Talk:Spanish Empire

"Iberosphere" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Remove tag that lead is too long for article?

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

The lead could be roughly halved from what is was a few days ago. See [1] Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Aim for four not overly long paragraphs. The length of the main article below is not a measure for the length of the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm usually rather soft on this matter, but this is too long, and doesn't always seem accurate. There is too much emphasis on the Americas. I don't like para 2 especially - where are Africa, Italy & the Low Countries? Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have trimmed some material on the Americas in the lead. A brief mention of Africa, Italy, and the Low Countries dould be added. I think though there needs to be a community discussion of the length of the article itself. Amuseclio (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Infobox

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

Article too long?

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 The brief discussion between myself and that editor article seems to have been archived.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

It is certainly too long (as is the lead, still). I don't really think there is too much emphasis on Europe, which after all is what tended to dominate the view from Madrid, but too much of the European stuff is military narrative. Some might be shifted off to Military history of Spain. I agree re the Philippines. There is nothing on culture or art, which seems wrong. A really brutal solution is to split the article at 1714 or somewhere, ideally with a much shorter summary preserved under this main title. Better that than a geographical split, I think. Does anyone have a figure for the "readable prose"? Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think moving some material to Military history of Spain is an excellent idea. Another way to cut the article is to move text about the remnants of empire (i.e., post-Spanish American independence) into a separate article. I think looking at the articles on other European empires -- Portuguese, Dutch, French, English/British -- might give editors of the Spanish Empire article ideas on how it might be structured. I can certainly create text on culture and the arts -- and have been working on the Mexican art article. But right now I think the task at hand is to trim the current article rather than start adding more topics. Amuseclio (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Nootka Territory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible copyrighted material removed

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

The IP has not responded to my direct request. As it is still active, having made subsequent edits, I have decided to revert their changes. There's also something eerily familiar about them... Favonian (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. - Donald Albury 15:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The source provided by the IP for the section on the conquest of Oran is a book with a 1st edition in 1996. That section was added to the article here by Ducticli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked a day later. That means the copyright violation has been in the article for hundreds of revisions. I suspect that tracking down the other copyright violations will be easier by looking at Ducticli's contributions. - Donald Albury 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wrong. It seems that Ducticli, in his only major edit, added less than half of the material deleted in this edit today. Another paragraph deleted today was from the same source, and the last paragraph from a different source. I am concerned that more material has been deleted than was necessary, but verifying everything is tedious. - Donald Albury 17:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barjimoa, I think you're quite confused.

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

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

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

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

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

You can find the same for the others. Just as an Example, let's take another one. Let's take the Ottoman Empire.

" At their peak (1520-1566), the Ottomans ruled the most powerful empire in the world"(https://books.google.it/books?id=WzdZ_IdctfsC&q=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&dq=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW052o8OLlAhWSaVAKHQQuAU84FBDoATAJegQIARBL A history of Western Society )

"By the sixteenth century the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful empire in the world."(https://books.google.it/books?id=xfUvAQAAIAAJ&q=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&dq=ottoman+empire+most+powerful+empire+in+the+world+r&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM3KCC8OLlAhVKEVAKHarHCIk4ChDoATAHegQIARA2 )

"Suleyman the magnificent (1520-1566) ruled the Ottoman Empire when it was the most powerful on earth"(https://books.google.it/books?id=FXllDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA374&dq=suleiman+the.magnificent+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFur68gcTlAhUFKewKHahhDCsQ6AEIbjAJ#v=onepage&q=suleiman%20the.magnificent%20world's%20most%20powerful%20empire&f=false)

"At the beginning of the 17th century the Ottoman Empire was still the foremost power in the world" (https://books.google.it/books?id=knc7AQAAIAAJ&q=Ottoman+Empire+foremost+power+16th+century&dq=Ottoman+Empire+foremost+power+16th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY5fqN7uLlAhXP2aQKHRmrDdUQ6AEIPjAD )

"Ottoman Turks controlled the world's most powerful empire in the 1500s and 1600s" (https://books.google.it/books?id=8SALeq1p_QoC&q=was+the+world%27s+most+powerful+empire+in+the+1500s+and&dq=was+the+world%27s+most+powerful+empire+in+the+1500s+and&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFoITW8uLlAhWOjqQKHf9_DBIQ6AEIYTAI)

I could go on and on. The same applies to all the other empires I mentioned.Barjimoa (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

My status as an admin gives me no special power to decide a content dispute. I would like to wait another 2 or 3 days to see if other editors who have contributed to this article care to join the discussion. If the two of you are still the only editors in this discussion at that time, there are other options for resolving a dispute available. - Donald Albury 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barjimoa: seems to be making the more reasonable argument. I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SmithGraves, where does the source you provided state, "Spain was the greatest global power of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century...", I am not seeing it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There are sources saying that the Spanish empire of Philip II was the most powerful and he ruled 1556-1598. The problem that I see here is that such sources exist for many other empires of the period too, especially if we extend it to 1500-1650. For example, for 1519-1555 the Habsburg Empire of Charles V (including HRE, Spain, Austria Hungary etc) has been called the most powerful of the world. Same for the Ottoman empire of Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Same for that of the Chinese Emperor Wanli (1572-1620). It's a typical case of no consensus. It's normal for this kind of stuff (see the articles middle powers and great powers and their talk pages). It's even more true for the past. Barjimoa (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't simply just say that it was "a superpower" during that period. It doesn't diminish Spanish Empire nor it implies or denies that there was a foremost power.

