Talk:Spanish American wars of independence

Untitled

About name see definition.--Dunkedun (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Main image

All the important articles about wars in Wikipedia use a collage of important battles or images as the main image. For this I made File:Independencia sudamericana.jpg, but it was recently removed as having perhaps some Argentine bias in the chosing of the images. I'm open to suggestions of possible ideas to replace images, but always having in mind that the battles should be key to the development of the war itself, not mere skirmishs, and that the heroes in them should not be repeated if possible.

The one of the crossing of the Andes have a higher size because it's a square image instead of a rectangular one. Yes, this arrangement gives it more predominance, but I don't think that's much of a problem: it is clearly the most important military action of the whole war, and the image in it have prominent images of San Martín and O'Higgins, heroes of Argentina and Chile, which is better than having 2 different images for both.

The battle of Salta may be a potencial candidate for replacement, if a better option is suggested. It was a key battle in Argentine independence but not a decisive one, and I'm not sure about its effects outside of Argentina. MBelgrano (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• This picture is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• Description:
  • Cap: San Martin (argentinian)
  • 4 minor pictures:
    • Pisba pass (Colombia)
    • Battle of Salta (argentinian)
    • Gauchos (argentinian)
    • Battle of Ayacucho (Perou)

Main objections:

• no NPOV San Martin is in the big cap of whole independence.
• There are no picture representative of Royalists
• There are no picture representative of independence of Viceroyalty of New Spain
• There are no picture representative of independence of Captaincy General of Venezuela
• etc etc etc

MBelgrano your image look argentinians pictures: then put your national picture in the article of Argentine War of Independence

Sugestions for New Image:

• Cap: continental map with actual boundaries (as now) or of independente nations at end of war: Mexican Empire, Great Columbia,Peru,Chile,Bolivia,Paraguay, and Rio de la Plata, and remaining colonies of Spain in Americas.
• The rest of four minor pictures:
  • one for main battle of Bolivar (Or equivalent)
  • one for main battle San Martin (Or equivalent)
  • one for military campaign in New Spain (Or equivalent)
  • one for Spain military effort (Or equivalent)

Bye.--Santos30 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And which specific images do you suggest? MBelgrano (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• 
• 

• 
• 

--Santos30 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done most the work on writing or translating articles on these war on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I support the idea of a collage picture in the infobox. I made a navigation box: no:Mal:Kampanjeboks latinamerikansk uavhengighet to reflect upon the different aspects of the war, which you might consider as an idea, though I am not really confident in it (and one of the pictures (Bolívar crossing the Andes) had to be relaced). But otherwise I support Santos30's suggestion. Anyway, I hope you can use images that could be transferd to Commons and as such used on other projects. Yonaka (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Hpav7, the previous image put by Santos30 with the smaller globe at the bottom was more esthetically pleasing. In the current version the globe is overpowering and diminishes the impact that these paintings have on the reader's imagination. A map, or maps, would go perfectly well in the body of the text.TriniMuñoz (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the same. It may be up to discussion which should be the images to include, but if we check around wikipedia, the idea itself, using a collage of related images as the lead and most prominent image, is a common standard in articles about wars. See for example World War II, Hundred Years' War, American Revolutionary War, Vietnam War, among other great wars. The map was a good alternative until such a collage was made, but now that it is, and there are not very strong concerns about the images used by it, there's little reason not to use it in the same style other articles do. MBelgrano (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TriniMuñoz and MBelgrano. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As we are 3 supporting here the use of the collage as lead image (plus Santos 30 at my talk page, and the creator of the current one), I have proceed to restore it as the only image. The map has been moved to a section below that details the consequences of the war. MBelgrano (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Animated Map not working=

File:Hisparevol.gif does not work unless click on twice to see in full resolution. Even then it changes far to quickly and needs to be slowed down.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That was my file. I created the GIF with GraphicConverter® 6.7 back in Dec. 2009. It worked when I first uploaded it, but it stopped soon after. It must have been something with Graphic Converter's animation. I now have access to Adobe Photoshop CS3® 10.0.1 for the Mac, and I recreated it. I'm not the handiest when it comes to GIF creation, but following Octavii suggestion, I set the frame time at five seconds each. With the new file, the GIF seems to be functioning as viewed in the article. Best, TriniMuñoz (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ready for GA?

