Talk:Spanish Fury

Making this a disambiguation page under the plain name seems a mistake to me, in the English Wikipedia, though very possibly not the Dutch. The references used are all in Dutch, and I would be interested to see if any references in English that use the term for anything other than the Sack of Antwerp can be produced. What works in Dutch does not always work in English. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it re-emerges as an article, but still without any references calling the pre-Antwerp sacks a "Spanish Fury" in English - I can't see this in Arnade. Consider this search for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Antwerp was already more important a city than Mechelen: since about 1530/1550. By the 1570s, it hade almost twice as many inhabitants (and now 4x). The historical consequences of the event at Antwerp were more important as well. Furthermore, the international perception for Antwerp appears to have been immediate and important. Other cities and places that suffered a pillage and/or massacre by Spanish soldiers in the relevant 4 or 5 years (I found out about Maastricht a bit late, it needs to be mentioned as well - Antwerp was not the last), have their sacking described as a Spanish Fury as well. But even in their wider area, most people may only think of Antwerp, less they are born or educated in one of the other places. Obviously, also historians paid much more attention to Antwerp, and the term 'Spaensche Fuerie' [or whatever its non-standardized spelling used to be] may not have spread far, before Antwerp. You and all experts might know about the pithecanthropus found in place X. Neither you nor any expert may have heard about place Y. But as soon as a nearly identical skeleton pops up in Y, that skeleton is going to be called a pithecanthropus as well. The history of events is not different. One mentions something only when one finds out about it. In case the skeleton at Y would have been long known about, without realizing its clear match with the one at X anywhere but in Y, then also, as soon as it is realized also outside Y, the one at Y should and will be called a pithecanthropus. Again, the history of events is not different. Note that the became a, generic.


 * I'm not even absolutely sure that the term was first coined in Dutch. And I do not know when precisely it was first used. But I do know that the term is used in several languages, often as if Antwerp knew the only one. But in several languages, at least for one or two other places, the term has been used at least a few times. It does not matter by whom: things do not come to exist only if an authoritative expert notices and describes it, neither does a name for the thing only becomes valid after consent by a highly esteemed source. A language is more often made by ordinary people. The exception would be the professional categorization according to precisely described characteristics: It would be wrong to call the skeleton of a gorilla a pithecanthropus. It is not wrong to call the sack of Mechelen in 1572, a Spanish Fury, e.i. the Spanish Fury at Mechelen. The term in Dutch is used for each place connected to that term on the article here. For several it also occurs in English texts. The characteristics do not violate any category or definition by experts, Dutch or English or...


 * The article needs more work, it is a mere stub. I will suffice by giving the most readily available information. The detailed description will be left for any interested contributor(s).

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-03 06:29 (UTC)
 * There are two conceivable ways:
 * A disambiguation page would allow the base term to direct towards the most often intended event, the 'Sack of Antwerp'. There it must mention 'for other uses, see Spanish Fury (disambiguation).' But that necessitates the creation of separate articles, one for each place. Each with a 'See also' section with links towards the other articles. These articles would most likely remain stubs. And an overview would be lacking, while precisely the similarities and the specificalities are the more interesting aspects. That is why I opted for the other solution:
 * An article 'Spanish Fury'. And that does not readily allow any other proper article name. Because the 'Sack of Antwerp' (Note: that was the title before I started to work at any Spanish Furies) will also be in the here article, though briefly with Main article: Sack of Antwerp, it never hurts anyone to arrive on the here article in case a link would specify 'Spanish Fury' in a text about Antwerp: it is only a most obvious mouse click further away. In fact, just as you were surprised about several Spanish Furies to exist, realizing becomes available to the reader, only by this solution. And it is noteworthy because all Spanish Furies are closely related by time frame, by geographical situation, and by major characteristics - including the perceived horror.
 * Some further argumentation was already discussed at Talk:Black Legend. Kind regards,

