![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When explaining the result of the civil war (2.7) about Franco Change "became a dictator" for "became the leader of a authoritarian regime" Jjarboli ( talk) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The section of philosophy in the article of Spain should have a link to the wikipedia article about the School of Salamanca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.241.82 ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think all countries should have a section on life expectancy. The fact that they do have a section on matters such as economy, etc, and not life expectancy, is a sign of how wrong we view the world:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/17/health/life-expectancy-forecasts-study-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.89.223 ( talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The section of philosophy in the article of Spain should have a link to the wikipedia article about the School of Salamanca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.241.82 ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think all countries should have a section on life expectancy. The fact that they do have a section on matters such as economy, etc, and not life expectancy, is a sign of how wrong we view the world:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/17/health/life-expectancy-forecasts-study-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.89.223 ( talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Zvi Herman's hypothesis published in his book in 1967, is very nice, but somehow the proof that it is clearly wrong has become part of the presentation of this idea, throughout the Wikipedia in multiple languages including Spanish, Hebrew, and English, and found in various WP articles, such as the Hyrax (Shaffan in Hebrew, a word written with the Hebrew letters representing SPN). His proof lay on found coins of the Roman emperor Hadrian with the word Hispania inscribed showing a rabbit at the foot of a goddess. Rabbits were described by early historians as the Spanish hare. The coin showed that the rabbit was part of the symbol of the island, and the fact that Hebrew was similar to Siddonite and Ukarythian, the lingua franca of the day, spoken by the Karthageans, gave way to Herman's theory.
The only problem is that Shaffan is NOT a rabbit but rather a hyrax, and that the term was NOT mixed up with that of a rabbit by speakers of Hebrew, until after the publication of new translations of the Bible circa 600 AD, originating in Rome and central Europe where no Hyrax are found. Rather than discrediting the hypothesis, the mixup of terms has now been attributed to the ancient Phonecians as well, although they definitely had and still have large hyrax populations in Lebanon.
A more plausible theory would be that the word Safina - a boat in Arabic, Arameic and mentioned once in the Book of Jonah, may (or may not) have something to do with Hispania, one way or the other. There may be no proof this way or that, but at least it doesn't have a major flaw in it. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Ineedisin, please take into consideration that there are priorities on what should be inserted and what not regarding images. You can discuss this here. Musicfan122 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Officially the Kingdom of Spain
Can someone defend, if it's possible at all, the accuracy of the statement "officially the Kingdom of Spain" in the opening? This statement's own footnote says the Constitution does not establish this as the name of the State. It then goes on to describe how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs "established in an ordinance [that both España and Reino de España)] are equally valid" (emphasis added). The only "tie-breaker" in this footnote, is that where it asserts using only one primary source, that "The latter term is widely used by the government in national and international affairs of all kinds, including foreign treaties as well as national official documents, and is therefore recognised as the official name by many international organisations." Even if this last statement is true (which is at best poorly supported by the source), this does not justify the word "officially", since its use in contrast to how "Spain" has no such qualifier, suggests that "Spain"/"España" is somehow not official, when in fact this statement only suggestions that "Spain" is less common in a very specific field: international diplomacy. The article on the Spanish Wikipedia, which for obvious reasons is subject to far more scrutiny by readers familiar with details like this, says only that it is "also known as the Kingdom of Spain" which is all that the footnote on the English version would seem to support anyway. - Estoy Aquí ( talk) 21:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Bidezko and subscribe his words. It is correct to officially call Kingdom of Spain.
In addition, as a curiosity, in the Spanish DNI (National Identity Document), the "Reino de España" is mentioned in the translucent trademark of the Spanish coat of arms. Blade and the rest ( talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Acoording to Bloomberg Spain is the healthiest nation in the world. It also states that Spain has the highest life expectancy at birth among European Union nations, and trails only Japan and Switzerland globally, United Nations data show. Spain by 2040 is forecast to have the highest lifespan, at almost 86 years, followed by Japan, Singapore and Switzerland, according to the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.88.189 ( talk) 06:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-24/spain-tops-italy-as-world-s-healthiest-nation-while-u-s-slips — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.88.189 ( talk) 06:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose to merge
Talk:Kingdom of Spain into Talk:Spain. Because
Kingdom of Spain is only a redirect page for
Spain for a long time;
Talk:Kingdom of Spain is only a blank page from this talk page was created until now, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.179
07:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can somebody please revert the edit of the Melrorross? The Moors didn't rule most of the peninsula until 728, 711 only marks the beginning of the invasion. "Most of the eight centuries" makes little to no sense, and there's no need to call it the "muslim invasion", since that is clarified earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.165.241.73 ( talk) 17:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In the introduction it says by the late 15th century culminated in the emergence of Spain as a unified country under the Catholic Monarchs. That is not correct. Although some kings after the Catholic Monarchs used the title of King of the Spains, this title evoked the previous Roman province of Hispania. It can be proved as other persons in Portugal used similar titles. But the fact is that the different kingdoms under the rule of the Austria dynasty still being separated with different institutions, laws, currencies and borders until 1715 when the Bourbons arrived to the power of the different crowns and they started a centralizing process. -- David gonzalez garcia ( talk) 14:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It says: "Impatient with the slow pace of democratic political reforms in 1976 and 1977, Spain's new King Juan Carlos, known for his formidable personality, dismissed Carlos Arias Navarro and appointed the reformer Adolfo Suárez as Prime Minister". It cites BBC news and another non-academic source but this is an outrageous overstatement. Helen Graham or Paul Preston would provide a more rigourous account. Of course Spanish transition to democracy was a complex historical process. It wasn't Juan Carlos but political opposition to Franco's dictatorship that brought democracy. Given the monarch's reputation in Spain, pretending that he's broadly celebrated as some sort of Ataturk is far-removed from reality.
In the second paragraph and later in the section on 'geography', the hyperlink text supposedly linking to info on the country's area instead links to its population. 86.138.42.118 ( talk) 15:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xseisdece ( talk) 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Spain is a country in Europe.
Unbelievable semi-protection
Why this article in under protection? Sounds ridiculous.-- 2802:8000:807:1D00:F081:4E28:E3C6:8EA2 ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Is very bizarre that article has been written in that Spanglish. -- Generic515 ( talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
According to the new data released by the United Nations in 2015, Spain has the longest life expectancy in the world after Japan. I think this piece of data is more important that GDP etc. It is a real bottom-line piece of data that should be commented on. In fact, a woman in Spain has a whopping five year longer life than in countries like the US: /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5ec0:f978:81b3:569f:15c ( talk) 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC (UTC)
The regional government ,which is a democracy,was ousted by a Decree of the Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy. The Spanish Minister of Interior already controls the Catalonian Autonomous police force [1], in whose police stations portraits of ex-president Puigdemont have been removed [2]. It is the Spanish government who now EFFECTIVELY controls the regional administration, tax ofices, courts and Police. The "Catalan Republic" is not a state because it does not have the monopoly on violence, which correspond to the Spanish state, that has imposed direct rule on the region.
On the other hand, the Catalonian Parliament was dissolved and a new regional election will be held according with the Spanish Constitution and the Spanish electoral legislation. See: /info/en/?search=Catalan_regional_election,_2017
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmercury1980 ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The section of philosophy in the article of Spain should have a link to the wikipedia article about the School of Salamanca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.241.82 ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, please change "political decentralization or women's right to vote" to "political decentralisation or women's right to vote" per WP:ENGVAR. The s variant is used elsewhere in the article. -- 202.172.113.133 ( talk) 05:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Flag of the United States.svg 77.225.239.244 ( talk) 08:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Zaragoza to list of metropolitan areas because is the 5th largest city in Spain. [1] It should be before Malaga. I copy below the piece of source text with the modification applied:
Spain's capital and largest city is Madrid; other major urban areas include Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Zaragoza, Málaga and Bilbao. Wikiedit zgz ( talk) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean change this “other major urban areas include Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Málaga and Bilbao.” to “other major urban areas include Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Zaragoza, Málaga and Bilbao.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedit zgz ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Religion self-definition in Spain (October 2019 CIS survey) [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Under Geography: Second para; “Spain lies between latitudes 26° and 44° N, and longitudes 19° W and 5° E.”
Latitude 26 should read 36. Wriknmorty ( talk) 06:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The latitude of the above is 35... Wriknmorty ( talk) 07:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Could we please change the current map of Spain for the same one with more cities on it? It's already been uploaded to Wikipedia, therefore, it wouldn't be difficult to replace it. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Sp-map.png (Sp-map.png) Frariji9 ( talk) 16:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
According to data released in 2019 by the world health organization, Spain has the longest life expectancy in the world, along with Switzerland. I think that is an interesting fact to include:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_esperanza_de_vida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.66.128.76 ( talk) 10:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I've seen that when you play the anthem some subtitles come up, the spanish anthem doesen't have any words, its just music. The subtitles are the words used by general franco and his army. The words are ofensive and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2E02:9716:4100:11E3:346:F02E:12B8 ( talk) 10:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
If I go to 'Official language and national language' in the right-hand side table of the article and click on the [C] Note it brings me to a note which says:
The official language of the State is established in the Section 3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 to be Castilian.[3] In some autonomous communities, Catalan, Galician and Basque are co-official languages. Aragonese, Asturian, and Occitan (locally known as Aranese) have some degree of official recognition.
I just want to mention that Occitan is as official in Catalonia as Catalan is, so I would propose the following note:
The official language of the State is established in the Section 3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 to be Castilian.[3] In some autonomous communities, Catalan, Galician, Basque and Occitan (locally known as Aranese) are co-official languages. Aragonese and Asturian have some degree of official recognition.
Smalde ( talk) 09:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
As it stands right now, I find the history section (or, bluntly speaking, the whole article in general) to be too much image heavy, with also a possible undue emphasis in both "portrait-dropping" and historicist 19th century paintings.--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The illustration of the section starts apparently well (both in spacing and selection) but it ends up with image sandwiches galore. The engraving of the façade of the Barcelona City Hall during the proclamation of the First Republic and the photograph of Alfonso XIII with his dictator Primo de Rivera placed at the left are rather disposable under these conditions, IMO. I personally would choose either the Cádiz Constitution one or the Torrijos' execution one (both are great options, but we can do with a single one).
Puzzling, despite certain abundance of photographs of the actual war available in Commons, none are used, preferring a photograph of Azaña and a 2006 depiction of the ruins of Belchite instead (regarding the latter case, doubly puzzling as we have [way more iconic] contemporary depictions of the ruins of Guernica available in Commons), creating also a certainly avoidable level of image sandwiching in any case.
Resuming this discussion forum. The article returned again to the image spammery of before. As a general rule, could we try to (generally) move away from the focus on heritage for illustration? We know that Spain has beautiful buildings (and building façades), but this article is not supposed to be about that (except possibly the specific section devoted to heritage/landmarks). Illustrating every section with a building (façade) related to the topic is lazy. I suggest to also (generally) try to move away from the use of the "portrait photo" representing standout individuals sublimating great men/women history (and which is also lazy). With the former in mind together with preferring contemporary or near-contemporary (rather than historicist) illustrations for the history section (particularly prior to the 19th century) and simply not adding an excess of illustrations, can we reach a bare minimum of consensus on the direction forward vis-à-vis the illustration of the article?--Asqueladd ( talk) 08:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia is that atheism and agnosticism are considered irreligion. It is untenable here that they might be religions or non-irreligion. Therefore it is acceptable to add the numbers of adherents for 3 categories: atheist, agnostic, and no religion, to reflect a concise infobox-appropriate figure. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to specify the phoenician, roman and gothic foundation dates just as in France’s Wikipedia article? Spain wasn’t born in 1479 nor was Italy in 1861. Germany wasn’t established in 1990 either, btw.