Should we nominate this article for Good Article status, or do you think it needs more work? Cambalachero (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Y ready for Good Article --Santos30 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish American wars of independence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Quite an interesting article, and certainly a well-written one. Some quick checks of the lead resulted in this:
  • The first sentence: The Spanish American wars of independence were the numerous wars against Spanish rule in Spanish America that took place during the early 19th century, from 1808 until 1829, and which were initiated by the Napoleonic French invasion of Spain. I would change it to this:
    • The Spanish American wars of independence were the numerous wars against Spanish rule in Spanish America that took place during the early 19th century, after the invasion of Spain by forces of the French Empire. I found the phrase "Spanish rule in Spanish America" a little repetitive, but, if you think it's the most accurate way to describe it, I'd leave it the way it is.

I agree it's repetitive, and I would write "in America," but I often find that when I write something like that, someone else edits it to "Latin America" or something similar. There are many people out there for whom "America" only means the U.S. Using "Americas" might solve this. TriniMuñoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • The second sentence is somewhat confusing, but I am not sure how to rephrase it.
  • These conflicts can be characterized both as civil wars and wars of national liberation, since, on the one hand, the majority of the combatants on both sides were Spanish Americans, and on the other, the goal of one group of belligerents was the independence of the Spanish colonies in the Americas. The war in Europe and the resulting absolutist restoration ultimately convinced the Spanish Americans of the need to establish independence from the mother country, so various revolutions broke out in Spanish America.
    • I understand this one, but it could be clarified a little by tweaking it. A way that might work:
      • These conflicts have been characterized both as civil wars and as wars of national liberation, since, while the majority of combatants were Spanish Americans, the goal of one group of belligerents was the independence of the Spanish colonies in the Americas. The faction seeking independence acted after they learned of the Napoleon's invasion of Spain.

Maybe this section could be expanded by a sentence or two to clarify it. The historiography is now arriving to the conclusion that the idea of independence evolves after the French invasion, rather than it being a pre-held idea. (Individual exceptions can be found, like Francisco de Miranda, but the majority of the population, or even a sizable minority, did not hold this belief.) TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd take out the parentheses in the third paragraph and make that a separate sentence on the Brazilian separation from Portugal.
  • The last sentence confused me a little. I think it would make more sense to say that "a more direct cause of the Spanish American wars of independence were the unique developments in the Kingdom of Spain during this period."

• I shall make some surface edits to the rest of the document, and shall then add more comments. I'd like to reiterate what I said above: the article seems quite well-done. DCItalk 18:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• What do you think about briefly describing some of the other Atlantic revolutions in the Historical Background section?

• Section Social tension probably does not have enough citations that would verify the claims made in the paragraph. Of course, they're true, but sentences that claim something had a "great impact" on the war should reference a reliable source.

• From section Royalist Ascendancy; Royalist Military: The American militias reflected the racial make-up of the local population. For example, in 1820 the royalist army in Venezuela had 843 white (español), 5,378 Casta and 980 Indigenous soldiers.
  • Am I correct to infer that there were 843 Europeans, 5,378 Hispanic Americans (included in the casta system), and 980 indigenous people?

The term españoles includes white Spanish Americans. These people are also called Criollos. I could make that clearer. The castas are mixed-race people. The numbers here refers to the official army in Venezuela, including units that were originally part of the Expeditionary Force sent in 1815. TriniMuñoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Is the word "militia" intended, or is "military" the one supposed to be used? "Military" seems to make more sense, as armies and militias are similar but distinct concepts, but seem to describe the same thing here. I'm only asking in case there's a reason for it to remain the way it is.

"Militia" is used on purpose here, because it refers to militias. Militias comprised an important part of the fighting forces, in addition to the official army. In many areas, militias were the bulk of the fighting forces. As surprising as it might sound, the formal military was very small during the colonial period. TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just something I noticed: maybe this is not correct, but there seem to be quite a few semicolons in the article. I'd use these sparingly, as there are other, smoother ways to rephrase sentences that we can use.

