Talk:Philip II of Spain

Legacy
The legacy section contains elements of editorializing and pesonal opinion eg. "Philip II's reign can hardly be characterized by it's failures" it says. Also a particular problem is the line that says "English-speaking historians tend to show Philip II as a fanatical, despotical, criminal, imperialist monster,[42] minimising his military victories (Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Saint Quentin, etc.) to mere anecdotes, and magnifying his defeats (namely the Invincible Armada[43])." Not only is this a grossly misleading generalization but the evidence to support it (notes 42 and 43) are sources from 1953 and 1877 respectively which are hardly the present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.149.84 (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not very well done; a poorly sourced collection of opinion and counter-opinion.Glendoremus (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

Invasion of England (and its fledgling Empire)
Was it not the main intention to overthrow Elizabeth I, replacing the monarch once again with a Catholic and re-empowering the so-called "recusant" nobles in England? If so is it not better to put that in the Leading paragraph WP:LEAD? Invasion seems a tad WP:vague and probably given its connotations more towards misleading than accurate. After all the English people, the nobility especially may have been persuaded with a dented navy and army to revert to a Catholic regime - what evidence is there he felt he could subjugate England in the same way as the Netherlands? Perhaps best to leave 'invade' but the word sits badly with me as it seems given the military of England and its history it would be unlikely England would ever accept being a mere vassal of the Spanish Empire, as when he was married, its economy was run separately.- Adam37 Talk  11:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Absurd assumptions
So if ONE scholar calls something you did a "genocide" that will be in your Wikipedia biographic page? The word "genocide" used in the legacy section is just absurd. Spaniards were more tolerant towards indigenous people than English, and that was obvious in the historical first steps in the direction of the protection of their rights at the School of Salamanca in the XVI Century, and the nature of their society in Americas for itself, which was very tolerant and more inclusive than that of the British and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:1530:104:285a:20f5:b60b:4a5:d6b3 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A request
Will somebody PLEASE point to the discussion/consensus that ended in removing the Portuguese regnal number for the predecessors/successors of the Bourbon monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg