Talk:Spain/Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

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)

 Done Fish+Karate 12:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted without discussion by Impru20. As I don't care which of the two options the article says, Jjarboli, please discuss with Impru20 here if you wish this edit to be made, providing a rationale for your edit. Fish+Karate 13:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I support leader of an authoritarian regime, dictator is a weasel word. Why hasn't Impru20 joined the discussion? From their edit summary they appear unaware of this discussion, which is unacceptable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I had not seen this. I cannot understand how "dictator" is a "weasel word" when Francisco Franco is described as a military dictator in his own article, and Francoist Spain is described as a dictatorship in its article. Indeed, "authoritarianism" was but one of the traits of Franco's regime, not the only one. Any argument other than WP:IDONTLIKE that explains why "leader of an authoritarian regime" is more descriptive of Franco than "dictator"? Impru20^talk 14:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't revert without checking the talk page. You have now reverted twice, ie edit warring. This combined with no consensus against multiple editors while speaking on behalf of those disagreeing with you is so clearly ignoring how we do things here. You need to seek consensus for your opinion, WP:IDONTLIKE could equally apply to you, it doesn't apply to me. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually that the regime was merely authoritarian (ranging from totalitarian dictatorship to authoritarian dictatorship, with quasi-totalitarian dictatorship, military dictatorship, Fascist dictatorship, para-fascist dictatorship, fascistized dictatorship, semi-fascist dictatorship, "developmentalist" dictatorship in the middle) is a disputed point among scholars. The regime being a dictatorship or Franco being a dictator are not disputed points by any serious scholar. Get your facts straight. Given arguments provided I cannot see a valid rationale to re-formulate the sentence in the above terms.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: I did check the talk page the second time I reverted; the lack of a valid rationale here for the change is what prompted me to restore the status quo version. Again, there was no consensus for such a change. As Asqueladd points out, that Franco's regime was a dictatorship is not contested among historians and scholars; that it was merely a "authoritarian regime", is. Specially given the longevity of the regime (36 years from 1939 to 1975), and that it is frequently split by scholars into several phases. I provided a rationale which did not fall under the WP:IDONTLIKE category (i.e. that the term "dictator" is sourced in the respective articles for Franco and his regime) and that "authoritarianism" is but one of the traits of his regime, not the only one), whereas you only argued that you considered "dictator" to be a "weasel word". What best example of IDL do you wish? If you wish to implement this change, seek consensus for it under a valid rationale. Impru20^talk 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, if anything, beyond the consensus about the general view of the regime being a dictatorship and Franco a dictator, scholars favour the understanding of that phase (the emerging of the new regime from the Civil War -where the date 1939 falls-, longing until 1941 or 1945 depending on the authors) as being more totalitarian (with the passing of downright Fascist legislation such as the "Fuero del Trabajo") rather than authoritarian.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact I would propose changing: "In 1939, General Franco emerged victorious and became a dictator" to "General Franco emerged victorious from the 1936–1939 Civil War and became a dictator", because he became dictator of the part of Spain his faction had control of before 1939 and fixing a set 1939 date impoverishes the understanding of it.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Impru20^talk 16:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of the School of Salamanca in the history of Spanish philosophy

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)

Life expectancy.

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)

Relevance of the School of Salamanca in the history of Spanish philosophy

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)

Life expectancy.

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)

Failed Etyology

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)

Images

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)

Ineedisin has left the building. Favonian (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubious

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 think also known is the correct terminology, because I am of the opinion that both terms are official. So, this is an issue of official (legal) terms. The Spanish Constitution, which is obviously the most basic law (above any international treaty), refers to the country (distinguishing it from the Spanish state, and also from the Spanish nation) by the name of "Spain" (Article 1: España se constituye en un Estado democrático...; or Article 4: La bandera de España se compone de tres franjas horizontales: roja, amarilla y roja, siendo la amarilla del doble de anchura que cada una de las rojas). However, when dealing with other states, the name Kingdom of Spain is more common, and the Law of International Treaties and other Agreements specifies in Article 8 that "La denominación oficial del Estado español en los tratados internacionales será Reino de España". You'll have to excuse me for the lousy translation of legal terms. --Bidezko (talk) 09:56, 14 March 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)

For the health section: news about health and life expectancy

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)

Merger proposal

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)

The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

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)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Spain was not a unified country by the late 15th

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)

Politics section glorifies monarchy

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.

I've reworded that. Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

confusing links to other wiki lists

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

Xseisdece (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Spain is a country in Europe.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already says that. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Allowed poor English

Is very bizarre that article has been written in that Spanglish. --Generic515 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The poor English in this edit has been reverted by another editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Seems to me unfortunate that you try to justify your bizarre fear of a historically linked country like the United States with this big problem. --Generic515 (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Life expectancy

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:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Catalonia is a disputed region

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, in whose police stations portraits of ex-president Puigdemont have been removed. 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_regional_election,_2017

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmercury1980 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of the School of Salamanca in the history of Spanish philosophy

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

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)

 Done Thanks, Carlstak (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

Flag of the United States.svg 77.225.239.244 (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what your request is. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Add Zaragoza to list of metropolitan areas because is the 5th largest city in Spain. 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)

 Not done. But it's already in the list, at #5, right before Málaga at #6. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're asking. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:55, 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)

Done – Thjarkur (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Data to add to prose

Religion self-definition in Spain (October 2019 CIS survey)

  Non-practicing Catholic (46.8%)

  Practicing Catholicism (21.5%)

  Atheist (12.5%)

  Indifferent/Non-believer (8.1%)

  Agnostic (7.3%)

  Other Faith (2.6%)

  No Answer (1.2%)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Error on page for Spain

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)

Wriknmorty, I am not so sure. Spain includes the Canary Islands, which are down around 28° N. Elizium23 (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed - I had to repair Geography of Spain which has been "corrected" for 5 years now; List of extreme points of Spain gives the whole story. It seems like it may not be 26° but more like 27°, actually. I'll have to think more on it. Elizium23 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggest the article clearly state whether it’s the mainland or mainland and it’s territories as the wording here would suggest it’s just the mainland and so is a typo:

“ In the extreme south of Spain lie the Straits of Gibraltar, which separate the Iberian peninsula and the rest of Europe from Ceuta and Morocco in North Africa.”

I've clarified this in the Geography of Spain article. Bazonka (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The latitude of the above is 35... Wriknmorty (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If its latitude is 35°, then 36° can't be right either. Elizium23 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bazonka: was the one to add the information, so perhaps they have a comment here. Elizium23 (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, 19° W is certainly not a typo but again matches the Canaries. There is no typo here. Elizium23 (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The southernmost latitude should be 27°, not 26°. My error. But the longitudes are correct. These coordinates include the Canary Islands, which are an integral part of Spain and not just some sort of overseas territory. Bazonka (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Map

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)

Health section.

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)

Anthem subtitles

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)

Occitan: Official languages of Spain

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)

Images

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)

Muslim Era and Reconquista

1. File:Leon (San Isidoro, panteón).jpg (The Basilica of San Isidoro, León) What's the purpose of this image? Aside from offering a mirror counterpart to the previous sight of the Mosque of Córdoba, surely it is better to spend the space in a contemporary miniature (or simply leave the left margin in peace for once)?
2. File:Ramon Llull.jpg & File:Ibn Arabi.jpg. I mean, these ones are actually mentioned in the text, but is it a double portrait necessary here (taking also in mind none are contemporary/near contemporary depictions)?
3. File:Entrada de Roger de Flor en Constantinopla (Palacio del Senado de España).jpg Roger de Flor. A 19th century historicist painting we could do without (removing it or looking for an alternative: for example, if the territorial expansion of the Crown of Aragon is the intended purpose of the illustration a near-contemporary depiction of the conquest of Mallorca could do better).
4. File:Patio de los Leones. Alhambra de Granada. Spain..JPG A beautiful photograph of the beautiful Alhambra perfect for a tourist (or architecture) guide. Yet the illustration value (from a historical standpoint) is somewhat lacking, and it is already spilling over into the next section.