"Most powerful global empire" can simply mean most powerful globally, hence it's an ambiguity and wouldn't clarify. In any case, the text already says that Spain was a global empire. Again, the problem is saying that this one in particular was "THE most powerful" giving that different sources say different things. Also, contiguos empires such as China and Ottomans are not necessarily non-global powers. It simply means that they were more like old-style empires rather than colonial ones Barjimoa (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Anything stated has to be backed by a source(s). I was simply asking for clarification from user:SmithGraves. As for calling the Spanish Empire a superpower, can we find a source for that? Yep. So, any more problems? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with "it was a superpower during the 16th and 17th centuries, becoming known as the empire on which the sun never sets, and reaching its maximum extension in the 18th century."

What do you think Cristiano Tomás (talk) and SmithGraves (talk) ?

Barjimoa (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apart from the fact that "How to Neutralize Curses" doesn't sound like a scholarly work on the subject...the author is a known Evangelist fundamentalist, not a scholar. But again, maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. Yes, there are sources saying this for the spanish empire specifically....BUT there are many other sources that say the same for other empires. There is simply no consensus among historians and scholars for this kind of claims ("the most powerful empire" of that period). Here is a small collection:

1.This one says that it was the Ottoman Empire https://books.google.it/books?id=FXllDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA374&dq=suleiman+the.magnificent+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFur68gcTlAhUFKewKHahhDCsQ6AEIbjAJ#v=onepage&q=suleiman%20the.magnificent%20world's%20most%20powerful%20empire&f=false

2.This one says that it was the Habsburg Empire https://bookscentury.google.it/books?id=6IZbDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Political+history+of+the+world&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM-5WJm4zlAhWB-qQKHQXqCSMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Political%20history%20of%20the%20world&f=false

3. Another one for the Habsburg empire.https://books.google.it/books?id=ArdoAAAAIAAJ&q=Habsburg+Empire+the+superpower+16th+century&dq=Habsburg+Empire+the+superpower+16th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNv4bmu-TlAhVOe8AKHV5WB_kQ6AEIQDAD

4.Another one for the Ottoman Empire https://books.google.it/books?id=FXllDwAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA374&dq=suleiman+the.magnificent+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFur68gcTlAhUFKewKHahhDCsQ6AEIbjAJ#v=onepage&q=suleiman%20the.magnificent%20world's%20most%20powerful%20empire&f=false

5. This one says that it was the Chinese Empire https://books.google.it/books?id=HxR3FsDkmAQC&q=Ming+china+16th+century+world's+most+powerful+empire&dq=Ming+china+16th+century+world's+most+powerful+empire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLkufU_8PlAhUF26QKHbLGBFoQ6AEIUjA

6 . This (excellent) book co-authored by several historians says that multiple empires had this claim in the 16th century: https://books.google.it/books?id=lV_JAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=History+of+16th+century+Europe&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjite3YveTlAhXFiFwKHVtRADoQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Empires&f=false

Etc etc etc.Barjimoa (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

*Just to say why they make that point. World population in 1600. Under Iberian Union: 5.0%. Under Ottoman Empire: 4.5%. Under Chinese Empire: 28% (!). Mughal Empire: 20%. Barjimoa (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your "yes it was" is one opinion. Some scholars agree, others don't. To sum up the sources that I have found, listed previously, the following empires have been called by various scholars "the world's most powerful" of that period (1500-1650)

• The Chinese Empire, for various Imperial eras. For example, the reign of Wanli (1572-1620)

• The Ottoman Empire, especially for the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-1566)

• The Portuguese Empire, especially for the earliest decades of the period in question.

• The Spanish Empire, especially for the reign of Philip II of Spain (1556-1598).

• The Iberian Union (1580-1640) of Spain and Portugal collectively.

• The Habsburg Empire as a whole (HRE + Spain + Portugal + Austria Hungary, and other tetritories) especially for the period of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1519-1556) before its division in German and Spanish parts.

• There's even one scholar that says that the Dutch and the English became the most powerful as the period progressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In light of the points that I made during the discussion showing that many empires have been called the "world's most powerful empire" of the 16th and 17th centuries by different scholars and historians....and in light of the fact that many scholars and historians (notably Jonathan Holslag and Helmut Koenigsberger) aknowledge this fact by saying that multiple empires had a claim to be the top global power during the 16th and 17th centuries...I propose to say "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries". In alternative, we can keep the current version.

P.S. In any case the textual source brought by SmithGraces, "The Spanish Empire became the foremost global power of its time" from the book "How to Neutralize Curses", should not be used as the author is not a scholar on the subject (not a scholar at all, he is an healing evangelist...) and doesn't deserve the status of historical source. Barjimoa (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Page 57:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

There's nothing wrong with being an evangelist. But he is not an historian nor a political scientist. His job is being an "healing evangelist", a dude that goes around claiming he cures people from diseases and curses with his powers. Also "comparative ethos in mamagment" is not a histry book. And a website on the spanish language is not a scholarly work.

Setting that aside, my proposal remain the one I have explicitated in my previous comment, which I think is the only serious path we can take if we follow an unbiased historical method. Barjimoa (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sorry to say, but Comparative Ethos in Management, by Nikhil Barat, Bani P. Banerjee, is not a reliable source for history. Neither is the book by an evangalist. And the Ottoman Empire has been referred to as a global power.

• "THE OTTOMAN ḤAJJ ROUTE IN JORDAN: MOTIVATION AND IDEOLOGY, Andrew Petersen, Bulletin d'études orientales, T. 57, Supplément. LE POUVOIR À L'ÂGE DES SULTANATS DANS LE "BILĀD AL-SHĀM" / POWER IN THE AGE OF SULTANATES IN THE "BILĀD AL-SHĀM" (2006-2007), page 31;" Of course this new status presented the Ottomans with new responsibilities which had not been encountered when they were a minor Turkish state. Three main challenges arose out of this situation; firstly they were now a global power with global alliances and enemies..."

I would have to agree with Barjimoa's suggestion, "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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