" argument. My thoughts about it have not really changed. Most of the "empire maps" on Misplaced Pages strike me as poorly made, badly sourced, and fairly ugly. As before, I fail to see the absurdity or bias in having a higher quality map here. Pfly (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is absurd to show one political entity, one empire, with six colors. It is confusing and gives the wrong impression. Maps usually portray different colors for different nations. That's how it is done. Coincidentally, all other maps on Misplaced Pages follow that custom. This article should be no different. JCRB (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- By "all other maps" I assume you mean all other "empire maps". But even that would not be true. See, for example, Ottoman Empire.
- Wow, the Ottoman Empire map doesn't use 1 or 2 colors. That's a strong argument. Why not take a look at the French map, or the British map, or the Dutch map, the Belgian map, the German map, the Russian map, the Italian map or the Portuguese empire map? JCRB (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, maybe because those were simpler imperial realities and if not then the maps are inferior to the Spanish one! The Ogre (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, the Ottoman Empire map doesn't use 1 or 2 colors. That's a strong argument. Why not take a look at the French map, or the British map, or the Dutch map, the Belgian map, the German map, the Russian map, the Italian map or the Portuguese empire map? JCRB (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- By "all other maps" I assume you mean all other "empire maps". But even that would not be true. See, for example, Ottoman Empire.
- It is absurd to show one political entity, one empire, with six colors. It is confusing and gives the wrong impression. Maps usually portray different colors for different nations. That's how it is done. Coincidentally, all other maps on Misplaced Pages follow that custom. This article should be no different. JCRB (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So the editors of the Spanish Empire are geniuses, and the editors of all the other articles are dumb? Wrong. The exception is this map. This is the odd one out. And don't tell me the history of other empires was "less complicated" than that of the Spanish Empire. JCRB (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The nature of the Spanish State was certainly more complex. The Ogre (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with multiple colors on the map. It makes little sense to have a map where Spanish Morocco (acquired 1912) is the same color as territories lost in the early nineteenth century. That being said, I do wonder if it might not be better to a) have the main map show the Spanish Empire in 1800 or so, when it was at its greatest territorial extent; and b) have a series of other maps in the article that show the empire's extent at other times. john k (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the time that has been spent arguing about the bloody map was spent on improving the article we'd have Wikipedia7s finest article on our hands. Just try reading it, top to bottom - it's awful. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look, the map needs just as much work as the article. You know that as well as I do. The red, pink and lavanda map was much better: one color for actual possessions, another for claimed territory (but not settled) and maybe a third for the Portuguese territories during the Iberian Union. Period. Another possibility is john k's suggestion: a main map at the beginning for the year 1800 (greatest territorial extent), and then a series of other maps within the article. That sounds pretty reasonable. JCRB (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is outrageous to read a comment as cynical as the map needs just as much work as the article when it has used more than two hundred references, and thereupon to annotate that the map lacks of objectivity or it is biased, does not the article have more than two hundred references?. The editors of the Spanish Empire are not geniuses, because it is not necessary to be a genius to distinguish and to understand any more than two colors, simply it is sufficient not to be a colour blind or to be elder than a 10-year-old kid. Arguments as messy, absurd, ridiculous, inappropriate, unclear, and other conspiracy theories are inconsistent, in fact they are not arguments but they are merely personal impressions, so it does not endure that a map that depicts different colors is poor and another map that reduces to one colour is enlightening. But all that has been challenged on several occasions, on February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, December 2009: there is nothing new under the Sun.
- In relation to Maps usually portray different colors for different nations is unreal, and as a picture is worth a thousand words, then following that logic, in these maps the colors would represent the 11 different German empires, 9 Roman empires, 7 Roman empires, 9 caliphates, 10 Kingdoms of Prussia, 7 kingdoms of Greece, 13 kingdoms of Aragon, 8 Thai kingdoms, 7 Japanese empires or the
- And with regard to that it exists a rule-custom-common practice-standard of placing the maps with a colour, then it is another falsehood, because such thing does not exist in wikipedia, some articles use a anachronous map with a colour, others with several colours, others use the extension in a certain epoch, others use animated maps. This map is not the exception of any norm, because such norm does not exist. This map has been done following the history of Spain, and not for comparison to the history of other countries, or for comparison to the maps of other articles. I do not see the relation between the depiction of different countries to depict the history of the Spanish empire. If the question is that the Spanish Empire is the only European colonial empire in Misplaced Pages which is shown with multiple colors, also is the only one that has contributed more than two hundred references, and in an encyclopedia which the politic of WP:V is a motive of pride, opposite to other maps, and that achievement certainly carries more weight than the quantity of colours of depiction.