Spanish Empire

1. File:Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze - Columbus Before the Queen.JPG Another 19th-century historicist depiction of the meeting of Columbus and Isabella the Catholic. I suppose there is a compromise between a less dynamic yet contemporary portrait of the Catholic monarchs and a somewhat dynamic yet romantic interpretation of the meeting of Columbus with them.
2. file:Retrato de Hernán Cortés.jpg & File:Portrait of Francisco Pizarro.jpg: Double portrait of two conquistadores: Hernán Cortés and Pizarro (the second one the ineffable 19th-century portrait). I mean, they are important and all that, but wouldn't be the prospect of a dynamic near-contemporary depiction of conquistadores doing conquistadores things in the Americas, or I dunno, the pinnacle of Seville as trade port with the New World more enriching to the illustration of the section "Spanish Empire" than a non-dynamic pair of portraits?
3. File:Las Glorias Nacionales, 1852 "Juan Sebastian Elcano". (4013953698).jpg & File:Urdaneta_marinela_txikia.jpg And yet another non-dynamic combo of portraits. This one is even more over-the-top. A double "portrait-dropping" of Elcano and Urdaneta featuring two non-contemporary portraits just for the sake of the great men in history creating image sandwich. Why??? I can only fathom this was done to try to pull a sort of "ethnic balance" of sorts portraiting Basques...
4. File:Doña María Pacheco después de Villalar (Museo del Prado).jpg And... yet another 19th century take on history: historicist portrait of the comuneros... Kudos for the gender balance, I suppose.

Liberalism and nation state

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).

Civil War and Francoist dictatorship

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.

Restoration of democracy

1. There might be a better way to illustrate the so called Transición than a image of the Gran Vía with a caption talking about the Movida madrileña.
2. File:Mariano Rajoy cena con el Rey Juan Carlos y los expresidentes del Gobierno Rodríguez Zapatero, Aznar y González (cropped).jpg The King Emeritus in the company of former prime ministers and Rajoy (then PM). Meh, we could do without it, I think.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Asqueladd, that the article has been overstuffed with a ridiculous number of images, including especially the multiple image files, which are merely an excuse to stuff in more unnecessary overkill images. I've removed many of them. Carlstak (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice, Carlstak. I intend to further tweak some illustrations of the article roughly in the same vein as argued above (outside from the history section, the edits may also underpin a subtle change from a focus on landmarks/architecture to a less static one). I will make an argument via edit summary for each image. If for some reason you find some particular changes problematic (or if the whole balance is compromised somehow), just undo them.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Asqueladd. I think the article is greatly improved without the surplus images. I believe that images used judiciously in an article enhance it, but as you know, some editors wish to insert as many as possible, apparently not realizing that too many detract from an article's readability, and defeat the purpose of using them in the first place. Carlstak (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Carlstak:, but don't do the same with the leaders photos! --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Picklespitlizyr. Carlstak (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Support Carlstak (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Irreligion

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)

Is it? Where can I see that? I think consensus in Wikipedia is following sources (WP:VER) and not doing synthesis of published material (WP:NOSYNTH.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Asqueladd, if you're so interested in sources then find a secondary one and replace this, it's primary. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that since nobody can agree where atheism ends and agnosticism begins, any numbers divided between the two choices are arbitrary and potentially bogus. Elizium23 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet some people choses to identify as atheist and other as agnostic, and that's what the survey reflects. Nope, I don't think I have the burden to bring anything here. I would personally prescind from giving such prominence to religion features in the infobox particularly insofar it is supported by such sources (primary sources indeed). It's not me who brought that clunky information to the infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Formation data

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)

Spanish colonization of the Americas

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)

Again images

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)

Correction to the introduction

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)

@Signifer.geo: Claiming that "Iberians" were the only "native" [sic] cultures in the Iberian Peninsula is an incredibly fraught notion (only debatable by the inherent haphazardness of what "native" [sic] means; should we get back to anatolian hunter gatherers? hominids? were celtiberi less "native" [sic]?... those are silly notions): "Iberian" is just the collective name Greek and Romans gave to the people they meet in the Eastern Coast/southeastern coast of the Peninsula. So it's not a good start. Rather than endeavoring to put fancy adjectives ("native" & "Iberian") to those cultures, I would rather remove the Celts from the original phrasing as well as the "alongside": various cultures developed in the region influenced by early Phoenician and Greek colonists from the Eastern Mediterranean or smth like that.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I don't agree with including hominids. However, I admit it can be more precise. What about this alternative wording?: 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)

@Signifer.geo: Not seeing it either. Why do you separate Celts from Iberi and Celtiberi and make some "indigenous" and the other "non-indigenous"? You are making a novel point. I don't see myself any need to shoehorn a mention to the Celts here, to be honest. It reads like a fetish, at this point. Just another pre-roman label (often merged with Proto-Celts in the so-called Hallstatt culture). Not to mention if in addition, the mention entails subtextually making bizarre statements about how "native" or "indigenous" some of the different pre-roman populations were (and some werent').--Asqueladd (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I'd say the qualification as more or less indigenous would come from the time depth. If you take a picture of the situation at the time of the Roman conquest and forget about the past, then they all were equally indigenous, and maybe as indigenous as Romans themselves. Also, coming back to the current wording, and if we suppress the reference to Celts, we would have: "Through migration and settlement of people, various cultures developed in the region alongside Phoenician, Greek and Carthaginian". If we apply this to the conquest of America, maybe we could say: "Through migration and settlement of people, various cultures developed in the region alongside Spanish, French and English (and maybe Apache, but it sounds kind of fetish)". And if you take the picture at XVIII century and forget about the past, it seems to fit well, therefore we apply Occam's razor and that's it. Signifer.geo (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no justification to deal with Celts differently than Celtiberians, Iberians, Turdetans, et. al. It is a personal fixation of yours. The history of pre-roman "indigenous" (sic) peoples is usually presented with all of them together, when it comes to outline the history of Spain, as the frame par excellence is that of Roman Hispania versus what was before (the Iberian Peninsula prior to Romanization, with the interlude of proto-history associated to the relations of those mentioned "indigenous" peoples with early Phoenician and Greek colonists, who introduced writing).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Architecture section

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)

And can't it be this image? It's the same (Casas Colgadas in Cuenca), but it looks better (without distracting elements). Wikiedro (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC) See:

• 
  1: Actually.
• 
  2: Proposal.

I do not care about either of these. I've actually proposed one focusing on the architectural elements. file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg with better visualisation of roof tiles and balconies (which also happens to be one usually appearing in postcards, so it's not lacking either in "wow factor"... and most important, depicting the specific housing known as "casas colgadas" par excellence). If you think File:Cuenca - 49284039501.jpg is better than File:Casas Colgadas (29615370975).jpg, I don't care. Replace it. I just think that, both of them are rather illustrative of the urban landscape of a given city rather than any particular architecture, as the (lack of) zoom does not allow to appreciate details of the individual buildings and neither of them is the most representative illustration for the so-called casas colgadas.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I prefer file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg, it is probably the most iconic image of Cuenca. Having said that, proposal 2 is not bad either; it is an improvement on the current image, which is way too dark.--XanaG (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that I see, the main image featured in the caption's link (Hanging Houses of Cuenca) is probably even a better and more iconic option: File:Casacolgantecuenca.jpg.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Maria Zambrano

please change ((Maria Zambrano)) to ((María Zambrano)) 2601:541:4580:8500:5454:26D8:72C6:F3CB (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Morneo06 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If these territory are "semi-exclaves", you should be able to cite a source which describes them as such. Also, the difference between "exclave" and "semi-exclave" is not significant for most purposes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Germ warfare?

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)

Money

What money in the Spain? 171.33.234.171 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Spanish unit of currency is the Euro. Before that, it was the Peseta. Britmax (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar

User:Venezia Friulano: Where it is mentioned that Spain borders Gibraltar, "British Overseas Territory" should be returned for at least a couple of reasons.

• Regardless of what Spain claims, the territory has de facto been under British control for more than three centuries and is administered as a British Overseas Territory.
• Reading the sentence in the context of Gibraltar belonging to Spain is fallacious. If Gibraltar is part of Spain, then Spain doesn't border Gibraltar at all, right? Largoplazo (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You have not read it well.

I am not saying that Gibraltar is part of Spain. I said that Gibraltar's official status according to the UN is non-self-governing territory. "British overseas territory" is a biased language that portrays the UK view only.

It is better not to add anything and leave it neutral. Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Gibraltar is an officially disputed territory and that it is in the "process of decolonization" according to the UN, and that Wikipedia must use neutral language, it is unnecessary to add anything: We do not refer to France as the "French Republic", or to Portugal as the "Portuguese Republic" or to Andorra as the "Principality of Andorra". Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. There is no need for it. Anyone who doesn't know what Gibraltar is can click the link. Largoplazo (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

I am happy to listen to the views of others but changes to a long standing consensus should be agreed via discussion to form a new consensus. I object when changes are simply edit warred into articles and that is what happened here and elsewhere [1]. WCM_email 14:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, WCM. I see no consensus in this regard. As far as I can see in the archives of this talk page, the only place the appellation "British overseas territory" has been discussed is at Talk:Spain/Archive 4#No longer "Colony". That was in the context of making that phrase a replacement for the previous label "colony". There was no discussion about whether to omit a qualifying word or phrase altogether.

Having said that, I do see the additional context behind your concerns. That all aside, though, I do see the up-side to removing the appellation from the sentence in this article, and I see no down-side, so I'm taking this opportunity to turn this into a fresh, new proposal. Largoplazo (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with a consensus view with fresh eyes looking at it. WCM_email 15:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism etc.