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-04 05:00 (UTC)
 * Oh, Johnbod, you stated "Spanish Fury" in English - I can't see this in Arnade. In his 'Beggars, iconoclasts & civic patriots' online, you should have searched for "Spanish Furies". The table of contents shows with the same capitalisation this chapter title: "6  Spanish Furies: Sieges, Sacks, and the City Defiant", though its page 212 is not freely available on Google Books. The plural says it all, and with the work by Peter Arnade (look for "Author's Bio") still in the references section, I'll remove your 'factual dispute' tag box, which I perceived as a misnomer as you only disputed the generic usage of a term, no facts described in the article. Nevertheless, even if Arnade would have chosen another title, that usage of the term on this here WP would still have been just as proper.
 * That is the first useful evidence you have produced, but it is hardly enough by itself to demonstrate that the generic term is in use in English. You have a lot more work to do to show this. I have re-instated the tag; please don't remove it again. I fear you may be wasting your time on this article. When I get back from holiday I expect to propose a WP:RM back to the redirect, unless much better evidence is produced. Your assumptions about my thought processes continue to be hopelessly wrong, and revealing of your own strong prejudices; I was well aware there were several bloody sacks, but I have (still) never seen them called "Spanish Furies", other than by you of course.  Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what thought processes I am supposed to have assumed. Or which prejudice I would have - Because unlike you, I do not hold on to an unattributed personal viewpoint coming out of the blue, neither do I pretend to uniquely have the copyright on the term "Spanish Fury" in deciding its usage, nor do I act as if I would be the sole proprietor of the English language who can select whom to license the determination of admissible expressions. As you had read here and with more examples also at Talk:Black Legend, I looked how the expression is used by others before I followed these people, and I showed such by article references and on talk pages. That process is not called prejudice —by you launched as a personal attack— but ascertaining (and where appropriate consequently referencing).
 * You are also violating the WP guidelines by requesting "more work to show this" and "better evidence" than a chapter title in a publication written about his specialist topic by a notable historian whose mentioned work on the Dutch Revolt is admired by his peers — as you would easily have found had you only bothered to check, which should be done before audaciously demanding more work. I thus consider Arnade's expertise to outweigh your unattributed presumption. Contrarily to your opinion, for WP guidelines, one fully admissible decent source is "enough by itself". In this case, it is much more than just one source by itself:
 * Power, Gender, and Ritual in Europe and the Americas: Essays in Memory of Richard C. Trexler, edited by Arnade and Michael Rocke, also published the same chapter, amongst the work of other authors.
 * With you having read Arnade's title, your (still) continued denial of encountering the term insinuating that I would have invented the term "Spanish Furies", is an injurious and slanderous misrepresentation. The truth is that not just I, but also recognized experts did spot Arnade using it:
 * The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2011), 62: 394-395 Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011 DOI: 10.1017/S0022046910003441 Published online: 04 March 2011 shows the opinion of Thomas Betteridge (Oxford Brookes University, Oxford): "Michael Rocke's work on 'whoorish boys' is particularly outstanding, as is Peter J. Arnade's work on Spanish Furies." — Do note that Betteridge (as the author of e.g. "The Henrician Reformation and Mid-Tudor Culture." in the Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies [2005] undoubedtly qualified) does not put quotes around the by you disputed term, and that he does not cite Arnade but actually uses the term in his own prose. That makes two sources for the broader usage and meaning of the term, which more than suffices to conclude our discussion. And there is even further proof.
 * Arnade did not incidentally chose the title, also his title for a paper shows the term: "Spanish Furies: Civic Consciousness During the Dutch Revolt", e.g. presented in March 2006 at Social Capital and Civil Society in Italy and the Netherlands VIII: Civil Life and Civic Consciousness in the Early Modern Low Countries.
 * If I, without any privileged access, stumble on these publications, no worthy specialist should have missed those titles. I demonstrated that the specialized scientific world became clearly aware of 'Spanish Furies' in the sense that I (beside the Spanish Fury at Antwerp) show in the article. Nevertheless, you failed to indicate that any expert ever objected to, or even had reservations about, this usage of that expression. Furthermore, the plural term as it is used for Arnade's chapter title "Spanish Furies: Sieges, Sacks, and the City Defiant" and in his aforementioned paper, precludes the singular, 'Spanish Fury', being fit.
 * In the Art of Literature:
 * 14 Books in 1 (p. 193): "But the ape is still there, and always will be, and every now and again, when Constable Civilisation turns his back for a moment, as during "Spanish Furies," or "September massacres," or Western mob rule, it creeps out and bites and tears at quivering flesh, or plunges its hairy arms elbow deep in blood, or dances around a burning nigger." (Jerome K. Jerome).
 * I do not think Jerome might have used a plural only for fictitious similar events to come while actually referring back only to Antwerp, because the historical September Massacres at St-Germain-des-Prez prison, the Carmelites Convent prison, etc. are unlike the Spanish Fury at Antwerp normally in plural —and he appears to have chosen his words carefully and could not yet have the one by "the Bush Board" in mind.  ;-D 
 * For Faith and Fatherland (excerpt)" "Certainly, certainly, my lad," said Van Linders; "but tell me about this. What have you heard of Antwerp from him ?" "Nothing from him," said Adrian, "but much from his father's partner, Hendrick Oster, who brought him out. I never heard a more awful tale. Spanish Furies we have had before, but never such a Fury as this." " (1876, Mary Bramston).
 * Behind the plural Spanish Furies, the author's capitalisation of the singular word Fury (preceded with the indefinite article), makes this a sample for both the plural and the singular expressions.
 * Inserted 2011-08-20 07:46 (UTC) : In historical fiction:

