User talk:El Gran Capitán

Misrepresenting sources

Do not misrepresent sources, as you did at Spanish Empire. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new. So I just need to update the new source related to my change?

The extension is wrong and I can proof it. If you check Spanish Empire (Spanish version) and in Empires by land extension (Spanish version) you can see the right extension and their sources.

Spanish Territory in 1790:

- Current latinamerica extension is 11,500,000 km2 as you can see in its entry. -Anexion of Texas and territory ceded from Mexico to USA at Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty in 1848: more than 2 million km2 - Spanish Louisiana (1763-1804)= more than 2 million km2 - Florida sold to the USA in the 19th century= 177,000 km2 - Territory gained by Brazil in 19th century from the just independent latinamerican republics: 0,9 million km2 - Territory anexed by UK in the Asequibo, current Venezuela in 19th century= 100,000 km2 - Spain= 500,000 km2 - Philippines= 300,000 km2 - Equatorial Guinea after El Pardo treaty in 1778= 300,000 km2 - Nutka territory managed from New Spain Viceroyalty from 1789 to 1795 = circa 2 million mk2

Thanks, regards.

 Christian Ramírez Ferro (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source in entries in Spanish:

Roca Barea, María Elvira. Imperiofobia y leyenda negra: Roma, Rusia, Estados Unidos y el Imperio español. Siruela, 2016. Sección 7

Christian Ramírez Ferro (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done above is what's known on Wikipedia as WP:Original research, which is not allowed. The source that is currently cited is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities; replacing it with a source like Imperiofobia is a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific article used as a source only mentions the size and the year of the spanish empire, there is no study nor sources explaining where the author takes that data from. So this data is not verified. You can check it by yourself.

Work “Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia”

This is all the information regarding the Spanish empire extension:

Page 499

Spain

1482 .35 E

1500 .5 Haiti

1512 .8 Naples, Cuba

1640 7.1 S. and Central American coast

1780 13.7 Advance inland

1810 13.7 Peak size *

1830 .9 Latin America independent

1895 .95

1900 .55 Philippines lost

1915 .80 Sahara conquered

1975 .505 Sahara lost

That´s wrong, peak size was prior to 1800 before Spain returns Louisiana to France, which later will be sold to USA in 1803, information that the same work confirms:

Page 501

France

1530 .45 Hm,EB Metropolitan France before expansion overseas

1610 1.0 Conquests in Canada

1670 3.4 Louisiana, India

1763 .7 Colonies in India, Canada lost

1800 2.1 Louisiana expansion

1803 .7 Louisiana sold

1813 2.1 Control in parts of Europe

1815 .7 Return to old borders

1830 .8 Algerian coast

1840 1.1 Gabon

1850 1.5 Inland Algeria Christian Ramírez Ferro (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is the fourth in a series on the topic: [1][2][3][4]. The methods and sources are outlined therein. Saying this data is not verified is nonsensical. Your argument gets even more silly when you say that Imperiofobia should be cited instead, seeing as that source says that the Spanish Empire's peak size was before Louisiana (New Spain). TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the peak was prior to 1800 which is the year Spain returned the Lousiana to France (more than 2 million km2).

- 1st serie, there is no information regarding which territories are considered in the spanish empire, it just mentions 14 in 1800.

- 2nd serie, no mention about Spain.

- 3rd serie, I have not access to that one, please provide a free access if possible.

- 4th serie, just mentions 1810 13.7 Peak size

So, in the same work that you consider a proper source, we can see 2 different years as peak and 2 different extensions.

Indeed, very accurate...

It´s very easy to understand that the 13,7 million km2 is wrong just by looking at the map image shown in the Spanish Empire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_(1714-1800).png

Despite of Esequibo and Equatorial Guinea territories are not shown on it, which is also wrong...

It only takes counting knnowlegde to see that the expansion comprised in that map contains at least 17 million of km2.

Anyway, don´t worry, I will find a good source which will confirm that Rein Taagepera is wrong, so are you. 83.165.147.234 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]