Caveat lector: I do not read Spanish very well, so I can't usefully comment on the content of the Spanish-language page. But I've written about the Armada in the past, let me expand on that a bit.

It's worth pointing out that the Armada is in many ways a founding myth of the English (later British) navy, and it has some of the commonalities we see in other tales about daring battle against great odds (ex: Prange's Miracle at Midway and the myth of the plucky underdog US navy beating a vastly superior Japanese force, etc.). The idea of Drake playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe and saying "we have time to finish our game and beat the Spaniards too," the myths of Spanish treasure in Scotland and Ireland from ships being wrecked ashore, the plucky English nipping at the Armada's heels, all make for a good story.

Anyhow, with regards to the Armada itself, there's no way the Spanish could have succeeded to begin with. Philip II, from his seat in the Escorial, could certainly move fleets here and armies here and there on a map, and command men to his will; he said belay and they belayeth. What he couldn't do was fix the problem of getting Parma's army across the Channel guarded by a fleet that would have to sail up-channel with the English harassing it, escort Parma's men in small transports or flatboats back down-channel, and successfully hold off the English and Dutch fleets the entire time to force a landing. (Among other issues, the Armada ships were almost all too large to sail into the shallows off the Dutch coast, where the Dutch ships could have cut Parma's transports into pieces.)

That all said, Medina Sidona was an obedient soldier, and he did keep the Armada together in mostly good order to Calais before the fleet was scattered with fireships. What was not understandable to the English navy was that when he was finally chased out of the channel and to the North Sea that he abandoned the mission entirely; they anticipated he would refit in a friendly port and try again.

Looking at the battle that way, you could say it was a clear English victory. Spain lost an enormous amount of blood and treasure; Spanish prestige was cast even lower than it had been due to English privateering in the Americas and of Spanish harbors.

But you can also call it a draw, because the Armada was not decisive in the Anglo-Spanish war. The war, while undeclared, dragged on through 1604; the English sent their own Armada to Spain in 1589 and lost nearly 15,000 men to disease and deaths in battle; further English and Spanish missions were indecisive; and the Treaty of London eventually restored the status quo antebellum.

So with regards to a historical controversy, sure, the English Armada gets thrown in the face of British mil-hist types; the Spanish Armada has its own place in English mythology. The issue is not so much whether the battle was a Spanish defeat -- it was horrendously expensive for Spain, as well as an utter strategic failure -- but whether it was itself a "decisive" or "turning point" battle, which it was not.

Edit: spelling

The Spanish language page is careful to state that the majority of ships made it home and pointed out that English sources claim a much higher casualty rate.

Also generally throughout the two different articles, different aspects of the operation are emphasized with the English language page generally pointing out the failure of the mission with the Spanish language page generally acknowledging the expedition as a tactical defeat but indicating Spain reached a victory at some strategic level.

Now of course different countries are going to tell their history in different ways so I don't want to nitpick the two articles since I'm sure both are "correct" in their own ways.

But I am interested to learn if the analysis of the event is subject to modern day controversy?

/u/pm_me_your_cuck_pics

It is indeed very striking to compare what the English language page says

Result: Decisive Spanish defeat[1][2][3]

• Militarily indecisive[4][5][6]

• Spanish invasion failure[7][8]

• Protestant propaganda victory[9][10]

And the Spanish language one says

Resultado: Incierto (result: indecisive)

I don't think there is any controversy of what happened and the impact of what happened, so serious disagreements are either at the level of rivet-counting (or plank-counting in this case?) or at the grand strategy level. So to me, what you have brought up is a matter of the Spanish-language page needing further scoping in the explanation of "results". It is correct that the outcome is indecisive in many ways, for example unlike popular perception it did not lead to English dominance in the oceans.

There are still some disagreements on the extent of the casualties on both sides, but none is to the extent of changing the ultimate interpretation of the outcome of the events. In particular, on the Spanish side, there is active research on quantifying the impact of the failure to enable an invasion of England, in terms of finances, politics, and military.

For a great read on the subject, consider Parker's The Grand Strategy of Philip II, which is now a bit outdated, but goes into great detail on analyzing the impact of this endeavor both on Spain and on England. To start with, I love this YouTube lecture on the subject. Cheers.