In the case of Spain it all began with Phoenicians, who used the term “Ispanya” for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrain ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm giving up on the article Spanish colonization of the Americas which is a total mess and seems taken over by a crazed edit warrior focused on ensuring the entire article is about discussing "genocide of millions, slavery and forced conversions in Missions". He seems to be spending hours trying to coordinate a witch hunt against me there for trying to ensure the article is balanced and uses credible academic sources. If anyone else can have a look at it and try to improve it I would be grateful. It is sad the article is in such a pitiful state. I'm done. I'm not sure how to deal with such types. -- Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A image of the Monte Teleno with the caption "Mount Teleno in Leon region. Example of Mediterranean climate."
has been introduced allegedly to improve the climate section. The Monte Teleno is hardly a good example of Mediterranean climate (it's probably a mountain Dfb climate or at best a Dsb climate using the Köppen classification, hardly illustrative of your run-of-the-mill Mediterranean climate). In no time I will probably return the section to the previous version featuring a couple of illustrations illustrating extremes in terms of precipitation, that is, the 2000 mm to 300 mm Iberia-wide gradient transitioning from the NW to the desert SE (Almería and the Cantabrian coast). This could serve as yet another thread to discuss the illustrations of the article (just like
Talk:Spain/Archive 8#Images 2), if anyone cares to pay a visit.--Asqueladd (
talk)
21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Where it says:
"Through migration and settlement of people, various cultures developed in the region alongside Phoenician, Greek, Celtic and Carthaginian."
Maybe it could be expressed more correctly as:
"Through migration and settlement of people, various cultures developed in the region alongside with the native Iberian cultures, and influenced them: Celtic, Greek and Phoenician, the latter giving rise to the Carthaginian culture, which became a central political actor in Iberia just before the Roman conquest."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Signifer.geo ( talk • contribs)
various cultures developed in the region influenced by early Phoenician and Greek colonists from the Eastern Mediterraneanor smth like that.--Asqueladd ( talk) 05:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The indigenous Celtiberian, Iberian and Tartessian cultures were influenced respectively by Celts, Greeks and Phoenicians, until the second Punic war and the Roman conquest which marked the end of them.--Signifer.geo ( talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The current architecture section. Is it a good section? No. It lacks sources. That's the first problem to begin with, we shouldn't be wrong about that. Regarding the illustration part, it makes sense to favour a vernacular architecture, but given the absolute and utter lack of sources of the section, the illustration of the section is a moot question, and thus I am not particularly comfortable discussing about how the section should be illustrated. I'll try, anyways: currently, there is an illustration depicting the Hanging Houses of Cuenca, a striking case (protected as World Heritage Site, I think, too) of vernacular architecture. I suppose that's the reason some editor selected that image and put it there. IMO, there are better images depicting that specific architecture (rather than a city skyline), for example: file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg. Why should a skyline of Toledo (with little to no focus on architectural elements of the vernacular architecture and with the only clearly distinguishable element being a particularly ominous case of "faux historicism" such as the "pointy" outline of the alcázar) make for a better illustration of the architecture section? Again, while I am not particularly comfortable discussing this given the current paltry quality of the concerned section, I don't think the Toledo one is an improvement, tbh.--Asqueladd ( talk) 12:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Maria Zambrano)) to ((María Zambrano)) 2601:541:4580:8500:5454:26D8:72C6:F3CB ( talk) 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph states, “The African exclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera…”, but this should read “ The African semi-exclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera” as these three territories all have territorial water borders and therefore are not true exclaves. Tpciv511 ( talk) 04:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Completed. Tintinkien ( talk) 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
From the article's section on the Spanish Empire:
"Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest,[76] while others died from various other causes. Some scholars consider the initial period of the Spanish conquest— from Columbus's first landing in the Bahamas until the middle of the sixteenth century—as marking the most egregious case of genocide in the history of mankind.[77] The death toll may have reached some 70 million indigenous people (out of 80 million) in this period, as diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus, brought to the Americas by the conquest, decimated the pre-Columbian population."
Some scholars? Most scholars consider the population figures and death rates mentioned above as at the extreme high end of estimates and as highly speculative. Furthermore, the expression ""the most egregious case of genocide"" implies that the great wave of deaths from the contagious diseases was a deliberate act, centuries before scientists had discovered the cause of contagious infections!!! Also, there is the claim that "large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle"-- compared to what? The endless battles between the Aztecs and their neighbours? The Incas and their neighbours? The Inca civil war? Indigenous American wars as a whole? The mongol conquest of Eurasia? And the citation for that should not be another encyclopedia! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.240.208.85 (
talk)
08:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
What money in the Spain? 171.33.234.171 ( talk) 19:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Venezia Friulano: Where it is mentioned that Spain borders Gibraltar, "British Overseas Territory" should be returned for at least a couple of reasons.
In light of the above, then I propose (now that you and Wee Curry Monster have been through another iteration of this), that you technically have a point and since there's no need to qualify "Gibraltar" here, it would be be better not to have "British overseas territory of". When I say there's no need, I obsever that the text mentions France without calling it "the French Republic", Andorra without specifying that it's the "co-principality of Andorra", and Portugal without spelling out that it's the Republic of Portugal". So why does Gibraltar require special treatment in this regard? France. Andorra. Portugal. Gibraltar. Equally simple. Pinging Asqueladd as well.
PS, anticipating that someone may argue that in the case of France, Andorra, and Portugal, the sovereignty is self-evident, so Gibraltar needs to have its sovereign entity identified as well: Why? All we're saying is what Spain borders. Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Bay of Biscay have no sovereignties at all, and we mention them. It's an off-topic digression. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It is interesting the section devoted to antisemitism in Spain. Jews were expelled from most European countries much before they were from Spain. In England the Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290, for example. Not a single comentary in the England article, for example again. And then some insist that the Spanish Black Legend is not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.68.22.151 ( talk) 20:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I like the information but I think there should be more therefore I wish to edit this page as I have been to Spain and I know not to scam websites because I’m am smart and sensible 86.130.13.97 ( talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Take advice of this quietly US-Latino account target [2] [3]. Have a nice day. -- Jalapestra ( talk) 22:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
In recent hours, there has been edit warring in live page space. A request was made for an uninvolved administrator to fully protect the pagespace, which I have done. I see the editors involved in this dispute have been communicating through edit summary, but that discussion has not satisfied either editor. I chide both editors for a poor demonstration of good faith, language directed towards each other and not towards the work itself. I urge both editors to read about civility during this talk page discussion. I have no specific interest in the outcome of this disagreement other than my expectations that these two parties will develop workable language in this talk space. BusterD ( talk) 15:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is the point of removing the mention of the Llívia exclave as part of Spanish territory? If the Plazas de Soberanía (the minor exclaves/territories along the Moroccan coast) are mentioned, I don't understand why insistently erase the exclave of Llívia.
- Which is the point of saying that Spain has territories in the Atlantic Ocean (the Canary Islands, beacause it only has this) and then redundantly stating that it also has territories in northern Africa? The Canary Islands are in the Atlantic Ocean but are part of northern Africa. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
... exclaves are always mentioned: False. Do you see any mention of enclaves or exclaves in the leads of Belgium or Netherlands? The Belgium articles doesn't mention them at all. The Netherlands article doesn't mention them until well into the article. See Baarle-Nassau for details. There is also no mention of the enclave/exclave of Dahagram–Angarpota in either the India or Bangladesh articles.
Ok, that is a big problem because is a Spain article-only stuff. Spanish law explain none about Spain's name, justs asks that Spain ("España") and Kingdom of Spain ("Reino de España") are "valid" names... but not forcibly the only ones, "valid" is likely "formal", "the best choices", but those aren't "official" by far. Many problems appears with some semi-rookie users with the topic, returns from "also officially" to "officially named Kingdom of Spain" by "is woked" or "isn't like in other countries' articles", but Spain don't haves an official name really. If some user haves a better idea than "also Kingdom of Spain officially", add it, but don't re-add the inaccurate "officially named Kingdom of Spain" because is fake data. Spanish law just haves Spain ("España") and Kingdom of Spain ("Reino de España") just as some two names in a supplement in their law in an anecdotal way... -- Jalapestra ( talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Fifth paragraph: From the 16th until the early 19th century, Spain ruled one of the largest empires and It was among the first global empires in history. It is written with a capital letter, even if there is no stop before. Please check.
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Another dispute surrounds the Savage Islands, which Spain acknowledges to be part of Portugal, is the eldest territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal [1] that started in the XIV century, when the island were discovered and annexed to the Kingdom of Castille, but in the early XV century the island remained unhabited due difficult climate and the portuguese started to move colonies to the islands, the treaty of Zaragoza in 1529 between Charles I of Spain and John III of Portugal tried to put an end to the conflict [2] but in 1881 Spain started to build a lighthouse claiming to ignore the status of the islands, in 1997 during negotations between Spain and Portugal during a NATO security meeting, settled down the tensions. [3] However, Spain claims that they are rocks rather than islands, and therefore Spain does not accept the Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles) generated by the islands, while acknowledging the Selvagens as possessing territorial waters (12 nautical miles). On 5 July 2013, Spain sent a letter to the UN expressing these views. [4] [5]-
Spain claims sovereignty over the Perejil Island, a small, uninhabited rocky islet located in the South shore of the Strait of Gibraltar. The island lies 250 metres (820 ft) just off the coast of Morocco, 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from Ceuta and 13.5 kilometres (8.4 mi) from mainland Spain. Its sovereignty is disputed between Spain and Morocco. It was the subject of an armed incident between the two countries in 2002. The incident ended when both countries agreed to return to the status quo ante which existed prior to the Moroccan occupation of the island. The islet is now deserted and without any sign of sovereignty. Furukawaedo231 ( talk) 03:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
★Ama
TALK
CONTRIBS
16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Another dispute surrounds the Savage Islands, which Spain acknowledges to be part of Portugal. This is the oldest territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal. [1] The dispute originated in the fourteenth century, when the islands were discovered and annexed to the Kingdom of Castille. In the early fifteenth century, the islands remained uninhabited due to the difficult climate, and the Portugual began to place colonies on the islands. The 1529 Treaty of Zaragoza between Charles I of Spain and John III of Portugal tried to put an end to the conflict, [2] but in 1881 Spain began construction of a lighthouse. Tensions over the islands were not reduced until 1997, when negotiations between Spain and Portugal took place during a NATO security meeting. [3] The remaining area of dispute is the status of the waters around the islands. Spain claims that they are rocks rather than islands, and therefore does not accept the Portuguese claim of a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the islands, while acknowledging the Selvagens as possessing territorial waters to a distance of 12 nautical miles. On 5 July 2013, Spain sent a letter to the UN expressing these views. [4] [5]
References
What about Catalonian, Galician and basque languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.85.70 ( talk) 21:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm impressed about the comments of @Asqueladd to a section edition (removed by Asqueladd), that aside other considerations that could be discussed, says that there are crappy references as the ones of Plataforma per la llengua. I understand that Asqueladd valoration is simply politic, because these references are only descriptions of yearly laws.
Anyway, I accept Asqueladd criteria because I'm not here for political discussions, is not my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmallola ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
My attempt to introduce a small bit of reality into the lede has been reverted. Currently, the lead talks about the rise of Spain to pre-eminence on a global scale, then abruptly jumps to the present status of Spain as a developed country. I will now quote verbatim from the lede:
" In the wake of the Spanish colonization of the Americas, the Crown came to hold a large overseas empire, which underpinned the emergence of a global trading system primarily fuelled by the silver extracted in the New World.[19]
Spain is a developed country, a secular parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy,[20] with King Felipe VI as head of state."
...
