Talk:Spain/Archive 7

Economy.
The economy of a country can be measured by different criteria. GDP is important, but disposable wages is also very important. Spain has higher disposable wages than countries like Germany, Belgium or Finland, in spite of the crisis. This is to the surprise of many. It should be included in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

Pointless hair splitting. GDP per capita is the most important measure along with human development and life expectancy at birth. If we started using all the possible ways of looking at an economy, where would it end? This is a general encyclopaedia, not an economic journal. The Scandanavian countries have very high taxes which reduces their disposable income but then they also have a much more complete social security system to pay for and they consider this beneficial. Besides, it would be a sarcastic joke given that a quarter of the Spanish workforce is unemployed in the current economic crisis and has very little disposable income to speak of. Provocateur (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This part:

The 2008/2009 credit crunch and world recession manifested itself in Spain through a massive downturn in the property sector. Fortunately, Spain's banks and financial services avoided the more severe problems of their counterparts in the USA and UK, due mainly to a stringently enforced conservative financial regulatory regime. The Spanish financial authorities had not forgotten the country's own banking crisis of 1979 and an earlier real-estate-precipitated banking crisis of 1993. Indeed, Spain's largest bank, Banco Santander, participated in the UK government's bail-out of part of the UK banking sector.

Seriously? Ever heard of the Bankia bailout?

Edit request: typo and ministry of energy
redcuce - should be reduce Miguel Sebastián is the FORMER Ministry of Industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.243 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

24.6.6.14 (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * . Format request correctly, and add reliable sources for your change (not Wikipedia articles). gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but that section is badly out of date and still needs to be updated with a reference to the deteriorating situation of the "cajas", the creation and problems of Bankia, the 100 billion euro bank bailout and how this is placing stress on public funds.

Metropolitan areas


Source: ESPON, 2007

!Rank !Metro Area !Autonomous community !Population (ESPON) !Population (Other data)
 * - style="background: #efefef;"
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 1 || Madrid || Madrid || 5,263,000 || 5,427,000 – 5,935,000 – 6,501,717
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 2 || Barcelona || Catalonia || 4,251,000 || 4,223,000 – 4,900,000 – 5,083,000
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 3 || Valencia || Valencia || 1,499,000 || 1,564,145 – 1,705,742 – 2,300,000
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 4 || Seville || Andalusia || 1,262,000 || 1,249,346 – 1,360,361
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 6 || Bilbao || Basque Country || 947,000 || style="background:silver;"|
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 6 || Málaga || Andalusia || 844,000 || style="background:silver;"|
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 7 || Oviedo–Gijón–Avilés || Asturias || 844,000 || style="background:silver;"|
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 8 || Alicante–Elche–Elda || Valencia || 793,000 || style="background:silver;"|
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 9 || Las Palmas || Canary Islands || 640,000 || style="background:silver;"|
 * - style="text-align:right;"
 * 10 || Zaragoza || Aragon || 639,000 || style="background:silver;"|
 * }

Today I was reverted by user:Bashevis6920 stating the data I introduced is out of date. ESPON figures correspond to the year 2007. Why sources (from 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010) are out of date? Current data is wrong. According to ESPON, Madrid doesn't have 6.5 million. Could someone else help verifying this? Alburzador (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you change the main source for metropolitan areas in Spain?? Alburzador (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, these data are for 2007, and are also controversial. And in any case, are representative of later years. Why are you so interested in putting 2007 figures, which do not correspond to the present?--Bashevis6920 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I corrected the data from 2007 (ESPON), and I added newer data. What's wrong with that? Alburzador (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you oppose & revert me, I will look for help somewhere else. Thanks for your brief and narrow answer. Alburzador (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And what about Bilbao, Malaga, etc ...? These data are incomplete and outdated (2007). Please stop editing. It makes no sense to include data, rather than inform, misinform.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you really mean. Have you verified sources before reverting me? Alburzador (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ESPON (2007) Check page 108 Alburzador (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look current sources (2012 or 2013) on metropolitan areas for all cities and then update.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which source?? Your (dubious) source is empty, it doesn't contain any data about MA in Spain. In which section INE has data about MA? Does INE make statistics about Metro areas in Spain? Alburzador (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

INE includes population data by provinces and municipalities (2012), better than those outdated that you propose. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. But INE doesn't define Metro areas in Spain because Metro areas are not distinctive entities as autonomous regions, provinces and municipalities. If we use INE's regional and local data for metropolitan areas this section will totally lack of consistency. Alburzador (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are approximate, until we have the current data (2012 or 2013 ...) about metropolitan areas. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't stand inaccuracies as i am a bit of a perfectionist. Because your editions are wrong and because you don't seem to understand my point, I will add a tag on this section and call an expert or administrator. Alburzador (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are obsessed with introducing 2007 data, I don't think that you were a perfectionist.


 * I disagree with an issue that doesn't include the current population figures of Bilbao, Malaga, etc metropolitan areas. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon?? I didn't introduce newer data from 2007, it was there when I came here. I corrected it! You also deleted ESPON (2007)... It seems to me you are playing going rounds, because you don't agree I use the "right" sources... Alburzador (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't re-edit the page without consensus changes. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are the only one who doesn't agree with my editions.
 * Until I came you were using ESPON, why did you suddenly change it (without consensus) to INE after I edited? Why can you do that, and I can't add extra data? Can you explain why you can change data without consensus, and I can't... Alburzador (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The figures have been edited many months ago, and did not correspond to the ESPON inform, but with population data from INE. That's the reason I change the source, but I don't change the table as you did.

And don't lie, you was the first who edited without consensus, anyone who wants can check.- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&diff=543186507&oldid=543093158 (Revision as of 09:39, 10 March 2013) --Bashevis6920 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * what?? I don't lie.. I am not a liar darling. I haven't denied I edited first. What I've said was that you changed the main source from ESPON to INE. Don't try to accuse me, to just excuse yourself... You are not being very humble.
 * You should better check this:
 * (I corrected data, typo and pronunciation)
 * I didn't change the main source: "ESPON, 2007"
 * (Here Bashevis6920 changed the main reference for metropolitan areas in Spain - ESPON (2007) - without consensus) Alburzador (talk) 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How old are you? This is a crude attempt to manipulate the poll, it's quite ridiculous and shameful.- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpain&diff=543477823&oldid=543477500 --Bashevis6920 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my age is irrelevant here.
 * I added those comments because I don't understand how we can use INE data for provinces/municipalities for metropolitan areas. Don't misinterpret me... Alburzador (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And Alburzador does it again, a new crude attempt to manipulate the poll.- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpain&diff=543490629&oldid=543480082

I should not start this discussion, without realizing you were a kid before. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey: which data should we use?

 * ESPON (2007)
 * Urban Audit (2004)
 * Ruiz Alarcos (2008)
 * INE, provinces and municipalities (2012) [inaccurate data, since INE does not make statistics about Metro Areas in Spain]
 * No changes [keep random, inaccurate and erronous data]
 * Others


 * Comments

Edit request: Cranium 5
The skull that is depicted in this article is said to be of a Homo antecessor, while in fact it's Cranium 5 (a.k.a. Miguelón), a H. heidelbergensis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solrac1993 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Solrac 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solrac1993 (talk • contribs)
 * The potted history on this page is about modern humans history of the peninsula and of Spain, not a category of animals that went extinct a very long time ago. The only role that these pre-human hominids played in modern human history was to become extinct. Their mention here is inappropriate. This is about history, the story of modern humans, not natural history. Do you understand the difference?Provocateur (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * natural history is also important. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi, I am currently involved in an edit war with user:LTblb because he refuses my edits (corrections) in several articles (the principal, this one).

The issue started with user:Bashevis6920. He changed the data about the Metropolitan Areas of Spain without consensus, he removed all (MA) data from the article, and he added/introduced random and sourceless figures, as he stated the data of Bilbao and Málaga were/are wrong.

I think user:LTblb-user:Bashevis6920-user:Alex320000 are the same person (it is a kind of sockpuppet user). This user refuses to correct metro areas, typo, spelling and pronunciation because he says I haven't reached a consensus... But how can we reach a consensus if we start with lies, and there is always an antagonic actor who refuses all my edits, and edits what he wants or likes...

Can an expert help us here, please? Alburzador (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * * Here Bashevis6920 changed/removed the previous reference for metropolitan areas in Spain - ESPON (2007) - without consensus Alburzador (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to discuss sock puppetry (this is Sockpuppet investigations). This is the place to discuss content that is being disputed. Both you and Ltblb are already past the point of being blocked. I'm not reporting either you because it's better to start a conversation, but if that doesn't happen and this continues I'm forced to do just that which may result with both of you being blocked. Now calm down and discuss this like adults. -- Everyone Dies In the End  (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright... So what shall we do here? Shall we recover the data user:Bashevis6920 deleted about MA? Alburzador (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Formation of Spain
Other articles (e.g. Russia) mention previous protostates important to the history of that country, before the current kingdom/dinasty was founded. I therefore suggest that the foundation of the Kingdom of Asturias (718), or the foundation of the Visigothic Kingdom (418), should be here mentioned. It is not as if Spain just came out of nowhere in the XVth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.217.174 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what the History of Spain and other history/archaeology related articles are for. The history section here is already too long; it's only supposed to be a very, very, very quick introduction and is simplistic out of necessity. To do justice to the country's history and pre and proto history, you'd have to write a big and complicated book.Provocateur (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013
The last sentence in the tourism section is missing a verb. It says ".......accommodations worth more" instead of "are worth more".

Thanks

68.44.38.15 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Arctic   Kangaroo  08:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted
Deleted pronunciation respelling (PR). I explain in Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation respelling key why PR is a bad idea. Okay /ɵˈkeɪ/?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

PAELLA
the paella photo is wrong, that is not original will says a Valencian,change please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.122.49 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why The Second of May 1808 painting is relevant and the Black Legend is not
The Second of May 1808 painting was here for a long time before you replaced it LTblb. There is a good reason why it is on this page, quite apart from the fact that it is a great painting by one of history's great masters of painting, Goya - the event depicted marks the start of the Spanish people's revolt against Napoleon's imperial rule and marks the beginning of the resistance that expanded into Spain's nationalistic War of Independence or Peninsular War. It marks a decisive break in the history of Spain and is often seen as the beginning of modern Spanish history proper (as opposed to "early modern"). It is a date of great importance to Spain to this day. The Battle of Bailen follows from this and is therefore of secondary importance. And though a victory, the gains made against the French army were totally reversed when Napoleon personally took charge of the French imperial forces.

Secondly, the "Black Legend" was first described in 1914 by Julián Juderías. It is about a set of historical myths that had grown up centuries earlier, it is not a historic event; until Juderias' book was published in 1914 nobody had ever heard of the "Black Legend". It is label used by a historian to describe a disperate collection of historical myths and narratives that had in common a completely negative view of Spanish history. That is not a "historic event", it is a historian's "interpretation" - whether Juderias' Black Legend thesis is right or wrong is not the issue, it simply is not a historic event like say the revolt on the 2nd of May 1808 or Columbus' discovery of America.

Since you are making these changes to this article and I am reverting the article to its long standing former status, it is you, LTblb, who has to justify these changes, not me. Provocateur (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * But, what are you talking about? You have removed the information about The Black Legend arbitrarily June 29, 2013 (here) Will you make a particular interpretation of history for the World??? Historians of prestigious universities have written hundreds of books about The Black Legend, and you come here to say that it is an invention, a historian's "interpretation", can you imagine how ridiculous that is? ...


