Talk:Spanish Empire: Difference between revisions

Pic of galleon

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

Spanish galleon, the mainstay of transatlantic and transpacific shipping, engraving by Albert Durer

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

Orphaned references in Spanish Empire

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

Reference named "Clodfelter":

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

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

Plagiarism from Portuguese Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map (again)

The long-standing map for this article is File:Imperio Español (1714-1800).png. This was discussed back at Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 6#Spanish Empire map including Portuguese Empire. Using an anachronous map was specifically rejected in that discussion. An anachronous map was nevertheless added recently without any preceding discussion. This was reverted by Average Portuguese Joe, who noted that the issue had already been discussed on the talk page. Norprobr then added a different anachronous map (along with one more, different map), again without any preceding discussion. I reverted this, again noting the pre-existing consensus and pointing out that changing consensus would require new discussion. Norprobr nevertheless restored their version, saying There is clearly a lack of consensus for the inclusion of that map since it has been removed by multiple editors, and not all users on the talk page agreed to its inclusion; the ones who agreed were biased Portuguese users. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There does appear to have been a consensus reached for that particular map. While consensus can change, it needs to be discussed. The map for 1714-1800 corresponds with the peak size of 13.7 x 10⁶ km² per this source cited to the area in the text body. Perhaps the caption should also mention that. The rationale for File:Location_of_the_Spanish_Empire.png is certainly not clear - when/what precisely is this showing (other than it is excluding Portugal and the Azores Islands)? There doesn't appear to be a rationale for showing the map of the Iberian Union, since it was only a brief period in the overall history and not the peak. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Location_of_the_Spanish_Empire.png is one of the anachronous maps referred to in my initial post. It includes (among other territories) Spanish Netherlands, Louisiana (New Spain), and Spanish Sahara, three territories that were not administered by the Spanish Empire at the same time. TompaDompa (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you TD. Nor Portugal and Portugese territories that existed during the Iberian Union. The caption does not explain what it is meant to be but regardless, it is neither fish nor fowl. If it has a place, it should be everything. Also, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would tell us less is better and the infobox is already bloated, without having two maps. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that map is pretty good to include in the lead. It is an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire that seems quite complete. Venezia Friulano (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That map was added by me in January 2023 and no one cared about it until “portuguese joe” deleted it saying “issue solved in talk page” while there wasn’t any prior issue nor any edit war, the issue came after his edit.

There wasn’t any WP:BRD cycle so the map must remain there and we have to reach an agreement why or why not it should remaim. Norprobr and you are doing edits/reverts based on the edit of an user who broke the stable version of this page. As no one except himself cared about that map for 5 months.

And I support to keep the map with the maximum extent. It’s anachronic and it’s useful. It seems there are irredentist users from a specific country that are unable to recognise their history, Spain and Portugal used to be united by the Iberian Union which was ruled by the Habsburg Spanish Philip II of Spain dynasty. So it’s not inaccurate to say these territories were once under the Spanish Empire, as it was tied with the Portuguese Empire. Also, the 2nd map has some flaws, as already mentioned by other users. LucenseLugo (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, where is the map that shows the entire anachronic map of the Spanish Empire? Netherlands and Belgium were Spanish at one point, parts of Germany too, the southern half of Italy, Sicily, other Mediterranean islands… as well as further north in North America and Pacific Ocean islands. Please provide a good map that shows the maximum anachronic extent and we can delete the map that bothers some irredentist users (that map includes the union territories, but it also explains perfectly which territories belonged to who in the legend and both Spanish and Portuguese are distinguished by 2 colors) provide a good replacement and we can delete it. If not, provide a solid reason why we should remove it, while leaving just an inaccurate map that shows less than 2/3 of the entire extent, which is the edit made by portuguese joe and supported by TompaDompa. LucenseLugo (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The issue has been discussed before, and the consensus was not to use an anachronous map (see my original post in this section). The addition of an anachronous map thus contravened existing consensus, even if you were not aware of it at the time and even if nobody objected until some time later. TompaDompa (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, no WP:BRD was made and only edits on the edge of edit wars were made, so the first approach wasn’t the best.

