Talk:Black legend/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

mystery footnote

A google search for this book cited in the notes turns up nothing: Jail and Matthew Garcia Bretos, The Black Legend (1991) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.22.241 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

La leyenda negra, Ricardo García Cárcel, Lourdes Mateo Bretos, ISBN 9788420735542

Cárcel = Jail; Mateo = Matthew

--Ecelan (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Expert needed

The 'Black Legend' is for many historians the 'Black History', and calling it a legend is then a Spanish equivalent of negationism. Another bunch of historians brings apparently valid arguments about anti-Spanish propaganda.
Any country's history has been regarded from different angles and perceived through nationalistic as well as foreign eyes. There usually came a general understanding of what is fact or legend, without a WP article about the country's 'Black Legend'. Is Spain's history in particular after about 500 years then so different to serious historians?
I cannot be a judge of which "historians" are to be considered objective experts. And apparently few or none of the other contributors to the article or this talk page do better. Hence, I tagged the article "Expert attention needed", and dearly.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-02 12:58 (UTC)

It strikes one as a direct (and automatic) translation from Spanish, eg. Reference to "Jail and Matthew Garcia Bretos, The Black Legend (1991) & Matthew Garcia Carcel, Bretos, p.84". "Jail" is actually Ricardo García Cárcel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Legend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118023741/http://www.elsen.eu/docs/vp091/elsen-veiling91-lasser-historischkader.pdf to http://www.elsen.eu/docs/vp091/elsen-veiling91-lasser-historischkader.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928222112/http://www.parkstad.com/lim/hist2-zdl.html to http://www.parkstad.com/lim/hist2-zdl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Horrible mess

This article is a horrible mess. The section on anti-Spanish sentiment (which might not even be relevant, you could write something similar about England, France or wherever) comes before the actual details of what the black legend is. What should come directly after the lead is examples of Black Legend distortions... "X said the Spanish ate babies, however the Spanish ate paella"

Wull see what I can do, but making something logical from this pig's ear will be difficult

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right, it is a horrible mess. Possibly a consequence of having been written by people that have not read the relevant literature. Part of the Black Legend I guess: everyone knows about it, so you don't need any special knowledge.

Just one point, there was no "genocide" in America, if you are precise with your vocabulary (as you seem to be with the word "excess"): "the deliberate and systematic killing or murdering of a national, racial, political, or cultural group". American native people were not killed systematically for belonging to a group. Of course, you can use it as a hyperbole, but that should not be the use in an encyclopedia.

--Ecelan (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There were incidences of genocides in the Americas, it is hard to categorise what befell the natives of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico as anything other than genocide, and genocide studies programmes include both of them.

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please cite the studies. But please, not some historian mentioning it on the fly as a hyperbole, or some studies programme. An actual study that demonstrates that what happened was an actual genocide.

--Ecelan (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

See Genocides in history#Americas. See also discussion here: Talk:Genocides in history_POV template — Americas and here: diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't see any good source in the texts for genocide in Spanish America before the independence. Most talk about the case in the US, putting all European colonizations in one big pot. Then there are those that include the death by illnesses into the genocidal account. On the other hand, it is clear in those same Wiki articles you mention that there are many that disagree with the term "genocide" (and I could add more historians).

I'll take a look at Stannard anyway.

--Ecelan (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Been reading about Stannard. Sorry, but I think J. H. Elliott is right [1]: Stannard is not using the word "genocide" consistently, but using it as a "vocabulary of condemnation" instead.

--Ecelan (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Ricardo García Carcel does not deny the existence of the Black Legend anymore like he said in his book The Black Legend (1991). Eather delete the part that says that he denies the existence of the Black Legend or explain that he changed his mind since he wrote the book and do not deny the existence of the Black Legend anymore. He has a whole interview explaining what he thinks that the Black Legend is and that the Black Legend existed and is returning again:

Question: "In the 25 years passed since the publication of your previous book on the Black Legend, what has changed in the consideration of historiography on this subject?"

Ricardo Garcia Carcel: "There have been fundamental changes. In the year 92, when I wrote my previous book about the Black Legend, we were experiencing a political situation dominated by an "Olympic euphoria". (...) So I do believe that the Black Legend returns because we are experiencing an important awareness of the national crisis. (...) Today the theme of the Black Legend is very fashionable (...) the negative opinions issued from Spain itself were instrumented and manipulated from European countries. (...) the Black Legend can not be understood without understanding that it is from Spain itself that it emanates from."

http://www.abc.es/cultura/cultural/abci-ricardo-garcia-carcel-relacion-felipe-principe-carlos-tema-morbido-y-crucial-201711140126_noticia.html --MetalRocks (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The only changes mentioned in the interview are social and political ones, such as the Catalan question, which have sparked a resurgent interest in the Black Legend. At no point in the article is whether it is a legend or not discussed. If you want to say Carcel has changed his mind about that, you need a source that directly says so.