 * And Bailen was an absolutely relevant battle, like battle of Stalingrad (IIWW), was the first major defeat of the Grande Armee, setting in motion the rise of the Fifth Coalition against France. --LTblb (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As a battle Bailen cannot be compared to Stalingrad. It is true that at Bailen the Spanish army inflicted an unexpected and widely celebrated defeat on the Napoleonic army and soon after the French armies were nearly completely driven out of Spain but then Napoleon took personal charge of the French imperial army, swept aside the Spanish and British armies and and retook Spain! So Bailen was a dead end, it was not a decisive victory for the Spanish like  Stalingrad was for the Soviet Union. Bailen is of secondary historical importance but the popular May 1808 revolts in Spain are of the first order of historical importance because those revolts precipitated the war of independence against the Napoleonic regime. Without those popular revolts there would have been no War against Napoleon in Spain and no Battle of Bailen.


 * The Black Legend is not a historic event like the May revolts of 1808, the discovery of America or the first landing on the moon. To confuse a historical thesis like the Black Legend with actual historic events like the crowning of Charlemagne or the first flight of an airplane is to fundamentally confuse categories of things. The Black Legend is an interpretative historical theory proposed by one historian, and supported and opposed by other historians, to explain why there are so many negative historical narratives relating to Spanish history. It does not matter whether you agree or disagree with Julian's Black Legend thesis - it is not an event, it is a historian's theory to explain historic facts. If you don't understand the fundamental difference between a historic event like the first landing on the moon, and a historian's interpretative thesis, then you really have no business editing history. The short historical section in this article is to provide the reader a very brief introduction to the major historic events of Spanish history, like Columbus's first voyage, the conquest of Granada, the 2nd of May revolt, etc. It is not about a historian's interpretative historical theory like the Black Legend thesis or analysis. Provocateur (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The battle of Bailen was a determinant factor during the Napoleonic Wars, not military, but strategic victory, because it was the seed of the Fifth Coalition.

The Black Legend was an event of such great importance that had far-reaching implications for the following centuries.... Your claim about it is not a historical event deserve no mention at all, and the editions removing parts of the article, neither. Remember: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --LTblb (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis of the accuracy dispute regarding metropolitan areas?
I see the tag on the metropolitan area table but it's not clear why it's there. Someone disputes a population number, perhaps? EllenCT (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

One interesting aspect about spain
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/05/spanish-highest-life-expectancy-europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Empire (1580-1640)
Firstly, Iberian Union is not a period of the history of Spain, but of Portugal. With this I want to say, that it does not exist a chapter in a book of History of Spain dedicated to this matter, but the issues about the kingdom of Spanish Portugal turn out to be dispersed in a chapter of the Spain of the Austrias, or also among the chapters of major and minor Austrias, or among the different kings Philip II, Philip III, Philip IV; in the same way, there is no chapter of the History of Spain dedicated to the kingdom of Spanish Naples from 1504 to 1707.

In the kingdom of Portugal the capital and seat of the viceroy was Lisbon -Phillips II of Spain send Fernando Álvarez de Toledo as Viceroy of Portugal in 1580- whereas Madrid was the permanent seat of the Royal Court and the center of power of the whole monarchy and of its constituent kingdoms.

If it was just a Iberian Union, the Portuguese would not have had to fight for independent from Spain. In the Luis Camoes article in Wikipedia (english), they say "Spanish troops were approaching Lisbon...". So it was clearly an annexation.--LTblb (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Countries of Portugal and Spain were never united under 1 country but were under 1 king. Under this union the following 3 kings had different titles:-


 * King Philip I of Portugal - Title in Spain as King Philip II of Spain


 * King Philip II of Portugal - Title in Spain as King Philip III of Spain


 * King Philip III of Portugal - Title in Spain as King Philip IV of Spain


 * King Philip II of Spain being the grandson of King Manuel I of Portugal and as such was Heir to the Portuguese thrown when his uncle Henry, King of Portugal died leaving no children to replace him as king of Portugal in 1580, Philip was elected King of Portugal at the Portuguese Cortes of Tomar in 1581, on condition that the kingdom and its overseas territories would not become Spanish provinces. Which he agreed and thats why the 2 countries were never 1.


 * In 1640 Portugal had a revolution to put a different branch of the Portuguese monarchy (House of Braganza) on the thrown as King Philip III of Portugal was not liked due to huge tax raises and other decisions which didn't favour Portugal.


 * Viceroy means someone who runs either a country, colony, or city province, in this case the country of Portugal not a colony or even a part of Spain. Portugal and her colonies were never passed to Spain because the 2 were separate countries and were never merged.


 * Like England and Scotland are part of a union called the United Kingdom, Scotland is not part of England or if you want another example Spain and Portugal are in the European union but they are not all 1 big country.......yet.


 * You replaced the map which correctly shows them as separate countries in 1581 as shown below:-


 * With one you have created yourself, which according to you shows the Spanish Empire......clearly not!!!


 * You are trying to re-write history to your incorrect version as can be seen by your previous edits and also the times you have been banned for war editting. You come across as (Redacted) trying to give false propaganda about history and other things that you have been editting, I'm asking you to stop if you don't i'm sure you will be banned yet again--Rockysantos (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your protest has no place, because the images are different. One speaks about a Union Iberica (point of view Portugal-centric) and my image is about the Spanish Empire, beacuse Phillips II of Spain sends Fernando Álvarez de Toledo as Viceroy of Portugal in 1580... These views are quite different. From the point of the Spanish historiography, Portugal was part of Spain, so we had a vicerreinato, ie, a viceroy who was cut from Madrid, not having the power to choose their own head of government, like the Spanish Netherlands, the Spanish Naples, or the rest of the Spanish colonies.--LTblb (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert in 16th-century Spanish history, but I might be one by the end of this dispute. It seems to me as if the Iberian Union is a documented part of history. Whether it is in Spanish textbooks or not is a question for the nationalistic publishers. The Cristero War is not in many Mexican textbooks either, yet it happened and there is now a film about it. Anyway, since the Iberian Union can be verified through independent reliable sources we cannot deny it, and we cannot rewrite historical maps without adequate verifiable documentation that the Union was only Spanish and not Spanish-Portuguese. Please provide those sources here to prove your point. Until you can provide sources, this is all just your own assertions which have no place on this encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The own article about those Iberian Union, as seen in its header article and on the talk page, which is a historical theory Portugal-centric, and very particular view and controversial, that is not reflected at all in Spanish historiography.--LTblb (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , who are you? You sound much like . Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as the content of your argument, I see a POV tag and some half-hearted objections on the talk page, but no evidence and no substantial arguments to sustain an assertion that the article is anything but the truth. One thing is certain: Spain and Portugal were not united as one country and therefore a monochrome map showing a "Spanish Empire" is very much a fiction and has not been substantiated by reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the original map we are discussing is disputed on its own Commons talk page. I might be so bold as to suggest the more colorful and the possibly more accurate map, File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png to replace all instances of these bogus "Spanish Empire" "Iberian Union" maps that include Baja/Alta California, a huge New Mexico, and follow the modern border of Brazil - all suspicious things for a Reformation-era map. Elizium23 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Elizium23, your obsesion and harassment is becoming more evident. It has something to do with that you participate in the project in WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries?? I think its supposed neutrality and interest in my edits and continuous false accusations on my talk page completely discredit to you. --LTblb (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for sources right now that will show that the map is absolutely correct. In Spanish historiography, of course.--LTblb (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am interested in the history of all Spain. A priority to that interest is the implementation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V as I have already explained, and WP:NPOV, which seems to escape you. Wikipedia does not adopt the POV of Spanish historiography. Wikipedia uses a neutral point-of-view. If Spain and Portugual each have viewpoints about their own history then each one must be presented with adequate weight. We are not here to write Spanish history using Spanish history books. We use all reliable secondary sources and we prefer those in English, so we may use Spanish books, we may use Portuguese books, and we may use books written by other Europeans, British and American historians to back up our assertions. If the Spanish have the belief that Portugal and her colonies were part of the Spanish Empire during that time, then we can document that as a Spanish viewpoint, but not as cold, hard, facts, because clearly at least the Portuguese viewpoint is different, if not the international view. I am currently reviewing sourcing in the Iberian Union article and they seem adequate to protect that particular viewpoint, so I'll be interested to see yours as well. Elizium23 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, an encyclopedia should show a neutral point of view, and the persistence of this historical explanation 'Portugal-centric' on all items concerning the period 1580-1640 in the history of the Spanish Empire in Wikipedia in English, shows a complete lack of neutrality and partiality suspicious.--LTblb (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * LTblb you are clearly not interested in Neutrality as can be clearly seen by your aggressive responses and constant attacks on many editors, I am going to change imperial Spain because in any point of view it is not true what you have created, I agree with Elizium23 it could be called Philip II's realms in 1598 but not Spanish Empire as that is completely wrong in ever history--Rockysantos (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * LTblb has now removed the image entirely in lieu of an alleged consensus which will not form. I hereby propose that we be bold and revert the article to its state in early October before LTblb got a hold of it, because it is missing many important things, in particular, he excised all representations of Catalan culture here, and I feel that is an affront to that region which happens to be part of Spain. Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rockysantos and you are ignoring all the rules, although I have argued that I will find references to support the appearance of my map , in an article on the history of Spain . Since you have made ​​changes arbitrarily , I decided to remove any map , until a consensus is reached , which of course is mediating of one or various administrators.--LTblb (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not WP:CONSENSUS. You do not understand consensus. Your removal of the map is against current consensus. You are ignoring all the rules. Please read the rules so you can understand them, before accusing us of not following them. By the way, how is your ANI thread going? How is your search for sources and proof going? I haven't seen any yet. Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

LTblb has been blocked as an abusive sockpupppet, so we are free to edit this article without a war again. I have rolled back some of his changes, as I suggested. I am only sorry that it would be too painful to roll back the article to before he ever touched it in April 2013. But there have been plenty of constructive changes since then. I attempted to restore all the constructive edits made since 7 October. I believe Catalan culture is again accurately represented here with due weight. Any further tweaks are welcomed. Elizium23 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 26 November 2013
"Catalonia" never was a Kingdom. There were various counties, like Pallars, Urgell and Barcelona, being the last one the most important one. "Catalonia" is a more modern term, talking about "Catalonia" in the middle ages is like talking about Spain in the middle ages: it didn't exist, but a group of kingdoms and in the case of the modern "catalonia" a group of counties property of the Franks or later the aragonese.

188.78.172.170 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.. But if you mean the 1st paragraph of the Fall of Muslim rule and unification section, I've tagged the source to ask for provision of more detail of where in the linked document the information can be verified. --Stfg (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

caption is in pidgin English
"purpose of spanish kings as" in the caption to the image of Philip and Charles.

perhaps attempting to say that this had been an objective of Spanish kings since Alfonso - but I cannot see the point of that observation in the caption.

Basically, this tacked-on phrase makes no sense as it stands and is not correct either in terms of orthography or grammar. The easiest course would be to delete it as unhelpful.

Please repair or delete.