Anyways, I have added a more complex explanation stating clearly that the Portuguese Empire areas are also styled separately in blue in that map, and it represents what it was at the time of the Iberian Union.

The +13 million sq/km2 area that the sources mention, also include when Spain had numerous territories in Europe (which I’ve mentioned above) something I have also said here in 2020 and no one provided with a better map so let’s try to find a better alternative if that map bothers some irredentist users, although now it shouldn’t as it clearly distinguishes what it was Portuguese and what was Spanish.

The Iberian Union was ruled by Philip II of Spain when it began (and it ended with a Spanish King as well) so I don’t understand why there is a problem recognising both countries have a shared history.

I am a proud Galician myself, and I know the history of my region. We were once united with the portuguese and then most of our history is shared with the spanish, I like both countries and I am historically tied to both, not sure why irredentist users deny real world history books. LucenseLugo (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Where is exactly the consensus in the link you've provided if it's you and only 2 additional users (both of them happen to be portuguese) agreeing to delete the first map. How is that a consensus?

The proof is no one deleted the map for 5 months (with dozens of changes on this page in between) until the same user who was bothered with it in 2020-2021 deleted it again and you started to support his edit instead of WP:BRD for this.

I see another user made another reply in 2021 in your link, saying how the use of that map was actually good and he provided factual sources since 2009 yet no one cared to hear his opinion, just as you did it with him and no one else replied again. No, if you want to reach a consensus let's reach it, 3 users don't make a consensus, moreso if 2/3 of them are irredentists of their own nation. LucenseLugo (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think edit warring with TompaDompa will get you anywhere. I'd suggest you to start a WP:RFC to determine consensus. Tercer (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted LucenseLugo's latest edit to the previously agreed map. I think that should stay unless and until a new consensus is found. Donald Albury 13:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Per my previous, there does appear to have been a consensus but consensus can change. It is also my view that the map corresponding to the peak area reported in the infobox should be the one used in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It is necessary to include an anachronous map for the Spanish empire, as it exists in the Lead of other empires. In addition, it provides more complete information. Venezia Friulano (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in the 2021 discussion: I would be more inclined to change the other ones to maps of their greatest extents. There are also other alternatives: the article Mongol Empire uses an animated map that shows the territorial evolution of the empire, and Ottoman Empire currently uses a selection of maps portraying different points in time that the reader can switch between to compare them (with the one of the greatest extent preselected). TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Okey, go ahead TompaDompa and put a map like the Mongol or Ottoman Empire in this article. Until then an anachronous map is just better. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with LucenseLugo arguments, I want my support to be counted. Venezia Friulano (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTAVOTE. I also noticed that you changed the map to an anachronous one, which is rather inappropriate when the discussion is still ongoing—as has been pointed out above by Tercer and Donald Albury. Anyway, it might be a good idea to ping the participants in the previous discussion (the ones that haven't commented here already—feel free to add any I've missed). @Average Portuguese Joe, Cristiano Tomás, Empirecoins, Barjimoa, Trasamundo, and Jotamar: would you care to weigh in on this? TompaDompa (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@LucenseLugo: Would you care to provide a source for your claims? Surely you must have a source stating Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde or parts of India were once part of the Spanish Empire don't you? It seems to me that the creator of the map in question [1] doesn't provide any sources either, so we should also be questioning the authenticity of the map itself. I would go as far as to say that, without sources, the map is a mere work of art and has little to no historical credibility. There is also no need to offend users: So I'm now an irredentist just because I use common sense? Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be blunt: you clearly do not understand or do not properly apply how to assess and evaluate sources for appropriate use on Wikipedia. You do not even seem to understand how sources are used on Wikipedia, since you ask for "evidence". Wikipedia does not care about your arguments (or mine) on the topic, Wikipedia cares about what the consensus view among sources on the topic is. I have explained this to you. Cinderella157 has explained this to you.[2][3] Slatersteven has explained this to you.[4] The consensus view among sources on the topic is at odds with your view. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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