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mechanical Keyboarder"'s "officially the Kingdom of Spain"

Take advice of this quietly US-Latino account target [2] [3]. Have a nice day. --Jalapestra (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have fully protected this page for two days

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)

Thank you.Moxy- 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Dispute over the Lead

- 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)

The first few words in the version at the time the page was protected are "Spain ... is a country in southwestern Europe ...". Llívia is part of that, so why does it need to be mentioned there explicitly as though it weren't part of that? It's a detail which is of interest and makes sense to cover later in the article under "Geography" but isn't necessary in the lead. It's not much different from mentioning Tabarca or Sisarga Grande. I don't see any reason why the the rest of the sentence is necessary given that the same information is just about to be expanded in the very next sentence. It should suffice to add the word "primarily", "Spain ... is a country located primarily in southwestern Europe". Period/full stop.

Moving on from there: "The largest part of Spain is situated on the Iberian Peninsula. It also includes the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as North African islands and exclaves along the coast of Morocco, separated from Spain by the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. They include the Canary Islands, the autonomous coastal cities of Ceuta and Melilla, and several minor overseas territories scattered along the coast of the Alboran Sea.

And then move on to the sentence about the country's mainland, which is fine. Largoplazo (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's suppose that the exclave of Llivia is not important or necessary in lead, but then what is the point of mentioning the minor Spanish exclaves (which are even almost uninhabited) in northern Africa? I think you understand what I mean. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My opinion about what you said is: Spain is a country in Southwestern Europe (As it is said in practically all encyclopedias), with some territories in Africa. Like my country, Italy, it is a country in Southern Europe with some territories in North Africa (Lampedusa, etc). So for me, that part of the actual lead is fine.

And either I would eliminate the mention of the Minor territories of Spain in North Africa, or I would add Llívia because it is a Spanish territory even though it is surrounded by French territory. Although Llivia forms part of Southwestern Europe, it is an exclave, and exclaves are always mentioned. For example, it is mentioned in the lead of Italy article in Wikipedia (and in general) that Campione is an Italian exclave in Switzerland. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:27, 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.

At least at Italy the exclave is left to the fourth sentence. And, again, why mention Llivia but not every island off the Spanish coast, as none of them is on the Iberian peninsula? When you make comparisons to other articles, take into account WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The difference between Llivia and the North African territories is that both "southwestern Europe" and "Iberian peninsula", as I already noted, include Llivia, while they do not include the North African territories. That's the reason to mention them separately. Largoplazo (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I see some contradiction:

1- If, according to you, many exclaves of other countries are not mentioned in Wikipedia, why do you insist so much on keeping the mention of the minor exclaves of Spain in North Africa? (Many uninhabited)

2- You said: "The difference between Llivia and the North African territories is that both southwestern Europe and Iberian peninsula, as I already noted, include Llivia, while they do not include the North African territories"

At the very beginning of the lead, it is made quite clear that Spain has territories outside of Southwestern Europe "across the Mediterranean", so I see no point in keeping an specific mention in these tiny exclaves following your same logic. I would obviously understand the mention of Ceuta and Melilla as they are autonomous cities, but it makes no sense to mention the minor and almost uninhabited Spanish exclaves on the Moroccan coast following that logic since it is already specific that across the Mediterranean Sea Spain has territories outside Europe. Venezia Friulano (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ceuta and Melilla are tiny exclaves, and the Canary Islands aren't exclaves or enclaves and they're a substantial chunk of territory, so I don't know what you're talking about. Unless ... are you making this big deal out of it just because of the tiny islands, the plazas de soberanía? Is that what this is all about?

My argument has nothing to do with whether the North African territories are exclaves or enclaves or major or minor. There is no contradiction. Again: Spain in southwestern Europe includes Llivia already. Ceuta does not include the plazas de soberanía. Melilla does not include them. The Canary Islands do not include them. If those islands were part of Ceuta or part of Melilla, then one could consider them to be included in the mentions of Ceuta or Melilla the same way that Tabarca and Llivia are included in our understanding of southwestern European/Iberian Peninsula Spain, and there would be no reason to mention them separately. But they aren't. They aren't already inherently incorporated into any of the other territories that have been mentioned. That would be a reason to mention them separately.

If Spain had an exclave that was located somewhere up in Normandy, far from the primary part of Spain, not in southwestern Europe, not on the Iberian Peninsula, that would be a different matter. Largoplazo (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Without wishing to be disrespectful, I honestly believe that you have not understood anything of my message, neither in substance nor in form. Perhaps due to a possible bad explanation of mine or because the basic understanding has not been possible for another reason that I do not know.

My only point was to avoid double standards with the criteria. But I'm going to leave it, fortunately, the Italy article lead is at least an example of being complete in that matter. Venezia Friulano (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If your concern is that it's a double standard, then obviously I understood you correctly, because I've explained over and over why it isn't a double-standard. If you aren't getting from my explanation why it isn't a double standard, then you haven't understood anything of my messages. It's really simple: It's a matter of identifying all of Spain's territory without including any part of it twice, whether implicitly or explicitly. That's a single standard. Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No. With double standard I mean the state of simplism of the lead of this article that follows your particular logic with that of others that are much more complete because they give more detailed information not only about the territory in general but also about its geographical particularities in concrete, even if these were already "implicitly" included in the initial more generic description before.

Again, no offense intended, you have not understood or there has been no communication. Anyway, I won't get into an editing war obviously, do as you please. Venezia Friulano (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"officially named Kingdom of Spain" inaccurate claim

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)

If an official document declares "This is what we're called", then those are official names. The document doesn't have to say "these are the official names" for them to be official. However, they're both official names, though "Kingdom of Spain" is the formal one of the two. Largoplazo (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo

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.

Thanks. It was better to fix it by breaking up the run-on sentence, so I've done that. Largoplazo (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022 regarding territorial dispute between Portugal and Spain for the Savage Islands

Another dispute surrounds the Savage Islands, which Spain acknowledges to be part of Portugal, is the eldest territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal 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 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. 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.-

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

 Not done for now: - The portion of the suggested edit that differs from the existing article does not at present, reach the necessary standard for grammatical writing. I'm also not certain it's an uncontroversial edit. What I'm going to do is rewrite the first paragraph here. (As far as I can tell, the second paragraph is identical to the one in the article?) The requestor can then confirm 1. that my version is what they intended and then 2. seek consensus to add it to the article. PianoDan (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes the paragraph you remade is what the edit was intended for, and also the second paragraph was a mistake, is the same as the original, the edit was just for the first paragraph, thanks and sorry about my grammar because im not that fluent (yet in english). Thanks Furukawaedo231 (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the connection/identification established inline between the current dispute (concerning the modern concept of Exclusive Economic Zone) and the 14th century ranges from WP:UNDUE at best to downright WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, with WP:WIKICRUFT likewise being a very real scenario in between.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:32, 11 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. 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, 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. 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.

References

Official language

What about Catalonian, Galician and basque languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.85.70 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is only one official national language in Spain, the Castilian (Spanish).

Catalan, Galician and Basque are, along Castilian, co-official only in their respective "Comunidades Autonomas" (Spanish regions). Venezia Friulano (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please, let me to disagree. The catalan language is official in more than one "Comunidad autonoma" because is a legacy of old Aragon kingdom times. It is official in Catalonia, Balearic islands, Comunitat Valenciana and Aragon. Also is spoked in France (the named North catalonia) and a city of Italy (l'Alguer). You can't look the past with the eyes of present, because it will made you not to understand the reality. Of course is pretty nice an ideal concept of spanish state, clean and cultural ruled and uniformized, but be aware with this concept. Carmallola (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Article 3: "Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it. The other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities in accordance with their Statutes." This is not up to discussion. Things are or are not. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To hide what I just explained (Catalan is official in 4 autonomous comunities. Things are or are not), and the meaning, is not specially neutral. I'll never understand why spanish speaking people understand the existence of languages as catalan as an attack. But anyway, of course, I don't want to start a political discussion, it's not my business and neither my problem, have a nice day Carmallola (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

crappy sources

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)

Yes, they are not central to the topic. An activist platform such as Plataforma per la Llengua is introducing WP:UNDUE weight, huge WP:BALASP issues and arguably WP:FRINGE point of views in the general overview of the history of a country, not to say a markedly partisan choice of words on a subject that is too big for the platform, to put it lightly. You expect to read holistic scholar accounts sourced in the article, not that kind of "sources". I also remind you that your edits, short of just relying on those dubious sources, also happen to distort the content said sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Spain never lost its empire

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 reality Whoah, 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)

Hello @Red Slash. When discussing about Spain you have to be aware that there are political commissars that takes care that nothing dirts the nationalist ideal of it. Carmallola (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Incorrect caption under the population pyramid

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)

Etymologies

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)

Lead is too long?