G. Robert Shiplett 12:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

the area
spain is fourth largest country  in europe, not fifth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.48.212 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Energy
The energy section puts a lot of focus on solar energy, and links renewable energy in Spain as main article (I'll change it), as if that's where Spain's energy comes from. Yet Electricity sector in Spain says it mostly from fossil fuel. I assume that article is right, which would mean this article has a pretty biased section. Narayanese (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014
Please change "Spain also has high living standards with the 10th-highest quality of life index rating in the world as of 2005" for: "Spain also has an average living standards within the 30th-highest quality of life index rating in the world as of 2014"

Fdroman (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, but they actually rank 24th on the chart. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014
204.39.35.41 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)There Are Many errors On this page That i have The Facts to .Bold text


 * You need to be more specific about what you want to change before any action can be taken. Valenciano (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hello. Please reconsider infobox. Says that "Constitutional Democracy"(?) was stablished in 1931, but in fact, first modern constitution and democratic institutions were stablished in the 1812 Spanish Constitution. 1931 is the date when the II Spanish Republic Constitution was adopted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.43.92 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There are typographical errors in section "Liberalism and Nation state" (viz. peryod instead of period) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.104 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014
88.20.147.212 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2014
In the short description about tourism "The Spanish hotel star rating system has requirements much more demanding than other European countries, so at a given rating Spanish accommodations are worth more.[107]" is wrong. If you read the article, all is says about Spain is that room size is more important, it says nothing about standards or quality and it only compares Spain to one other European country (France). This was obviously put together by a non native speaker (possibly a patriotic Spaniard) as the last part doesn't really sit right with me structurally or its vocabulary. I suggest it be removed altogether as it's really based on no fact at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhephyrxaxson (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014
Swatisaurakhia (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

The Black Legend is not a historical event
The Black Legend is not a historical event like the Voyages of Columbus or the rule of the Catholic Monarchs or the Thirty Years War. It is a 100 year old criticism of the way historians had, in the past, represented Spanish history. Discussions of the Black Legend criticism belong in serious history books dealing with the difficulties of writing history but it does not belong here, mixed up in a list of historical events. If we include a discussion of the Black Legend critique here then we must also include a discussion of the "White Legend" too. Neither belongs here. Remember, all countries are the target of propaganda during conflict and history everywhere is full of it. Provocateur (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
In the section Islands reads this: The little Pheasant Island in the River Bidasoa, in the Atlatic Ocean, is a Spanish-French condominium.

I think it should be "Atlantic Ocean" instead of "Atlatic Ocean". 82.141.94.24 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ Philg88 ♦talk 12:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

wrong section, I think
The sentence: "Spain also hosts one of the largest festivals in the world. The Running of the Bulls in Pamplona, which attracts up to a million tourists for the July week long celebration." doesn't belong in the history section, let alone the introductory part. If anything, it should be part of the culture section. 188.174.221.234 (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

subtle or not that subtle. Who were the first colonizers
The introduction reads " being one of the first countries to colonize the New World". Really? I thought it was the first! Pipo.
 * Norse colonization of the Americas 178.94.105.14 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Norse? Come on. Lizards arrived there too. What a bunch of idiots one finds in this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.132.74 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're both confused so let me help: The colononization of the New World or the Americas began over 12 000 years ago, thus even the short lived Viking settlements (a dead end anyway) were late comers. Your dispute over who were the earliest colonizers forgets that colonization of the Americas began many thousands of years ago. Stop insisting that the Spanish or Vikings were among the first to colonize the New World, when in fact the first colonizers arrived over 12 000 years ago! Both the Vikings and Spanish were late colonizers of the New World!!!

Global empires, are by definition "influential". It sounds stupid to put that word in as it implies that there have been un-influential global empires. Have you ever heard of an un-influential empire ?! Of course not, that's why it is stupid to use "influential" there. Also, "Influential" in this case, is being used as a peacock term and is therefore against the encyclopaedic goals of Wikipedia. See Manual of Style/Words to watch. Trust the intelligence of the readers!

Finally, keep the number of images limited and their captions short and simple. I'm tired of culling them and the article in general. It is only meant to be a brief and easily digested introduction to the subject, that's why there are links to other articles. Provocateur (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2014
Spanish Gini coefficient is no longer 34.0 Now it´s 33.7 so it changes from medium to high.

In this website http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tessi190 you can see the variation.

Pablobonet98 (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — cyberpower ChatOnline 16:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

ADD Official languages. Please add "Valencian"
The Valencian is an official language recognized by the Government.

http://www.universidad.es/es/FAQ/cuantas-lenguas-se-hablan-en-espana

thanks! 31/07/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.228.254 (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish is the official lenguage in all Spain, but there are other official languages
Besides Spanish, there are another totally recognized languages (co-officials, since there are only spoken in some territories): Basque, Catalan, Galician and an Occitan dialect (Aranese). Can anybody include this information in the Infobox? I don't know how to edit.

Thanks, A.A.Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.102.195 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Occitan
Since Occitan is only official language in the Val d'Aran, it should not be included as a co-official language, if there is no objection I will move it into the regional languages of Spain.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Images
I appreciate a few disfunctional images and uncoherence in the presentation of a couple of parts of the page:

In Reconquista part, i suggest to change 2 of the photos, the ones concerning Aragón and Castile-León. For the first one, I suggest to change this photo (that people may confuse with the catholic monarchs, for Aljafería Palace, first house of the rulers of the Zaragoza Taifa and the of the aragonese kings after Alfonso the Battlers conquest it. El Cid is not a bad image, but i think it is more appropiate (considering than later also you can find the burgos cathedral) to put the photo of San Isidoro of León. León was the capital of the kingdom that bornes in Asturias, the photo is the burrial place of the kings, it is where the first parliamentary season in europe was hold, it is in the way of saint james, and it was the most important city of Castile-Leon at the time.

In Imperial Spain, if you notice there is a order of the time by the main kings and royal families. It appears the habsburgs and the bourbons. But it is not good for a page of history of spain not to have a caption of the catholic monarchs. I suggest a photo where they appear them meeting Columbus in the just conquest alhambra of Granada, It represent the end of the Reconquista, the union of their crowns forming modern spain and the start of the empire with the columbus trips.

--BernardaAlba (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree, but I would also keep the picture of El Cid, if resized, I think all three may fit.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Grammar in intro
The line "Currently, the economic crisis became the major problem of the Spanish economy" is awkward, but the page is locked so I cant fix it. 23.240.131.64 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Alhambra photograph
On my screen the panorama of the Alhambra - bottom of the Monuments and World Heritage Sites subsection - overlaps with the S Maria de Guadalupe monastery. I changed this to make the panorama extend right across the screen, but the result evidently came out differently for someone else, who changed it back. Is there any image expert who can adjust this picture to appear acceptable to all readers? Noyster  (talk),  08:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Please let us know what browser OS and resolution (width) you are using.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Windows XP SP3, Firefox 32, 1280 x 1024 pixels. Hope this helps! Noyster  (talk),  09:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you I was able to reproduce the problem, it happens only at a given width with Firfox (Chrome and explorer don´t have that problem. I will try to fix it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at it now, I have reduced the image size by 100px. to minimize the overlap bug in Firefox. Please let me know if it improved for you. If you play with the width of the window, there is a point where you can still get a minor overlap, It can be fully eliminated by reducing another 30px the picture, but I think it is not worth it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The picture shows perfectly on my screen now. Thank you for fixing Noyster  (talk),  16:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why so much talk about gender balance?
Is there a reason why the intro to the government section spends more time talking about how gender balanced the Spanish government is rather than actually describing the Spanish government? Ltwin (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Year for Spain have been a country since
Why did they never put "Category:States and territories established in " for Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.96.14 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know when Spain became a country since? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.200.56 (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012
This part: The 2008/2009 credit crunch and world recession manifested itself in Spain through a massive downturn in the property sector. Fortunately, Spain's banks and financial services avoided the more severe problems of their counterparts in the USA and UK, due mainly to a stringently enforced conservative financial regulatory regime. The Spanish financial authorities had not forgotten the country's own banking crisis of 1979 and an earlier real-estate-precipitated banking crisis of 1993. Indeed, Spain's largest bank, Banco Santander, participated in the UK government's bail-out of part of the UK banking sector.

Seriously? Ever heard of the Bankia bailout? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankia)


 * This has been updated. By the way, Spain's two biggest banks are among the world's most successful, Santander and BBVA. It's the regional, internally oriented banks that are in big trouble, crushed by the collapsing prices of Spain's housing market. Provocateur (talk)
 * Indeed Provocateur, both Santander and BBVA are among the "healthiest" banks in Europe.--Karljoos (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Traditions
This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. It could be interesting as a good example of traditions in the South of Spain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

GINI
Some data of Gini coefic. from IMF and World Bank:

Norway 22.7.

Sweedin 24.9.

Alemania 29.7.

France 30.1.

UK, 30.2.

'Eurozone 30.5 ' Italy 32.5.

Spain 33.7.

Uruguay 39.7.

Venezuela 44.8.

Argentina 43.6.

Ecuador 49.3.

Bolivia 56.3.

South Africa 63.1

Seychelles 65.8.

Please, change GINI from medium · high to low · medium, more according to real data. Best Regards --Zeubea (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
Spain is a developed country with the 13th (not 14th) largest economy in the world.

46.25.147.21 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌: you have not provided a source. Please do so, then reactivate the edit request.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

POV edit by User:James Bond 000
I reverted a recent edit by the above user as they did not adhere to a neutral point of view and also introduced grammatical errors. Jezhotwells (talk)

how about referencing the torah, aka , the bible as the intellectual origins of human rights theories and the intellectual origin of modern international law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.207.234 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Iberia enters written records as a land populated largely by the Iberians, Basques and Celts. ¿¿¿¿¿????? When the Greeks began to put Iberia on the History, had not yet any Basque inhabiting the peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.14.238 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015
In the cuisine section, change galego to gallego. It is spelled wrong.

Nurmy0321 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

New laws going into effect July 1
Can someone add info about the new draconian laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.25.65 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015
2602:306:BD44:A5C0:5DFA:3D92:2C92:481 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Average temperatures table in climate section
Hello, user removed the temperature table in the climate section. He argued that it break the standards of Wikipedia. That it is too large and that its data is selective. He also claimed that "Other countries do not have such tables in main article."

I restored the table as it is sourced and does not seem to be violating any of our policies. I pointed out that other countries like for example Sweden and Morocco also have similar tables, and that many other countries like Russia, Lithuania, Monaco or Philippines for example choose to include tables with national averages instead.