Bruh. A reader who does not already know about Spain will assume that the Spanish Empire still exists, extracting silver from the New World as we speak. This needs to change. Red Slash 19:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
introduce a small bit of realityWhoah, how edgy. Apparently, @ Red Slash: it's sad that you still fail to engage in the talk above, which may address some of your concerns as one proposal states that
"18th and 19th centuries, during which the Crown saw the loss of the bulk of its American colonies in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars". Are you better than the rest of editors? You don't want to dirty yourself engaging with an ongoing discussion? Bruh.--Asqueladd ( talk) 23:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Chart in question goes up to 2015, meanwhile the caption lists it as going up to 2014. Minozen ( talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Why do so many editors apparently think that, when it comes to etymology, it's fine to quote 3rd, 16th or even 19th century sources as being somehow on par with modern ones, as if all of these were just guesses where one is as good as any other? 90% of the ideas mentioned in the section are clearly folk etymologies or outdated and weird ideas of some random fellow in the 19th century, and the more or less normal and standard views are buried among these. 79.100.144.23 ( talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The lead in this article seems too long? If you take a look at WP:LEAD, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." I feel like this lead is well-written and it lists a lot of relevant facts, but maybe the history section is too long and some things may be redundant or unnecessary (such as listing all the major organizations Spain is a member of). For comparison see the leads in United States and Germany, which have four paragraphs. Not sure what should be removed. Alcismo ( talk) 19:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd probably want to give the general question careful consideration, but regarding the Roman emperors: Honestly, if I asked somebody to give me a four-paragraph summary of Spain (of the objective variety, focusing on the basics, not of the "10 Cool Things You Never Knew About Spain" variety), I wouldn't expect it to include the number of Roman emperors who were born there. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the history coverage in the lead, on my screen, is 28 lines long, only four lines shorter than the lead of History of Spain. I'd say the historical concentration in this article's lead is way out of balance. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Asqueladd, but I'm too tired now to give this proper attention. The questions raised here are certainly worth our attention: this article is of top-level importance to an encyclopedia, and there's really no excuse for not making a good showing. I'm not going to draw any conclusions just yet. I will, however, note that Asqueladd has summoned competent, knowledgeable editors, and Venezia Friulano seems to be of good will. Surely we can work things out.;-) Carlstak ( talk) 00:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with Venezia Friulano and stand by my proposal. Serious historical writing looks at historical processes rather than individuals. Far from being "essential" as Friulano argues, history should be dispensed from explanations relying on the alleged impact of great men, heroes or highly influential and unique individuals having a purported decisive historical effect". Hence I stand by avoiding any mention to an individual in the lead, including the aforementioned three Roman emperors and Columbus. Contrariwise, the mention to the "Columbus voyages" adds substantially nothing to the history of Spain when the substantial and long-lasting historical process (the Spanish colonization of the Americas after 1492) is already mentioned. Thus:
Anatomically modern humans first arrived in the Iberian Peninsula around 42,000 years ago.
[1]
Pre-Roman peoples such as the
Iberians,
Celts,
Celtiberians,
Vascones, and
Turdetani dwelled in the territory, in addition to the development of coastal trading colonies by
Phoenicians and
Ancient Greeks and the brief
Carthaginian rule over the Mediterranean coastline. The
Roman conquest of colonization of the peninsula (Hispania) ensued. The Romans left a legacy that included their language and a number of social institutions.
[5]
Hispania remained under Roman rule until
the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in the
migration of tribal confederations originally from behind the līmes. Eventually, the Germanic
Visigoths emerged as the dominant power in the peninsula by the fifth century. In the early eighth century, most of the peninsula was
conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate. During the early Islamic rule,
Al-Andalus became the dominant peninsular power, centered in
Córdoba. Several Christian kingdoms emerged in Northern Iberia, chief among them
León,
Castile,
Aragón,
Portugal, and
Navarre. Over the next seven centuries, an intermittent southward expansion of these kingdoms—metahistorically framed as a reconquest, or
Reconquista—culminated with the Christian seizure of the
Emirate of Granada in 1492. Jews and Muslims were forced to chose between conversion to Catholicism or expulsion and the
Morisco converts were eventually
expelled. The dynastic union of the
Crown of Castile and the
Crown of Aragon ensued with the
annexation of Navarre. In the wake of the Spanish colonization of the Americas after 1492, the Crown came to hold
a large overseas empire, which underpinned the emergence of a global trading system primarily fuelled by the silver extracted in the New World.
[6]
Btw, I remind that an additional mini paragraph (3 lines at least) of modern history is still needed.
--Asqueladd ( talk) 16:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Humans arrived in the Iberian Peninsula about 42,000 years ago. The first cultures were the pre-Roman peoples such as Tartessos, the Celts, the Iberians, and more. The Phoenicians and Greeks also settled the peninsula, before the conquest of Hispania by the Romans mostly in the 3rd century BC. The Romans ruled Hispania until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, shaping all subsequent culture in the peninsula and the Catholic Church as the dominant religion. After the collapse of the empire, the peninsula was ruled by Germanic tribes, chiefly the Visigoths, before the conquest of the Umayyad Caliphate, ushering in centuries of Muslim rule in Spain. Several Christian kingdoms emerged, which expanded gradually in a process later named Reconquista, eventually seizing all Muslim lands in the peninsula in 1492. The Spanish colonisation of the Americas began that same year. During the 16th century, Spain was the most powerful country in Europe, coinciding with the Spanish Golden Age. Spanish power declined in the 17th and 18th centuries, although the empire reached its maximum extent in the 18th century.
In the early 19th century, Spain fought Napoleon's First French Empire in the Peninsular War. After the war, King Ferdinand VII re-instated absolutism until his death in 1833. There was a succession crisis after his death, making way for the Carlist Wars, which were lost by the Carlists to the moderate liberals associated with Isabella II's branch of the Bourbon dynasty. Spain was marked by political instability and economic stagnation and during the reigns of Isabella II (1833–68), Amadeo I (1870–73), Alfonso XII (1874–85) and Alfonso XIII (1886–1931), culminating with the proclamation of the democratic and left-leaning Second Spanish Republic. Political, religious, social and regional tensions culminated in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39, which was fought between the Republicans and the Nationalists of Francisco Franco. Franco won the war, and implemented a military dictatorship until 1975. During the latter part of the dictatorship, Spain experienced an economic boom. Economic growth and development continued after Spain became a parliamentary monarchy in 1978 and joined the European Union in 1986.
Thanks, Great Cod. I will submit a new proposal trimming some things from ancient history and perhaps accounting for the modern history. But I have a non-exhaustive critique of your proposal. "The first cultures were the pre-Roman peoples such as Tartessos, the Celts, the Iberians, and more"
. Tartessos is a questionable quasi-legendary "people" (the concept has features of a historiographical myth associated to essentialist visions), whose archeological findings may be simply understood as the result of the interaction of Phoenicians with native populations of the south of the peninsula (Iberians?). I'd rather prefer removing mentions to any pre-roman people altogether if the alternative were introducing moot history in the lead, to be honest. Why did you remove any mention to colonization from Ancient history, btw? It is very important!
the peninsula was ruled by Germanic tribes, chiefly the Visigoths
Germanic? And the Alans (they were Iranian)? If an adjective is crucial then "non-Roman" is preferable, although imho the explicit mention to being from the other side of the border of the empire conveys the idea better. Plus the "ruled by tribes" wording can be rough. which expanded "gradually" in a process later named Reconquista,
This wording "gradually
", the emphasis on "process"
, is overtly narrative and prone to misleads. And the lack of mention to any predecessor polity (and then carelessly introducing "Spain") is problematic to say the least (it is a blind spot, really).
Spain was the most powerful country in Europe, coinciding with the Spanish Golden Age
. This is actually rather wrong. To begin with, just to mention that a common "meme" vis-a-vis State formation is that the empire came first, then centuries later the nation-state country. Hence I wonder if a mention to an empire and a composite monarchy of kingdoms is not better than boasting about the "power" of a rather ghostly "country". It also mixes a purported cultural heyday in the 17th century with the 16th century. It tells limited substance, primarily a value judgement over an undertermined quality (militarily powerful? economically powerful? culturally powerful?). Much of the proposal relies too much on golden era vs. declinist perspective (a rollercoaster vision of history ingrained in nationalist teaching of history). Hence the unnecessary mention of golden era without context, detracting from the mention to pioneering role in global extractivism.
Likewise rather than the declinist perspective for "the Spanish power declined in the 17th and 18th centuries"
, the centralization of the monarchy (and actual State building) in the 18th century (and 19th century) is way more worthy of mention than yet another "moody" (this time down) statement. And for the more recent paragraph, I stand to my position that no mention to any individual (Isabella II (1833–68), Amadeo I (1870–73), Alfonso XII (1874–85) and Alfonso XIII (1886–1931), even Franco) is needed, no matter how challenging it sounds. Regards.--Asqueladd (
talk)
13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a starting proposal for modern history (only two and a half lines yet perhaps too much of politico-military history, but here we are):
"Centralisation of the administration and further State-building in mainland Spain ensued in the 18th and 19th centuries, during which the Crown saw the loss of the bulk of its American colonies in the aftermath of the
Napoleonic Wars. The country veered between different political regimes; monarchy and republic, and following a
1936–39 devastating war, a
fascist dictatorship that lasted until 1975."
--Asqueladd (
talk)
17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I submit my last proposal for the history paragraphs the lead (307 words, 2043 characters, not a single individual mentioned):
Anatomically modern humans first arrived in the Iberian Peninsula around 42,000 years ago.
[1]
Pre-Roman peoples dwelled in the territory, in addition to the development of coastal trading colonies by
Phoenicians and
Ancient Greeks and the brief
Carthaginian rule over the Mediterranean coastline. The
Roman conquest and colonization of the peninsula (Hispania) ensued, bringing a
cultural romanization of the population.
Hispania remained under Roman rule until
the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in
immigration of non-Roman tribal confederations. Eventually, the Germanic
Visigoths emerged as the dominant power in the peninsula by the fifth century. In the early eighth century, most of the peninsula was
conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate. During early Islamic rule,
Al-Andalus became the dominant peninsular power, centered in
Córdoba. Several Christian kingdoms emerged in Northern Iberia, chief among them
León,
Castile,
Aragón,
Portugal, and
Navarre. Over the next seven centuries, an intermittent southward expansion of these kingdoms culminated with the Christian seizure of the
Emirate of Granada in 1492. Jews and Muslims were forced to choose between conversion to Catholicism or expulsion and the
Morisco converts were eventually
expelled. The dynastic union of the
Crown of Castile and the
Crown of Aragon was followed by the
annexation of Navarre and the
1580 incorporation of Portugal (which ended in 1640). In the wake of the Spanish colonization of the Americas after 1492, the Crown came to hold
a large overseas empire, which underpinned the emergence of a global trading system primarily fuelled by the silver extracted in the New World.
[7]
Centralisation of the administration and further State-building in mainland Spain ensued in the 18th and 19th centuries, during which the Crown saw the loss of the bulk of its American colonies in the aftermath of the
Napoleonic Wars. The country veered between different political regimes; monarchy and republic, and following a
1936–39 devastating civil war, a
fascist dictatorship that lasted until 1975.
--Asqueladd (
talk)
01:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Lead is too long?, so a reduction in size can be a step forward.--Asqueladd ( talk) 13:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The topic I raised has led on the lead to very long and interesting discussions on many issues. This has led to much historiographical and even political stuff related to nationalism, that doesn't lead to what I wanted to achieve with the original post.
Of course not all of it was like that, I agreed with a lot, although not all, of the comments and criticisms of @ Asqueladd @ Venezia Friulano, @ Carlstak and @ Red Slash.