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)

@Venezia Friulano: I am attempting to clean up the article (both the lead and the body), by pulling the likes of the removal of chauvinistic tics and remarks, the de-emphasisation of war porn, and the reduction of the "great men" historical framing, or more broadly speaking, the unwarranted 'weight to', 'focus on' or 'mention to' individual people. I think that this should be rather uncontroversial (particularly when the content is unsourced or poorly sourced), but please discuss here if you have a doubt about a particular edit.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have quite a few doubts about what you consider "chauvinistic" because some things you have deleted are objective facts, whether they are more or less a source of pride, and many of your additions are quite imprecise, as in the case that I told you about the eventual expulsion of Jews and not just Muslims. But anyway, what I do ask you is to moderate your writing. You seem to be constantly trying to attack personally, and your edits often contain unfortunate explanations. Also try to avoid POV pushing and Edit War, just wait and see what other people think. Venezia Friulano (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In any case the new wording was incomplete (take into account that brief excerpt tries to account for both the forced conversion—with refusing families facing expulsion—of Jews and Muslims and the eventual expulsion of the Moriscos). Not wrong. Contrariwise, please observe that the former wording suggested that the effective expulsion of the Moriscos was done through the Inquisition, which is largely wrong.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's take it one step at a time @Venezia Friulano:: Could you tell me why do you persist on adding (in the already overextended lead, no less) that three Roman emperors were born in the Iberian Peninsula (actually one birthplace happen to be a moot question))? Are you aware that that content entails a degree of chauvinistic name boasting adding little to none historical substance? Are you aware that the lead is already too long and yet the also overextented historical paragraphs fail to account for barely any content after the point of "emergent Spain as a unified State" [sic], while it derails with WP:TRIVIA such as that nugget of information from Antiquity. Do you think that is a serious way to handle a lead section? Doesn't it make more sense to dispense with this information in the introduction?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

To consider that the cultural base of Spain is the Latin base and that in its history there were Roman emperors is chauvinism? It seems to me that you have a very distant idea of ​​what Chauvinism is. Venezia Friulano (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are failing to adress the issues. Could you tell me why do you persist on adding (in the already overextended lead, no less) that three Roman emperors were born in the Iberian Peninsula (actually one birthplace happen to be a moot question))? Are you aware that that content entails name boasting adding little to none historical substance? Are you aware that the lead is already too long and yet the also overextended historical paragraphs fail to account for barely any content after the point of "emergent Spain as a unified State" [sic], while it derails with WP:TRIVIA such as that nugget of information from Antiquity? Doesn't it make more sense to dispense with this information in the introduction? That is, that unless you want to 'boast' about people, the space-limited presentation of the topic 'Spain' doesn't need to mention the territory of current-day Spain as the birthplace of three Roman emperors?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont consider that this addition is a problem for the Lead due to its small size, and I consider it more relevant than mentioning the silver mining of the New World that you added for example. Venezia Friulano (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So you also consider fine speaking about the emergence of a global trading system while failing to account how? This is mesmerizing. Perhaps we need third party takes.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

For something secondary, the how is already in the body of the article. Venezia Friulano (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Venezia Friulano:Do you mind if I seek third party opinions?--Asqueladd (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, the Talk is for that Venezia Friulano (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alcismo, Moxy, Carlstak, and Largoplazo: Could you give an opinion about the content pertaining to the lead section of this article?--Asqueladd (talk) 22:06, 31 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)

Yes, I agree that there are heavy WP:BALASP issues vis-á-vis the prominency of the history section compared to the rest of the lead. Yet at the same time, there are further BALASP issues within that section (no modern content other than the ethnocide of muslims and jews and the mention to the overseas empire, hence no late modern history whatsoever!). My humble suggestion is to start by removing any mention to an individual from the lead (if so, we have yet to remove Columbus, the Catholic monarchs and the aforementioned emperors).--Asqueladd (talk) 23:48, 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 bring this trimming proposal forward. Keep in mind a modicum of modern history content would still be needed. What do you think?--Asqueladd (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I've added and removed some parts. For example, I think that the mention of, among other things, Christopher Columbus is absolutely essential, I have also reduced and connected some parts:

"Anatomically modern humans first arrived in the Iberian Peninsula around 42,000 years ago. 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 and left a long-lasting legacy that included their language, religion, laws and political and social institutions. Hispania was also the birthplace of Roman emperors such as Trajan or Hadrian.

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 with the Visigothic Kingdom. In the early eighth century, most of the peninsula was conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate and several Christian kingdoms emerged in Northern Iberia in opposition, chief among them Asturias, León, Castile, Aragón, Portugal, and Navarre, giving rise to the period metahistorically framed as a reconquest, or Reconquista, culminated with the Christian seizure of the Emirate of Granada and the control of all Iberia by Christian powers in 1492. That same year, Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World on behalf of the Catholic Monarchs, whose dynastic union of the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon is usually considered the emergent Spain as a unified country. Jews and Muslims were forced to convert to Catholicism and eventually expelled from Castile and Aragon. 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."

Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:04, 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. 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.

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.

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)

There are thousands of history books that show no problem in mentioning key historical people to explain the history of a country. I don't know exactly what the problem is in mentioning Christopher Columbus, he was a key figure in the history of Spain and is easily recognizable to the reader. In the France article Napoleon is named, because it is obviously necessary as he is important to explain French history. And apart from your disagreement with naming historical people, I have maintained and accepted almost all of your initial proposal, but you have ruled out absolutely all of mine. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Venezia Friulano, I think this discussion in its current format is running out of steam. It would be desirable to have more opinions, but it seems crystal-clear to me that no matter how you look at it the limited length corresponding to the lead section is not for rash name-dropping. Period.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read my entire previous message. It is convenient for both of us to compromise on some parts, and it is important that there is a consensus or other opinions before doing something. Thanks. Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for a summary on modern history, based partly on the article España in Spanish. This could be the third of the four paragraphs according to WP:LEAD... At least, maybe they could be? What do you think? Please read the notes to see why I emphasised specific phrases or events before criticising the text... Also I haven't revised this a lot, I have other things to do as I am sure you understand. EDIT: I just added a second paragraph, so these would be the two central paragraphs on WP:LEAD. I am very much open to criticism, but be constructive please.

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.

• Please note I am in no way a native speaker of English, so correct my style and grammar if needed.
• I think :@Asqueladd: 's proposal is good but it should be summarised more to make some space for contemporary history. My own draft should probably be even more summarised, and I encourage you to do so.
• Spain's most relevant time in world history was probably the Age of Discovery as this compromised the fate of an entire continent (the Americas, which would be two continents for my friends in the Anglosphere) so that should be emphasised more than other topics like the pre-Roman peoples and Roman Hispania. However Roman Hispania is also essential because it's the origin of Spanish, Catalan, Galician language and of Roman Catholicism as the traditional majority religion, but we have to make a balance if the lead is to comply with WP:LEAD.
• I think a good way of keeping information could be to add lots of footnotes ([a], [b], [c]) explaining and expanding the claims of the lead, but I really don't have time to do that right now, sorry!
• As an example of what I mean on my previous point on footnotes, the phrase: "Ferdinand VII re-instated absolutism until his death in 1833" should have a note indicating that there was a period of short liberal rule between 1820 and 1823. There are many claims like these on my draft that are very brief descriptions of events that each have intricate causes and consequences, like all historical events.
• I chose parliamentary monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy because it's a valid term in English and the term used in Spanish is monarquía parlamentaria.
• * Also "economic stagnation" under Alfonso XIII might be a stretch because Spain really grew during WW1 and the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera. I feel this might be a stretch because there was growth and industralisation even with all the war, it just was really slow compared to other parts of Western Europe.
• The last two sentences are from the Spanish Wikipedia and I think they are fair descriptions of what happened. I feel some may think I'm whitewashing the dictatorship, which I am not trying to do at all. I clearly described Franco's rule as an authoritarian dictatorship and I am not against expanding on this point. I am simply not sure if we have space to list some of the abuses under Franco, I am not against doing so at all, but I think we have to agree on what to mention, because if we are to write history from this perspective, there is a lot of authoritarianism in 19th and 20th century Spain, not just Franco.
• I think the first and second paragraphs on the current version have to merged, maybe we should just mention Spain is the fifth largest country in Europe (if I'm not mistaken), its population of has 47 million, a rough description of its location and limits. It's relevant that parts of its territory are in northern Africa, but we don't have to get into all the intricacies of the Canary and Balearic islands, Ceuta and Melilla, the topic of Gibraltar, plazas de soberanía, etc. please! Yes it's a "fun fact" that Spain is the only country sharing a land border with Africa, but when you stop and think about it, most countries have territorial "particularities" like these and it's not reasonable to use too much space for this stuff.
• I know Great Man theory has been criticised in this talk page but I disagree at least in this particular context, in my proposal I think listing the monarchs of the late 19th and early 20th century is useful for periodisation, see the Victorian, Elizabethan, Edwardian, etc. eras.
• OK so I finished writing this and now that I think about it I haven't even mentioned the Spanish-American War, the loss of Cuba and the Philippines (actually, the Philippines aren't even mentioned once in the entire lead), colonialism in Equatorial Guinea and Morocco... there is so much to cover. Prioritising is essential and I don't think the current article needs a lot of work in this regard. I am not saying my proposal is perfect.