• Despite the length of the article, I would advise you not to overlink, especially when it comes to common words like "Chile," "Cuzco," and "independentists." The latter in particular is linked to multiple articles, including "independence" and "separatism."

• Check for minor grammar and spelling errors, which can make reading less smooth. I have found several, but they are not serious (typos, probably).

Checklist

Hopefully, the suggestions above aren't overwhelming. I'd be glad to help with any fixing-up you want to do. Here is the checklist for GA, however, and my commentary. If we can add some more citations and double-check for grammar/spelling again, I'll pass it for GA as soon as possible.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is an extremely well-done article, even if my comments above suggest otherwise. They may be of use when doing an A-class review at the Military History WikiProject, which I strongly encourage you to do.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The writing is clear in most places. I would watch for typos, though.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are quite reliable, and there is no evidence of original research. I would definitely like to see more inline citations, especially in the theory-based paragraphs, and this should be fixed before the article goes any higher. However, they are no obstacle in a GA review.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no indication of bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article definitely deserves GA status, and probably A-class. I hope that you continue working on your valued contributions to Wikipedia.

A-Class review

Are any of you interested in bringing this forward to a WikiProject for A-class review? DCItalk 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. However, I must clarify that I'm the nominator but not the main contributor of this article, so I'm not taking credit for it. I just thought that it was a very good article, which fits all the requirements, and I have some books around if there were requests of further clarification; but that's it. It's Trinimuñoz who made most of the work.

As for A-Class review, I think that should be left for later. In my experience, writing everything about a topic, provide a good style and follow a "one reference per paragraph and red flag sentence" policy is good enough for GA review, but A and Featured take a little more. Referencing should be expanded to "One reference per sentence", the manual of style should be verfied point by point (some things like paragraph size or space between images are self-evident when someone writes, but there are plenty of small details as well, as types of dashes, easy to forget and hard to notice unless seeking specifically for it), and even then, one or two peer reviews just to be sure there's nothing missing Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; we can leave it at GA for a while. DCItalk 13:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Portugal-Spain alliance 1811?

Please User:Cambalachero give us the references, I never read something like that. As far I know Portugal never support the spaniards in their war against patriots.--Santos30 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This took place in 1811, at the Banda Oriental. Buenos Aires had made the May Revolution in 1810, but Montevideo stayed loyal to the authorities in Spain. Then, in 1811, the oriental countryside rebelled against Montevideo, and led by Artigas, joined forces with Buenos Aires. With the victory at the battle of Las Piedras, they began a siege to Montevideo. Incapable to resist with his own forces, Javier de Elío requested help from Portugal (Brazil was not independent yet). The "Ejército Pacificador de la Banda Oriental" joined the conflict on July 1811, nearly 4.000 men led by Diego de Souza. This led to a conflict between Buenos Aires and Artigas: with the recent defeats at the Upper Peru and Paraguay, Buenos Aires gave up the siege against Montevideo and signed an armistice, leaving Artigas alone against both the royalists and the Portuguese. The whole story, in Spanish, can be check at es:Sitio de Montevideo (1811) (not translated yet). In short, Portugal aided with troops a royalist leader. And, as pointed, it is correct that the Luso-Brazilian invasion was not in support of Spain, but that's another conflict. Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I see the local support (annexation) to Banda Oriental on 1811, but is the first invasion of Cisplatina by Portugal (We need a traslation of Cisplatina wars).--Santos30 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominican Republic

There is no mention of the country, its independence from Spain, its re-annexation or its second independence from Spain.--El Mayimbe (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1810-1818 in the Southern Cone

While I welcome the countinuing expansion of this article, I noted that there is no mention of the key military feats of the Argentine war of independence before the Crossing of the Andes. These developments are important as they included action in the territories of four current nations and secured a stronghold that was never reconquered by the royalists, and from where San Martín could launch its campaigns. Salut! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 22:34, September 2012 (UTC)

