Talk:Spanish Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Colonialism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Catalan revolt[edit]

Needs to be mentioned! TODO Bazuz (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is not mentioned along with the Neapolitan and Portuguese revolts? Trasamundo (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It is, you are right. I missed it. Bazuz (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation or moment[edit]

Sánchez Prieto, Ana Belén (2004) (in Spanish). La intitulación diplomática de los Reyes Católicos: un programa político y una lección de historia. Reference 58 say citation: "Y por lo tanto ha de entenderse que la mención a Fernando se hacía en cuanto rey de Castilla en virtud de la Concordia de Segovia, y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte."

  • Santos traslation: Under the Concord of Segovia, January 15 1475, Fernando was "Lord of the Indies" as king of Castile, and with his death the Kingdom of the Indias will join the Crown of Castile.
  • Trasamundo traslation: According the Concord of Segovia of 1475, Ferdinand was mentioned in the bulls as king of Castile and after his death the title of the Indies will be incorporated into the Crown of Castile.

It is not the same: "with his death" vs "after his death" when? in 1519? as Trasamundo POV? [1]--Santos30 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe better translation than "with his death" for "a su muerte" is "at the moment of his death". The Bibliography is totally clear to indicate that Indias was joins to Crown of Castile at the moment of treaty with Philip (1506), and returns again at the moment of death of Ferdinand (1516) once and for all. Not with Charles after beginning 1519.--Santos30 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

According to wordreference the correct translation es upon his death.
Since santos30 can afford translation to give lessons of translation, I will demonstrate how he invents what is suitable for him to illustrate his point of view ignoring the wikipedia policy of verifiability.
In this source appears: ha de entenderse que la mención a Fernando se hacía en cuanto rey de Castilla en virtud de la Concordia de Segovia, y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte.
Santos30's free interpretation to illustrate point: Under the Concord of Segovia, January 15 1475, Fernando was "Lord of the Indies" as king of Castile, and with his death the Kingdom of the Indias will join the Crown of Castile. Where does it appear in the source that Concord of Segovia granted the title of Lord of the Indies to Ferdinand, where does it appear in the source that the bull granted the title of Lord of the Indies to Ferdinand? Where does it appear in the source Lord of the Indies with quotation marks?
In this source appears: a raíz de la cual Fernando perdió no solamente el gobierno de Castilla, sino también el señorío de las Indias, quedando solamente con "la mitad de las rentas de los reynos de las Indias"
Santos30's free interpretation to illustrate point: but also the lordship of the Indies, withholding a half of the income of the kingdom of the Indies. Where does it appear in the source kingdom in singular with quotation marks?
In this source appears: 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.
Santos30's free interpretation to illustrate point: According to the domain granted by Papal bulls and the wills of queen Isabella of Castile and king Ferdinand of Aragon, such property become again property of the Crown of Castile in 1516 once and for all, which was ratified by monarchs successors, beginning with Charles I in 1519. Where does it appear in the source again in the source? Where does it appear in the source in 1516 once and for all? Trasamundo (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • [2] al pasar junto con el resto de los reinos a doña Juana tras la muerte de Fernando, quedaron definitivamente incluidos en la Corona.
If the same source indicate that Indias was joins to Crown of Castile:
  • 1-At the moment of treaty with Philip (1506), is implicit that it returns again in 1516.
  • 2-At the moment of death of Ferdinand (1516), if Ferdinand not resurrected then is implicit it is once and for all.

I will revert you, except your grammar correction that is better. Or not because is slightly worst: upon his death nonspecific the moment same Wordreference source.--Santos30 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What a shame! Santos30 who is not a authority in the use of English language [3] discards impartial traduction not mine because in his limited knowledge of English he thinks such translation does not fit what he thinks or he tries to illustrate.
  • [4] al pasar junto con el resto de los reinos a doña Juana tras la muerte de Fernando, quedaron definitivamente incluidos en la Corona.
And besides that, he adds interpolated clauses that are not written nor appears because he believes that it is implicit, and as he thinks it then he will think that the world should consider it implicitly. The text are brief phrases. Is it so hard to make a translation adjusting to what appears in the original source without adding personal considerations? Well, another evidence Santos30 breaks the policy of original research. Trasamundo (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • [5] y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte. When (Moment)? "A su muerte".
  • [6] tras la muerte de Fernando, quedaron definitivamente incluidos en la Corona. How much (Time)? "Definitivamente".
No, your traslation is mistaken Trasamundo. You cannot change the sense in spanish in your traslations.
"Upon" refers to any moment after. It is not the same as "at the moment". Be constructive and wait to an english native speaker opinion.--Santos30 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This troll was expelled and banned from wikipedia. [7] Trasamundo (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discovery not disputed[edit]