Is it even possible to make a two-paragraph summary (as the first paragraph is area+population, and the fourth one is for culture, international relations, economics, etc.) of Roman Hispania, the Reconquista, Muslim rule in Spain, the history of the Catholic Monarchs, the colonization of the Americas, the Inquisition, Carlism, Falangism, the Second Spanish Republic, socialism and anarchism, regional identity... I don't know how to do it, but maybe pre-Roman people should not get four lines... Maybe we don't have to list 10 Spanish cities...

Again we have to pick and choose and all of this is just my personal opinion. Great Cod (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

These walls of text are forbidding to me, but I have to say that I agree with Asqueladd's points. Carlstak (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

D'oh. Re-reading myself, it indeed makes for a very challenging reading, @Carlstak:. I've tried to split in paragraphs.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Asqueladd. I did read your comments, but the paragraphs really make it easier. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:41, 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 have read all your proposals, and I mostly agree regarding with the 19th and 20th century. Although there are many mentions of historical names, something supposedly not correct for Wikipedia according to Asqueladd. It is no longer a problem? Therefore, (I insist) Christopher Columbus should be mentioned.

I also think it is more correct to say "Civil war" than "Devastating war" Venezia Friulano (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll let you guys hash this out, but "devastating civil war" is the way to go on that point. Carlstak (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No big issue with the addition of 'civil', it is not the only understanding of the conflict but it is certainly the most widely used.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:23, 24 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. 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.

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)

Vis-à-vis this edit. the Spanish-American War, if we shed the veil of the importance of the war in terms of humilliation to the "national psyche" (that is, to the Spanish nationalist elites of the time, to which the development seemed indeed a "disaster", they named it as such, not necessarily to the common folk) and to the emergence of competing nationalisms, the aftermath of the war is perhaps not so clear/more nuanced/more mixed than Red Slash seems to pretend (it certainly does not compare to the effect in the mainland of the Napoleonic Wars or the Civil War, the same way that the "disastrous" and "costly" adjectives are more narrative-dependant than other adjectives—they arguably may cancel each other— featured in the lead). The editor, besides failing to engage adequately in the talk page, seems to frame history as a succession of wars and adquiring and losing clay. No doubt that wars often entail massive changes (and some of those conflicts are mentioned), but there are other ongoing historical processes (perhaps not so sexy, but equally if not more relevant) and we can do better than going from one battle to another in the lead (because if not, we may err on the side of warporn cruft), and, make no mistake, the currently status and the proposals are arguably too much war-focused. Not to say that, above these lines, there is a concerted effort to summarize the historical content in the lead (as in a dire need to get to the bare minimum), which Red Slash may not have noticed either.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Venezia Friulano: the last proposal this one reduces −1,809 from the lead while also minimally developing the late modern history (there is no late modern history development as of now). Pinging @Red Slash:, in case they want to engage constructively in the discussion.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Given relative lack of interaction, I am pulling the change, @Venezia Friulano:. If you are still up for discussion, I have no problem to returning to the prior version (but please appreciate the trimming). Also pinging @Red Slash: in case they have anything to say.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that some important things in the history of Spain that have been suppressed and summarized too much. Nor do I see any mention, not even a small one, of the Spanish Transition to a Democracy and the modernization of Spain with the entry into the European Union. I think two lines ending with that would be a good thing.

Although the contemporary part was completely necessary, except for that, I think that in general this version, in my opinion, is not an significant improvement with respect to the previous one.

I have added some small nuances. However, I prefer to keep your version for now to give stability to the article and not revert your edition. Even if I don't agree completely, I appreciate your sincere effort. Venezia Friulano (talk) 8:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your changes [4] Not all those peoples were Germanic (the Alans were not "Germanic", but an Iranian nomadic people), I think we have already settled that, @Venezia Friulano:. I am willing to find compromise too, yet I am failing to understand why do you remove the more encompassing term "non-Roman"? Is there anything wrong with "non-Roman" (which unlike "Germanic", is valid for Visigoths, Suevi, Alans and Vandals alike)? or why do you stray from source changing "silver" to "precious metals"? Could you explain? In any case, regarding the "net improvement" please observe that this subsection is titled Lead is too long?, so a reduction in size can be a step forward.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"Non-Roman people" is extremely ambiguous. What came to the Peninsula after the fall of the Western Roman Empire? There are many non-Roman ethnic groups both outside and within Europe. Migration in the Iberian Peninsula just after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was almost exclusive Germanic, with the only exception of the Alans. It makes no sense to use such broad and ambiguous term like non-Roman.

I have put the word "precious metals" because, although silver was the largest extraction, gold was also a highly exploited metal in colonial America, whose high price had a huge economic impact. If you want, I can add sources for it, but I think that's an obvious fact in itself.

In general terms, I think that the Lead, although it is a summary, should avoid being ambiguous and have a little more precision. Note that the average Wikipedia reader only reads the Lead. Obviously, a long and too specific Lead is not correct either. As I say, for me there is no problem with the current version, even if I don't agree with some things. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, the important bit is that those people originated in the other side of the līmes. Do you have a reason (ie: quality sources) to consider the historical notability of Vandals and Suevi in the Iberian Peninsula as most important than Iranian Alans' (Visigoths are mentioned later)? If not, deeming a group of peoples as "Germanic" when they were not is being being inaccurate for the sake of it.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead still sucks so I re-wrote it

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.

The Kingdom of Spain, commonly known as Spain, is a country mostly located in the Iberian Peninsula of Europe with parts of territory in North Africa. Its territory also includes the Balearic and Canary Islands. The country is bordered by France and Andorra to the north, by Portugal to the west and by Morocco to the south in Ceuta and Melilla, as well as Gibraltar, which is part of the United Kingdom and claimed by Spain. The capital and largest city is Madrid, one of the largest cities in Europe.

Modern humans arrived in the Iberian Peninsula 42,000 years ago, followed by a diversity of cultures developing in the region. Ancient Rome is a significant foundation of modern Spain, with the entire peninsula being influenced by the Latin language and Roman Catholicism. Spanish history has been shaped by Germanic rule, al-Andalus and the ensuing Reconquista. In 1492, the voyages of Christopher Columbus led to the colonization of the Americas as the Spanish Empire became one of the world’s most powerful countries. Spanish power waned in the 18th and 19th centuries due to war, economic hardship and instability. Today, Spain is generally considered a middle power that retains influence in Western Europe and Latin America.

Spain is a developed country and a constitutional monarchy, with King Felipe VI as head of state. It has one of the longest life expectancies in the world at 83.5 years in 2019, generally ranking high in healthcare, education, safety and quality of life. Spain is also a major tourist centre and a popular immigration destination, with 7.3 million foreigners in 2021, mainly from Latin America, North Africa and Western Europe.

Spain is a member of major international organizations such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, and it hosts the headquarters of the Organization of Ibero-American States. It holds a permanent invitation to the G20. Spain is divided in 17 autonomous communities, some of which have regional languages such as Catalan, Basque or Galician.

Alcismo (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Spain and UK

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)

Hello. A Wikipedia article's talk page isn't for general conversation about the article's topic, only for discussing the state of and potential changes to the article. See Help:Talk pages for more information. Largoplazo (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why has the dating style been altered

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)

I can't see nothing in the recent history (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out when this happened? Any WP:DIFFs? Largoplazo (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

should we change it back? Webwarrior04 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Bad sentence structure

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)

 Done. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"اسبانيا" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023 Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction

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)

 Done—Alalch E. 11:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi protected edit 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:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Late_Roman_Army/c9bgAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=alans+invade+rome+409&pg=PR16&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/In_Search_of_the_Romans_Second_Edition/0KiqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=alans+invade+rome+409&pg=PT151&printsec=frontcover

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)

Hi, I think that if the word collapse evokes the specific date of 476, even that is not the intention (which is to refer to the loss/decline/outsourcing of central imperial authority to foederati throughout the protracted 5th century which may be seen as a slow-motion collapse of central imperial authority), similar words such as "waning" or "dwindling" (or simply fall: the linked article fall of the Western Roman Empire actually concerns about the aforementioned protracted process and not to the final nail on the coffin) could be entertained as an alternative to adjust the wording. But a great effort has been made to be succint in the lead (some editors may be willing to go even further with trimming) and none of the new bits of information in the proposal is particularly important to the lead all things considered (most notably, the mention to the sack of Gaul is utterly non-relevant in the lead of this particular article). I am not sure which could be the point of the (charged?) wording "survive" either (other than a dubious claim of translatio imperii?)--Asqueladd (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd, it's really very simple. The lead must be a summary of the main body content. The main body clearly says that the Germanic tribes and the Alans invaded in the 5th century century, and before the collapse of the Roman empire. Yet the lead erroneously says that this happened in the fourth century, after the collapse of Rome.