Confusing article

As someone who is relatively unfamiliar with this subject, I found this article to be quite hard to follow (and I honestly doubt it deserves its Good Article status). The main issue, I think, is in chronology. As one example, in the sub-section "Restoration of Ferdinand VII", it describes his dissolution of the constitution, but the Spanish Constitution of 1812 is not actually introduced and explained until later. This is but one instance of how this article tends to feel like it's shifting back and forth in the narrative. I also find that this article seems to provide insufficient details about the course of events. In the section "Wars for disputed sovereignty, 1810–14", it provides many links to main articles concerning events of this period, but it avoids actually summarizing these in the section. Instead, it provides some further explanations of the elements of the movement and the general mood (i.e. social tensions, regional rivalries, and the extent to which independence was an initial goal). However, without the narrative is hard to follow when events are not described. There is a link to the main article of the May Revolution, for instance, and yet this article never ever mentions it whatsoever. Sol Pacificus (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I made some edits to improve the sense of chronology.--Caminoderoma (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Royal Army also was in the Mexican side

"Spain's Royal Army also was in the Mexican side, because the royalist criollo Colonel Agustín de Iturbide that joined the pro-independence side."

Im not see this point. San Martin and Bolivar and many others was in the Forced armes of Spain too --Caminoderoma (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, but that leader was in functions and was an high-profile captain. --Apache207 (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Putting the Burgundy flag on the Trigarant side is confusing. It is also historically false. Iturbide trigarants did not use the Burgundy flag.--Caminoderoma (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Insurgency

The template does not reflect Historical facts. A huge part of Spanish-American wars of independence was is insurgency and counterinsurgency. Regular warfare is more important in South America, but both belligerents used regular and irregular warfare in many phases. Many times out of the control of any government.--Caminoderoma (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

neutral contribution

Neutral countries improves reader understanding. The understanding of this war is incomplete without referring to the context of international support, even if it is unofficial, it was directly related to independence (as recruiting navies or armies from a territory or annexing Spanish territories) from the countries that supported both sides. --Pacopepe 50 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SAI Wiki 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• SAI Wiki 2.png
• SAI Wiki 3.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutral countries support

I believe that if a reference is needed it can be added, and it will be, but removing the support of neutral countries makes the table and the article less comprehensible. --1000mil (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of adding them in the infobox is that they're explained in the article preferably under 'Foreign Support', and only UK is. For those that don't it would be better to leave them out until that section relevant to that country is filled out regardless of how many citations there are. It is confusing to the reader when placing them there and finding absolutely nothing in body of article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay this shouldn't be a problem either. I add the United States for example. And each country that contributed war material or combatants, whether state or private, can be added in the same international section, along with the United Kingdom. Each country has its own interests, however, as is the case with the United States and the United Kingdom. On the Spanish side, we have the interests of Portugal in Uruguay, or Russia as a post-Napoleonic European power. --1000mil (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have adjusted accordingly but these addtions you have made need citations. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, first I will try to follow the outline of countries including in the infobox, which is correct for this section. Although I do not know if all the countries should, or can, appear later in the infobox, this is the case of the European Holy Alliance, Austria or Prusia, which does not contribute neither with weapons or with combatants. Or the case of Portugal, ambivalent, which helps Montevideo against revolutionaries, but annexes the Spanish territory of the Banda Oriental, entering a pre-war state against Spain.--1000mil (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

TO User:1000mil I cannot agree with your edit about American annexation of Florida, and Russian support and etc.... We should talk about "Independence War" of "Spanish America", not a territorial war between powerful countries. You see, Florida annexation was happening during controversy between US and Spain, and that is not part of Spanish American wars of independence. I think you should really think about your edit again. -- Wendylove (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

To Wendylove, No, I do not talk about any "territorial war". Only the post-Napoleonic international framework must be clarified in scarce lines. The references say that Floridas and Texas and Russian Warships was a part of Spanish American wars of independence.

About United States, it is essential the role of the american adventurers and privateers in the independence of Hispanic America (they collapse the Spanish trade in the Mexican Gulf, Caribean and Atlantic ocean). The territorial annexation of the United States (It should be mentioned at least), because passes first through the independence of the Spanish territory, and 1) was successful with the annexation of Western Florida, 2) conditioned a negotiation in the attempt of Eastern Florida and 3) which failed with Texas.