I would like other opinions so we can reach a consensus and decide if the table should be kept, changed to reflect national averages or just be removed. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, even though the information can be found in more detail in the article Climate of Spain I think we should keep this table in the section of the main article as well, even if it is also present in more detail in the article Climate of Spain since it gives a good overview at a glance to readers of that section in the main article.
 * To address Subtropical-man's concerns about the table been too large and arbitrary I propose reducing the number of cities to only the four largest as that is also the current title of the table. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This table is too large for main article of country. Other countries do not have such tables in main article. Two countries have table but these countries - Sweden and Morocco not have separate articles about climate. So.
 * This table breaks the standards of Wikipedia. Not to mention the matters of disputed, for example: too selective data (only four months) etc. Sorry, but must to be consensus. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please point out the policy of Wikipedia you are using to claim that "this table breaks the standards of Wikipedia". This is not by any means the biggest table in an article about a country. Please review WP:CYCLE. You made a Bold edit removing sourced content from the article. Your edit was reverted, now we need to discuss the matter. I have restored the article to its previous version for the second time. So please do not remove the table again until we have reached a consensus.
 * In that spirit, I personally think it may be appropriate to remove from the table the April and October columns to just leave the coldest and warmest temperatures in the table for the largest cities to address your concern about selective data, that gives the reader an idea with a quick glance, and for more information the separate article can be accessed.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring and pushing own table without consensus. Your opinion does not make sense - see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: bold edit, revert -> discuss. This method works for such situations, one user (in this case - you) enter new changes, other user treats change as bad and revert it, in this situation must to be discuss and consensus before changes. It is logical. Until reach consensus, there is version before new changes - status quo (see STATUSQUO). You are a beginner, on Wikipedia from 11 months and certain things you can not understand, your behavior qualifies as edit warring. If you have a problems with understanding of Wikipedia:CYCLE, please ask the administrators. However, next your restoration own table without consensus will be treating as vandalism and automatically reverted and also you will be reported to the administrator (reason: edit warring for push own changes without consensus). If you want a table - ok, please discuss, and wait for consensus.
 * Returning to the case. First: the table is too large for main article of country. Spain has a separate article about climate - Climate of Spain, too extensive section of climate in main article of country is redundant and unfounded. Second: selective data of two or four months all the more do not make sense. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a copy of my answer to you on my talk page as a reference to other editors
 * Hello Once again I think you are mistaken.
 * Please be sure to check your facts. I recommend that you assume good faith before you accuse another editor!
 * As you can see the table was added in this edit by Alburzador Lommaren on 2 March 2015. Not me. Since then the article has been reviewed and edited by many users. That is the STATUSQUO in this case. Recently just before your deletion of the whole table, HardstyleGB (Not me) added two more rows to the table along with an explanation in the edit summary (see here and here). You did not just revert those changes, you removed the whole table erasing also the source information added by other editors months ago. That is a bold edit. I did not make any change to the table other than reverting your bold edit.
 * Your threat "next your restoration own table without consensus will be treating as vandalism and automatically reverted and also you will be reported to the administrator" its uncalled for and against our policies, as I never edited that table. All I did was revert your own edit following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle recommendations which you mistakenly broke.
 * I assume that you just made a mistake, so if you revert Spain to the STATUSQUO (that can be before or after HardstyleGB recent changes) I will be happy to continue the discussion with you and other interested editors on the talk page and I will treat your comments above just as a mistake. Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User who add table is User:Lommaren, not User:Alburzador. User Lommaren also add table to article of Morocco . Returning to the case: it does not matter whether it's you or Lommaren added table. Consequently, I not reverted your change but change by user Lommaren, does not matter who is author of table. The table is too large to main article of country and has too selective data of two or four months all the more do not make sense. If "bold" changes are controversial - I have the right to undo the changes. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   19:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello You are mistaken. You just did a vandalize edition did you realized it ? That table was in the article from a lot of time ago, and perhaps it exists in the article Climate of Spain, the Spain main article contains a section called climate so it can be filled with 6 examples of different climates inside Spain. In the section Climate of Spain you can see tens of examples, yes, but in the climate section of the main page of Spain there have to be some examples... or not ? This article had 4 examples and I just updated it with 2 more, to show the different types of climate inside Spain (desertic, subtropical, mediterranean, continental...) why you delete this ¿? I consider this a vandalization, really... You can't just revert the work of other people because you want it. Regards.--HardstyleGB (talk) 2:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Subtropical-man's [|recent edits are not vandalim]. It was a Bold edit which he explained on the edit summary, but since it was reverted (by me) he should not have reverted again to follow WP:BRD recommendations. If we all agree on that, we can now discuss how to best improve the article and when we reach a consensus make the changes or eliminate the table if it is so decided. I suggest that we all first choose our preferred option and then we can discuss them. Choices as I see it are:
 * Leave the table unchanged
 * Keep the table but with changes
 * Delete the table
 * My current opinion for the reasons I explained above would be to keep the table but remove columns for the months of April and October leaving just the maximum and minimum temperatures in mayor cities to address Subtropical-man's concern that they may be arbitrary. That way we still give the reader of the section a quick and graphical overview of the temperatures in the country.The size of the table would be in my opinion quite reasonable.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit is not vandalism, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and/or ask administrators.
 * Your post and your a description of changes is personal attack, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and/or ask administrators.
 * previously were reverts but according to the Wikipedia:Edit warring you caused serious edit warring and caused necessary to block the article. Before you did come here, there was no need to block the article. Congratulations.
 * You wrote: "In the section Climate of Spain you can see tens of examples, yes, but in the climate section of the main page of Spain there have to be some examples... or not ?" - not, there are over 200 countries and from the beginning of Wikipedia, articles about the countries did not have such tables.
 * You wrote: "This article had 4 examples and I just updated it with 2 more (...)" - yes, anyone can add any city because he believes that city should be in the table and the table will occupy half of the page.
 * You wrote: "(...) to show the different types of climate inside Spain (desertic, subtropical, mediterranean, continental...)" - so, why add both with desert/semi-desert: Almeria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife who both have rainfall ~200mm? Instead of Almeria, why not Bilbao which has a different climate?
 * You wrote: "(...) to show the different types of climate inside Spain (desertic, subtropical, mediterranean, continental...)" - so, why add both with desert/semi-desert: Almeria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife who both have rainfall ~200mm? Instead of Almeria, why not Bilbao which has a different climate?


 * Generally, should remove the table from the article because:
 * this table is too large for main article of country
 * other countries do not have such tables in main article. So. This table breaks the standards of Wikipedia.
 * selective data: only four months (why not 12)? or why so much - four months, why not two month (coldest and warmest)?
 * selection of cities is also debatable. Also, one user considers that city should be in a table, another user - not. In this case, they may be violated rules of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * Subtropical -man  talk   (en-2)   16:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel real bad that our actions have caused the article to get protected over something that is pretty trivial. I think it would be positive if we can all agree to not make changes until consensus is reached and in that case we could ask the administrator to lift the protection.

I will try to convice you to not fully remove the table by answering your arguments which I copied bellow:
 * 1. this table is too large for main article of country
 * There are countless examples of much larger tables included on the main articles for countries.
 * 2. other countries do not have such tables in main article. So. This table breaks the standards of Wikipedia.
 * Yes there are other countries besides Sweden and Morocco that also include tables with temperatures within their main articles. I pointed out Russia, Lithuania, Monaco or Philippines but there are more like for example Malta or Iceland that has two tables for two of its cities even though it has a separate climate article.
 * 3. selective data: only four months (why not 12)? or why so much - four months, why not two month (coldest and warmest)?
 * Currently there are four columns April, October, coldest and warmest. I personally think your argument about why choose those two months makes sense. I personally propose eliminating those two columns and leaving coldest and warmest as you said to give meaningful information at a glance.
 * 4. selection of cities is also debatable. Also, one user considers that city should be in a table, another user - not. In this case, they may be violated rules of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * I don't think WP:NPOV is violated, but maybe we could all agree on an objective criteria for inclusion. The first four cities are the largest ones in Spain and that was the previous criteria, but we could debate if it makes sense to find another objective criteria to allow other climates like the Canary islands to be included. for example by adding the largest city from each of the islands (Canary and Balearic) to the four largest from the peninsula).

Would that be acceptable? It would be great to also hear other editors.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Crystallizedcarbon, I wrote: "this table is too large for main article of country", you wrote/answer: "There are countless examples of much larger tables included on the main articles for countries" - this is not argument. If someone wants to kill one person and tries to argue: there are people that kill more people. This is not argument.
 * You wrote: " I pointed out Russia, Lithuania, Monaco or Philippines but there are more like for example Malta or Iceland that has two tables for two of its cities even though it has a separate climate article" - no, you partly wrong. Malta and Monaco have a weather infobox because there are very small countries and city-states. Even Lithuania has a weather infobox of shared average climate, not tables of several cities. By the way, these examples show standard weather infoboxes.
 * You wrote: "for example by adding the largest city from each of the islands (Canary and Balearic) to the four largest from the peninsula)" - for me better is: Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia - because there are three largest cities and everyone has a different climate. Additionally - Bilbao (subtropical/oceanic) and Santa Cruz or Las Palmas (Canary Islands) - subtropical semi-desert. But, I support remove the table from the article. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would prefer to have it in the Climate of Spain article, not because it breaks any rules or standards, but because the data is arguably a bit too detailed for a main article on a country; and because these types of tables tend to grow over time. Main articles on significant countries are large to begin with.  Spain is still a manageable size but it is not too far off from getting into unwieldy territory, anything we can do to proactively keep the article size down is helpful.  Vrac (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Would keeping the table but reducing it to Madrid Barcelona Valencia and Santa Cruz and also eliminating the months of April and October, keeping just maximum and minimum temperatures in the main article, as suggested by Subtropical-man, seem like an acceptable compromise? The data in the table would just be 4 by 2, small by any standard, and the information that the reader can get at a glance would be sourced, relevant and useful to the article. If this is acceptable we can request protection to be lifted.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse: to get the protection lifted, I hate to see an article of this importance frozen. Vrac (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Table has been in the article for over 3 months without it becoming an issue, so it appears to have general consensus(?) except one editor appears to have taken exception to it (but how many editors are there who are annoyed by it but not to such a degree as to take any action?). That said, i do not find it very helpful, it is too busy with too many figures.   Also, as I do not know very much about the geography of Spain, and as the table does not state the city locations, i had to consult the tiny map at the top of the article to find their location. Similar information could be provided with a few sentences of text expanding the information about the three regions and including their major city data. Also, on the subject of tables, where is the rainfall data, why not also have a table on that?(not that I am advocating one.) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected
I have full protected the article for 3 days until a consensus on what to do with this subsection forms. Since there have been no significant edits other than this in the last few days, I am confident that collateral damage will be limited, and it stops anyone being blocked. If people need to edit the article, please add an edit request or drop me a note on my talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, is everyone happy with Crystallizedcarbon's proposal, which is to take this diff restricted to Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Santa Cruz and only showing coldest and warmest months? It seems general opinion is that's a good enough consensus to balance the importance of information and being an unnecessary distraction for readers. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would go with it, or at least remove the protection, things seem to have gotten more civil. Vrac (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I also support remove the protection. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello It seems like we have reached a consensus. I think it will be safe to remove the protection and make the proposal as a starting point. My thanks to  Subtropical-man and other editors involved for the compromise. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, page is unlocked. Thanks for your patience, everyone! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem - I don't know why people get over-excited about weather and climate boxes but it seems we all do it :-/ <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015
Please change: "The origins of the Roman name Hispania, from which the modern name España was derived, are uncertain and are possibly unknown due to inadequate evidence."

To: "The origins of the Roman name Hispania, from which the modern name España was derived, is not clear due to inadequate evidence."

Reason: "uncertain and ... possibly unknown" is redundant and vague.

