Talk:Spain–United States relations

DONT READ THIS!!!!!!!! to Chavez'z increasingly autocratic racist butt

" with elected socialist government. The idea that the government of Hugo Chavez is autocratic or is becoming increasingly autocratic is based on point of view, however the fact that the government has been elected (fairly, might I add) has been verified by international observers from around the world, therefore it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.71.39 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article contains this strange assertion: "George Washington had established the United States’ mule-raising industry with high-quality mules sent to him by the King of Spain (as well as Lafayette)."

Since a mule is not the offspring of mules, but rather the offspring of a horse and a donkey, how can a mule-raising industry have been established with high-quality mules? In almost all cases, mules are sterile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.255.17 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Spain's contribution to the American Revolution was close to nil, and certainly not decisive. Spain was only involved because it was a satellite state of France. Change that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"it was a satellite state of France." lol Do you know that thanks to that war Spain recovered Ibiza from the Brits??? And, if Spain was a satallite of France why they had Latin America (the bigger Empire in km) and not France? Do you want to add any other bull shit?

Missing
I miss some mention of the conspiracy theories about the CIA attitudes towards Operación Ogro (Carrero Blanco's murder) and 23-F. I also miss a mention of Bienvenido Mr Marshall that still colors perceptions of American money in Spain (see recent reporting on Eurovegas for examples) --Error (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I also miss the Hispanic Society. --Error (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spain–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206011824/http://www.alba-valb.org/volpdf/vol_1941_02b.pdf to http://www.alba-valb.org/volpdf/vol_1941_02b.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228090929/http://madrid.usembassy.gov/emba/ambargyrosen.html to http://madrid.usembassy.gov/emba/ambargyrosen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

 * Should the first sentence in the article be: "The troubled history of Spanish–American relations has been seen as one of 'love and hate'"? It links to El Siglo de Europa, a Spanish "political weekly information website", instead of, you know, an actual newspaper or academic source. It sounds ambiguous and unencyclopedic. What is love, and what is hate?
 * I'm not a native speaker of English at all, but I have trouble making sense of this sentence: "The groundwork was laid by the colonization of parts of the Americas by Spain before 1700." The groundwork of what ("love and hate")? Before 1700 is also not very specific regarding time and location.


 * "As the Cold War deepened after 1950, Washington threw a lifeline to the Francoist dictatorship that included financial aid and military bases." I think "throwing a lifeline" is too soft and there is almost no coverage on the United States' continued support of Franco's dictatorship after the 1950s because of its anti-communist policy. Why not mention two U.S. military bases of Morón Air Base and Naval Station Rota, which date back to the Cold War. Financial aid could be quantified as well.

I wouldn't like to edit the lead without knowing if you agree/disagree? I would do it at a later point in time. Great Cod (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to comment on this sentence: Although the Spanish elements in the history of the United States were mostly ignored by American historians in the decades after independence, the concept of the "Spanish borderlands" in the American Southwest was developed by American historians in the 20th century, which integrated Spain into U.S. history." This long sentence introduces the concept of "Spanish borderlands" without explaining it. Instead of focusing on American historians' ignorance, shouldn't the actual focus be on the real settlements/influence in places like Florida or the West Coast? A lasting influence could also be Spanish toponyms of many cities and several states, and so on.
 * No reference to Spanish public opinion which is later covered in the article.


 * I agree with every point you make. I would like to add that the first sentence of the article does feel strange, so I tried to compare it with other articles that have similar content, i.e. relations between different nations. What I found was that any article that had the United States and another nation shared in this article's theme of verboseness and peculiar language in the first sentence, not quite as strange as this incident though. This is in stark contrast to other relations pages of smaller countries, such as the Canada or New Zealand, in which their first sentences are nearly identical. They often look like: Canada-New Zealand relations are a set of bilateral agreements between the nations of Canada and New Zealand.
 * I definitely think that first sentence should be changed on this article specifically, and maybe even a more broad look should be taken at articles about United States relations to understand why they're so different from similar articles.
 * As for the other confusing parts of the article, I agree they need to be changed for the reasons you've listed. IAustonFox (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)