Carcel points out that all empires have their Black Legend, particularly the British, and that Spain is not a special case. He goes on to say how the Spanish are obsessed with this alleged smear campaign and should accept that they are a normal country with good and bad points. This seems opposite to the view you are trying to promote.--Ykraps (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The quote provided shows that the author believes the BL returns as a feature of Spanish cultural discourse, rather than a foreign historiographical tendency. The olympic euphoria was a Spanish situation, as is the BL as seen by Carcel. In fact, the whole article linked reaffirms his view of the BL as a Spanish phenomenon, what the Spanish think other people think of them. He also talks about the contemporary propaganda against Spain separately, qualifying it as "entendido por tal la crítica negativa contra España", that is not the classical Black Legend.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

entendiendo la Leyenda Negra ya no sólo como una crítica negativa respecto a España, sino como la obsesión fatalista que los españoles hemos tenido respecto a la opinión que hemos suscitado fuera. Entendía yo que había que enterrar esa especie de fijación obsesiva con que nos persiguen, con que no nos quieren, con que «qué hemos hecho para merecer esto», como diría Almodóvar. ¿Qué ha ocurrido después? (texto omitido) Curiosamente ese fantasma que creíamos haber enterrado está surgiendo de nuevo y quizá estamos tapando nuestras propias inseguridades como Estado respecto al problema catalán echando mano del viejo problema del «no nos quieren, ¿qué hemos hecho?». Así que sí creo que retorna la Leyenda Negra porque estamos viviendo una importante conciencia de crisis nacional.''

At the moment I can't be bothered translating this, especially as the other editor is Spanish, but this clearly states that Carcel views the Black Legend as an element of Spanish culture, rather than a genuine feature of international historiography. However, even if Carcel had changed his mind, that does not remove the need for a criticism section, and probably a more detailed one than actually appears. Please edit rather than blanking.

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Distinction between "black legend" and "The black legend"

Black legend as a concept or phenomenon and the Spanish black legend specifically are not the same thing. First, as an expression to describe a type of portrayal in general, and of historiographical portrayal in particular, the term "black legend" precedes the description of the specific "Spanish black legend" by almost 200 years. Second, one is a general phenomenon and the other a special case of such phenomenon: emblematic, but just one among many allegued or discussed ones. Should we have two different pages? (Plus, if the page is going to refer to theSpanish blakc legend, it must have the "the" or it does become a generic term. So i sugest we leave "black legend" for the historiographical phenomenon, and maybe brieph descriptions of the many allegued black legends, and we make a specific page for those especial cases who require more room — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't entirely an adequate explanation of the situation. Cateyed, on the second day of his editing here, decided to create The Black Legend, covering Spain, and to reduce this page to a rump. Before he got started this page was nearly 34k raw bytes, he then expanded it up to nearly 62K, before removing the Spanish stuff and reducing it to under 10K. This was his final version of the "rump". I haven't had time to to work through his changes, though it is clear his English will always need a basic check for grammar and spelling, and his additions seem to be thinly referenced. I didn't think this was acceptable without discussion, so for now I reverted back to a version before his big cut. This page gets over 300 views a day, and has always been somewhat of a target for problems. I haven't formed a view as to whether a generalized "black legend" page is needed, but if it is, I don't think Black Legend and The Black Legend are sufficiently distinct titles. Perhaps this should be resolved by a WP:RM discussion, but I'm asking for preliminary views first, ideally from those who have looked through Cateyed's many additions, here and at the other article. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: I was asked by User:Johnbod to have a look at what's going on here. Although I'm an admin, I'm not terribly active on en-wiki these days (more on Commons & Wikidata); I'll admit I took only a somewhat cursory look at this, and I probably won't be one of the parties who can work toward really sorting this out. With those qualifications, my comments follow, directed mainly at User:Cateyed.
• Adding "the" to a title is not the way we normally distinguish articles here. It gives no clarity to what is the scope of each article. "Black Legend (Spain)", for example, is a reasonable possible title.
• While being bold is generally encouraged, coming in on your second day here and completely overturning a much-read, longstanding article is really a bit over-bold. In general, I have much less issue with you adding material than removing material. Your almost complete lack of edit summaries makes it very hard to see just what you've done, other than by a more rigorous comparison than I have time for right now. In particular, removing material, especially cited material, without an edit summary is poor practice. (Really, every edit should on the article should have a meaningful summary.)
• Also, please beware of unilaterally moving material from one article to another: consider that there may be numerous incoming links, including from outside of Wikipedia. Also (a lesser consideration), when material is picked up wholesale and moved to a different page it makes it very hard to sort out who wrote what material. Splitting articles, especially longstanding articles that numerous people have worked on, generally requires consensus.
• That said: it looks like on the whole you know the subject, and a lot of what you are adding is worthwhile (though please be aware that numerous long quotations is generally not Wikipedia style). I hope you can work this through with other editors; please, though, beware that no one individual "owns" a Wikipedia article. Things need to reach some sort of consensus. Use the talk page and, above all, use edit summaries so someone has a chance to get a sense of what you are up to without having to read every word you write. - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Sound advice. WP:THE is the policy about starting titles with "the". Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