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-08 17:47 (UTC)
 * "The Spanish Fury" may refer to the sack of Antwerp in 1576, in fact even be used as a name (1889, Myers, 1855, Motley who might have indicated its non-exclusiveness by also phrasing "a sufficient bulwark even against Spanish fury" before the attack and "this Spanish Fury" afterwards, within his double-quotes 'the "Spanish Fury"', and by 'of' instead of 'in'  [my quotes again] : "the Spanish Fury of 1576" for the best known Spanish Fury (arguably explained by it being for some the only known one). I should point out that the expression is nevertheless more often than not, neatly placed in context of Antwerp — just as well as when it for another sack gets placed in context of its victim city, and still often kept in quotes (2001, Darby, 2003?, Burg). Usage without any context of Antwerp, as a name for that November 1576 event, may be much more exceptional than you realize. Occasionally, regardless whether Antwerp is mentioned or described, "the Spanish Fury of 1576" appears to point at the one at Antwerp even though several cities suffered one earlier that year; but it is not always clear whether the expression refers to only the one event at Antwerp or to the entire 1576 campaign of which only the event at Antwerp is further described because of its greater historical importance. The expression the Spanish Fury in a context of Antwerp or clearly paying attention to that city only, can in few cases also be ambiguous: only that city or the whole of Spanish Furies. I had only demonstrated the broader meanings by examples in which the author undoubtedly intended more Spanish Furies or another Spanish Fury than just at Antwerp.
 * Note that 'Spanish Fury' referring to a specific sacking of a city other than Antwerp, never appears without clear context of the city: the default remains thus Antwerp 1576. 'Spanish Fury' however, can not automatically redirect to the 'Sack of Antwerp' WP article that does not mention any other usage of the term. Mentioning such would not improve that article. Also note that for specific events the term in literature, does not systematically incorporate any suffix like a city name. The appropriate naming of WP articles (including future ones) on specific Spanish Furies should thus remain 'Sack of Xxx' with a redirect from 'Spanish Fury at Xxx'. Inserted 2011-08-20 07:46 (UTC) : Except for 'Spanish Fury at Mechelen', because its sack 8 years later is coined as the 'English Fury at Mechelen'. I assume this to be the only place in the Low Countries that knew an 'English Fury', a term also used in e.g. Scottish and Indian history.
 * P.S. updated 2011-08-09 02:46 (UTC) : The English language generally does not start or stop using an expression in any other way than in grammatically related European languages such as Dutch or German (see samples in the article). In French [rarely capitalizing even its standardized expressions] one finds in an encyclopedia even "Les confédérés la prirent en 1573 furies Espagnols", which refers to Gertruidenberg taken in 1573 in the style of Spanish Furies, the expression used adverbially - printed in Geneva in 1785. It thus appears that even the City of Antwerp would stand little chance of successfully claiming a copyright on the expression.  ;-D  That usage followed on (Louis II de Bourbon-Condé) "gagna la célebre bataille de Rocroi, furies Espagnols, le 19 Mai 1643" in a Paris 1776 publication approved by the French King and thus hardly contestable by the Académie française.  ;-D  These two particular examples can be compared with "Fernando Alonso was in a Spanish fury after Lewis Hamilton illegitimately overtook the Safety Car" (with my correction of 'Hmailton') in English prose: an opportunistic atypical superlative of en furies and in a fury.
 * P.P.S. updated 2011-08-20 07:46 (UTC) : More examples of usage in other languages: "Perinique: Reise - Kultur - Kunst, Heft 11" (Pdf) (in German). Dr. Wolfgang Mielke (V.i.S.d.P.), Hamburg, Germany. ISSN 1869-9952. p. 60. Retrieved 12 August 2011: "1576, 29.6.: Zierikz’ee kapituliert; sofort danach Plünderung durch spanische Truppen, da sie nicht besoldet wurden. Sie ziehen als “Spanische Furie” durchs Land." In this syntax, Spanish troops roam through the country in their quality of 'Spanish Fury'. — Even in Spanish (in which the term is often avoided as it reminds of the leyenda negra), a site on architecture has El clasicismo en Flandes (V). Malinas say about Mechelen: "de la “Furia Española” en 1572 y de la “Furia inglesa” en 1580." And this site referencing Mundo Historia says (roughly translated from Spanish): "... giving free rein to what is named the "furia española" that led to the sad events of Haarlem (1573), Aalst (1576) and the most famous of all, aforementioned Antwerp (1576) at which for days was stolen, looted, raped and murdered" — Thus the generic usage is common to all the for this topic most relevant languages.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-08 17:47 (UTC) Quote (relating to the city of Mechelen only): "and the Spanish Fury swept through in 1572." — here singular for the whole of the 1572 events.
 * By all the arguments given, I again remove your 'factual dispute' tag box, which was not even appropriate for what you disputed. Please leave it: as your disputing has uselessly taken more time than what I would have needed to improve the article, it has been as adverse as trolling.
 * Another decent source:
 * &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-11 17:36 (UTC)

Furia Española in current Spain
Since the 1920 Olympic Games in Antwerp Furia Española refers to the the Spanish national football team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)