This is also consistent with any reliably published source, such as this

"From 407 to 409 the Vandals, with the allied tribes of the Alans and Suevi, swept into the Roman Iberian peninsula. In response to this invasion of Hispania, the Roman emperor of the West, Honorius (384-423), enlisted the aid of the Visigoths, who entered Hispania in 415, and in 418 Emperor Honorius made them foederati, or allies, of Rome."

It's a very easily verified historical fact that the German/Alan alliance invaded Iberia in the 5th century. It is also a fact that the Roman empire had not collapsed by then, however weakened it might have been. The above quote demonstrates this, and so does the main body of the Wikipedia article.

If you don't prefer my proposed summary for the lead, that's fine. I didn't say it has to be exact. It doesn't have to mention Gaul or the word survived. However it does have to say that these invasions occurred in the 5th century and before the collapse of Rome. The way the sentence currently stands is just a major defect in the article and a serious liability to its reputation. Perhaps something like this is better:

"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the early 5th century, when the migration of Germanic peoples and the Alans in to the region brought political upheaval shortly before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire."

Again -- I am not demanding that the proposed change be exact. Anyone can write it as they see fit, but the important thing is that it clarifies two important points: the Germanic+Alan alliance migrated in the 5th century, and this happened before the collapse of Rome. Both of which are indisputable historical facts and already in the main body. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:95EC:DD2:E937:A531 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you understand by "collapse of the Western Roman Empire"? If by that you understand its very end and the city of Rome (a fixed date by the late 5th century and not something gradual), then we can rework the wording (so that's the reason I proposed some word conveying "graduality"). I note again that the article Fall of the Western Roman Empire deals about a process concerning a gradual loss of authority dating back to the late 4th century, so any 5th century migration takes place after the early stages of the process. Insofar we can convey the process as the gradual loss of authority (apparently "fall" does the trick), no additional information is needed. We can also reword the body of the article. We can also change in the lead "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 peninsula is preferable to Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Please change the lead to this:

"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the Visigoths emerged as the dominant power in the fifth century."

This allows us to bypass completely this discussion about Germans, Alans, the collapse of Rome, et cetera, while also trimming the lead as you propose.

The lead must be a straightforward, concise summary of the content of main body of the article and verifiable through reliable sources. Wikipedia articles and our own perspectives (original research) are not reliable. Thanks. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:5C22:89ED:3D44:1CB4 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I am afraid that that is not exactly an improvement, tho. The until is problematic too because it suggests uninterrupted succession (again a short of translatio imperii). I don't think that there is a compelling case to strenghten that idea of succession (if you ask me, it solidifies nationalist and teleological visions of history). Do you think so? There were other non-Roman tribal confederations exerting control over parts of the peninsula before the Visigoth Kingdom exerted control over the [bulk of the] peninsula (this is not original research in any form whatsoever). That is the most important but. We may also consider minor "buts" such as Roman rule returning under Justinian after the "Visigoths emerged as the dominant power".--Asqueladd (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've left it this way. If you don't think it is an improvement over the former version, say so, I am willing to revert it back and continue to engage in this historical discussion.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You say that "there were other non-Roman tribal confederations exerting control over parts of the peninsula before the Visigoth Kingdom exerted control over the [bulk of the] peninsula (this is not original research in any form whatsoever)."

Can you specify the names and territories that that those "tribal confederations" ruled, and the period. 66.81.172.149 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Alans, parts of Hispania Carthaginensis and Hispania Lusitana provinces, early 5th century CE. Alani Lusitaniam et Carthaginiensem provincias, et Wandali cognomine Silingi Baeticam sortiuntur (Hydatius, Chronicon, XVII dixit [5]).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

And how long was the presence of alans in Hispania?

In "Alans" the article say that "Following... in 409, the Alans led by Respendial settled in the provinces of Lusitania and Carthaginensis... Although the newcomers controlled Hispania they were still a tiny minority among a larger Hispano-Roman population, approximately 200,000 out of 6,000,000...In 418 (or 426 according to some authors), the Alan king, Attaces, was killed in battle against the Visigoths,uthors)... Although some of these Alans are thought to have remained in Iberia, most went to North Africa with the Vandals in 429."

So, they entered in 409, and exit in 429. And during this period, they were fighting with hispanic romans, and visigoths...

Sounds more as an "Anarchy Period", than a "rule" period. 66.81.171.65 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The points are clear. Your personal divagations look like talk-page talking points concocted ad hoc as we go along, to which your refusal to adress other concerns (the pseudohistorical translatio imperii, the urge to be extremely succint, the current historiography stressing elements of socioeconomic continuity versus collapse vis-à-vis the WRE, the need to stay in topic, et. al., and last but not least, it is not yet clear what it is exactly wrong now in the lead) add up. I don't intend on entering a pointless (endless) discussion.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you think that my divagations are personal... I thought that speaking in that terms was unpolite at Wikipedia.

I don´t want to speak like you, so I will only ask you questions.

First of all, and speaking in terms of "traslatio imperii". Do you think that the huns ended the roman empire rule in part of Italica, or in the Gaul? Why in that case there is no "translatio imperii"? How many time is needed to end the roman rule, and think that a new state or group of states appeared? Is there a rule that told us when one people rules?

The second question is ¿Why don´t you "think that there is a compelling case to strenghten that idea of succession?

I "ask" you because if there is not, "it solidifies nationalist and teleological visions of history". Have you heard about PNV, BILDU and ETA, for instance. They denies the "traslatio imperii" question, but not for historical reasons (as far as I know, there are no such documents). They even use violence to kill people that think diferent.

Why the "no traslatio imperii" is the supreme truth?

66.81.171.65 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Spain Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Genocide nonsense

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)

Some scholars have described the Spanish conquest during this period as the largest genocide in history, according to a book written by the American historian Norman Naimark. We simply cite the source. —Alalch E. 14:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You can find a lot of text from scholars that describes España as the most important empire during three centuries. Even more, they say that España gave the world the first globalization era, and it is only an opinion. There is no scientific way to measure that fact. There is no "important-o-meter". May be it was important, but it impossible to quantify.

As I said, the use of the term genocide doesn´t match wich the definition given in wikipedia. There was no ethnic, racial, etc... prosecution. And there were castillians... Etc...

Its use is almost "neo tongue" in this case. If you change the meaning of a world, the article is nonsense.

So, the fact is that if it is "published" by "some scholars", it is the truth. Even if the scholar can´t fund his thesis in facts...

There were a lot of "scholars" in the nazi Germany, that described jews and other people as sub-humans. In your opinion, it is right to reflect that opinion because there were scholars?

It is the end of history, I suppose.

P.D: And the end of wikipedia as a source of free information, may be it is useful for propaganda.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.172.153 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We actually have an article about "subhumans". We say what reliable sources said about those nazi "scholars" and their theories. Yes, the truth here is that one scholar said that some other scholars described the Spanish conquest ... as the largest genocide in history. That is precisely the fact which we are carrying over to the encyclopedia. We are not saying that this was a genocide (at least not in this article). This information is included because it's a relevant viewpoint. It's relevant because it is a viewpoint of multiple scholars (according to one scholar; the reference does not reveal who these scholars are and it would be nice to know, and to develop this preferably further in some other article such as Spanish Empire). He didn't say "(all) scholars", "most scholars", "many scholars" which implies that many scholars either don't have a position on the issue or disagree (such as about applying the notion of genocide to such events). If you can find an authoritative opinion (such as from a scholar) that this specific thing should not be called genocide, that those who do call it a genocide are making a mistake etc., it will be considered for inclusion. Sincerely —Alalch E. 22:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A: We actually have an article about "subhumans". We say what reliable sources said about those nazi "scholars" and their theories.

RQ: If you have such an article, and you use it to justify that if in the article a "scholar" speak of other "scholars"... What about using "genocide" article, and use the meaning given by Wikipedia itself.

There are many TV channel that show programs with "scholars", telling how extraterrestrial demigods make the pyramids, and there are no mention to this in the article.

Is it bullshit? Why is a mention to a book written by a "scholar" that tries to next Africa and Asia to Greek civilization?