All correct, I´m not complaining, and sorry about the mess. I´m not very sure how the talk page works so when I said that I can use some help with that I meant it. As you mentioned, I was not planning on ereasing anything, but on moving it. So I moved the 34k regarding Spain and the "rump" was mostly mine. I´m sorry if that is not the procedure.

So, I didn´t mean to remove anything just to move it. The article is about the article being called black legend but the content regarding a specific instance of it, but both concepts being too large for one page. As you said, I do not know the process because it is my second day editing, and I have no particular preference about either changing the name, or making a new page. I just want to prevent the phenomenon from being confused with the instance of it. It is like describing only British Imperialism under "imperialism", for example; that would twist the meaning of both concepts. And you are right about the spelling, I´m sorry, I do not have spellcheck here and clearly shoudn´t have edited without it- I still don´t, and will not until I am back home, so I pologize in advance cause errors will happen in what comes next.

My point is that "black legend" and "The(Spanish) Black Legend" are two separate things. The page was (is) called "black legend", but speaks about "The Spanish Black Legend" as if they were the same thing instead of one an iteration of the other. I think that is misleading, and it also means that there is no page for the generic concept of a black legend.

About the title, I agree with naming it anything you think works best with the gidelines. I went for "The" even though it isn´t too ortodox because the article seemed to be trying to translate "La Leyenda Negra". I have no preference for one name or the other, as long as "black legend" is not turned from a process into a specific case. In the Italian and Spanish wikies the article about the Spanish Blakc Legend is called "Spanish Black Legend". We can use that name to keep it consistent across languages.

About why I think that we need a page about black legends in general:

-As mentioned in the origin of the term, said term did not start refering to Spain but to individual historical characters, and later to a systematic way of historical distortion. It can still be used in such a way to refer to historical figures, such as Catherine the Great or Philip II, and not knowing the clear distinction between a black legend about a person and the Spanish Black Legend can create confussion when trying to refer to black legends about individuals, especially if those individuals happen to be Spanish. For example, some historians argue that Peter the Cruel of Castile was subjected to a black legend, which has or had nothing to do with the Spanish Black Legend this article refers to even though Peter was Spanish. If someone was to read a mention to "black legend" in his page they may get confussed. Plus there would be no place to refer readers that do not know what a black legend is at all ( it isn´t just "talking s&&& about someone", it is a hystoriographical phenomenon, fabricated, that requires especific elements for creation, reception, and persistence through time, etc...). They would either see no link and assume it is just an idiom for bad talk, or be linked to a page about the Spanish Black Legend regarding a Spanish charater that lived centuries before the Spanish Black legend was created.

-In most recent works about it, regardless of wheter they think that the Spanish Black Legend exists or not, Black Legend is used as a broader generic term for a process not for a case, and various alegations of "creation of black legend" processes regarding other things or nations can be interesting to address as hypothesis. There is a strong claim -in my oppinion-about other similar processes being suffered by other nations, for example United Estates in the Islamic world right now, or Rome in Greece. Blakc legends as processes and hystoriographical phenomenon independently from the Spanish Black Legend are being more and more studied lately. The study was inspired by the awareness/Hypothesis of the Spanish Black legend, sure, but it goes beyond that now.

- Black legends, in general, are also created in a process that-despite being longuer, etc- has a lot of common modern fake news- and after Facebook´s trial and the discovery of actual factories of fake news it has a lot of similarities- It is hard to argue that those are relevant right now, so maybe information about the already studied black legends from the past and how they are created, removed from the polemics that may come attached to the Spanish Black legend in particular, would be good to have.

