Talk:Spanish Enlightenment

Did Britain devastated Spain New World empire during the Anglo-Spanish war (1727-1729)?

Reading the text I understand that Britain devastate spanish empire in America and prevent the gold shipments:

Britain elected to devastate Spain's New World empire and her gold shipments, hoping to prevent Philip from buying the Austrians into intervention; the plan succeeded

But the Wikipedia article about that war did not mention anything like that!. Indeed it says:

Britain had tried to use its naval power early in the dispute, by blockading Porto Bello in Panama but the attempt proved a disaster, in which 4,000 men were lost to disease. The main objective of the blockade had been to prevent Spanish galleons leaving and sailing for Spain, but the blockaders failed to do this - and eventually withdrew.

What plan succeed? the devastation (like article seems to suggest) or the Treaty of Hannover to prevent Austrian aid? (No irony here, it's a real question!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornava (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Suggestion

Wow, the article is great, as early as now, somebody should suggest giving this article featured article status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.180.34 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Title

Why is this article titled "Enlightenment in Spain" rather than "Bourbon Spain"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.96.75 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a very good question, except that there is no good answer. This should be moved to Bourbon Spain or some similar dynastic/political category. Vague periods are for discussing vague concepts like art styles and culture; they're not for dealing with specific regimes. — LlywelynII 14:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat problematic. Bourbon monarchs in Spain ruled from 1700 to 1808, from 1813 to 1868, from 1874 to 1931, and from 1975 to the present. The dynasty has long outlived the Enlightenment era. An article on Bourbon Spain would likely have a scope from the final year of the 17th century to the 21st century. Dimadick (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article should be retitled "Bourbon Spain", the standard designation in the scholarly literature for this period. Obviously readers can be brought to this page by redirects, but I view it best to have WP articles be titled so that a redirect is not so necessary. Amuseclio (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

The section on the intellectual Enlightenment in Spain should remain the with this current article. All the material on the Bourbon monarchs needs to be in an article entitled "Bourbon Spain." Amuseclio (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

Q

Can anyone who watches this page direct me to a relatively brief, in English, but authoritative account of when, how and why the Mesta collapsed? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Article split

I have written in the talk section twice about the problem with this article. It is called "Enlightenment in Spain," but the first section of it is largely political history of the Bourbon monarchs through Ferdinand VII. I propose that section be made a separate article "History of Spain, 1700-1810." There is already an article History of Spain (1810–73). In my view 1810 is a somewhat awkward date to start that article, given the complicated history between 1808 and 1814. The section section of the article here deals with ideas and practices of the Enlightenment, which is what the focus of the article should be in my assessment. I would like community input on this proposal. Amuseclio (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio

Requested move 26 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Enlightenment in Spain → Spanish Enlightenment –

• Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. This movement and the corresponding period are commonly known in English as “the Spanish Enlightenment”. See this Ngram, and a few examples below:
  • Dowling, John (1985). "The Crisis of the Spanish Enlightenment: Capricho 43 and Goya's Second Portrait of Jovellanos". Eighteenth-Century Studies. 18 (3). doi:10.2307/2738710. JSTOR 2738710.
  • Lewis, Elizabeth Franklin (2004). Women Writers in the Spanish Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness. Ashgate.
  • Lamas, Rafael (2006). "Zarzuela and the Anti-musical Prejudice of the Spanish Enlightenment". Hispanic Review. 74 (1). JSTOR 27668723.
  • Donahue-Wallace, Kelly (2017). Jerónimo Antonio Gil and the Idea of the Spanish Enlightenment. University of New Mexico Press.

• In Spanish too, this movement is more commonly referred to as “la Ilustración española” (Ngram 1, Ngram 2).
• Also WP:CONSISTENT with the other national enlightenments: Italian, French, Austrian, German, Polish, Russian etc.
• Also WP:CONSISTENT with Spanish Renaissance etc.

Auteuil-Passy (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom and such titles as listed above (Italian Enlightenment, German Enlightenment, etc). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• I would be more inclined to move the articles the other way—all to "Englightenment in ___". The articles as they are violate WP:REFERSTO and say "part of the broader Enlightenment". Why not have titles that more clearly indicate what we are talking about? Distinguishing a German from an Austrian Enlightenment makes no sense. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  It perfectly makes sense to distinguish the German and Austrian Enlightenments and many scholars have done it. The Austrian Enlightenment was shaped heavily by Josephinism and broader Habsburg policy, while the German Enlightenment developed in a different intellectual and political context. And the two Enlightenments had different outcomes.

  Scholars routinely draw comparisons between national Enlightenment movements, and distinguishing them doesn’t negate the idea of a broader, Western Enlightenment. The same approach is taken with the Renaissance, where we have articles like Italian Renaissance, Spanish Renaissance, Northern Renaissance, including German Renaissance etc. These article titles follow WP:COMMONNAME and reflect how the topics are typically discussed in reliable sources.

  Regarding WP:REFERSTO, it applies to how the lead sentence is written, not the article title. And it actually allows using “refers to” in certain leads:

  For a concept that cannot be accurately or neutrally affirmed, an appropriate introductory sentence may include the phrase ‘refers to’.

  The reason I’ve added “refers to” in several leads is because the terms “German Enlightenment”, “Italian Enlightenment” etc were coined by historians. Writing “The German Enlightenment was …” might give the impression that the national movement was already named or identified as such in the 18th century, which would not be accurate.

  As for changing all the national Enlightenment articles to the “Enlightenment in ___” format, that would require a multi-move request with strong consensus. Right now, the prevailing naming pattern—and the one supported by common scholarly usage in reliable sources—is “[Adjective] Enlightenment”. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  A German–Austrian dichotomy in this period seems absurd to me. Catholic–Protestant sure. Even German–Habsburg. But the implied Germany-minus-Austria seems anachronistic. Nonetheless, comment struck.

  "Refers to" only works with terms, but our articles are not about the terms "___ Enlightenment". Srnec (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The proposed title will sufficiently identify the subject, is more consistent with the names of other similar articles, and more natural. The argument made by the proposer is therefore of sufficient validity for me to support a move. Arguments about other articles, or the naming scheme overall, do not seem particularly compelling to me; the proposer has provided a sufficient rebuttal above. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:40, 8 October 2025 (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.