Yaymatt (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Superficy at least 510 000 km²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(area) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.195.173 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 one external links on Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141125021617/http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/ai281209-aec.html to http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/ai281209-aec.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130325101204/http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es:80/IDIOMAS/9/Espana/LeyFundamental/index.htm to http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/IDIOMAS/9/Espana/LeyFundamental/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080629000351/http://www.ucalgary.ca:80/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/Imperial.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/Imperial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326021746/http://www.trobat.com/recursos/estatut-valencia.pdf to http://www.trobat.com/recursos/estatut-valencia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120074716/http://www2.gobiernodecanarias.org:80/tuestatuto/novedades.html to http://www2.gobiernodecanarias.org/tuestatuto/novedades.html#pre
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090711090828/http://www.caib.es:80/webcaib/govern_illes/estatut_autonomia/doc/estatut2007.ca.pdf to http://www.caib.es/webcaib/govern_illes/estatut_autonomia/doc/estatut2007.ca.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051213211855/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071212030303/http://www.casareal.es:80/laCorona/laCorona-iden-idweb.html to http://www.casareal.es/laCorona/laCorona-iden-idweb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116015103/http://www.frontpagemag.com:80/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3E2579A7-6002-4048-97BB-46679C5D8A88 to http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3E2579A7-6002-4048-97BB-46679C5D8A88
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100607172216/http://www.forbes.com:80/feeds/afx/2008/05/25/afx5046256.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/05/25/afx5046256.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080726044741/http://www.bde.es/informes/be/boleco/coye.pdf to http://www.bde.es/informes/be/boleco/coye.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111214141437/http://www.renovablesmadeinspain.es/noticia/pagid/205/titulo/La%20e%C3%B3lica%20en%20Espa%C3%B1a%20bate%20de%20nuevo%20su%20marca%20de%20potencia%20instant%C3%A1nea/len/en/ to http://www.renovablesmadeinspain.es/noticia/pagid/205/titulo/La%20e%C3%B3lica%20en%20Espa%C3%B1a%20bate%20de%20nuevo%20su%20marca%20de%20potencia%20instant%C3%A1nea/len/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016045634/http://webbshop.cm.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Energimyndigheten&view=default&cat=/Broschyrer&id=e0a2619a83294099a16519a0b5edd26f to http://webbshop.cm.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Energimyndigheten&view=default&cat=/Broschyrer&id=e0a2619a83294099a16519a0b5edd26f
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110202103102/http://blog.raileurope.com:80/high-speed-rail-news/the-need-for-speed-high-speed-rail-in-europe-do-you-speak-spanish to http://blog.raileurope.com/high-speed-rail-news/the-need-for-speed-high-speed-rail-in-europe-do-you-speak-spanish
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080726044741/http://www.ine.es/prodyser/pubweb/anuario06/anu06_02demog.pdf to http://www.ine.es/prodyser/pubweb/anuario06/anu06_02demog.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GDP #3
10% of total mundial PIB with 550 000 000 natives spanishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.85.1 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wording error in sentence on gender discrimination
There is an error in this sentence, which causes it to say the opposite of the intended meaning:

"The Spanish administration has promoted gender-based discrimination by approving gender equality legislation in 2007 aimed at providing equality between genders in Spanish political and economic life (Gender Equality Act)."

This should be:

"The Spanish administration has promoted gender equality by approving gender equality legislation in 2007 aimed at providing equality between genders in Spanish political and economic life (Gender Equality Act)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorbonia (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, thank you for pointing out the error. Feel free to make non-contentious corrections to articles yourself when you spot any errors <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  22:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence misleading on territories
The opening sentence states: "....officially the Kingdom of Spain (Spanish: Reino de España), is a sovereign state largely located on the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe, with a small section of its territory located on the African continent."

This is misleading because "a small section of its territory" implies that the territory on the north African coast is a single territory, when it is in fact made up of a number of tiny territories: Ceuta has an area of just 18.5 square kilometres and Melilla has only 12.3 square kilometres and the Plazas de soberanía have a total area of less than one square kilometre. The sentence fails to mention the far more important island chains where over three million people live: the Balearic Islands which have nearly 5000 square kilometres and the Canary Islands which have over 7000 square kilometres. The opening sentence would be more accurate if it was changed to:

" Spain.....officially the Kingdom of Spain (Spanish: Reino de España), is a sovereign state mostly located on the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe, with archipelagos in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea and several small territories on and near the north African coast." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.157.163 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed change seems entirely reasonable to me <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  00:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if somebody made the suggested change please. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.160.161 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ In the absence of any further comment I have made the suggested change to the first sentence, with consequential adjustments to following text <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I in Spain the most common language is Spanish. ldrina 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldrina123 (talk • contribs)

This Article needs a Media Section
This article - as do nearly all of the general national articles - requires a Media Section to accompany its other components. Isn't there a standardized format for writing generic articles on nations? If it is not now, it ought to be included as a part of the standardized formula for composing national overview articles... Regards ... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Colonization
Colonization is NOT an exclusively modern European event and the colonialism article should really be called Modern European Colonialism.

Here is the online Collins definitions of colonization. Note how it means that colonization of the Americas began many thousands of years ago, long before even the Vikings failed medieval attempt.

Collins online definition of colonization/colonization Note the bolded definitions -


 * 1.(politics) the action or process of setting up colonies  [ie] ⇒ the European colonization of America
 * 2.(ecology) the action or process of setting up colonies of animals or plants  ⇒ the colonization of rocks

colonize or colonise (ˈkɒləˌnaɪz Pronunciation for  ) Definitions verb
 * 1.to send colonists to or establish a colony in (an area)
 * 2.to settle in (an area) as colonists
 * 3.(transitive) to transform (a community) into a colony.(politics) the action or process of setting up colonies  ⇒ the European colonization of America
 * 2.(ecology) the action or process of setting up colonies of animals or plants  ⇒ the colonization of rocks

colonize or colonise (ˈkɒləˌnaɪz Pronunciation for  )

And here are definitions of "colony": Note the bolded definition -
 * 1.a body of people who settle in a country distant from their homeland but maintain ties with it
 * 2.the community formed by such settlers
 * 3.a subject territory occupied by a settlement from the ruling state
 * 4.a.a community of people who form a national, racial, or cultural minority  ⇒ an artists' colony, the American colony in London
 * b.the area itself

These sorts of activities have been practised all around the world for a long time before modern European colonization. When the Vikings and Spanish arrived in the Americas there were chiefdoms, kingdoms and empires over the entire area and they had been practicing colonisation themselves for a long time. Read the first sentence in the History of colonialism article: The historical phenomenon of colonisation is one that stretches around the globe and across time, including such disparate peoples as the Hittites, the Incas and the British. The original meanings of the Latin root colere are: to inhabit, cultivate, frequent practice, tend, guard, respect.

And please stop inserting "influential" in front of "global empire" because that implies there were UN-influential global empires, which is plainly ridiculous. The fact that "Spain" expanded into a global empire which left a legacy of over 500 million Spanish speakers says more than enough about the "influence" of the Spanish empire without the illogical use of the adjective "influential". Trust the reader's intelligence. Provocateur (talk)

You all don't make sense but then again I am only eleven ldrina 23:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldrina123 (talk • contribs)


 * I would have to agree with the above editor and their comments on the need to revise the title/subtitle to reference Modern European Colonization since the Age of Discovery that Europeans have so boldly appropriated for themselves is really just about European discovery in the Modern Era and does not account for the many epics of discovery that certainly form the human species as we now know it... It is extraordinarily Euro-centric... Colonization was the basis for the emergence of the Roman Empire and before that the Athenian Empire and a significant number of settlements by the Arabs in their colonizations of Africa and other parts of Asia, as well as the Chinese ancestors who settled Japan and colonized the American hemispheres... In essence, the early Africans of homo sapien sapien ancestry that left Africa for the Near East and colonized the rest of the Earth's landmass, begin the human movement to colonize the Earth... Regards Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

New map for Spain !
Here:

http://www.déu.com/España.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.246.30 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Health system
Why is there a section devoted to Education and not a section devoted to the Spanish Health system with basic information like life expectancy or infant mortality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:50B4:F449:9CAF:80A (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is simply because no-one has yet contributed such a section. You are of course welcome to do so if you have reliable published information to hand, and links could be added to Health care in Spain and Spanish National Health System <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

........... I cannot do it myself, but invite other users to do so.

Here is an article to begin with. It is in Spanish though: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2015/11/03/actualidad/1446575605_362967.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:8121:901E:5C5:D3C2 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Languages
The article defines Spanish as the "national" language, which is inadequate since the Spanish Consitution recognizes several historical nationalities. Catalan, Galician and the Basque country are defined as the languages "proper" to Galicia, the Basque Country, Navarre, Catalonia, the Valencian Community and the Balearic Island by their Statutes of Autonomy. They are also recognized as co-official in the Spanish Consitution. The status of "recognized regional language" is incorrect, they should appear alongside Spanish as official languages that are fully implemented in the media, the education system and public administration. Besides, the Catalan government has recognized Aranese, and there is some degree of protectioon of Aragonese and Asturian-Leonese-Extremenian.

I suggest something like.... Official languages: Spanish (across Spain), Catalan (co-official in Catalonia, the Valencian Community and Balearic Islands), Galician (co-official in Galicia), Basque (co-official in the Basque Country and Navarre). Protected languages: Aranese, Aragonese, Asturian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.212.122 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

València
I was wondering, last week the major of Valencia officially announced that the city's name in Valencian/Catalan "València", with an È, would become the only official name. Does that mean that, the same as cities like Córdoba or Gijón that maintain the accent in this Wikipedia page, Valencia should be respelled with an accent, as València. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.45.206 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is reference to a so-called "Kingdom of Catalonia", which has never existed
Hello, a very well written page, congratulations. Only a correction regarding a sentence: Only the Navarre Kingdom and Aragon Kingdom existed. Therefore, the sentence: "These areas were to grow into the kingdoms of Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia" should be corrected to "These areas were to grow into the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon" As an additional proof point, the sentence points to bibliography reference "24". This bibliography reference is titled only with the "Kingdom of Aragon". Congratulations for the work. A great job! Carlos J. Saez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.143.212.230 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for bringing it up.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Autonomous communities
There's no mention in the introduction that Spain is a highly decentralized state that recognizes different nationalities and is formed by 17 autonomous communities and 2 autonomous cities. Autonomous communities have one of the highest levels of self-government in Europe, with full control over education and healthcare as well as their own executive, judiciary and legislative institutions. The creation of autonomous communities was the main political development during transition to democracy (Spain used to be a unitary dictatorship). The Spanish page mentions autonomous communities in the first paragraph of the introduction. Similarly, wikipedia describes Germany as a federal republic formed by 16 constituent states right in the introduction. Also, the reference to the four co-official languages Catalan, Galician, Basque and Occitan as "regional" is unfortunate. These languages have official status whilst Asturian and Aragonese don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quico mm (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Civil War
All sources agree that the number of serious atrocities (i.e. systematic rape, mass murder of civilians etc...) was far far higher on the nationalist side as well as being a matter of policy. There is no academic debate on this issue. Until someone can provide a serious source disputing the sourced statement provided. It is sourced with at least six or seven expert historians on the Spanish civil war Spanish and foreign. I hope this ends this discussion.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, this is a controversial issue, and a consensus should be reached before changing the article. You did not provide url links to the sources you cited, but I searched a few of them in google books and found they mention atrocities by both sides. The only objective figure I could find is the number of casualties attributed to each side. It seems clear that there where more victims in the republican side. As far as the number of atrocities commited by the other side the list is also daunting )(according to the sources you cited) inhuman and systematic torture by the SIM using soviet technics (beatings of prisoners with rubber piping, hot and cold water treatment, sleep depravation of naked prisoners by making them lay in specially design cells with pointy bricks, mock executions, systematic cleansing of the priests and nuns burning of churchs rapes mass murder of civilians and a long etc...
 * Nothing to be proud of for either side. There are articles on Red Terror (Spain) and White Terror (Spain). And as you can in Spanish_Civil_War the data is presented for the reader to make up its own mind, without making conclusions. According to WP:OR I think it is not our place to determine how to add up or compare atrocities or to side with any particular versión. In any case, I ask one more time that you let the article on its current state until a consensus can be reached. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Crystallizedcarbon. No, you seem to misunderstand the concept of WP:OR. The sources specifically and explicitly support the statement of the sentence: That there were far more atrocities committed on the nationalist side than on the red side. No available source denies this fact. There is no controversy on the matter except insofar as, in Spain, some people sympathize with one side or another. There is no academic debate on this matter, which is crystal clear and closed. Conflicting political sympathies within Spain are irrelevant to wikipedia which is an encyclopedia. In my opinion, you are attempting to impose, as one other editor pointed out recently, a false balance. I cannot see the difference between this and censoring the article on the Champions League where it says that "Real Madrid has won the most championships - eleven times" to, "Multiple teams won the cup a few times." because Barça fans may find Madrid winning the cup so many times controversial.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing to the discussion. I would appreciate it if you would show me a link to the sources that state that conclusion in the same terms that you propose for the article. If neither of the other three articles (Red Terror (Spain), White Terror (Spain) or Spanish_Civil_War) state that conclusion I don´t see the need to include it in a section that is supposed to be a brief summary of the event. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you mistook me for Asilah? Because I only just came back to this page and you said here that he was edit warring. I think a problem with the article as it is is that it kind of downplays the nationalists. They won, yes. History is written by the victors, yes. But it was well known that Spain was borderline fascist until he finally died in 1975, after which democracy had to be virtually rebuilt. Also, it would be better not to say anything about atrocities at all if the alternative is "both committed atrocities". The difference was that Franco not only had direct help from the Nazis, he and his subordinates tried to wipe out the entire "left". This included, according to Paul Preston, feminists, vegetarians, unionists, Republican officials and schoolteachers. History that a former government has tried hard to rewrite/suppress (see: Pact of forgetting) should be carefully scrutinized on Wikipedia. See also White Terror (Spain) for why we can generally say a WP:FALSEBALANCE is entirely in the wrong here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I don't follow why you think I mistook you for Asilah, the edit summary says he did the edit. I agree with your proposal to remove the mention of atrocities if there are no objections by other editors I think is the best way to solve such a controversial issue.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing such an absolutely undeniable and well sourced statement. I don't see any reason for doing it except as a method of censoring an uncomfortable fact. Since we are unlikely to agree on this, I propose a RfC.