If "consensus" was wrong must to change. It is not logical expand your mistake as a bubble in all the maps of Wikipedia. Discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed, for example Cuba. It is not the same "De Jure" as Balboa and Pacific Ocean. Who disputed to Balboa? A lots of states: Portugal, UK, Netherlands, etc. Not logically in the year of 1513, that deserves no comment. A little of common sense Trasamundo please.

--Santos30 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that indicates that source is that a claim without effective ocupation goes to nothing. The considerations as claims de jure, rights of possession, juridical possesion were discarded years ago in the article of Spanish empire, as the next step would be to return to the days of the bloody map. No need to go far, because it can be seen in the talk page [8] Therefore, this article does not inclued maps which depict as Spanish possessions merely claims.
Because this map depicts the mainland America and Cuba as a Spanish possession then just completely ignores the consensus reached in this article. But this map is something else acceptable, and only it has to change the year of the legend. It is very easy to change the year for somebody with the aim of being constructive, but not even then, it is clear that the intentions of Santos30 is filibustering. No matter what somebody can tell to him, he will continue to enforce his own viewpoint clearly rejected by the community, we will to use the edit wars as his own visiting card, and I'll be happy to report him to an administrator due to WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Trasamundo (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No, this consensus talk about the map File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG and "De Jure". You can not expanded that consensus for other maps as the map of the crown of Castile at the moment 1506. I will revert you--Santos30 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No, Im not disruptive. Im not filibustering.--Santos30 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


The anachronous map is based on previous agreements and considerations adopted in this article by consensus before I depicted a line to the map. What Santos30 aims, it is that these agreements that were applied to the map I depicted in this article, they do not apply to him by his pretty face. A little of decency and common sense Santos30 please.
But Santos30's criterion is based on a particular opinion invented and deduced by Santos30 himself (A discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed), then a fortiori Santos30 cannot enforce that criterion without consensus. The same text used by Santos30 to justify does not support his statement. The text indicates that discovery can provide title does not indicate granted title, indicates that discovery is a claim, is a inchoate title, is the basis for claiming title. Nowhere appears that A discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed, such statement has been deducted by Santos30 on his own and therefore Santos30 is enforcing a criterion based on their own personal deduction, and this is an example of disruptive editing. I have offered a consensus that the change of the year 1499 to beginning of the 16th century. It's a very small change, negligible for someone constructive, but not for someone interested in filisbustering and quarrelling. Trasamundo (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Extend your map to others is imposse your POV. Not constructive.--Santos30 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
After the discovery of Columbus what State disputed the possesion of Cuba?. Respond and solves. This is constructive!. Not your reversion based in your original research.--Santos30 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This troll was expelled and banned from wikipedia. [9] Trasamundo (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Black Legend[edit]

Anti-Spanish propaganda was started in the 16th century when Spain was at its height of political power, by propagandists from rival European powers, namely the Protestant countries of England and the Netherlands, as a means to morally disqualify the country and its Spanish people. The Black Legend particularly exaggerates the extent of the activities of the Inquisition, or the treatment of American indigenous subjects in the territories of the Spanish Empire, and non-Catholics such as Protestants and Jews in its European territories. (Encyclopedia Britannica entry "Black Legend")

How is it possible that in an article about the Spanish Empire was no mention of the Black Legend? --Bashevis6920 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Portuguese Empire[edit]

The map showing the territorial extension of the empire should not include Portuguese possessions because even during the Iberian Union, both empires were kept separate. Califate123! (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

http://aglobalworld.com/holidays-around-the-world/portugal-restoration-independence/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)