Talk:Black legend

No reference to Tree of Hate

This article seems to lack any reference to the brilliant book "Tree of Hate" by Phillip Powell, one of the most brilliant books on anti-Hispanic bias in the American education system.Harlyn35 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Black Legend

It has been noted many times that there is massive duplication between this article and the specific one on the Spanish Black Legend.

I am therefore proposing that the majority of the material in this article be merged into the dedicated article.

Mauls (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod:@Schazjmd:@Boynamedsue:@Mauls:@Sean Heron: I saw there was a consensus and did the merge (see: here and here). Veverve (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this, Veverve! Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

agree with merger, disagree that it should merge into the other page. The other page ought to be merged into this one, as this is the older page. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Common elements of black legends

@Mauls: I find the following part confusing:

It is usually shown by tales with:

Narrations of black legends tend to include: Strong pathos, combined with a narrative that is easy to follow and emotionally loaded, created by:

It sounds inconsistent and I can't follow the reasoning. Is a part missing? There are too many colons ... Can you rephrase this part to be clearer? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

original language?

Did this article begin as a translation? I noticed a couple of usages that would be unlikely from a native English speaker. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Black Legend (Spain) into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following the discussion Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Black_Legend, several people have floated the idea proposal to merge Black legend (Spain) back into this article. The original decision to split was made unilaterally by an inexperienced brand-new user back in 2018. The term "Black Legend" primarily refers to the Spanish Black Legend, and it does not seem to me that the "Black Legend" concept is separately notable from the Spanish Black Legend, and therefore doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge. A merge will get rid of FRINGE and POV pertaining to this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent idea. jps (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The notability of "Black Legend" as a category to be studied separately from the "Spanish Black Legend" is far from established. The article leans heavily on the theories of Elvira Roca Barea, a philologist (rather than historian) who publishes popular history books, suggesting that there have been "black legends" about Rome, Russia, the USA and Spain (not Britain or the USSR, funnily enough) and that this constitutes a category she calls "imperophobia". This is a fringe theory in terms of our policies.

It is true that the term "black legend" was first applied to Napoleon rather than Spain, and that Barea's theory appears to be gaining some limited traction in pro-Putin articles from Russian journals. However, as of now, a merger and tidy up of the article seems in order.

I would suggest that after this process is complete, we should also look at merging Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition into the article. Most texts dealing with the Black Legend discuss the Spanish inquisition, in depth and most text dealing with the Spanish inquisition don't mention the term "Black Legend".Boynamedsue (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you ok with Template:sfn citation style such as in Book of Daniel#References? Was going to start working on the bibliography while i've the links handy, but dislike the inline <ref> markup cites. I'll take care of fixing up any merged content and keeping the references up to date. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all personally, I just tend to use the other way because it's what I'm familiar with. If you want to change to using that format, that's fine.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:. I think we should merge Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition into the already merged page. I agree that the Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition is probably the most prominent aspect of this "Black Legend" topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I don't have a problem with your proposal either. And thanks in advance---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Boynamedsue. fiveby(zero) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support There doesn't seem to be enough notability to Barea's analysis to necessitate a separate article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Boynamedsue: I think this has gone on for long enough given the unanimous support that you have the full go-ahead to merge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've gone ahead and implemented the merge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A Definition

Gibson, discussing 'Black Legend' and 'White Legend' in one of the most important works says: ...both phrases are figures of speech, not to be taken literally as noun and modifying adjective.[1] But authors do provide definitions which make a noun of 'legend' and these can be practical and serviceable.

• The body of esp. 16th and 17th century propaganda literature, probably the simplest and most straightforward def.
• A negative, traditional and stereotypical portrayal of Spain and Spaniards in and based on that body of literature
• Anti-Spanish attitudes, an otherness of Spain as less enlightened than her European rivals
• That part of the record which is false or exaggerated

Authors might be perfectly coherent while providing such a definition for their purposes, but i don't know that we could pick one of these, even without considering more polemical usage. Karmen says: Persistent employment of the label for ideological ends in order to rebut any criticism of Spain’s imperial record has made it both unsuitable to use and inaccurate. I think even trying to encompass our reasonable author's opinions we cannot not make a really suitable and accurate definition. I think using "...is a phrase" or "...is a term" is frowned upon for article introductions, but struggling to come up with a good alternative. fiveby(zero) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi DuncanHill, planned on citing those works in bibliography eventually, but leave in Further Reading till they are actually cited? About to change the lead section to follow above. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby: It just seems to me as a reader to be terribly cluttered to mix up sources which are called by citations and works which are not. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh don't read the article yet, it needs a lot of work! Is there a particular way editors are supposed to do bibliography first article writing? Sandbox or add sources to talk page maybe? fiveby(zero) 14:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)