But some of it was simply not related to Wikipedia. I suggest we avoid it here and raise it somewhere else.
I still think the key issue has not been solved: the lead takes way too long to get to the key points.
I see this happens a lot on some Spain related articles for some reason. Long paragraphs suck to read, compare this article lead with much more complex and general topics like Quantum mechanics or Biology. Maybe it has to do with some stuff being directly translated from Spanish culture and not properly WP:GLOBALIZED or even reviewed by anyone who is qualified.
A summary of what I think: it is not the purpose of the lead to discuss historiographical debates over the legacy of this and that, as this discourse exists regarding every country and civilization that has ever existed. I still included some of this, but you are welcome to cut that crap if you can do it. There is absolutely no point in saying that Spanish is the 14th largest this and the 26th that and that it is a member of the UN, wow, just like all the other countries in the world! Well, I guess technically the Vatican City is an observer state... so it's relevant? Really? No point listing 10 cities either. While the regional languages are not mentioned even once!
Also there is no point saying it's a developed country, an advanced economy and a high-income country, which is basically the same point, yes I know it's technically not the same thing, but it's a re-formulation of the same idea.
I welcome any and all improvements and criticisms of my version, but don't tear every single phrase apart because I don't have time to argue over why I chose specific wording. If you can write a better lead just do it. The autonomous communities are worth mentioning. I have other stuff to do than read Wikipedia page talks, and I hope you do as well. On the wording "Reconquista", just because something is a historical construct doesn't mean that it can't be used in an encyclopedia. I'm no historian but I would even say that historical constructs are very much real, even if as concepts in the collective mind. Reconquista is a generally recognized term I think, like race or other topics, its very essence can be a subject of debate.
Also I don't have time to source all of this right now but I feel like it's mostly faithful to reality and if the lead were to be replaced we should source it all beforehand. If something is contrary to fact just source and change it. BTW I'm not sure if Gibraltar can be considered an enclave (for example I feel like Gibraltar is worth mentioning, but we should avoid writing 4 sentences on the Gibraltar dispute, territorial disputes exists in a lot of the major countries and it is not a major dispute like China/Taiwan or whatever). Bceause we could do this on many points like Reconquista, the Spanish Empire, the Inquisition, the civil wars of the 19th century, or the Spanish Civil War, or Franco, maybe Hispania? Why not the monarchy, the different ruling houses, republicanism? Where should we put the focus? BTW ultimately I think we should avoid this stuff and focus on describing contemporary Spain. Spanish politics, like Italian politics, are too complicated.
On the Catholicism thing yes I know Spain is super secular these days, but that is something worth stating as there are many topics such as Christmas and Holy Week, all the San and Santa, history, that is the traditional influence. Also Latin has also influenced Basque to a very large degree so yeah, it is the entire peninsula. Also Germanic is a more recognizable term than Visigoth, if one clicks it sends you to the Visigoth Spain article, Germanic shows the point that there is also non-Latin/Roman influence, and I think al Andalus speaks for itself. You don't have to agree.
Pre-Roman peoples and Tartessos aren't relevant enough to get to the lead. I think Spain being one of the world's most immigrated-to countries is more relevant.
Alcismo ( talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
How are Spain working with the UK and the other country’s that help people with pore zero water. 2A02:C7F:602B:B500:A475:AF1A:F01C:A0FC ( talk) 07:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This page was written using the standard dating style of BC/AD. For some reason most of the page has been randomly changed to BCE/CE. This seems unnecessary and is potentially an act of vandalism, one which introduces a needless despite to the page. Also Wikipedia guidelines are that the style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed. Suggesting that it be changed back. 2A00:23C8:2D00:EA01:1919:3DC6:384:2790 ( talk) 16:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The elections PSOE won the election, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. 2600:1700:77A0:2A80:5A0B:540:15F3:F4E9 ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
اسبانيا and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#اسبانيا until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Spain has the twelve-highest life expectancy in the world." to "Spain has the twelfth-highest life expectancy in the world." Jbernabeus ( talk) 11:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is an excellent article. However, the lead contains an erroneous sentence:
"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in the migration of Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula."
This does not match the paragraph in Section 2.2: Roman Hispania and the Visigothic Kingdom:
"The Germanic Suebi and Vandals, together with the Sarmatian Alans entered the peninsula after 409, henceforth weakening the Western Roman Empire's jurisdiction over Hispania. These tribes had crossed the Rhine in early 407 and ravaged Gaul. The Suebi established a kingdom in north-western Iberia whereas the Vandals established themselves in the south of the peninsula by 420 before crossing over to North Africa in 429. As the western empire disintegrated, the social and economic base became greatly simplified: but even in modified form, the successor regimes maintained many of the institutions and laws of the late empire, including Christianity and assimilation to the evolving Roman culture."
As you can see, the lead says that the Germanic tribes and the Vandals invaded in the fourth century after the Roman empire collapsed, but the main body says that they invaded in 409 (which was the fifth century) before the empire collapsed. The Roman empire collapsed in the later half of the fifth century.
The main body is the accurate account of historical facts, while the lead is inaccurate.
Sources:
I request that the lead be changed to something like this: "After sacking Gaul, Germanic tribes and their Alani allies entered the Iberian peninsula in 409, where they established kingdoms that survived the collapse of the western Roman empire". This would match the historical facts and the main body.
Thank you for your help to make a great article even better. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:A0D6:8A4D:7BA4:D167 ( talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
" collapse of the Western Roman Empire"for something like
" receding of Roman imperial authority". The point is not to expand the lead section with more details. To that end of trimming the lead, I also happen to think that
non-Roman peoples into the peninsulais preferable to
Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula.--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Visigoths emerged as the dominant power".--Asqueladd ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Lemonaka (
talk)
12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
In the article says: "Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest, while more died from various new Eurasian diseases that travelled more quickly than the Spanish conquerors. The death toll during the initial period of Spanish conquest, from Columbus's initial landing until the mid 16th century, is estimated as high as 70 million indigenous people out of a population of 80 million, as imported diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus decimated the pre-Columbian population. Disease killed between 50% and 95% of the indigenous population. Some scholars have described the Spanish conquest during this period as the largest genocide in history."
Wikipedia says that genocide is: "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part."
So, I don´t understand how spaniards comitted genocide.
To begin with, only Castille sent troops to America, so it is wrong to assign a genocide to the spaniards, and it is wrong to include this information in the article "España". It would be like to assign the wars that took place in the mediterranean, to España, and not to Aragón.
As far as I know, Castille had 4.300.000 inhabitants in the XV century. Even if They send to America his whole population. It´s incredible that 4.300.000 people killed eighty million in such a short period. May be if they had had machine guns like the nazis, or nuclear bombs, like USA... It´s clear that indigenous peoples fighted against Inca´s empire and Aztec´s empire, so the national topic doesn´t mach. [6] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=poblacion+de+castilla+1492
In the other hand, it is know as one of the most renowned writers in spanish an incaican descendant; his name is Garcilaso de la Vega, also known as " el Inca Garcilaso". So, in Spain there was no problem with "misgenation", as it is said in other part of the article. So the ethnic or racial topics doesn´t match as the cause of genocide.
In relation with diseases imported to the "new world", there are various facts: - Colonization took place by Spanish, Poruguese, and even english, french and dutch, among others. - Diseases were spreaded without any intention, and killed also Spaniards. Even more, Spain sent missions to spread vaccination in America. So attribute intentionality to the deaths sounds like nonsense. But if we take seriously, then we have to think that americans sent to Europe syphilis, in retaliation. As I have said is nonsense.
In summary, it is wrong, and should be changed.
It would be like if in "Francia" article, told genocides commited by Napoleon... Or if in England article speaks of genocides against spaniards, Welsh, Irish, French... Or if in USA article speaks of japaneese genocide, or Nicaraguan, Serbian or Panama...
I still got surprised when Wikipedia ask for money, when all its articles have wrong and misleading information. 66.81.172.166 ( talk) 14:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be listed that the Monarch of Spain is the de jure holder of power and the PM is the de facto holder, just like in the UK? Especially from what it says in the Constitution? Please let me know if I'm wrong here. Faith15 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Section 97
- The Government shall conduct domestic and foreign policy, civil and military administration and the defence of the State. It exercises executive authority and the power of statutory regulations in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.
- Section 98
- 1. The Government shall consist of the President, Vice-Presidents, when appropriate, Ministers and other members as may be created by law.
- 2. The President shall direct the Governments' action and coordinate the functions of the other members thereof, without prejudice to the competence and direct responsibility of the latter in the discharge of their duties.
Anyways, let's not get into that. I just found something to support my claim, @ Largoplazo. See here for the article, read what the red and blue mean, and go down to the Spain part. See? Despite what the Spanish Constitution says, the PM does actually control it. Faith15 14:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Despite what the Spanish Constitution says, the PM does actually control it.There's no "despite" here. The constitution says that the PM controls it, the same as what actually is. (In case this part was confusing you, the Spanish office commonly referred to as "prime minister" is the "President of the Government" referred to in the constitution. This is in contrast to countries like France and Israel where "president" and "prime minister" refer to different offices.) Largoplazo ( talk) 15:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Venezia Friulano, I see that once again you've removed "primarily" before "located in Southwestern Europe". I've just reviewed our earlier discussion that you initiated, now at Talk:Spain/Archive 8#Dispute over the Lead. You went into a lot of side talk about enclaves and exclaves and plazas de soberanía and Llivia, none of which was relevant. What's relevant is that "Spain is located in Southwestern Europe" is false and "Spain is primarily located in Southwestern Europe" is true. You need to stop replacing true statements with false statements. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
In the section in climate change reference is made to increases in temperatures of 2 to 4 degrees. The terminology used (2 °C, for example) is wrong as that is the term for a specific temperature, not a temperature change. The correct way would be to change the order of the scale (C for Celcius or F for Fahrenheit) and the degree symbol, though since many are unfamiliar with the meaning of this I would encourage instead writing, for example, "2 degrees Celcius". Then the incorrect Fahrenheit equivalents must be changed as while a temperature of 2 degrees Celcius is indeed 36 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale, it is only a change of 3.6 Fahrenheit degrees, and 4 Celcius degrees is not 39 Fahrenheit degrees but 7.2 Fahrenheit degrees. I would change it myself but cannot do so due to the semi-protected status of the page. 2600:1700:1260:1DDF:D52A:A7C1:52E1:4ECF ( talk) 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Sports section to add the title of the spanish national women's football team at the 2023 FIFA Women's world cup. Matataks ( talk) 13:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Cuando se enumeran los territorios españoles se comete un error al citar dos veces las islas canarias la segunda de ellas afirmando que se encuentran en el mar mediterraneo 95.124.154.173 ( talk) 10:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on art there is an extra and that needs to be removed Quartz1111 ( talk) 13:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Extending to 1,214 km (754 mi), the Portugal–Spain border is the longest uninterrupted border within the European Union. (Source: Spain Wikipedia - Geography)
Sweden and Norway have 1,619 km (Source: List of countries and territories by number of land borders - Wikipedia)
I do think that it is the oldest uninterrupted border in Europe. 82.209.176.86 ( talk) 13:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Raxmet user ( talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Foreign Relations sub-section of the Politics section, the "a" in "Spain claims Gibraltar, a Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" should be changed to "an".