About Russia, this country sold and ceded warships to Spain to restore the Spanish navy (which no longer had a navy at that time).--1000mil (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources yo back this? The Royal Navy were the ones controlling the seas in the wake of the Congress of Vienna and Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) and it was their merchants supplying the insurgents during the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To User:Eastfarthingan,

Yes, that's true, the United Kingdom dominated the seas in that era, but the war of the insurgent privateers was uncontrollable (and I'm not talking only about the privateer's war of the official Latin American navies). Yes, I have sources See:

• A Sure Defence against the Foe? Maritime Predation & British Commercial Policy during the Spanish American Wars of Independence, 1810-1830 [1].

--1000mil (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes but that source is exactly what I have stated in my previous comment note full title - ‘A Sure Defence against the Foe’? Maritime Predation & British Commercial Policy during the Spanish American Wars of Independence, 1810-1830'. Is there a source that mentions American privateers contribution and how effective was it? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, about only American privateers and Spanish American Independence we are talking about:

• 1-More than one hundred vessel sailed from United States.
• 2-More than three thousand American sailors.
• 3-Houled millions of dollars.

see this book:

• Privateers of the Americas: Spanish American Privateering from the United States in the Early Republic [2]

[3]

--1000mil (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I think your edit especially about the foreign countries that had involved, should be deleted because it has little connection with Spanish American War of independence. It is blurring the main focus of the article. First, see the first sentence of whole article. It says " with the aim of political independence that took place during the early 19th century, shortly after the French invasion of Spain in 1807 during Europe's Napoleonic Wars." And only British intervention article fits to this phrase. Your addition about "Futher Information" in "Foreign support" is quite blurring. For Russia and US, its further information article can be applied into any other articles in contemporary conflicts because those information are broader, and wider concept. And for Portugal, we cannot say they had support Spanish America, because all of those articles for "further information" sector are territorial war. So conclusion is, except for UK, are those foreign countries necessary in these articles? If yes, why articles of those countries are not specified into one direction, "Spanish American Indepence". -- Wendylove (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

To Wendylove

Precisely because the trigger, the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, is an international event, you should appreciate a broader approach to understanding this conflict. And the introduction says too "that emerged from the Age of Enlightenment and that influenced all of the Atlantic Revolutions". But you intend a narrow approach, totally enclosed within the limits of the Viceroyalties and Capitanies. But it is impossible for a reader to understand the strategy of the role of Spain in this war if he does not know that Spain had no navy at the time (Spain is an ocean away). Then he understands the important role played by Russia (see references) or the United States (see references). Russia has no territorial interests. For the contrary, the Empire of Portugal also has territorial interests, and a role, but it does not appear in the Infobox because it does not support with war material or people under the command of the patriots or the Royalists. War material or combatants originating from the United Kingdom, the United States or Russia, were subject to the direction of the Patriots or the Royalists. On the contrary, the Portuguese were obedient to the interests of the government of Portugal, and this government neither were allied of Spain, which is why they do not appear in the Infobox (have not been allies of a side, or have not given support, material or combatants, to a side).

As for the links to individual articles in Wikipedia, in relation to this war, they do not necessarily link to this article, and what does that prove? Nothing. Not even the war of each country separately necessarily links to each other, Mexico does not link to Argentina, etc. So what proof is that? None. What is important are the solid references, books that deal extensively, and that I have contributed, with the military role of foreign countries in support of one side or the other. This reminds me that you have not contributed any knowledge, only opinions, and you should contribute some reference that supports your affirmations.--1000mil (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"New Spain and Central America" section is confusing

"New Spain and Central America" section is confusing. Second paragraph especially needs a rewrite; I myself cannot understand it. For example, the name "O'Donoju" suddenly appears without introducition of who he was, and there is a confusing ungrammatical sentece about laws and subsequent Mexico.. Acwilson9 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Enslaved and oppressed indigenous and African residents?