- The map is a mixture between anachronistic map and animated map. In timely fashion it had thought about doing an animated map, but a strong difficulty among others (as the difficult to study) was to reference adequately a serie of different maps of different epochs, nevertheless what is the importance of references when it is at stake the sacrosanct colours?. The map is a summary of the empire's extension and because of it, the map is at the beginning of the article, but also it represents the history of the Spanish empire, and as each phase of the history of the empire is depicted with a proper colour, superimposing those periods it results that combination of colours. The important thing is that the map provides an global overview anachronistic, and simultaneously a diachronic view portraying various significant moments in the history. A map with the extension of an empire in a certain epoch can be portrayed with a single colour, but this map is not like that, it is the extension of an empire but in several epochs, and to distinguish an epoch of other one is needed to use different colours.
- Finally it is not necessary to be a genius to know that the issue of the colours is a smokescreen to justify another map, but for it, to justify oneself in the provocation and in the quantity of colours is a simply ineffable justification. Trasamundo (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, nobody is trying to justify anything behind a "smokescreen" (as you call it) of what is clearly a reasonable argument: that most other colonial empire maps have one or two colors (not five or six) and that the use of many colors seems to portray different nations or empires instead of ONE. Many editors have shown their disagreement with this multi-colored map which you keep pushing for. This argument has been explained ad nauseam here, and the links to eight different colonial maps with only one (maximum two) colors, have also been produced repeatedly.
As for the maps you have shown with more than two colors, they are clearly not relevant to the point. First, they are not the main map used in an empire article. For the main maps of the empires you mention, see: the German Empire, the German Colonial Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, all with one color. See also the Roman Empire (one color), the Muslim conquests (three colors), the Kingdom of Prussia (one color), the Athenian Empire (two colors), the Macedonian Empire (one color) and the Byzantine Empire (one color). See also the Crown of Aragon (one color), the Thai Empire (one color) and the Japanese Empire (two colors). Second, some of them are not even "empire maps". The colors used in this German map do not reflect different territorial extents, but the subnational units that made up the empire. As for the map titled "Pertes territorial allemagne" meaning "Territorial losses of Germany" this has nothing to do with the issue at stake, ie. imperial maps.
You have really gone out of your way to find strange maps with more than three colors to prove that the use of many colors is "common". Frankly, that's a pretty weak point. Your examples are obvious exceptions to the general rule of using one or two colors. In other cases your examples are not even empire maps. To conclude, I suggest the possibility of using this multi-colored map at a later stage in the article, if anything. As for the main map, the best option, as User:John K suggested, is one that shows the greatest territorial extent of the Spanish Empire (circa 1800). If more than one color is used, these should be of a similar tone (ie. yellow, orange and brown) like in the Muslim Conquests map with three colors. Other maps with other extents of the empire can be placed throughout the article that explain the different territorial changes. JCRB (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- This argument has been explained ad nauseam here. Yes indeed. Many editors have shown their disagreement with this multi-colored map. Not really. Most are IPs or named editors with almost no edits except to complain about the map. Just looking at the current talk page we have Heroesuper (contribs), 217.124.181.51, 83.55.202.55, Special:Contributions/Enriquegoni (Fireinthegol's abandoned account), Special:Contributions/83.55.201.213, Special:Contributions/79.159.74.199, Special:Contributions/217.125.210.58, Special:Contributions/83.50.254.101, etc. Not to say there have been been a few reasonable editors who've disagreed, but--a few, yes, not many. Pfly (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- The contributions of non-registered users are just as legitimate as those of registered ones. Call it "many", call it "a few", the point is a good number of editors has expressed disagreement with this map for the reasons explained above. It's about time we changed it. As suggested, a good option would be a map of the empire around the year 1800. JCRB (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's solve this once and for all. Let's vote. Administrator here should announce a voting poll.--Infinauta (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why the hell is Argentina not included in the map of the Spanish Empire? Argentina is one of the most important Spanish ex-colonies and it's not even included in the map because some people here claim that 'it didn't officialy belong to Spain'. Isn't the fact that Argentineans today speak Spanish and that many of them actually descend from Spaniards reason enough?
And why make a map depicting the period of time in which Spain LOST the colonies, who cares about that. Following that logic, why not say when the territories were WON and not lost?
And I agree that the different colors make it seem like the map is about different empires instead of just one.
The map is PRO-BRITISH empire propaganda bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Semiprotection?
Most of the IP edits of this article since September 1 have been vandalism. There is also a long-time edit warrior on the subject of maps who constantly shows up here with different IPs. This is presumably one of his edits. (See the protection log for previous history of the map war). Is it time to restore semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is not an off-the-wall idea, not only due to edit warrior but in addition there is also vandalism as here or here Trasamundo (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not vandalism to say the truth, and the truth is that the map is propagandistic and wrong, and it's done on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just go and see which map is on the actual Spanish page of the Spanish Empire and oh surprise it's not the multi-colored one, because the editors of that page know it's fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
"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
|
| 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:
- 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)
So what is your answer now? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)