Here is an extract from the article (White Terror) you have directed me to for information.

Nationalist atrocities, which the authorities ordered to eradicate any trace of "leftism" in Spain, were common, ideological practice. The notion of a limpieza (cleansing) was an essential part of the right-wing rebel strategy, and the process of assassination began immediately after the nationalists had captured an area. In the rebel-controlled zone, the nationalist military, the Civil Guard, and the fascist Falange carried out the violence in name of the regime, which was ideologically legitimized by the Roman Catholic Church.

Historians of the Spanish Civil War generally agree that the death toll of the White Terror was greater than the death toll of the Red Terror, because the White Terror occurred as a matter of formal Nationalist policy. The assassinations continued until 1945, six years after the end of Spanish Civil War in 1939. Most estimates of the Red Terror's death toll range from 38,000 to 72,344 people; these estimates include, among others, the collective work Víctimas de la guerra civil (Victims of the Civil War), which reaches 50,000 people; Hugh Thomas (55,000 people); and Julián Casanova (fewer than 60,000 people). Meanwhile, estimates of the White Terror's death toll, such as Paul Preston's 200,000 people, range from 150,000 to 400,000 people.

According to Stanley Payne:

"During the first months of the fighting most of the deaths did not come from combat on the battlefield but from political executions in the rear&mdash;the 'Red' and 'White' terrors. In some cases the murder of political opponents began more or less spontaneously, but from the very beginning there was always a certain degree of organization, and nearly all the killings after the first few days were carried out by organized groups." There were some elements in common between Republican and Nationalist repression. Large numbers were killed in the course of removals of prisoners from prisons, the so-called sacas, and many others were killed after being "taken for a ride" (paseo). Most of the victims of these sacas and paseos were executed by death squads stemming from the trade unions and political party militias (CNT, UGT and PCE militias among the republicans and Falange and Carlist militias among the Nationalists), which were easily infiltrated by gangs of criminals. Many executions were justified as a reprisal for aerial bombings and many others were denounced out of envy and personal hatred. Nevertheless, there were significant differences between the two Terrors as was emphasized by Francisco Partaloa, prosecutor of the Madrid High Court of Justice (Tribunal Supremo de Madrid) and Queipo de Llano's friend, who observed the repression first in the Republican and then in the Nationalist side:

I had the opportunity of being a witness to the repression in both areas. In the Nationalist side it was planned, methodical, cold. As they did not trust the people the authorities imposed their will by means of terror, committing atrocities in order to achieve their aim. Atrocities also took place in the Popular Front zone; that was something which both areas had in common. But the main difference was that in the Republican zone the crimes were carried out by the populace in moments of passion, not by the authorities. The latter always tried to stop them. The assistance that I received from the Spanish Republican authorities in order to flee to safety, is only one of the many examples. But this was not the case in the Nationalist zone.

Historians such as Helen Graham, Paul Preston, Antony Beevor, Gabriel Jackson, Hugh Thomas, and Ian Gibson have concurred that the mass executions behind the Nationalist lines were organized and approved by the Nationalist rebel authorities, while the executions behind the Republican lines were the result of the breakdown of the republican state and the ensuing chaos:

"Though there was much wanton killing in rebel Spain, the idea of the limpieza, the 'cleaning up' of the country from the evils which had overtaken it, was a disciplined policy of the new authorities and a part of their programme of regeneration. In republican Spain, most of the killing was the consequence of anarchy, the outcome of a national breakdown, and not the work of the state; even though some political parties in some cities abetted the enormities, and even though some of those responsible ultimately rose to positions of authority."

Asilah1981 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said before even though there is no conclusive evidence on the real death toll it is generally accepted that it was higher due to Franco's represión than to the Republican side but even on that subject look at the wording used (from Red Terror):

Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 110,000. The 'red terror' according to Beevor killed 38,000".[45] According to Julio de la Cueva, the toll of the Red Terror was 72,344 lives.[12] Hugh Thomas and Paul Preston said that the death toll was 55,000,[46][47] and the Spanish historian Julian Casanova said that the death toll was fewer than 60,000.[48] Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that".[49] In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone.[50] Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war.[51]


 * A death toll is more objective concept than atrocities, and notice how carefully the paragraph was written to include different views and meet WP:NPOV. Adding the text you propose with a subjective matter as it is the atrocities (how to count them, what is considered more atrocious etc.). If there are no sources that specifically mention that one side is responsible for "more atrocities" than the other using that wording we would be violating WP:OR, and even if we found some sources not citing different views on the matter (they exist) raises issues of neutrality.
 * You chose to paste content from the atrocities performed by the rebel side if we are looking to be neutral we should not ignore what is also written on the red terror article about the other side:

According to recent research, the Republican death squads were heavily staffed by members of the Soviet secret police, or NKVD. According to author Donald Rayfield, "Stalin, Yezhov, and Beria distrusted Soviet participants in the Spanish war. Military advisors like Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, journalists like Koltsov were open to infection by the heresies, especially Trotsky's, prevalent among the Republic's supporters. NKVD agents sent to Spain were therefore keener on abducting and murdering anti-Stalinists among Republican leaders and International Brigade commanders than on fighting Francisco Franco. The defeat of the Republic, in Stalin's eyes, was caused not by the NKVD's diversionary efforts, but by the treachery of the heretics."[31]

*Murder of 6,832[7] members of the Catholic clergy and religious institutes as well as the killing thousands of lay people. *The parish priest of Navalmoral was put through a parody of Christ's Crucifixion. At the end of his suffering the militiamen debated whether actually to crucify him or just shoot him. They finished with a shooting.[65] *The Bishop of Jaén and his sister were murdered in front of two thousand celebrating spectators by a special executioner, a woman nicknamed La Pecosa, the freckled one.[66] *Although rare, it was reported that some nuns were raped by militiamen before they were shot.[65] However, according to Antony Beevor, the 1946 nationalist indictment of Republican atrocities contained no evidence for any such incident.[67] *The priest of Ciempozuelos was thrown into a corral with fighting bulls where he was gored into unconsciousness. Afterwards one of his ears was cut off to imitate the feat of a matador after a successful bullfight.[68] *In Ciudad Real, a priest was castrated and his sexual organs stuffed in his mouth.[68] *There are accounts of the people connected to the Catholic Church being forced to swallow rosary beads, being thrown down mine shafts and of priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive.[69] *An eyewitness to some of the persecution, Cristina de Arteaga, who was soon to become a nun, commented that they "attacked the Salesians, people who are totally committed to the poor. There was a rumor that nuns were giving poisoned sweets to children. Some nuns were grabbed by the hair in the streets. One had her hair pulled out...".[58] *On the night of July 19, 1936 alone, 50 churches were burned.[70] In Barcelona, out of the 58 churches, only the Cathedral was spared, and similar events occurred almost everywhere in Republican Spain.[71] *All the Catholic churches in the Republican zone were closed, but the attacks were not limited to Catholic churches, as synagogues were also pillaged and closed, though some small Protestant churches were spared.[72] *The Bishop of Almeria was murdered while working on a history of Toledo. His card index file was destroyed.[66] *In Madrid, a nun was killed because she refused a proposition of marriage from a militiaman who helped storm her convent.[65]


 * And the torture employed by the SIM. If you read all of the above, you will see that neither side can be proud. I don´t think it is our place to bring all of this to the main article of Spain. On our transition to democracy we chose to start over. I don´t think it is the role of an encyclopedia to take sides on such a controversial issue. I myself as a Spaniard am ashamed of the past behavior of both sides and also of those who seem to be trying to resurrect that hatred with political reasons. I am not implying in any way that that is your motivation just trying to justify my involvement in this matter. If you are still not convinced by my arguments you are welcome to open a RfC. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon I am not taking sides in the conflict. If you want to know my personal political position, I think that had the Stalinists taken over in a victorious republic, the situation would be as bad, if not worse than it was in terms of civilian deaths. But that is not what happened and I think it would be a disservice to historical reality to put the Republic at the same level as the Nationalist side in the way killings were performed. I don't want to "whitewash" the "reds", as you may suspect, but this is historical fact, and the republican government was not the NKVD or the Checas. Can you explain a bit more succinctly what it is that you disagree with from the sentence? (I don't want to debate all of the details of the Spanish civil war).Asilah1981 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarify: I never proposed to remove it altogether, that's the opposite of what I want. I said "Also, it would be better not to say anything about atrocities at all if the alternative is "both committed atrocities".", with which I meant that I'd even prefer removing that sentence over giving it a sense of false balance. But in my edit I clarified that I believe too much of the Francoist past is left unmentioned. There is no shame for a country's people to admit mistakes of the past, since they had no part in it. The key difference was that the White Terror was organized and very often justified both by Spain and the Allied, whereas the Red Terror was unorganized and only loosely connected. Another difference is that it was Franco who subsequently ruled the country for over 30 years. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello I do appreciate your proposal. I can see that you are trying to reach a consensus. The text you propose is certainly an improvement, WP:OR has been addressed. But I still don't think that it fully meets our WP:NPOV. Let me elaborate: If you read this text

Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that".[49] In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone.[50] Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war.[51]