103.164.74.98 ( talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The article mentions that the Phoenicians referred to the region as Spania (meaning "Land of rabbits"). But comparing to Hebrew sources, they most likely referred to the animal known in the Bible as "Shafan" -- hyrax. The mix up between these animals is common in Biblical translations, probably because both appear in the same verse in Leviticus 11:5-6. Amos083 ( talk) 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When explaining the result of the civil war (2.7) about Franco Change "became a dictator" for "became the leader of a authoritarian regime" Jjarboli ( talk) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The section of philosophy in the article of Spain should have a link to the wikipedia article about the School of Salamanca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.241.82 ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think all countries should have a section on life expectancy. The fact that they do have a section on matters such as economy, etc, and not life expectancy, is a sign of how wrong we view the world:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/17/health/life-expectancy-forecasts-study-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.89.223 ( talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The section of philosophy in the article of Spain should have a link to the wikipedia article about the School of Salamanca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.241.82 ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think all countries should have a section on life expectancy. The fact that they do have a section on matters such as economy, etc, and not life expectancy, is a sign of how wrong we view the world:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/17/health/life-expectancy-forecasts-study-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.89.223 ( talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Zvi Herman's hypothesis published in his book in 1967, is very nice, but somehow the proof that it is clearly wrong has become part of the presentation of this idea, throughout the Wikipedia in multiple languages including Spanish, Hebrew, and English, and found in various WP articles, such as the Hyrax (Shaffan in Hebrew, a word written with the Hebrew letters representing SPN). His proof lay on found coins of the Roman emperor Hadrian with the word Hispania inscribed showing a rabbit at the foot of a goddess. Rabbits were described by early historians as the Spanish hare. The coin showed that the rabbit was part of the symbol of the island, and the fact that Hebrew was similar to Siddonite and Ukarythian, the lingua franca of the day, spoken by the Karthageans, gave way to Herman's theory.
The only problem is that Shaffan is NOT a rabbit but rather a hyrax, and that the term was NOT mixed up with that of a rabbit by speakers of Hebrew, until after the publication of new translations of the Bible circa 600 AD, originating in Rome and central Europe where no Hyrax are found. Rather than discrediting the hypothesis, the mixup of terms has now been attributed to the ancient Phonecians as well, although they definitely had and still have large hyrax populations in Lebanon.
A more plausible theory would be that the word Safina - a boat in Arabic, Arameic and mentioned once in the Book of Jonah, may (or may not) have something to do with Hispania, one way or the other. There may be no proof this way or that, but at least it doesn't have a major flaw in it. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Ineedisin, please take into consideration that there are priorities on what should be inserted and what not regarding images. You can discuss this here. Musicfan122 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Officially the Kingdom of Spain
Can someone defend, if it's possible at all, the accuracy of the statement "officially the Kingdom of Spain" in the opening? This statement's own footnote says the Constitution does not establish this as the name of the State. It then goes on to describe how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs "established in an ordinance [that both España and Reino de España)] are equally valid" (emphasis added). The only "tie-breaker" in this footnote, is that where it asserts using only one primary source, that "The latter term is widely used by the government in national and international affairs of all kinds, including foreign treaties as well as national official documents, and is therefore recognised as the official name by many international organisations." Even if this last statement is true (which is at best poorly supported by the source), this does not justify the word "officially", since its use in contrast to how "Spain" has no such qualifier, suggests that "Spain"/"España" is somehow not official, when in fact this statement only suggestions that "Spain" is less common in a very specific field: international diplomacy. The article on the Spanish Wikipedia, which for obvious reasons is subject to far more scrutiny by readers familiar with details like this, says only that it is "also known as the Kingdom of Spain" which is all that the footnote on the English version would seem to support anyway. - Estoy Aquí ( talk) 21:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Bidezko and subscribe his words. It is correct to officially call Kingdom of Spain.
In addition, as a curiosity, in the Spanish DNI (National Identity Document), the "Reino de España" is mentioned in the translucent trademark of the Spanish coat of arms. Blade and the rest ( talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Acoording to Bloomberg Spain is the healthiest nation in the world. It also states that Spain has the highest life expectancy at birth among European Union nations, and trails only Japan and Switzerland globally, United Nations data show. Spain by 2040 is forecast to have the highest lifespan, at almost 86 years, followed by Japan, Singapore and Switzerland, according to the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.88.189 ( talk) 06:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-24/spain-tops-italy-as-world-s-healthiest-nation-while-u-s-slips — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.88.189 ( talk) 06:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose to merge
Talk:Kingdom of Spain into Talk:Spain. Because
Kingdom of Spain is only a redirect page for
Spain for a long time;
Talk:Kingdom of Spain is only a blank page from this talk page was created until now, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.179
07:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can somebody please revert the edit of the Melrorross? The Moors didn't rule most of the peninsula until 728, 711 only marks the beginning of the invasion. "Most of the eight centuries" makes little to no sense, and there's no need to call it the "muslim invasion", since that is clarified earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.165.241.73 ( talk) 17:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In the introduction it says by the late 15th century culminated in the emergence of Spain as a unified country under the Catholic Monarchs. That is not correct. Although some kings after the Catholic Monarchs used the title of King of the Spains, this title evoked the previous Roman province of Hispania. It can be proved as other persons in Portugal used similar titles. But the fact is that the different kingdoms under the rule of the Austria dynasty still being separated with different institutions, laws, currencies and borders until 1715 when the Bourbons arrived to the power of the different crowns and they started a centralizing process. -- David gonzalez garcia ( talk) 14:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It says: "Impatient with the slow pace of democratic political reforms in 1976 and 1977, Spain's new King Juan Carlos, known for his formidable personality, dismissed Carlos Arias Navarro and appointed the reformer Adolfo Suárez as Prime Minister". It cites BBC news and another non-academic source but this is an outrageous overstatement. Helen Graham or Paul Preston would provide a more rigourous account. Of course Spanish transition to democracy was a complex historical process. It wasn't Juan Carlos but political opposition to Franco's dictatorship that brought democracy. Given the monarch's reputation in Spain, pretending that he's broadly celebrated as some sort of Ataturk is far-removed from reality.
In the second paragraph and later in the section on 'geography', the hyperlink text supposedly linking to info on the country's area instead links to its population. 86.138.42.118 ( talk) 15:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Xseisdece ( talk) 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Spain is a country in Europe.
Unbelievable semi-protection
Why this article in under protection? Sounds ridiculous.-- 2802:8000:807:1D00:F081:4E28:E3C6:8EA2 ( talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Is very bizarre that article has been written in that Spanglish. -- Generic515 ( talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
According to the new data released by the United Nations in 2015, Spain has the longest life expectancy in the world after Japan. I think this piece of data is more important that GDP etc. It is a real bottom-line piece of data that should be commented on. In fact, a woman in Spain has a whopping five year longer life than in countries like the US: /info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5ec0:f978:81b3:569f:15c ( talk) 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC (UTC)
The regional government ,which is a democracy,was ousted by a Decree of the Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy. The Spanish Minister of Interior already controls the Catalonian Autonomous police force [1], in whose police stations portraits of ex-president Puigdemont have been removed [2]. It is the Spanish government who now EFFECTIVELY controls the regional administration, tax ofices, courts and Police. The "Catalan Republic" is not a state because it does not have the monopoly on violence, which correspond to the Spanish state, that has imposed direct rule on the region.
On the other hand, the Catalonian Parliament was dissolved and a new regional election will be held according with the Spanish Constitution and the Spanish electoral legislation. See: /info/en/?search=Catalan_regional_election,_2017
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmercury1980 ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The section of philosophy in the article of Spain should have a link to the wikipedia article about the School of Salamanca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.241.82 ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, please change "political decentralization or women's right to vote" to "political decentralisation or women's right to vote" per WP:ENGVAR. The s variant is used elsewhere in the article. -- 202.172.113.133 ( talk) 05:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Flag of the United States.svg 77.225.239.244 ( talk) 08:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Zaragoza to list of metropolitan areas because is the 5th largest city in Spain. [1] It should be before Malaga. I copy below the piece of source text with the modification applied:
Spain's capital and largest city is Madrid; other major urban areas include Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Zaragoza, Málaga and Bilbao. Wikiedit zgz ( talk) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean change this “other major urban areas include Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Málaga and Bilbao.” to “other major urban areas include Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, Zaragoza, Málaga and Bilbao.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedit zgz ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Religion self-definition in Spain (October 2019 CIS survey) [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Under Geography: Second para; “Spain lies between latitudes 26° and 44° N, and longitudes 19° W and 5° E.”
Latitude 26 should read 36. Wriknmorty ( talk) 06:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The latitude of the above is 35... Wriknmorty ( talk) 07:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Could we please change the current map of Spain for the same one with more cities on it? It's already been uploaded to Wikipedia, therefore, it wouldn't be difficult to replace it. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Sp-map.png (Sp-map.png) Frariji9 ( talk) 16:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
According to data released in 2019 by the world health organization, Spain has the longest life expectancy in the world, along with Switzerland. I think that is an interesting fact to include:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_esperanza_de_vida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.66.128.76 ( talk) 10:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I've seen that when you play the anthem some subtitles come up, the spanish anthem doesen't have any words, its just music. The subtitles are the words used by general franco and his army. The words are ofensive and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2E02:9716:4100:11E3:346:F02E:12B8 ( talk) 10:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
If I go to 'Official language and national language' in the right-hand side table of the article and click on the [C] Note it brings me to a note which says:
The official language of the State is established in the Section 3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 to be Castilian.[3] In some autonomous communities, Catalan, Galician and Basque are co-official languages. Aragonese, Asturian, and Occitan (locally known as Aranese) have some degree of official recognition.
I just want to mention that Occitan is as official in Catalonia as Catalan is, so I would propose the following note:
The official language of the State is established in the Section 3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 to be Castilian.[3] In some autonomous communities, Catalan, Galician, Basque and Occitan (locally known as Aranese) are co-official languages. Aragonese and Asturian have some degree of official recognition.
Smalde ( talk) 09:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
As it stands right now, I find the history section (or, bluntly speaking, the whole article in general) to be too much image heavy, with also a possible undue emphasis in both "portrait-dropping" and historicist 19th century paintings.--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The illustration of the section starts apparently well (both in spacing and selection) but it ends up with image sandwiches galore. The engraving of the façade of the Barcelona City Hall during the proclamation of the First Republic and the photograph of Alfonso XIII with his dictator Primo de Rivera placed at the left are rather disposable under these conditions, IMO. I personally would choose either the Cádiz Constitution one or the Torrijos' execution one (both are great options, but we can do with a single one).
Puzzling, despite certain abundance of photographs of the actual war available in Commons, none are used, preferring a photograph of Azaña and a 2006 depiction of the ruins of Belchite instead (regarding the latter case, doubly puzzling as we have [way more iconic] contemporary depictions of the ruins of Guernica available in Commons), creating also a certainly avoidable level of image sandwiching in any case.
Resuming this discussion forum. The article returned again to the image spammery of before. As a general rule, could we try to (generally) move away from the focus on heritage for illustration? We know that Spain has beautiful buildings (and building façades), but this article is not supposed to be about that (except possibly the specific section devoted to heritage/landmarks). Illustrating every section with a building (façade) related to the topic is lazy. I suggest to also (generally) try to move away from the use of the "portrait photo" representing standout individuals sublimating great men/women history (and which is also lazy). With the former in mind together with preferring contemporary or near-contemporary (rather than historicist) illustrations for the history section (particularly prior to the 19th century) and simply not adding an excess of illustrations, can we reach a bare minimum of consensus on the direction forward vis-à-vis the illustration of the article?--Asqueladd ( talk) 08:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia is that atheism and agnosticism are considered irreligion. It is untenable here that they might be religions or non-irreligion. Therefore it is acceptable to add the numbers of adherents for 3 categories: atheist, agnostic, and no religion, to reflect a concise infobox-appropriate figure. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to specify the phoenician, roman and gothic foundation dates just as in France’s Wikipedia article? Spain wasn’t born in 1479 nor was Italy in 1861. Germany wasn’t established in 1990 either, btw.