May be is there a opinion instead of facts?

A: Yes, the truth here is that one scholar said that some other scholars described the Spanish conquest ... as the largest genocide in history. That is precisely the fact which we are carrying over to the encyclopedia. We are not saying that this was a genocide (at least not in this article). This information is included because it's a relevant viewpoint. It's relevant because it is a viewpoint of multiple scholars (according to one scholar; the reference does not reveal who these scholars are and it would be nice to know, and to develop this preferably further in some other article such as Spanish Empire). He didn't say "(all) scholars", "most scholars", "many scholars" which implies that many scholars either don't have a position on the issue or disagree (such as about applying the notion of genocide to such events).

RQ: So it doesn´t matter if genocide doesn´t match with one or more "scholars". Even more it is not important that facts don´t match with the term. I don´t understand why is not reflected the opinion of scholar that believe in UFO´s intervention in the pyramid´s building. I supposse in wikipedia "Scholar" means somebody semianalphabet that doesn´t understand the meaning and use of word.

A: If you can find an authoritative opinion (such as from a scholar) that this specific thing should not be called genocide, that those who do call it a genocide are making a mistake etc., it will be considered for inclusion.

RQ: So the question is that a "scholar" published some nonsense, even if it doesn´t have sense. But I suppose that somebody decides what piece of nonsense is added to the article, may be you. Goebels would be very proud of his achieves.

As I already said if the article fails in something so primary as using words, it is a piece of crap.

Thats were you see the trick. Sincerely. 66.81.172.152 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So you know about Goebbels' theories. Is it horrible that you're aware of them? And, in making that analogy, you appear to expect that others are aware of them. Well, even Wikipedia provides information about them, as twisted and mistaken as his theories were. Is that horrible? Or is knowing of the existence commonly propagated falsehoods just another part of knowledge, of awareness of what sorts of things there are in the world in which we live? If you disagree with that, if it's horrible to know, to be informed of Goebbels' theories, then maybe we all need to visit hypnotists to have this terrible awareness of Goebbels' theories stripped out of our brains at the same time as the information about his theories are stripped from Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If I tell you that over there in the sky is the moon shining, while I am pointing at it with my finger; don´t you should discuss if it is the moon or not, instead of speaking about the dirty in my nail?

I suppose that someone tries to use wikipedia to commit genocide (It´s nonsense, but for neo-tongue supporters it a valid sentence).

Thats were you see the trick (AGAIN).

P.D: Genocide. 66.81.172.130 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Norman Naimark is a serious scholar (a reliable source), and when he cites "some scholars" characterizing this specific period in history as being marked by genocide, we believe him (we believe that there are such other, unnamed, scholars), but we don't go as far as to say that it was genocide, we just attribute the statement to him that there are such scholars. Please understand that this is a VERY qualified application of the genocide label. The way to improve the encyclopedic coverage on this specific content point is not to simply remove the statement of Naimark, but (1) to identify which exact scholars actually applied the notion of genocide to this period, (2) which (if any) scholars disagree. Please understand that we are essentialy in agreement that the current state of the article is not perfect. Wikipedia is a work in progress. —Alalch E. 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part. Thats Wikipedia say.

Now, you BELIEVE, that less than 4.5 million of CASTILLIANS (Not Spaniards) could traveled ACCIDENTALLY to America (they though they where in Asia, so they called indigenous people "indios"), in order to destroy INTENCIONALLY, aztecs and incas that were commiting genocide with other peoples, with armies of 1500 men or so; that married with natives whose descendants where even Famous writers in later events; and that took Biological weapons to kill native people commited genocide.

And you BELIEVE the article is right, and the use of the word genocide is right.

Of course I undestand.

Thats were you see the trick (AD NAUSEAM).

P.D: If you believe in Naimark, then I can´t only say "AMEN"... Or die in the holly fire for my sin of thinking. 66.81.172.163 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that it was a genocide. It says that it has been called it a genocide. That is a true statement. The article expresses no judgement whatsoever about whether calling it a genocide is "right". Please stop carrying on about the article saying things that it does not say. You're wasting everybody's time and attention. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So the mention of a "scholar" mentioning genocide asociated with the Spaniards, doesn´t mean it is true or not.

I understand that you understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you should not deffend to add sentences with "information" that could be true, or not; just because it is only gossip emmited by one "scholar".

Please stop carrying on about the article saying things that it does not say. You're wasting everybody's time and attention. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

It is a longterm question, I suppose. But please, If you can only say that I am wrong, but you can´t prove that in castilla where more castillians in 1500, if you can´t prove that they were in America by accident (not with intention), etcc... Don´t waste your time, and mine. 66.81.169.244 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

[ec] I don't believe the article is right. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for it's own purposes. I work on improving the online encyclopedia that is Wikipedia, but I don't take it as a reliable source unto itself (which would be a huge and obvious mistake). I believe Naimark when he says that there are "some scholars" who characterized the specific period in history as being marked by genocide (i.e. that he didn't lie that there are such sholars). If you can find any evidence that Naimark is not being reliable when he says this, or that among relevant scholars none said anything of the sort (evidence of absence, not so promising I'll admit), or that there are in fact scholars who make an explicit claim that what happened was not genocide, let us know, and we will think together on how to incorporate this and enrich the article. Another way to argue is to say that including this claim attributed to Naimark gives undue weight to a view held by a small minority (of scholars) — find evidence that even if the claim originates from legitimate scholars, it is still, among the totality of scholars, a relatively fringe viewpoint. Stay constructive and you may persuade editors to enact your desired changes after a consensus is formed. I am currently leaning neutral on this issue. Take a look at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to see what the options are. —Alalch E. 17:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a typical re-run of the "The English (and maybe some others) are pushing the black legend!!!" nonsense again. No OP, the "English" are doing nothing of the sort, with almost none of the modern historiography over Spain's dealings in South America coming from the UK, let alone England. The idea that anti-Spanish sentiment exists in England today is a myth held onto by a few radical Spanish ethnic nationalists online. Almost nobody in England has heard of the black legend or its counterpart, because as stated prior the current discourse over the Spanish Empire originates within non-European circles entirely: Namely, scholars on the colonial legacy (nearly all of which are North and South Americans) of the Americas and indigenous activists and scholars themselves, many of whom characterise the Spanish Empires forcible assimilation of the indigenous peoples as either oppressive or flat-out genocidal. --SinoDevonian (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This a typical re-run of the "I don´t have arguments(and may be other reasons) to refute the claims!!!" nonsense again.

No OP, the "persons" are doing nothing of the short, with almost everyone of the modern speakers of english understanding the meaning of "genocide", as it is stated in Wikipedia, it is normal that the current discourse over the use of the term genocide is the reflected in "genocide".

The idea that neo-tonguish sentiment exists in english Wikipedia today is a myth held onto by a few ¿semi-analphabet? radicals online.

Almost nobody in english Wikipedia has heard of genocide as a non intended prosecution or its counterpart, because as stated prior the current discourse over genocide originates within wikipedia articles entirely: Namely, articles written by persons alphabetised in english (nearly all of which are earthlings) of the non-activist groups that reject comments unfounded in wikipedia themselves, many of whom characterise the Wikipedia manipulation and use of neo-tongue of the activists people as either oppressive or, flat-out, culturally genocidal.

Next time, you can say that Cristobal Colon travelled to America aided with GPS, and his intention was to anihilate the aztecs and Incas. And you can remark that he took loads of biological weapons. And that castillians didn´t exist. Spain was behind them.

Thats were you see the trick (If you read "genocide" article, sure)

66.81.169.227 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don´t question what a scholar says, as far as I Know, in Wikipedia there is freedom of speech.

I question the use of the word "genocide", because it doesn´t match with the article.

As I have said, Castillians were the conquerer, not Spaniards.

As I have said, they arrived to America by accident, not intendedly.

They don´t take diseases to America intendedly.

Their military forces were exiguous to take over empires of twenty millions persons.

The allied with indigenous peoples that were fighting against the incan and aztec´s empire opression.

The question is not if some "scholar" said some "nonsense", the question is that it is not genocide in order to the meaning stated in Wikipedia.

66.81.170.132 (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@66.81.172.166 I think adding more information about the silver mines the Spanish empire operated would clear up any doubt that what happened was a genocide.

also, of course England's article should have information about the many genocides they participated in. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So, in Europe, at the same time that castillian operated silver mines in Potosí, the people that operated the coal mines of the Rurh, or in Wales, were in better conditions in terms of work? They were exploited as well, and died by thousands...

Are you trying to justify the use of the word genocide because castillians exploited poors in mining activity?

In that case, are we commiting genocide when we buy an iphone made in china by a semi-slave worker?

