Talk:History of Spain (1808–1874)

[Untitled]

I put the first few sections (covering 1814-1833) up; I might come back some time and put the last sections (1833-1870) in later. In the meantime, if someone is interested in working on this, I would be more than happy to help out in whatever way I can; just leave a message. Adam Faanes 11:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article should be called Nineteenth century Spain not mid-19th century spain.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent unsourced edits to the article

Santos30 (talk) is making substantial unsourced changes to the article's text. This user seems to have quite a history (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30) of being blocked for sockpuppetry and edit-warring. Carlstak (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The text before my edition is POV, wrong and historically incomprehensible. Put a cite required where you need references and I put references. Or tell me what is "substantial unsourced changes" and we can solve the problem if any. --Santos30 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Justification for the chosen "frame"

What's the bibliographical apparatus backing up "History of Spain (1810–1873)"? Regardless of the non-bracketed part (the current one, given its simplicity, it is not particularly problematic) isn't more common in academic literature to deal with periods starting in 1808 and spanning until 1868 or 1874 such as "(1808–1868)" or "(1808–1874[1])"? (not to say the simple 1833-1868" although we've already have that one covered. The way I see it, it looks like an ad hoc title whose sole purpose is to justify a particular infobox rather than the other way around (an infobox fitting an article whose content is dictated by the frame of academic literature). I mean, in truth, the content of the lead fits neatly the 1808–1874 period and the body of the article (not the title) fits also quite well the 1808–1874 period (it just haphazardly removes the last year of the Sexenio Democrático), so if fitting to the 1808–1874 period becomes a problem vis-à-vis the infobox, the solution is clear for me: trim or remove the infobox altogether.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this article's scope should span from 1808 to 1874: History of Spain (1808–1874) (as per the take of holistic sources: [2][3]) and because breaking the Sexenio Democrático this way is a novel frame failing to follow literature (sources either include the full sexenio merged with the former period or left it outside the period, but sources do not include a part of the sexenio merged with the previous period and leave the republic missing). The inception of the current structure is possibly due to the unencyclopaedic purpose of fitting articles into disinfoboxes, rather than the other way around. Regarding content, the article already features the 1808–1810 period (which is somewhat "adequatedly" covered, keeping in mind the whole article is chiefly a political history of big names with some wars dropped here and there and little content else). It is missing the developments during the First Republic, though. I leave this proposal of a new structure in case anyone has anything to say.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: So apparently era articles with infoboxes are suddenly considered to be a problem now. I've read through your reasoning but I'm still pretty lost on what you're trying to get at, especially considering other articles similar to this one have infoboxes such as History of Spain (1700–1808) and History of Portugal (1834–1910) yet neither of them have also had their infoboxes taken down? Not to mention that your reasoning is a blatant violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as infoboxes (Especially in articles dealing with former countries) are meant to be a general summary of the topic of the article. As mentioned in my previous revert, from what I've read of the article myself and the infoboxes' contents, it's a perfectly serviceable summary for those who don't have the time to read through all of it, especially considering this is the only article where you deleted its infobox. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, infoboxes can be a nuisance. Above all, when someone is tempted to make an article to fit a particular infobox (or some features of a particular infobox), and not the other way around (WP:DISINFOBOX). This is an article about the history of Spain in the 19th century and its framework needs to follow how historians periodise the period. There is no special interest whatsoever either in the idea of a coherent "regime" so to speak (sources are not worried either about that, it is a worry fabricated by Wikipedia editors thirsty of infobox WP:CRUFT, fetishishing the former country infobox construct and weary of editing something outside the infobox). I haven't checked those articles, and I frankly don't know the point of bringing them here. Look at the points laid out here above these lines, concerning this article. Please check scholar histories of Spain. "1810s-1873" is not a thing. History of 19th century Spain is not studied (nor presented by sources) that way. And of course, in order to avoid original research we can't follow frameworks that are "not a thing" in academia in order to create an article. The sexenio democratico is not split that way in academia (as in the first years attached to the Ferdinand and Isabella reigns and the latter left out. The provisional government and the Amadeo reign belongs together with the Republic in a coherent thing (of course, that coherent thing is later subdivided in subperiods), because they steem from the same process (the one set in motion in the wake of the 1868 revolution), and that's the way sources present the history of 19th century Spain. But instead, in this article, editors have split the sexenio in pieces so they can have a fancy infobox, because I suppose having a monarchy and a republic at the same time in the infobox is messy (and I partially agree here, but the problem lies in the infobox, not in the historiography).--Asqueladd (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: First off, the article only covers the years between the Napoleonic Wars and the Third Carlist War. If it were an entire article about the 19th-century geopolitical situation in Spain then there might as well be a page move on it. Second, see WP:DIBR as that's what I see defines on what's a Dis-infobox and even then, essays aren't as much of a priority as a MOS. Third of all, this period of Spain can be seen as it's own regime considering that it was ruled by the House of Savoy until it's overthrow as well as the Carlist Wars around the time. Fourth, WP:CRUFT only applies to pop culture articles, not historical non-fiction ones. Fifth, if you haven't checked them then why are we even having this debate considering that, by your own words: Please check scholar histories of Spain. "1810s-1873" is not a thing. can also apply to other articles (Further showing the lack of consistency within your points) Also if the history of Spain during the early and middle 19th century is too complex for a single article or that (1808–1873) isn't a valid historical term then why not split the article instead of pointlessly deleting the infobox because of your own personal preferences. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please consider the purpose of the article. Cannot be to create something ad hoc to fit an ad-hoc an infobox, right? If we can agree content in the body the article should be based on sources and historiography, then we are in the same boat and I think we could improve on the article, look at what our sources say and how they frame things, and if we do that in good faith we'll find compromises. Are you willing to walk the walk?--Asqueladd (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Preceded by/Succeeded by