How were the enslaved and oppressed indigenous and African residents impacted by the wars? This should be addressed, but is not. (I myself lack the necessary knowledge to address this.) Acwilson9 (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

They fought on both sides Vicentemovil (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It was essentially a Secessionist war, and to a much lesser social revolution. Vicentemovil (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Cuba?

Cuba is shown in the intro map, but is not addressed in the article. Acwilson9 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuba is mentioned several times in the article. It is clarified that Spain maintained its possession at the end of the war. Vicentemovil (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification sought

What on earth does the phrase “pre-[[Indusree-quarters in Mexico” in the Effects of Independence…Economics section refer to? Mr Larrington (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2019 and 24 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LeonelaSerrano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

France: why not?

Napoleon Bonaparte wished to dominate the Iberian Peninsula and Spanish America. Never independence. The later role of France after the Bourbon restoration is that of an ally of Ferdinand VII in the Iberian Peninsula until the end of the war. But never contributed material or combatants for the wars of emancipation. --Vicentemovil (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"pushing toward independence" is not a support. "Push" is a very broad set of indirect acts because from Napoleon Bonaparte there is no support for the independence of Latin American republics from Spanish America. Joseph Bonaparte, his brother, was King of Spain and its colonies. He would not want to lose them. If Joseph Bonaparte, as king of Spain, had signed a document for the independence of Latin America, it would have been enough for Spain to lose its rights and there would never have been a war. --Vicentemovil (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The whole empire? What about the Philippines?

The Philippines was part of the viceroyalty of New Spain and was also affected by the disintegration of the Spanish Empire.--Pipo1955 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

But the Empire didn't disintegrate as such in the 1830s: the Philippines were only lost in 1898, so the assertion that the American wars of independence led directly to the disintegration is acutely misleading. Remsense ‥ 论 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, although in my opinion, your argument about the war of 1898 is inappropriate (I am not going to discuss that). I understand that you intend to limit the collapse of the Spanish Empire to Spanish America, to the countries that achieved secession in that war of emancipation. However, the underlying issue was actually a transformation of the entire Spanish Empire (not just in America). This transformation began with the failed change to the Bonaparte dynasty and continued with the transformation of the old Empire into a multitude of resulting nation-states, including present-day Spain, which later fought with the United States in 1898. Nevertheless, during the Hispano-American emancipation from 1808 to 1833, there were independence movements in the Philippines that failed, and its seas were the object of an intense war with insurgent privateers. I propose a change to improve the template. See the edit, and if you disagree, revert it, and we can continue the discussion. Pipo1955 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's your analysis. The existing information is cited to a reliable source, which is what we go by on Wikipedia. Please revert your edit that introduces unsourced material to the article, which makes it vulnerable to being delisted as a Good article.Remsense ‥ 论 09:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Just because minor skirmishes took place beyond America does not make it reasonable to expand the scope in the infobox beyond the actual core of the conflict. The infobox is meant to be a summary of key facts, and your changes are astoundingly misleading. Please revert. Remsense ‥ 论 10:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a wrong idea, you think the Spanish American revolution is a geographically isolated issue, that is a very serious mistake.It was a global problem. Pipo1955 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Please review the article on Andrés Novales, I added the references and the link to the text where it literally states: a rebellion just like Iturbide’s (Agustín de Iturbide) Pipo1955 (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The generality implies that major aspects of the wars took place beyond America, which is not the case. It's like saying the American Civil War took place in Europe because of the Battle of Cherbourg. Remsense ‥ 论 10:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Was Cherbourg part of the Confederacy or the Union? Definitely not. Again, you’re going off-topic, talking about something other than the emancipation of Spanish America, which is also irrelevant Pipo1955 (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of the American Civil War, which seems to be your recurring topic (since you don’t talk about the Spanish American emancipation at all), I mean, it seems like to you that war only involves a part of the United States of America, let’s say just the Confederates (who failed). Many political, diplomatic, and military events. Perhaps the most significant military event of that war took place in peninsular Spain (Europe); it was the rebellion of Riego’s Great Expedition, which happened in Cádiz, Spain. This is not to mention the naval blockade of the Spanish coasts by insurgent privateers or the crucial role of the Canary Islands, which are geographically part of Africa Pipo1955 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)