66.81.169.138 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

De jure and De Facto Power in Spain

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)

According to the article Government of Spain, the constitution accords the monarch a few specific powers while the power of running the government goes to the prime minister. There's nothing de facto about the prime minister's powers, and the monarch's are de jure limited. Where in the constitution are you seeing otherwise? Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It says in the section titled "King's functions in the Spanish state, "Article 62 of the Spanish Constitution establishes an exhaustive list of the King's functions, all of which are symbolical and do not exercise any political power." Not to mention the first sentence of the section titled "Refrendo," which clearly states, "The King is vested with executive power, but is not personally responsible for exercising it." Therefore, although there is a King, it's like the UK and essentially all the power is in the PM. Sure, the King may be able to choose a candidate, but that's about all that HM the King of Spain can do besides the very few powers the Constitution gives him. The rest, again, like the UK, is controlled by the PM and the Government, including, most notable for me since I'm working on a series of novels about WWIII 500 or so years later from different perspectives from each war fighting branch of the US military, the military. (PS feel free to ask me about my work in progress novel on my talk page.) Faith15 13:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Even though you linked both terms, I still don't understand your question without supposing that you don't really know what de jure and de facto mean. De jure ("by law"), the king, under Part II the constitution, has a few specifically enumerated powers, including being the primary representative of the nation internationally, nominating the President of the Government, dissolving the legislature and hold new elections, and commanding the armed forces. Also de jure,

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.

the president runs the government. (These are from https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Spain_2011.pdf?lang=en.) I don't see what part of this is de facto. De facto can be used in describing, for example, a country with a constitution that provides for free and universal elections for the legislature and executive branch and a presidential term limit of two four-year terms but where the person who has held power for the last 30 years has had all his opponents imprisoned or exiled and has eliminated the free press. Such a country is de jure a republic but de facto a totalitarian dictatorship. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, in reality, de jure is generally used to designate an official that on paper does govern the country or business or whatever, but in reality does not. De facto is used to describe an official that, in reality, controls the said country. I mean, if the monarch did have power, I honestly think at some point it would become corrupted and turned into a version of Saudi Arabia, where there is no law restricting the monarch and his duties. Generally, "constitutional monarchy" means that the PM has the actual power. Take the UK, for example. I posted an article there last year that has been archived since, and I said that my father (I am a teen but still technically a minor, though I am almost the age to be considered an adult by American law) said that the British monarchy is essentially a museum nowadays, and ruled by the PM. Honestly, I believe him. He's rarely wrong. Plus, he's actually been to the UK (for business meetings for his former company, Sony), so he can actually speak for himself on that subject. Faith15 18:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The distinction you're making—in fact, the only situation where we normally use these two phrases—comes up only when the de facto is different from the de jure. They aren't inherently different—in other words, when the rules aren't being followed. The President of Spain governs the country on paper as well as in fact. De facto as well as de jure. There's no either/or here. The same as in the UK. Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's de facto. A de jure example would be the Emperor of Japan. Everyone who has studied and read their history knows that the Americans shaped Japan to be more like the UK. The Japanese PM actually has the power, not the emperor. That's what I'm getting at here. "Constitutional monarchy"= Spanish PM making the rules and governing the country. Faith15 19:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You're misusing the terms, that's all there is to it.

If the emperor of Japan on paper has powers that, in reality, are wielded by someone else whose authority to wield them isn't on paper (I don't know that this is the case, it's a hypothetical, I could have said Slobovia instead of Japan), then the emperor of Japan, de jure, has those powers, but they are held de facto by that other person.

If the president of Spain, on paper, has powers that that president actually wields, then that president has those powers both de jure and de facto and the king of Spain doesn't have those powers at all, either de jure or de facto. But in cases like that neither phrase is normally even used precisely because there's no distinction to be drawn, so there's no distinction to express through the use of those terms. Largoplazo (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Slobovians everywhere thank you for the name-check. Carlstak (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah OK. Gotcha. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification! Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions military-related. Can't garuntee I'll know, but I can try. I come from a military family so that makes it easier. Mostle Army. Faith15 19:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? (Looks at @Carlstak) Faith15 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We are a very proud people. Carlstak (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you mean you're of Spanish descent. Gotcha. Well, I don't mean to insult or be rude to your people or country. Heck, I used to live in California, which, if you've read the history of that state, used to belong to Mexico, which was established as a colony by your people. So no, I don't mean to be rude or anything. (PS I looked up the article on Slobovia. I see what you're getting at now.) Faith15 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no.;-) It was just a joke. I am a total multi-ethnic mutt. Carlstak (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Lol. Sorry. I actually have...sort of mental disabilities irl. Autism, ADHD, Global Development Disorder... it's just a lot. Sometimes I have a very hard time reading the room. Faith15 14:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No problema. I wouldn't presume to give you advice, but understanding people wouldn't consider those mental disabilities. They are challenges in my book.;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I...see. I'm sorry if I sound depressed. I just lost my great aunt Christie, my grandma's big sister. May she rest in peace. Faith15 13:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

You're still misunderstanding this. Yes, the PM runs the government. The constitution says the PM runs the govenrment. When the person who the constitution says runs the government is the person who actually runs the government, then that person is de jure the person who runs the government. De facto is when somebody takes a role that isn't assigned to that person under the law. Largoplazo (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ooh. Okay. I see. Well then, shouldn't it be de jure for the PM and de facto for the King then? Faith15 15:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no de facto here. The constitution doesn't say the king runs the country, and the king doesn't run the country. The king doesn't run the Spanish government, period, either de facto OR de jure, any more than I do.

I also noticed you were confused when you wrote 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)

Oh. I understand. Sorry. I get it now. Thanks. (PS, I may contact you again because I have access to specific sites only, and, as I've mentioned, I'm working on a book set in WWIII 500 or so years later from now, so...yeah. And I don't have access to Google Translate or any translator, really.) Faith15 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Primarily" again

@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)

I don't like the tone in which you are already starting to write, calm down.

It is a mere simplicity of a redundancy of the Lead: The article makes it very clear that Spain also has territories outside Southwestern Europe, such as in Africa, in the Mediterranean or in the Atlantic. Thanks. Venezia Friulano (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with my tone. And what you've just said is that the article makes it very clear that your version of the first sentence is false. That's the opposite of a justification for it. What is complicated about including the one additional word that makes it true? Largoplazo (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Because It's redundant. It does not say that Spain is only Southwestern Europe, but it says that Spain is in Southwestern Europe with territories across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean. That is correct, not false.

The UN, the CIA, NATO and many organizations in the world classify Spain as a Southern European country or as a Southwestern European country.

That doesn't conflict with the fact that Spain also has territory outside of it, and in the Lead it is made crystal clear. Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't redundant. It prevents the first sentence from being a self-contradiction. Largoplazo (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not a self-contradiction, the Lead explains the territory of Spain well.

- United Nations: "UNSD — Methodology". unstats.un.org.

- CIA: [7]

- EuroVoc: [8].

Southern Europe and/or Southwestern Europe is common between organizations. And btw, thats not contradictory with having some territories outside of it.Venezia Friulano (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"It has parts that aren't located in Europe" contradicts an unequivocal "It is located in Europe" expressed as a description of the whole country. This is objectively true. The way it is now isn't any more logically true than "Spain is a country located in northwest Africa, though the mainland portion is in Europe".

The "territories" that you refer to as such as though to dismiss them as trivial appurtenances are integral parts of Spain. They're autonomous cities or communities, making them no less parts of Spain proper as the autonomous communities of Catalonia, Extremadura, and Andalusia.

Try evaluting this argument from the point of view of an onlooker (at dispute resolution, for example). They might say to themselves, "Well, Largo argues that omitting 'primarily' makes the statement, at worst, false. Venezia argues that including 'primarily' makes the statement, at worst, redundant. I'm pretty sure that falsehood is a far worse thing to have in a Wikipedia article than the tiny possibility that some reader might be disturbed by a perceived redundancy, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and go with Largo." Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The Lead is in no way a contradiction.

The official sources that I have provided describe Spain as Southern European/Southwestern European, not "primarily". Venezia Friulano (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous temperature information

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Necesidad de corrección

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)

Translation: When the Spanish territories are listed, there's an error where the Canary Islands are mentioned twice, the second time stating that they are in the Mediterranean Sea.

Answer: I don't see this happening anywhere. Which section are you looking at?

Respuesta: No encuentro eso en ningún lugar. ¿En cuál seccíon lo ve? Largoplazo (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

In the section on art there is an extra and that needs to be removed Quartz1111 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought you meant that "and and" appeared somewhere, but it doesn't. The word "and" appears 15 times in that section, and I don't know which of them you think is the "extra" one. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I think I found it. RudolfRed (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Longest uninterrupted border, is that right?

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)

my bad, realized norway is not in the european unión. 2A02:1406:1:BC6B:510D:F459:698E:3659 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)