@User:Coeusin The organization of predecessor and successor countries in the table appears to be incorrect. Among the predecessor countries, independent Spain from the Napoleonic Kingdom must be included, which encompasses all territories not dominated by the French, including Spanish America. On the other hand, the list of successor countries includes territories that never proclaimed their independence from the Spanish monarchy, such as the Patria Vieja of Chile, which continued to recognize Ferdinand VII as its sovereign. Additionally, some of these territories were never internationally recognized.

A particular case is that of some ephemeral states, such as New Granada, whose legitimacy is disputed, yet Gran Colombia is also listed, which presents a contradiction within the table. Another notable case is Paraguay, whose status remains a subject of debate, as it never formally proclaimed its independence from Spain and is considered by certain Argentine sectors as part of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.

In summary, to be encyclopedically considered a successor country, two fundamental criteria must be met:

1-The country must have proclaimed its independence from Spain.

2-The country must have been internationally recognized (Not just an ephemeral).

It would be advisable to review and clarify each case in the table based on these criteria. Based on these two clarification criteria, I then ask the user: Did Paraguay proclaim its independence from Spain or from Argentina? When was it internationally recognized? --Pipo1955 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Pipo1955, good to talk to you. I'll try to reply to all of your points, but let me know if I miss something.

Patria Vieja Chile indeed still nominally recognized Ferdinand VII, as did Paraguay initially, but there is a key word there - nominally. In Chile, for instance, if there was no independence from Spain (political or institutional) why were there royalist risings from the earliest days of the Patria Vieja onwards? Paraguay only formally declared its independence in the 1840s, yet are we really to deny that it was an independent country through most of the 1810s and the Francia years? Jumping ahead a little, it formally proclaimed its independence from Argentina in the 1840s, though it never was de facto under independent Argentina. A good read on this is Ramón Antonio Ramos' "La independencia del Paraguay y el Imperio del Brasil", which was recently republished by the Alexandre de Gusmão Foundation.

International recognition doesn't really matter for the question of sucessor states. There are many examples of this in Wikipedia. Look at the article of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. Their main sucessor state is listed as the First Hungarian Republic, which was internationally unrecognized. Alternatively, we can look at this infobox here - it lists two short-lived States which were precursors to Bolivia and Peru as sucessor states, both with contested international repute, but cronologically sequential.

New Granada and Gran Colombia are both in this article's infobox because they encompassed different territory, and both were the first sucessor state for the Spanish colonial empire in said different territory. I don't understand how your in summary part should summarize what you said above.

Sorry if I went on too long, but you raised many interesting points. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Coeusin: If Individualized Criteria Are Applied, All Ephemeral States Should Be Included

The user argues that international recognition is not a relevant criterion for determining whether a state is a successor and that entities that functioned de facto as independent should be considered, regardless of their formal proclamation. However, if these individualized and non-uniform criteria are applied, then all ephemeral states should be included in the template, as many of them exercised temporary sovereignty in various Spanish American territories.

Key Points:

1- Inconsistency in the Selection of Successor States

• The inclusion of states without international recognition, such as the First Hungarian Republic, is justified.

• However, other ephemeral states with similar circumstances have been arbitrarily excluded. Including the states that underwent Balkanization.

• About Spain: wasn’t the state proposed by the Cádiz liberals defeated and disappeared?

2- Ephemeral States That Should Be Considered Successors Under This Criterion (not all):

• Regional states of New Granada (Cundinamarca, Cartagena, Tunja, etc.)

• Insurgent states in Mexico (e.g., Junta de Zitácuaro, Congress of Chilpancingo)

• Provinces of the Río de la Plata with temporarily independent governments

• Chile during the Patria Vieja, if its nominal independence is recognized as de facto independence

3- Paraguay Is Not a Unique Case

• If Paraguay is included despite not having proclaimed its independence until the 1840s, why not include other territories that operated similarly?

• De facto independence cannot be applied selectively to certain cases only.

4- The Template Must Reflect a Consistent Criterion

• Either proclamation and international recognition are required as a standard, which would exclude some of the listed states.

• Or any state that exercised temporary sovereignty is admitted, which would require all ephemeral states to be included.

• Applying a flexible criterion to only some cases is inconsistent and biased.

Conclusion:

If the argument is accepted that international recognition and proclamation are not mandatory requirements, then the template should include all ephemeral states that emerged during the independence process (1810-1830). If not, a double standard compromises the coherence and neutrality of the information presented.

Proposal:

Succeeded must include a Link to Hispanic American States [[4]] Pipo1955 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Pipo1955. I like your proposal. Regarding point 2 of your reply, subnational units don't count; regarding point 3, I never claimed it was unique; regarding point 4, the criteria is constant - the first succeeding state in a given territory is counted as the sucessor. In the future, please refrain from using LLMs in wikipedia. It's better if you communicate with your own words, even if you make some grammar mistakes. When talking to me, in particular, puedes usar el castellano si lo prefieres. Saludos! Coeusin (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

¡Hecho! Pipo1955 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)