 * You can see that the numbers vary greatly and according to one of its sources of Nationalist repression would be a higher value than some of the estimated victims during the dictatorship. I know many say the opposite, but my point is that when there are different sourced versions in conflicting issues neutrality mandates that all points should be represented with proper attribution as it is the case in the text above. Now adding all of that detail to the main article for Spain I think is not appropriate, specially since we have the civil war and the white and red terror articles. I will not revert your edit since I can see your edit was clearly done in good faith, but I do ask you to please restore the previous version yourself until we can find a solution that meets our policies and then change the article. I hope that is acceptable to you. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello I feel that in order to not violate our various neutral point of view rules the text on this matter would have to be much longer. I think that there is a more than sufficient level of detail on the article of civil war and white and red terror. So that is why your proposal sounded like it could be a good solution. I am ashamed of the that part of my countries past. We can´t be proud of the actions of neither one of the sides I don´t think it should be erased of forgotten it is important to remember what happened so we don´t repeat it but I feel the articles on the civil war are the proper place for it. Nowadays some people like to idealize and defend or justify the actions of one side over the other for political reasons when neither one is defendible. By ensuring that our neutral point of view policies are followed we also prevent the use of our encyclopedia as a tool for the means of either side (left or right extremists). Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon Your argument that "the article on the civil war is the proper place for it", seems like a valid one to me. I agree to a point. However, I can't agree with you about varying estimates. The disparity is without question, not just because one side won and the other lost but because there was a centrally organized policy of mass murder decided by one side and not by the other (the Republican government actually attempted to restrain civilian killings). I am pretty sure that you are a native Spanish speaker and can find all the well sourced information in the Spanish wikipedia. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctimas_de_la_Guerra_Civil_Espa%C3%B1ola#Represi.C3.B3n_en_ambas_zonas

40 years of dictatorship following the war made sure that no nationalist deaths were exaggerated and not one forgotten and that many republican deaths were hidden and minimized. I don't come from a "revanchista" mentality, I won't push it further, but I do think that when non-Spanish academics have written books called "the Spanish holocaust" referring specifically to mass murder committed by one side, it leaves us to think whether portraying it as a balanced conflict really is the right approach. I leave other wikipedians to take it from here.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello As editors it is not our role to interpret history. We can only add what sources say, but we must follow WP:NPOV That policy dictates that when there are conflicting information from different reliable sources they all should be presented with proper attribution to let the reader make up his/her own mind. Besides the view you included you can see that another source places Red Terror deaths at over 100.000 and as you can read at paracuellos massacre there are strong evidence (no proof) that the government and the communist party were directly involved in that massacre of political and religious prisoners. I do not want to get more into this subject or defend one side or the other and get into an argument of which side was more terrible. The proper way to present the information to follow WP:NPOV is as it is already done in the specific articles I cite again:

"Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that".[49] In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone.[50] Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war.[51]"


 * That is the only way to meet our policy. you have just included the view from one particular source and one analysis without attribution and without adding other conflicting sources. It is not the way to do it. The matter is not trivial for the reasons I gave before. And I don´t think that section is the place to add all the information needed to ensure neutrality. So I ask you again to please revert the text to the status quo version and if you still think your edit should be added then please open a RfC afterwards. As I told you before in the spirit of reaching a reasoned solution I will not revert your edit, but since I think it violates our policy if it is not removed I would have to bring the issue to the attention of admins. They have more experience and can decide if it is OK or if it does indeed, as I think, violate our policy. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

CrystallizedcarbonLook, you can revert it. Best leave it at atrocities on both sides and detail is dicussed on relevant article. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Thank you very much for been so constructive. If you need my help in the future you know where to find me. Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rajoy is president
Rajoy is president and not minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.16.1 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. The title that he holds is Presidente del Gobierno, President of Government, e.g. head of government (as opposed to head of state). In the English language, heads of government in parliamentary systems, whether in the UK, Spain, Norway, Denmark, are prime ministers. Heads of state who are not in any legislature, such as Obama and Putin, are presidents Valentina Cardoso (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Koppen Climatic Map
P.18 of | this link has a correct Koppen climatic map of Spain. Up until now all of the attempts to make one have been way off the mark. Could someone please upload it to wikipedia commons and put it in this article? Other maps are included such as rainfall, average temperature etc...Asilah1981 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Why doesnt it say spain is a european country and spanish is a european langauge I am confued? prefix:Talk:Spain/
Is Spain in Europe and is Spanish a European language and why doesn't it say that in the spain article?????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.155.150 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First sentence of article: ...is a sovereign state largely located on the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe... <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016
Spelling correction.

Second to last sentence under History->Liberalism and nation state "Victoria Kent or Dolores Ibarruri were some of the first female deputies and Federica Montseny one of the first femlae ministers in the world." should be "Victoria Kent or Dolores Ibarruri were some of the first female deputies and Federica Montseny one of the first female ministers in the world."

Cheers. 31.204.154.174 (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅, thank you for the notice. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Religion
The Catholic religion is not the only one taught in Spanish schools. Islam, Judaism and evangelical Christianity are also taught when there are enough students since 1992 when Spain made an agreement with these religions. --Pablo san44 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Pablo san44 and thank you for your suggestion. I would like you to clarify what you mean by "Spain made an agreement with these religions", and give us a reference to a source where this information has been published. As far as I know, none of these religions has a single centre of power which a country could make an agreement with <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  and thank you for your comment. I clarify the point that you don not understand: All religions have representatives and leaders in the countries in which they are present. These representatives establish agreements with governments. In the case of Spain the recognized representatives are the following: With all these organizations Spain established cooperation agreements in 1992 that allowed, among other things, the teaching of these religions in all schools in Spain. The references to this are the spanish laws about these agreements, which you can consult, although of course they are in Spanish: All these laws allow such things like these religions can have representatives in prisons, can build centers of worship and can be in education through teachers chosen by the religious organization itself but paid by the Spanish government, with the same conditions as teachers of Catholic religion, which is certainly the most represented in Spanish education, although it is not the only one. --Pablo san44 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Islamic Commission of Spain (in Spanish "Comisión Islámica de España").
 * Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain (in Spanish "Federación de Comunidades Judías de España").
 * Federation of Religious Evangelism Entities of Spain (in Spanish "Federación de Entidades Religiosas Evangélicas de España").
 * Law 24/1992 of 10 November (https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1992-24853).
 * Law 25/1992 of 10 November (https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1992-24854).
 * Law 26/1992 of 10 November (https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1992-24855).
 * Thank you for your detailed explanation. I have amended the Religion section accordingly <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  10:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  for your interest and for accepting my suggestions. I'm glad that I can also help improve Wikipedia in English from Spain. --Pablo san44 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Constitutional Flag is wrong
According to the spanish constitution of 1978 the spanish flag is composed of three horizontal stripes (Red, Yellow, Red) being the yellow one twice as big as the red ones. The coat of arms is another symbol that is (officially and legally) outside from the flag although most times this coat can be found in the flag. In the picture we see in the wikipedia page the coat of arms is in the flag, I ask you to change to the version explained in the constitution.

Here you have the flag without coat of arms on it: http://www.vexilologia.org/gifs/besp.gif

Here the spanish constitution in english as uploaded by the goverment, look at page 11 for the flag specifications: http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/Hist_Normas/Norm/const_espa_texto_ingles_0.pdf

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.40.228.163 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This article on the broad topic of Spain does not discuss the flag beyond showing the image in the infobox, below which the word "flag" links to the detailed article on Flag of Spain. The latter article covers both variants and reproduces the relevant text from the Spanish constitution <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Population comparison
Spain is the most populated country in the western of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.161.252 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not even close. Western Europe's 3 largest countries by population:

UK 65 million, France 64 million, Spain 46 million

Expulsion
For incidents like expulsion and statements like jews etc were expelled it is completely impossib;e to expell every such individual and so sources need to be given as to how many were expelled etc also sources need to be given for some statements that are historically impossible to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.63.124 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the name Hispania
Who said the Phoenician-Semetic origin of the name "Hispania" is most likely? This is not a popularity contest, there is no evidence. There is a good chance that the Phoenician traders picked up the name in their travels across the Med to Spain or somewhere else. Nobody really knows and web sites are not an acceptable citation source for Wikipedia (Acceptable sources). Can somebody please remove those links and the claim that a Phoenician-Semetic origin is the most generally acceptable. Any claim requires good evidence or it's just a hypothesis.


 * Hi, I suggest you sign after editing the talk page, even if its with an IP address. There are multiple theories on the exact original meaning of the term Hispania, however most academic sources agree that it is phoenician/semitic in origin, even if theories on actual meaning diverge (island of rabbits (Bochart), northern island (Trigueros) etc..). The most recent phoenician etymology proposed is "Island of Metal forgers" (Cunchillos & Zamora). There are other theories linking to other languages but these are more speculative and less widely accepted. I suggest you examine sources, it is widely discussed and properly sourced in the Spanish wiki if you speak that language. Asilah1981 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just read it, seems to be the origin of the English Wikipedia's article. Maybe if "considered the most likely origin" would be more to the point of emphasizing there is no certainty among the theories, though it seems the most likely. Regardless, we shouldn't be citing websites, they're ok for external links but not inline citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.74.69 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed and yes sources should be transferred here from Spanish wiki. Don't forget to sign! :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017
Caption under the picture for "They shall not pass!" The word "será" means "will be" so the translation is lacking. Not as concerned about whether they use the first and third lines or all three lines from the banner, just that they lines used are translated correctly.

Please, change "They shall not pass!, Madrid graveyard of fascism" to "They shall not pass!, Madrid will be the graveyard of fascism". 70.89.244.46 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for the suggestion <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  00:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017
Please may I edit your page (Spain)? Thanks, Dinglebat500 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —   IVORK  Discuss 07:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Section on Felipe Gonzalez government in history section too limited
Considering the government of Felipe Gonzalez was the longest and most transformative period of Spain, it is strange it is summarized in 2 sentences. It should be considerably expanded, particularly in the light of how much detail is given to more recent history.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? isn't there a link to it? The history section here is already way too long and this is not a history article. And it's wrong that this is under the subtitle "Restoration of democracy and Globalization" because anybody with any real historical knowledge knows that Spanish "globalization" began in the sixteenth century, when it established commercial links between Europe, the Americas and Asia.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Spain. 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/20110720002802/http://www.mir.es/SGACAVT/derecho/ac/ac13021992.html to http://www.mir.es/SGACAVT/derecho/ac/ac13021992.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/blackdeath.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021124653/http://www.movimientoeuropeo.org/area-prensa/actividades/Contubernio-Munich-50-aniversario.php to http://www.movimientoeuropeo.org/area-prensa/actividades/Contubernio-Munich-50-aniversario.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429033726/http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf to http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503183729/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/005/34/IMG/NR000534.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/005/34/IMG/NR000534.pdf?OpenElement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106210622/http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=60&offer=GURU001 to http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=60&offer=GURU001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124024231/http://europeanfutureenergyforum.com/renewable-energy-news/spain-becomes-solar-power-world-leader to http://www.europeanfutureenergyforum.com/renewable-energy-news/spain-becomes-solar-power-world-leader
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webbshop.cm.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Energimyndigheten&view=default&cat=%2FBroschyrer&id=e0a2619a83294099a16519a0b5edd26f
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721092807/http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=34 to http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=34
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ine.es/inebase/cgi/axi?AXIS_PATH=%2Finebase%2Ftemas%2Ft20%2Fe245%2Fp04%2Fa2005%2Fl0%2F&FILE_AXIS=00000010.px&CGI_DEFAULT=%2Finebase%2Ftemas%2Fcgi.opt&COMANDO=SELECCION&CGI_URL=%2Finebase%2Fcgi%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906072250/https://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-06072010-AP/EN/3-06072010-AP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-06072010-AP/EN/3-06072010-AP-EN.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/AXTELL01.ART
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425020103/http://esa.un.org/wup2009/unup/index.asp?panel=2 to http://esa.un.org/wup2009/unup/index.asp?panel=2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eumap.org/reports/2002/eu/international/sections/spain/2002_m_spain.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/295183%2Cfinancial-crisis-reveals-vulnerability-of-spains-immigrants--feature.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ine.es/prodyser/pubweb/anuario06/anu06_02demog.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14628564/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819191607/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NK-06-001/EN/KS-NK-06-001-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NK-06-001/EN/KS-NK-06-001-EN.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ine.es/inebase/cgi/um?M=%2Ft20%2Fe245%2Fp08%2F&O=pcaxis&N=&L=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018081322/https://www.planderetornovoluntario.es/index_uno.html to http://www.planderetornovoluntario.es/index_uno.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117063355/http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx to http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117063355/http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx to http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116020349/http://www.jgpa.es/portal.do?TR=C&IDR=45 to http://www.jgpa.es/portal.do?TR=C&IDR=45
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/spain