In the case of Spain it all began with Phoenicians, who used the term “Ispanya” for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrain ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm giving up on the article Spanish colonization of the Americas which is a total mess and seems taken over by a crazed edit warrior focused on ensuring the entire article is about discussing "genocide of millions, slavery and forced conversions in Missions". He seems to be spending hours trying to coordinate a witch hunt against me there for trying to ensure the article is balanced and uses credible academic sources. If anyone else can have a look at it and try to improve it I would be grateful. It is sad the article is in such a pitiful state. I'm done. I'm not sure how to deal with such types. -- Frijolesconqueso ( talk) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A image of the Monte Teleno with the caption "Mount Teleno in Leon region. Example of Mediterranean climate."
has been introduced allegedly to improve the climate section. The Monte Teleno is hardly a good example of Mediterranean climate (it's probably a mountain Dfb climate or at best a Dsb climate using the Köppen classification, hardly illustrative of your run-of-the-mill Mediterranean climate). In no time I will probably return the section to the previous version featuring a couple of illustrations illustrating extremes in terms of precipitation, that is, the 2000 mm to 300 mm Iberia-wide gradient transitioning from the NW to the desert SE (Almería and the Cantabrian coast). This could serve as yet another thread to discuss the illustrations of the article (just like
Talk:Spain/Archive 8#Images 2), if anyone cares to pay a visit.--Asqueladd (
talk)
21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Where it says:
"Through migration and settlement of people, various cultures developed in the region alongside Phoenician, Greek, Celtic and Carthaginian."
Maybe it could be expressed more correctly as:
"Through migration and settlement of people, various cultures developed in the region alongside with the native Iberian cultures, and influenced them: Celtic, Greek and Phoenician, the latter giving rise to the Carthaginian culture, which became a central political actor in Iberia just before the Roman conquest."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Signifer.geo ( talk • contribs)
various cultures developed in the region influenced by early Phoenician and Greek colonists from the Eastern Mediterraneanor smth like that.--Asqueladd ( talk) 05:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The indigenous Celtiberian, Iberian and Tartessian cultures were influenced respectively by Celts, Greeks and Phoenicians, until the second Punic war and the Roman conquest which marked the end of them.--Signifer.geo ( talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The current architecture section. Is it a good section? No. It lacks sources. That's the first problem to begin with, we shouldn't be wrong about that. Regarding the illustration part, it makes sense to favour a vernacular architecture, but given the absolute and utter lack of sources of the section, the illustration of the section is a moot question, and thus I am not particularly comfortable discussing about how the section should be illustrated. I'll try, anyways: currently, there is an illustration depicting the Hanging Houses of Cuenca, a striking case (protected as World Heritage Site, I think, too) of vernacular architecture. I suppose that's the reason some editor selected that image and put it there. IMO, there are better images depicting that specific architecture (rather than a city skyline), for example: file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg. Why should a skyline of Toledo (with little to no focus on architectural elements of the vernacular architecture and with the only clearly distinguishable element being a particularly ominous case of "faux historicism" such as the "pointy" outline of the alcázar) make for a better illustration of the architecture section? Again, while I am not particularly comfortable discussing this given the current paltry quality of the concerned section, I don't think the Toledo one is an improvement, tbh.--Asqueladd ( talk) 12:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Maria Zambrano)) to ((María Zambrano)) 2601:541:4580:8500:5454:26D8:72C6:F3CB ( talk) 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph states, “The African exclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera…”, but this should read “ The African semi-exclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera” as these three territories all have territorial water borders and therefore are not true exclaves. Tpciv511 ( talk) 04:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Completed. Tintinkien ( talk) 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
From the article's section on the Spanish Empire:
"Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest,[76] while others died from various other causes. Some scholars consider the initial period of the Spanish conquest— from Columbus's first landing in the Bahamas until the middle of the sixteenth century—as marking the most egregious case of genocide in the history of mankind.[77] The death toll may have reached some 70 million indigenous people (out of 80 million) in this period, as diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus, brought to the Americas by the conquest, decimated the pre-Columbian population."
Some scholars? Most scholars consider the population figures and death rates mentioned above as at the extreme high end of estimates and as highly speculative. Furthermore, the expression ""the most egregious case of genocide"" implies that the great wave of deaths from the contagious diseases was a deliberate act, centuries before scientists had discovered the cause of contagious infections!!! Also, there is the claim that "large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle"-- compared to what? The endless battles between the Aztecs and their neighbours? The Incas and their neighbours? The Inca civil war? Indigenous American wars as a whole? The mongol conquest of Eurasia? And the citation for that should not be another encyclopedia! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.240.208.85 (
talk)
08:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
What money in the Spain? 171.33.234.171 ( talk) 19:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Venezia Friulano: Where it is mentioned that Spain borders Gibraltar, "British Overseas Territory" should be returned for at least a couple of reasons.
In light of the above, then I propose (now that you and Wee Curry Monster have been through another iteration of this), that you technically have a point and since there's no need to qualify "Gibraltar" here, it would be be better not to have "British overseas territory of". When I say there's no need, I obsever that the text mentions France without calling it "the French Republic", Andorra without specifying that it's the "co-principality of Andorra", and Portugal without spelling out that it's the Republic of Portugal". So why does Gibraltar require special treatment in this regard? France. Andorra. Portugal. Gibraltar. Equally simple. Pinging Asqueladd as well.
PS, anticipating that someone may argue that in the case of France, Andorra, and Portugal, the sovereignty is self-evident, so Gibraltar needs to have its sovereign entity identified as well: Why? All we're saying is what Spain borders. Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Bay of Biscay have no sovereignties at all, and we mention them. It's an off-topic digression. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It is interesting the section devoted to antisemitism in Spain. Jews were expelled from most European countries much before they were from Spain. In England the Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290, for example. Not a single comentary in the England article, for example again. And then some insist that the Spanish Black Legend is not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.68.22.151 ( talk) 20:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I like the information but I think there should be more therefore I wish to edit this page as I have been to Spain and I know not to scam websites because I’m am smart and sensible 86.130.13.97 ( talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Take advice of this quietly US-Latino account target [2] [3]. Have a nice day. -- Jalapestra ( talk) 22:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
In recent hours, there has been edit warring in live page space. A request was made for an uninvolved administrator to fully protect the pagespace, which I have done. I see the editors involved in this dispute have been communicating through edit summary, but that discussion has not satisfied either editor. I chide both editors for a poor demonstration of good faith, language directed towards each other and not towards the work itself. I urge both editors to read about civility during this talk page discussion. I have no specific interest in the outcome of this disagreement other than my expectations that these two parties will develop workable language in this talk space. BusterD ( talk) 15:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is the point of removing the mention of the Llívia exclave as part of Spanish territory? If the Plazas de Soberanía (the minor exclaves/territories along the Moroccan coast) are mentioned, I don't understand why insistently erase the exclave of Llívia.
- Which is the point of saying that Spain has territories in the Atlantic Ocean (the Canary Islands, beacause it only has this) and then redundantly stating that it also has territories in northern Africa? The Canary Islands are in the Atlantic Ocean but are part of northern Africa. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
... exclaves are always mentioned: False. Do you see any mention of enclaves or exclaves in the leads of Belgium or Netherlands? The Belgium articles doesn't mention them at all. The Netherlands article doesn't mention them until well into the article. See Baarle-Nassau for details. There is also no mention of the enclave/exclave of Dahagram–Angarpota in either the India or Bangladesh articles.
Ok, that is a big problem because is a Spain article-only stuff. Spanish law explain none about Spain's name, justs asks that Spain ("España") and Kingdom of Spain ("Reino de España") are "valid" names... but not forcibly the only ones, "valid" is likely "formal", "the best choices", but those aren't "official" by far. Many problems appears with some semi-rookie users with the topic, returns from "also officially" to "officially named Kingdom of Spain" by "is woked" or "isn't like in other countries' articles", but Spain don't haves an official name really. If some user haves a better idea than "also Kingdom of Spain officially", add it, but don't re-add the inaccurate "officially named Kingdom of Spain" because is fake data. Spanish law just haves Spain ("España") and Kingdom of Spain ("Reino de España") just as some two names in a supplement in their law in an anecdotal way... -- Jalapestra ( talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Fifth paragraph: From the 16th until the early 19th century, Spain ruled one of the largest empires and It was among the first global empires in history. It is written with a capital letter, even if there is no stop before. Please check.
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Another dispute surrounds the Savage Islands, which Spain acknowledges to be part of Portugal, is the eldest territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal [1] that started in the XIV century, when the island were discovered and annexed to the Kingdom of Castille, but in the early XV century the island remained unhabited due difficult climate and the portuguese started to move colonies to the islands, the treaty of Zaragoza in 1529 between Charles I of Spain and John III of Portugal tried to put an end to the conflict [2] but in 1881 Spain started to build a lighthouse claiming to ignore the status of the islands, in 1997 during negotations between Spain and Portugal during a NATO security meeting, settled down the tensions. [3] However, Spain claims that they are rocks rather than islands, and therefore Spain does not accept the Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles) generated by the islands, while acknowledging the Selvagens as possessing territorial waters (12 nautical miles). On 5 July 2013, Spain sent a letter to the UN expressing these views. [4] [5]-
Spain claims sovereignty over the Perejil Island, a small, uninhabited rocky islet located in the South shore of the Strait of Gibraltar. The island lies 250 metres (820 ft) just off the coast of Morocco, 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from Ceuta and 13.5 kilometres (8.4 mi) from mainland Spain. Its sovereignty is disputed between Spain and Morocco. It was the subject of an armed incident between the two countries in 2002. The incident ended when both countries agreed to return to the status quo ante which existed prior to the Moroccan occupation of the island. The islet is now deserted and without any sign of sovereignty. Furukawaedo231 ( talk) 03:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
★Ama
TALK
CONTRIBS
16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Another dispute surrounds the Savage Islands, which Spain acknowledges to be part of Portugal. This is the oldest territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal. [1] The dispute originated in the fourteenth century, when the islands were discovered and annexed to the Kingdom of Castille. In the early fifteenth century, the islands remained uninhabited due to the difficult climate, and the Portugual began to place colonies on the islands. The 1529 Treaty of Zaragoza between Charles I of Spain and John III of Portugal tried to put an end to the conflict, [2] but in 1881 Spain began construction of a lighthouse. Tensions over the islands were not reduced until 1997, when negotiations between Spain and Portugal took place during a NATO security meeting. [3] The remaining area of dispute is the status of the waters around the islands. Spain claims that they are rocks rather than islands, and therefore does not accept the Portuguese claim of a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the islands, while acknowledging the Selvagens as possessing territorial waters to a distance of 12 nautical miles. On 5 July 2013, Spain sent a letter to the UN expressing these views. [4] [5]
References
What about Catalonian, Galician and basque languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.85.70 ( talk) 21:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm impressed about the comments of @Asqueladd to a section edition (removed by Asqueladd), that aside other considerations that could be discussed, says that there are crappy references as the ones of Plataforma per la llengua. I understand that Asqueladd valoration is simply politic, because these references are only descriptions of yearly laws.
Anyway, I accept Asqueladd criteria because I'm not here for political discussions, is not my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmallola ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
My attempt to introduce a small bit of reality into the lede has been reverted. Currently, the lead talks about the rise of Spain to pre-eminence on a global scale, then abruptly jumps to the present status of Spain as a developed country. I will now quote verbatim from the lede:
" In the wake of the Spanish colonization of the Americas, the Crown came to hold a large overseas empire, which underpinned the emergence of a global trading system primarily fuelled by the silver extracted in the New World.[19]
Spain is a developed country, a secular parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy,[20] with King Felipe VI as head of state."
...
Bruh. A reader who does not already know about Spain will assume that the Spanish Empire still exists, extracting silver from the New World as we speak. This needs to change. Red Slash 19:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
introduce a small bit of realityWhoah, how edgy. Apparently, @ Red Slash: it's sad that you still fail to engage in the talk above, which may address some of your concerns as one proposal states that
"18th and 19th centuries, during which the Crown saw the loss of the bulk of its American colonies in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars". Are you better than the rest of editors? You don't want to dirty yourself engaging with an ongoing discussion? Bruh.--Asqueladd ( talk) 23:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Chart in question goes up to 2015, meanwhile the caption lists it as going up to 2014. Minozen ( talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Why do so many editors apparently think that, when it comes to etymology, it's fine to quote 3rd, 16th or even 19th century sources as being somehow on par with modern ones, as if all of these were just guesses where one is as good as any other? 90% of the ideas mentioned in the section are clearly folk etymologies or outdated and weird ideas of some random fellow in the 19th century, and the more or less normal and standard views are buried among these. 79.100.144.23 ( talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The lead in this article seems too long? If you take a look at WP:LEAD, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." I feel like this lead is well-written and it lists a lot of relevant facts, but maybe the history section is too long and some things may be redundant or unnecessary (such as listing all the major organizations Spain is a member of). For comparison see the leads in United States and Germany, which have four paragraphs. Not sure what should be removed. Alcismo ( talk) 19:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd probably want to give the general question careful consideration, but regarding the Roman emperors: Honestly, if I asked somebody to give me a four-paragraph summary of Spain (of the objective variety, focusing on the basics, not of the "10 Cool Things You Never Knew About Spain" variety), I wouldn't expect it to include the number of Roman emperors who were born there. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the history coverage in the lead, on my screen, is 28 lines long, only four lines shorter than the lead of History of Spain. I'd say the historical concentration in this article's lead is way out of balance. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Asqueladd, but I'm too tired now to give this proper attention. The questions raised here are certainly worth our attention: this article is of top-level importance to an encyclopedia, and there's really no excuse for not making a good showing. I'm not going to draw any conclusions just yet. I will, however, note that Asqueladd has summoned competent, knowledgeable editors, and Venezia Friulano seems to be of good will. Surely we can work things out.;-) Carlstak ( talk) 00:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with Venezia Friulano and stand by my proposal. Serious historical writing looks at historical processes rather than individuals. Far from being "essential" as Friulano argues, history should be dispensed from explanations relying on the alleged impact of great men, heroes or highly influential and unique individuals having a purported decisive historical effect". Hence I stand by avoiding any mention to an individual in the lead, including the aforementioned three Roman emperors and Columbus. Contrariwise, the mention to the "Columbus voyages" adds substantially nothing to the history of Spain when the substantial and long-lasting historical process (the Spanish colonization of the Americas after 1492) is already mentioned. Thus:
Anatomically modern humans first arrived in the Iberian Peninsula around 42,000 years ago.
[1]
Pre-Roman peoples such as the
Iberians,
Celts,
Celtiberians,
Vascones, and
Turdetani dwelled in the territory, in addition to the development of coastal trading colonies by
Phoenicians and
Ancient Greeks and the brief
Carthaginian rule over the Mediterranean coastline. The
Roman conquest of colonization of the peninsula (Hispania) ensued. The Romans left a legacy that included their language and a number of social institutions.
[5]
Hispania remained under Roman rule until
the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in the
migration of tribal confederations originally from behind the līmes. Eventually, the Germanic
Visigoths emerged as the dominant power in the peninsula by the fifth century. In the early eighth century, most of the peninsula was
conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate. During the early Islamic rule,
Al-Andalus became the dominant peninsular power, centered in
Córdoba. Several Christian kingdoms emerged in Northern Iberia, chief among them
León,
Castile,
Aragón,
Portugal, and
Navarre. Over the next seven centuries, an intermittent southward expansion of these kingdoms—metahistorically framed as a reconquest, or
Reconquista—culminated with the Christian seizure of the
Emirate of Granada in 1492. Jews and Muslims were forced to chose between conversion to Catholicism or expulsion and the
Morisco converts were eventually
expelled. The dynastic union of the
Crown of Castile and the
Crown of Aragon ensued with the
annexation of Navarre. In the wake of the Spanish colonization of the Americas after 1492, the Crown came to hold
a large overseas empire, which underpinned the emergence of a global trading system primarily fuelled by the silver extracted in the New World.
[6]
Btw, I remind that an additional mini paragraph (3 lines at least) of modern history is still needed.
--Asqueladd ( talk) 16:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Humans arrived in the Iberian Peninsula about 42,000 years ago. The first cultures were the pre-Roman peoples such as Tartessos, the Celts, the Iberians, and more. The Phoenicians and Greeks also settled the peninsula, before the conquest of Hispania by the Romans mostly in the 3rd century BC. The Romans ruled Hispania until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, shaping all subsequent culture in the peninsula and the Catholic Church as the dominant religion. After the collapse of the empire, the peninsula was ruled by Germanic tribes, chiefly the Visigoths, before the conquest of the Umayyad Caliphate, ushering in centuries of Muslim rule in Spain. Several Christian kingdoms emerged, which expanded gradually in a process later named Reconquista, eventually seizing all Muslim lands in the peninsula in 1492. The Spanish colonisation of the Americas began that same year. During the 16th century, Spain was the most powerful country in Europe, coinciding with the Spanish Golden Age. Spanish power declined in the 17th and 18th centuries, although the empire reached its maximum extent in the 18th century.
In the early 19th century, Spain fought Napoleon's First French Empire in the Peninsular War. After the war, King Ferdinand VII re-instated absolutism until his death in 1833. There was a succession crisis after his death, making way for the Carlist Wars, which were lost by the Carlists to the moderate liberals associated with Isabella II's branch of the Bourbon dynasty. Spain was marked by political instability and economic stagnation and during the reigns of Isabella II (1833–68), Amadeo I (1870–73), Alfonso XII (1874–85) and Alfonso XIII (1886–1931), culminating with the proclamation of the democratic and left-leaning Second Spanish Republic. Political, religious, social and regional tensions culminated in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39, which was fought between the Republicans and the Nationalists of Francisco Franco. Franco won the war, and implemented a military dictatorship until 1975. During the latter part of the dictatorship, Spain experienced an economic boom. Economic growth and development continued after Spain became a parliamentary monarchy in 1978 and joined the European Union in 1986.
Thanks, Great Cod. I will submit a new proposal trimming some things from ancient history and perhaps accounting for the modern history. But I have a non-exhaustive critique of your proposal. "The first cultures were the pre-Roman peoples such as Tartessos, the Celts, the Iberians, and more"
. Tartessos is a questionable quasi-legendary "people" (the concept has features of a historiographical myth associated to essentialist visions), whose archeological findings may be simply understood as the result of the interaction of Phoenicians with native populations of the south of the peninsula (Iberians?). I'd rather prefer removing mentions to any pre-roman people altogether if the alternative were introducing moot history in the lead, to be honest. Why did you remove any mention to colonization from Ancient history, btw? It is very important!
the peninsula was ruled by Germanic tribes, chiefly the Visigoths
Germanic? And the Alans (they were Iranian)? If an adjective is crucial then "non-Roman" is preferable, although imho the explicit mention to being from the other side of the border of the empire conveys the idea better. Plus the "ruled by tribes" wording can be rough. which expanded "gradually" in a process later named Reconquista,
This wording "gradually
", the emphasis on "process"
, is overtly narrative and prone to misleads. And the lack of mention to any predecessor polity (and then carelessly introducing "Spain") is problematic to say the least (it is a blind spot, really).
Spain was the most powerful country in Europe, coinciding with the Spanish Golden Age
. This is actually rather wrong. To begin with, just to mention that a common "meme" vis-a-vis State formation is that the empire came first, then centuries later the nation-state country. Hence I wonder if a mention to an empire and a composite monarchy of kingdoms is not better than boasting about the "power" of a rather ghostly "country". It also mixes a purported cultural heyday in the 17th century with the 16th century. It tells limited substance, primarily a value judgement over an undertermined quality (militarily powerful? economically powerful? culturally powerful?). Much of the proposal relies too much on golden era vs. declinist perspective (a rollercoaster vision of history ingrained in nationalist teaching of history). Hence the unnecessary mention of golden era without context, detracting from the mention to pioneering role in global extractivism.
Likewise rather than the declinist perspective for "the Spanish power declined in the 17th and 18th centuries"
, the centralization of the monarchy (and actual State building) in the 18th century (and 19th century) is way more worthy of mention than yet another "moody" (this time down) statement. And for the more recent paragraph, I stand to my position that no mention to any individual (Isabella II (1833–68), Amadeo I (1870–73), Alfonso XII (1874–85) and Alfonso XIII (1886–1931), even Franco) is needed, no matter how challenging it sounds. Regards.--Asqueladd (
talk)
13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a starting proposal for modern history (only two and a half lines yet perhaps too much of politico-military history, but here we are):
"Centralisation of the administration and further State-building in mainland Spain ensued in the 18th and 19th centuries, during which the Crown saw the loss of the bulk of its American colonies in the aftermath of the
Napoleonic Wars. The country veered between different political regimes; monarchy and republic, and following a
1936–39 devastating war, a
fascist dictatorship that lasted until 1975."
--Asqueladd (
talk)
17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I submit my last proposal for the history paragraphs the lead (307 words, 2043 characters, not a single individual mentioned):
Anatomically modern humans first arrived in the Iberian Peninsula around 42,000 years ago.
[1]
Pre-Roman peoples dwelled in the territory, in addition to the development of coastal trading colonies by
Phoenicians and
Ancient Greeks and the brief
Carthaginian rule over the Mediterranean coastline. The
Roman conquest and colonization of the peninsula (Hispania) ensued, bringing a
cultural romanization of the population.
Hispania remained under Roman rule until
the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in
immigration of non-Roman tribal confederations. Eventually, the Germanic
Visigoths emerged as the dominant power in the peninsula by the fifth century. In the early eighth century, most of the peninsula was
conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate. During early Islamic rule,
Al-Andalus became the dominant peninsular power, centered in
Córdoba. Several Christian kingdoms emerged in Northern Iberia, chief among them
León,
Castile,
Aragón,
Portugal, and
Navarre. Over the next seven centuries, an intermittent southward expansion of these kingdoms culminated with the Christian seizure of the
Emirate of Granada in 1492. Jews and Muslims were forced to choose between conversion to Catholicism or expulsion and the
Morisco converts were eventually
expelled. The dynastic union of the
Crown of Castile and the
Crown of Aragon was followed by the
annexation of Navarre and the
1580 incorporation of Portugal (which ended in 1640). In the wake of the Spanish colonization of the Americas after 1492, the Crown came to hold
a large overseas empire, which underpinned the emergence of a global trading system primarily fuelled by the silver extracted in the New World.
[7]
Centralisation of the administration and further State-building in mainland Spain ensued in the 18th and 19th centuries, during which the Crown saw the loss of the bulk of its American colonies in the aftermath of the
Napoleonic Wars. The country veered between different political regimes; monarchy and republic, and following a
1936–39 devastating civil war, a
fascist dictatorship that lasted until 1975.
--Asqueladd (
talk)
01:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Lead is too long?, so a reduction in size can be a step forward.--Asqueladd ( talk) 13:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The topic I raised has led on the lead to very long and interesting discussions on many issues. This has led to much historiographical and even political stuff related to nationalism, that doesn't lead to what I wanted to achieve with the original post.
Of course not all of it was like that, I agreed with a lot, although not all, of the comments and criticisms of @ Asqueladd @ Venezia Friulano, @ Carlstak and @ Red Slash.
But some of it was simply not related to Wikipedia. I suggest we avoid it here and raise it somewhere else.
I still think the key issue has not been solved: the lead takes way too long to get to the key points.
I see this happens a lot on some Spain related articles for some reason. Long paragraphs suck to read, compare this article lead with much more complex and general topics like Quantum mechanics or Biology. Maybe it has to do with some stuff being directly translated from Spanish culture and not properly WP:GLOBALIZED or even reviewed by anyone who is qualified.
A summary of what I think: it is not the purpose of the lead to discuss historiographical debates over the legacy of this and that, as this discourse exists regarding every country and civilization that has ever existed. I still included some of this, but you are welcome to cut that crap if you can do it. There is absolutely no point in saying that Spanish is the 14th largest this and the 26th that and that it is a member of the UN, wow, just like all the other countries in the world! Well, I guess technically the Vatican City is an observer state... so it's relevant? Really? No point listing 10 cities either. While the regional languages are not mentioned even once!
Also there is no point saying it's a developed country, an advanced economy and a high-income country, which is basically the same point, yes I know it's technically not the same thing, but it's a re-formulation of the same idea.
I welcome any and all improvements and criticisms of my version, but don't tear every single phrase apart because I don't have time to argue over why I chose specific wording. If you can write a better lead just do it. The autonomous communities are worth mentioning. I have other stuff to do than read Wikipedia page talks, and I hope you do as well. On the wording "Reconquista", just because something is a historical construct doesn't mean that it can't be used in an encyclopedia. I'm no historian but I would even say that historical constructs are very much real, even if as concepts in the collective mind. Reconquista is a generally recognized term I think, like race or other topics, its very essence can be a subject of debate.
Also I don't have time to source all of this right now but I feel like it's mostly faithful to reality and if the lead were to be replaced we should source it all beforehand. If something is contrary to fact just source and change it. BTW I'm not sure if Gibraltar can be considered an enclave (for example I feel like Gibraltar is worth mentioning, but we should avoid writing 4 sentences on the Gibraltar dispute, territorial disputes exists in a lot of the major countries and it is not a major dispute like China/Taiwan or whatever). Bceause we could do this on many points like Reconquista, the Spanish Empire, the Inquisition, the civil wars of the 19th century, or the Spanish Civil War, or Franco, maybe Hispania? Why not the monarchy, the different ruling houses, republicanism? Where should we put the focus? BTW ultimately I think we should avoid this stuff and focus on describing contemporary Spain. Spanish politics, like Italian politics, are too complicated.
On the Catholicism thing yes I know Spain is super secular these days, but that is something worth stating as there are many topics such as Christmas and Holy Week, all the San and Santa, history, that is the traditional influence. Also Latin has also influenced Basque to a very large degree so yeah, it is the entire peninsula. Also Germanic is a more recognizable term than Visigoth, if one clicks it sends you to the Visigoth Spain article, Germanic shows the point that there is also non-Latin/Roman influence, and I think al Andalus speaks for itself. You don't have to agree.
Pre-Roman peoples and Tartessos aren't relevant enough to get to the lead. I think Spain being one of the world's most immigrated-to countries is more relevant.
Alcismo ( talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
How are Spain working with the UK and the other country’s that help people with pore zero water. 2A02:C7F:602B:B500:A475:AF1A:F01C:A0FC ( talk) 07:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This page was written using the standard dating style of BC/AD. For some reason most of the page has been randomly changed to BCE/CE. This seems unnecessary and is potentially an act of vandalism, one which introduces a needless despite to the page. Also Wikipedia guidelines are that the style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed. Suggesting that it be changed back. 2A00:23C8:2D00:EA01:1919:3DC6:384:2790 ( talk) 16:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The elections PSOE won the election, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. 2600:1700:77A0:2A80:5A0B:540:15F3:F4E9 ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
اسبانيا and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#اسبانيا until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Spain has the twelve-highest life expectancy in the world." to "Spain has the twelfth-highest life expectancy in the world." Jbernabeus ( talk) 11:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is an excellent article. However, the lead contains an erroneous sentence:
"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in the migration of Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula."
This does not match the paragraph in Section 2.2: Roman Hispania and the Visigothic Kingdom:
"The Germanic Suebi and Vandals, together with the Sarmatian Alans entered the peninsula after 409, henceforth weakening the Western Roman Empire's jurisdiction over Hispania. These tribes had crossed the Rhine in early 407 and ravaged Gaul. The Suebi established a kingdom in north-western Iberia whereas the Vandals established themselves in the south of the peninsula by 420 before crossing over to North Africa in 429. As the western empire disintegrated, the social and economic base became greatly simplified: but even in modified form, the successor regimes maintained many of the institutions and laws of the late empire, including Christianity and assimilation to the evolving Roman culture."
As you can see, the lead says that the Germanic tribes and the Vandals invaded in the fourth century after the Roman empire collapsed, but the main body says that they invaded in 409 (which was the fifth century) before the empire collapsed. The Roman empire collapsed in the later half of the fifth century.
The main body is the accurate account of historical facts, while the lead is inaccurate.
Sources:
I request that the lead be changed to something like this: "After sacking Gaul, Germanic tribes and their Alani allies entered the Iberian peninsula in 409, where they established kingdoms that survived the collapse of the western Roman empire". This would match the historical facts and the main body.
Thank you for your help to make a great article even better. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:A0D6:8A4D:7BA4:D167 ( talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
" collapse of the Western Roman Empire"for something like
" receding of Roman imperial authority". The point is not to expand the lead section with more details. To that end of trimming the lead, I also happen to think that
non-Roman peoples into the peninsulais preferable to
Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula.--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Visigoths emerged as the dominant power".--Asqueladd ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Lemonaka (
talk)
12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
In the article says: "Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest, while more died from various new Eurasian diseases that travelled more quickly than the Spanish conquerors. The death toll during the initial period of Spanish conquest, from Columbus's initial landing until the mid 16th century, is estimated as high as 70 million indigenous people out of a population of 80 million, as imported diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus decimated the pre-Columbian population. Disease killed between 50% and 95% of the indigenous population. Some scholars have described the Spanish conquest during this period as the largest genocide in history."
Wikipedia says that genocide is: "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part."
So, I don´t understand how spaniards comitted genocide.
To begin with, only Castille sent troops to America, so it is wrong to assign a genocide to the spaniards, and it is wrong to include this information in the article "España". It would be like to assign the wars that took place in the mediterranean, to España, and not to Aragón.
As far as I know, Castille had 4.300.000 inhabitants in the XV century. Even if They send to America his whole population. It´s incredible that 4.300.000 people killed eighty million in such a short period. May be if they had had machine guns like the nazis, or nuclear bombs, like USA... It´s clear that indigenous peoples fighted against Inca´s empire and Aztec´s empire, so the national topic doesn´t mach. [6] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=poblacion+de+castilla+1492
In the other hand, it is know as one of the most renowned writers in spanish an incaican descendant; his name is Garcilaso de la Vega, also known as " el Inca Garcilaso". So, in Spain there was no problem with "misgenation", as it is said in other part of the article. So the ethnic or racial topics doesn´t match as the cause of genocide.
In relation with diseases imported to the "new world", there are various facts: - Colonization took place by Spanish, Poruguese, and even english, french and dutch, among others. - Diseases were spreaded without any intention, and killed also Spaniards. Even more, Spain sent missions to spread vaccination in America. So attribute intentionality to the deaths sounds like nonsense. But if we take seriously, then we have to think that americans sent to Europe syphilis, in retaliation. As I have said is nonsense.
In summary, it is wrong, and should be changed.
It would be like if in "Francia" article, told genocides commited by Napoleon... Or if in England article speaks of genocides against spaniards, Welsh, Irish, French... Or if in USA article speaks of japaneese genocide, or Nicaraguan, Serbian or Panama...
I still got surprised when Wikipedia ask for money, when all its articles have wrong and misleading information. 66.81.172.166 ( talk) 14:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be listed that the Monarch of Spain is the de jure holder of power and the PM is the de facto holder, just like in the UK? Especially from what it says in the Constitution? Please let me know if I'm wrong here. Faith15 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Section 97
- The Government shall conduct domestic and foreign policy, civil and military administration and the defence of the State. It exercises executive authority and the power of statutory regulations in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.
- Section 98
- 1. The Government shall consist of the President, Vice-Presidents, when appropriate, Ministers and other members as may be created by law.
- 2. The President shall direct the Governments' action and coordinate the functions of the other members thereof, without prejudice to the competence and direct responsibility of the latter in the discharge of their duties.
Anyways, let's not get into that. I just found something to support my claim, @ Largoplazo. See here for the article, read what the red and blue mean, and go down to the Spain part. See? Despite what the Spanish Constitution says, the PM does actually control it. Faith15 14:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Despite what the Spanish Constitution says, the PM does actually control it.There's no "despite" here. The constitution says that the PM controls it, the same as what actually is. (In case this part was confusing you, the Spanish office commonly referred to as "prime minister" is the "President of the Government" referred to in the constitution. This is in contrast to countries like France and Israel where "president" and "prime minister" refer to different offices.) Largoplazo ( talk) 15:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Venezia Friulano, I see that once again you've removed "primarily" before "located in Southwestern Europe". I've just reviewed our earlier discussion that you initiated, now at Talk:Spain/Archive 8#Dispute over the Lead. You went into a lot of side talk about enclaves and exclaves and plazas de soberanía and Llivia, none of which was relevant. What's relevant is that "Spain is located in Southwestern Europe" is false and "Spain is primarily located in Southwestern Europe" is true. You need to stop replacing true statements with false statements. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
In the section in climate change reference is made to increases in temperatures of 2 to 4 degrees. The terminology used (2 °C, for example) is wrong as that is the term for a specific temperature, not a temperature change. The correct way would be to change the order of the scale (C for Celcius or F for Fahrenheit) and the degree symbol, though since many are unfamiliar with the meaning of this I would encourage instead writing, for example, "2 degrees Celcius". Then the incorrect Fahrenheit equivalents must be changed as while a temperature of 2 degrees Celcius is indeed 36 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale, it is only a change of 3.6 Fahrenheit degrees, and 4 Celcius degrees is not 39 Fahrenheit degrees but 7.2 Fahrenheit degrees. I would change it myself but cannot do so due to the semi-protected status of the page. 2600:1700:1260:1DDF:D52A:A7C1:52E1:4ECF ( talk) 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Sports section to add the title of the spanish national women's football team at the 2023 FIFA Women's world cup. Matataks ( talk) 13:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Cuando se enumeran los territorios españoles se comete un error al citar dos veces las islas canarias la segunda de ellas afirmando que se encuentran en el mar mediterraneo 95.124.154.173 ( talk) 10:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on art there is an extra and that needs to be removed Quartz1111 ( talk) 13:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Extending to 1,214 km (754 mi), the Portugal–Spain border is the longest uninterrupted border within the European Union. (Source: Spain Wikipedia - Geography)
Sweden and Norway have 1,619 km (Source: List of countries and territories by number of land borders - Wikipedia)
I do think that it is the oldest uninterrupted border in Europe. 82.209.176.86 ( talk) 13:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
![]() | This
edit request to
Spain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Raxmet user ( talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Foreign Relations sub-section of the Politics section, the "a" in "Spain claims Gibraltar, a Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom" should be changed to "an".
103.164.74.98 ( talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The article mentions that the Phoenicians referred to the region as Spania (meaning "Land of rabbits"). But comparing to Hebrew sources, they most likely referred to the animal known in the Bible as "Shafan" -- hyrax. The mix up between these animals is common in Biblical translations, probably because both appear in the same verse in Leviticus 11:5-6. Amos083 ( talk) 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)