- For what I read in the "History" tab, a lot of the drama regarding the page came from -a very common issue that brought me here- confussion regarding what exactly a black legend is or a claim of black legend means. People seemed to assume that it is some sort of claim of innocence or that it implies that there is no truth in it, that the Spanish blakc legend means that nobody got killed in América, people mix up bad image or dislike with black legend, etc... I believe that a clear description of what it is, and how it works, in a page separate from any especific case that may get people emotional, where different cases and examples can be seen for clarity, would help discuss or understand the pages of especific cases, be them the Spanish case or any other, better and hopefully with a bit less drama.

-The concept of black legend is relevant for issues and articles for which the specific Spanish Black Legend is only tangentially relevant. For example, articles regarding Anti-Americanism, Rusophobia, and arguably construction of anti-semitism in XII century Europe.

Cateyed (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is an unsourced POV mess now. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes reversing the split remains an open question, as far as I'm concerned. Have you looked at the other one? Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a mess

Consider, this used to be the lead of this article:

The Black Legend (in Spanish, leyenda negra) is the depiction of Spain and the Spaniards as bloodthirsty and cruel, greedy and fanatical, in excess of reality. This term was invented by Julián Juderías in his book La leyenda negra y la verdad histórica (The black legend and the historical truth). This is contrasted with the White Legend (in Spanish, leyenda rosa, which means rosy legend) which promoted an idealized view of Spaniards. Needless to say, both expressions are themselves highly colored and not propitious for a neutral historical analysis except of folkloric perceptions.

Written by a native English speaker, succinct, understandable, describes the main gist of the article.

The current lead is a godawful mess. The best thing for this article would be to roll it back about 10 years. Fish+Karate 12:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me who finds the lede incoherent. Specifically, the longest paragraph in the lede is about "Arthur Levy" and his "Napoleon Intime" which is unreferenced and which is never mentioned again in the article. This is definitely not my AOE but I can't see what would be lost if that paragraph was deleted. I've just put a cn on it for now. Tigerboy1966  12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Spanish speaker alert first - I speak Spanish. The section entitled Recepttion and Criticism is a mess. All good and well, but it is a biased view. First, the speaker speaks of "Among the historians that actively support or have found proof in their work for the Spanish Black Legend we can name," which may be quite appropriate in Spanish at school, but severely not so in a neutral encyclopedia article in English based on tone. The bad English betrays a "defensor" and takes away from what the person is trying to convey ("Gosh, all of these guys think this Leyenda Negra stuff was exaggeration"). Second, it also has no citations, which is far worse. So I'm not sure why it's (the subsection) there. We don't do that on Wiki. I like articles to be unbiased. This one has transformed into a weird one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:4102:FBA0:7D6B:B611:3CA0:1E68 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Flag

Thanks to the edits by boynamedsue, I think it’s fair to remove the NPOV flag I added some time ago. I’d appreciate the help of a more experienced editor to guide the process for removing it.

Mrflip (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Amazing that it was removed, since there's still plenty of language in the article which raises eyebrows.Until purged of snide and sarcastic remarks, I think it should go back on. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 22:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplication with Black Legend (Spain) needs to be addressed.

I can see on this talk page how the duplication happened - which doesn't make the fact of the duplication any better though :/ .

My (perhaps rather bold) suggestion to solve it would be to follow through with the original "duplicators" intent - move most of the Spanish Black Legend stuff to that page (referring to it on this page via a "main article --> " over the subsection), and change this one into a more general description of the phenomenon. I've not looked into how many links point here though, that would need repointing to the Spanish Black Legend if appropriate.

Oh. And to avoid losing this articles history (and talk page not really being in the right place, etc.), I'd suggest to move this page to Black Legend (Spain), and create a new one here. Dunno how much independent history the current Spanish Black Legend page has already accrued though, that may make things a bit messy :/ (how are things handled when pages are merged ? seems a similar problem...).

Kind regards, and if I find the time and have noone replying to the contrary, I'll go forwards with this myself sometime, I guess :).
Sean Heron (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Plus, to be thorough, you'd need to somehow incorporate this article into the mix somehow... Black_Legend_of_the_Spanish_Inquisition ... :/ Sean Heron (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sean Heron, I agree something needs to be done between the two articles. Adding some pings for editors who've been active in discussing this article previously: @Boynamedsue:, @Ecelan:, @MetalRocks:, @Cateyed:, @Johnbod:, @Tigerboy1966:, @Fish and karate: Schazjmd (Talk) 20:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds ok, but I'd get someone with experience of merges to help. You also have to look at the incoming links - most will probably need changing. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support :) ! I'll wait to see if anyone else chimes in ! Sean Heron (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

All in favour. But I'm not likely to be much help, I put a lot of work into cleaning up a previous version and then saw it bold edited to a strange oblivion, so I am slightly burnt out on this topic.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)