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) 17:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Innacuracy Under History Section
Noticed it says Spain's empire was the largest overseas empire for three centuries. This is innacurate. By the late 1700s/early 1800s the British Empire had India, Australia, Canada and others. Would like to talk about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.21.209 (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

https://www.google.com.af/search?q=map+of+british+empire+in+1800&tbm=isch&imgil=2po0nsHY677FYM%253A%253BIeVvF-dmKBuAjM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.bbc.co.uk%25252Fhistory%25252Fbritish%25252Fempire_seapower%25252Fbritain_empire_01.shtml&source=iu&pf=m&fir=2po0nsHY677FYM%253A%252CIeVvF-dmKBuAjM%252C_&usg=__SwFd18g9uFDxvhZ6xF5DOZpArnU%3D&biw=979&bih=472&ved=0ahUKEwjjn4KRid3TAhWNKVAKHf7SDqAQyjcIKw&ei=erMOWeP6II3TwAL-pbuACg#imgrc=2po0nsHY677FYM:Asilah1981 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you included a link to a map. Whats your point?

Areas near the poles are stretched in a Mercator's map which makes Russia look larger than it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.119.54 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like a Mercator's but if it were so, that would exaggerate the area of the British empire compared to the Spanish, whereas the map is presumably placed here to implicitly support the case that the Spanish empire at that time was the bigger <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're right Noyster, it's likely an equirectangular projection, which keeps north-south distances consistent but greatly stretches the east-west distances near the poles.

The point is that in 1800 the British empire was (comparatively) not very big.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Guessing from projections will not work, as this is not the task projections are intended to perform. This task will need someone to find the relative areas of the respective contender empires for the duration of the period involved, derived from reliable sources. Britmax (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No need. Russia was bigger by 1800s. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that one of the centuries being claimed for Spain? Britmax (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Asilah, in the 1800s, also known as the 19th century, Russia was certainly bigger than the Spanish because Russia added huge areas to its territory in Central Asia, the Far East and Alaska, while the Spanish disintegrated, although by the middle of the 19th the British was probably of similar size, if not larger already. This map makes Russia look much larger than it is. To get some idea of their relative sizes you'd have to stretch the Spanish right up to the north of Canada. (See Gall-Peters projection). The map also exaggerates Russian territory in Alaska in 1800; the Russians had only mapped some of its coastline, had not explored the interior and didn't have any settlements, unlike Patagonia. And before you complain about the inclusion of Patagonia, there were huge areas of northern Siberia that were barely mapped, so "the biggest" is probably a wash. Anyway, to calm people down you could put "the largest overseas empire" in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.228.183 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Russian was bigger by 1800 for one simple fact: The Siberian cossacks. They took over a vast territory quite early on, which meant effective control. I don´t know if it was surpassed at time of conquest of central asia or before then. Might depend if we consider all of Louisana territory as Spanish or not. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (edited) You're right, I've gone through and done a rough estimation by adding a subtracting modern areas that were approximately in both, and the Russian comes out larger at the time. Just put "largest overseas empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.177.167 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Error on " Public Holidays and Festivals" section
The artcle reads " ... Our Lady of the Pillar feast, patroness of Aragon and throughout Spain.". Our Lady of the Pillar is the patroness of Zaragoza City only and not Aragon as mentioned on the page. The Saint patron of Aragon is Saint George. Please check anywhere else, even other wikipedia pages to confrim this fact if you dont believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5982:6300:F04D:72F8:B234:BD76 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spain. 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/20091211225055/http://narros.congreso.es/constitucion/estatutos/estatutos.jsp?com=64&tipo=2&ini=1&fin=10&ini_sub=1&fin_sub=1 to http://narros.congreso.es/constitucion/estatutos/estatutos.jsp?com=64&tipo=2&ini=1&fin=10&ini_sub=1&fin_sub=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511172945/http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/conversi/smooth.pdf to http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/conversi/smooth.pdf

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) 11:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Spain is a democracy
There have been a number of reliable sources questioning the extent to which Spain is a full democracy, yet the current article makes the claim that Spain is a 'parliamentary democracy' without any qualification. I realise that Spanish citizens opposed to Catalonian independence may believe that the Spanish constitution of 1978 prevents Catalonia having an independence referendum but that is surely the point: can Spain be called a true democracy when even it's constitution is preventing the Catalonian people from expressing their view on their constitutional future? I can think of no full democracy anywhere in the world that would be going to such an extent to prevent people voting as we are witnessing going on just now. As Wikipedia is based on what the reliable sources say rather than personal opinions, is there consensus to make reference to the question that exists with regard to the extent to which Spain is a full democracy? As I say there are plenty of reliable sources that are asking the question and many of them coming to the conclusion that Spain falls short on this matter. Lin4671 (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether states, provinces, regions or other internal subdivisions have the right to secede or not has absolutely zero to do with whether a country is a democracy or not. States in the US do not have the right to secede (and trying to do so resulted in the Civil War), but the US is still commonly regarded as a democracy, and AFAIK Bundesländer in Germany don't have the right to secede either, but Germany is still a democracy. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying but I have to say that while that may be your opinion, a number of reliable sources are saying something different. Since Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, should that not be reflected in the article? Lin4671 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically add everything that has a source. Claiming that Spain isn't a democracy because of not allowing Catalonia to secede is a fringe theory, and simply doesn't belong in the article, so don't add it unless there's a clear consensus among editors here to do so. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  19:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lin4671 Your question is so absurd you should seriously ask yourself whether you are qualified to edit wikipedia. Gaditano23 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the title I used is misleading you so I will start anew with more precise wording Lin4671 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it agreed that the developing crisis surrounding the Catalan question should become a separate subsection?
I tried to create a new subsection but my attempt was reverted. Can we at least agree that this is necessary - exact title can be discussed next if the principal is agreed. Lin4671 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It deserves to be mentioned, but in a neutral and balanced way that reflects both sides of it (see WP:NPOV...), including not only that the referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court but also that, according to reports in mainstream media, opinion polls made in Catalonia before the referendum showed that a majority of the population there opposed Catalan independence. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you add something like that? Lin4671 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because being potentially controversial it should always be discussed and agreed upon here, by multiple editors, before being added. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Is adding this information neutral?
Hi. I wish to add information, as reported by reuters, that states "On referendum day, Spanish police used batons and rubber bullets to disrupt the vote but 2.26 million people were still able to cast ballots, a turnout of about 42 percent."

Anyone think this would be an unfair, non neutral, summary of what happened on October 1st? Lin4671 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Slow down! It's Saturday evening and very few editors interested in this subject have even seen this, so give other editors a chance to have their say before starting to discuss details. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'll wait a few days. thanks for advice. Lin4671 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with user Tom | Thomas.W! we must wait for other comments of other users, we need to have a common agreement. regards.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not neutral at all. It is better to leave the link to the main page (already done by ) because the topic is very complex. Please, do not insist on adding it over and over again. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Confusing timeline
In the article's opening paragraphs, it states: "In the early Middle Ages, the Iberian Peninsula was granted to the Visigoths by Rome under the condition that the other germanic tribes would be exiled. Then after the Roman Empire fell the Visigoths forged their own kingdom". I cannot see how this can be true under any historic theory that did not hold that the Roman Empire fell sometime after the early middle ages.n As I have no clue what the OA was truing to claim, I have no idea how it should be edited. 73.230.103.176 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Spain Can Be Anything
Spain Is A City — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.62.83 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017
Spain (Spanish: España [esˈpaɲa] (About this sound listen)) is a sovereign state--Pennyflor (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

EXPLANATION: Even though the term Kingdom of Spain exists and is used in international treaties, it is not as widely used or known by people or institutions as to stand here (at the very definition of the country). Spain is refered to plainly as "Spain" by the vast majoriy of institutions and citizens. Please, check that on any institutional website: http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Portal/en/Paginas/inicio.aspx Another example, the United Kingdom websites are .uk while Spain websites are .es (España).

DANGER: Independentist Catalans are changing this article to give a misleading idea of Spain.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Note that the article is Spain, not Kingdom of Spain precisely because it is the WP:COMMONNAME. However, as you yourself state, "Kingdom of Spain" is an officially recognized name for Spain, so I don't see the point of removing that because you worry "Independentist Catalans are changing the article" Cannolis (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish Kingdom is AN official way to refer to Spain, not THE official name. At least that should be changed. The Spanish version of the article says "Spain, also called the Kingdom of Spain"... You may want to add other official ways of referring to Spain, like for example, the Spanish Nation (in the Constitution). Please note that I proposed this change because (quoting myself today): "Spain is refered to plainly as "Spain" by the vast majoriy of institutions and citizens". And institutions usually refer to themselves by they official names.--109.133.143.139 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per note a in the infobox "The Spanish Constitution does not establish any official name for Spain, even though the terms España (Spain), Estado español (Spanish State) and Nación española (Spanish Nation) are used throughout the document. Nonetheless, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs established in an ordinance published in 1984 that the denominations España (Spain) and Reino de España (Kingdom of Spain) are equally valid to designate Spain in international treaties. 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." Cannolis (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan supremacism article RfC
We have a concern/dispute regarding policy on the article Catalan supremacism. Since about 90% of sources are in Spanish (a few in Catalan and English) support and opinion from Spanish and Catalan speakers (who can read the sources referenced in the article more easily) is welcome to help us understand what to do about this policy concern. I have the feeling the article's existence is not appreciated by a number of editors, as well, which is saddening since I put a lot of effort into translation from Spanishs wiki. Not asking support for one side or another, just opinion and feedback. I am a new wikipedian who created the article and I'm not sure what the right course of action is. Thank you.Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017
Spain was not 'one of the first ones to be a gblobal empire'. Was just the first one. It is very clear since they discovered America first, they circunavigate the planet first, and the first global coin was also spanish: the spanish dollar. There is on discussion here 131.211.187.109 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "they discovered America first" - even if we count just European "discoveries", the Norse were first. "they circunavigate [sic] the planet first" - led by a Portuguese. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE
I know people like the drama on tv but Spain has had more serious situation than this incident in Catalonia in the last 100 years which are not mentioned in the lead (e.g. a civil war with a million dead)! Also it is not the most important crisis in the democratic period, we have had military coups, ETA terrorism, a massive economic crisis etc. