Talk:Andalusian independentist conspiracy (1641)

Who said what?

Toward the bottom of the section The Portuguese rebellion and the Guzmanes, the paragraph beginning "Others who gave information at court…" is a bit of a mess. That is because so was the Spanish original. I've asked at es:Discusión:Conspiración independentista en Andalucía (1641)#¿Quién dijo qué? hoping that someone will be able to explain better. I suppose it makes sense to repeat my questions here (in English), but I doubt anyone without the original Spanish source materials will be able to clarify.

Translating myself, but leaving the quoted passage in the original Spanish so that there is no chance I am mangling it:

[Begin translated passage]
I'm translating this article into English. Clearly, I'm not a native Spanish-speaker, but I understand the vast majority of what is written in Spanish. But this, no.

A la corte también llegaban graves informaciones sobre la conjura facilitadas por Fray Nicolás de Velasco, Fray Luis de las Llagas y la declaración incriminatoria de Francisco Sánchez Márquez, presidente de la Contaduría Mayor de Cuentas, que escuchó, estando en la cárcel en Portugal, la conversación entre Fray Nicolás de Velasco (que se hacía pasar por preso para obtener información) y un albañil que en palacio oyó comentar a dos criados del duque de Braganza que se preparaba la armada para conquistar Cádiz. Puesto en libertad y de regreso a Castilla, informó de todo al Conde­-Duque de Olivares.

1. Where does Fray Luis de las Llagas figure in this? It looks like he's named but then we say no more about him.
2. Fray Nicolás "passed himself as a prisoner [in Portugal, I presume] to obtain information". Normally, if one goes to prison "passing as a prisoner to obtain information" it's a prison where your enemies are imprisoned. If Fray Nicolás was an agent of the Castilian court, why did he expect to hear something useful in a Portuguese prison? This was a conspiracy of nobility, not of prisoners. On the other hand, if he was a partisan of the conspiracy, why did he give information to the Castilian court? And if he wasn't an agent of Philip or the Count-Duke, why was he looking for information in a Portuguese prison?
3. Fine: Francisco Sánchez Márquez was a prisoner of the Portuguese. And he heard Fray Nicolás talking - in the prison - with a mason (a prisoner or there to work?) and the mason said to Fray Nicolás... what? ¿That he - the mason, who worked in the palace of the Duke of Braganza, but for reasons unmentioned was now a prisoner - had heard others - the servants - saying that their master the duke was preparing an armada? But if Fray Nicolás gave his own testimony, why is it important that Sánchez Márquez heard this? Perhaps Fray Nicolás spoke only after he was incriminated by Sánchez Márquez?

Could someone clarify, here [the Spanish talk page] or in the [Spanish] article itself? Does anyone know what were the sources, perhaps less concise and clearer?

[End of translated passage]

- Jmabel | Talk 08:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Questionably claimed references

I note that that except for the piece by Domínguez Ortiz, the listed references are all the same as the short 1997 article at http://www.andalucia.cc/adn/0197per.htm. Since there were almost no inline citations in the Spanish-language wiki article, I have to suspect that the authors of that article (which I am translating here) may never actually have consulted those books themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alonso

I have kept the paragraph from es-wiki about Medina-Sidonia's son Alonso, but I very much doubt it is accurate. I tried several paths to working out who this person could be; I can't even find (for example) a viceroy of Valencia by the name Alonso in the relevant time period. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just possibly Alfonso Pérez de Guzmán, viceroy of Valencia 1696-1700. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Now sorted out & cited for. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Article status

I've now completed translation of the es-wiki article; I have to say, it leaves a lot to be desired. Besides the matters I've noted above, there is a real lack of integration of the conflicting theories about what happened. I mitigated that a bit in the course of translation (adding phrases like "according to the conventional view") but the fact is that the article starts out by saying that any of three things may have happened, and then goes on by presuming one of them. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a few weeks later, someone has done a lot of further work on the es-wiki article. I don't particularly feel like taking another pass at the article as a whole, but if someone takes this on and needs some help on something specific, do feel free to get hold of me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andalusian independentist conspiracy (1641). 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/20080517101001/http://www.islamyal-andalus.org/junio04/ls_conjura.htm to http://www.islamyal-andalus.org/junio04/ls_conjura.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)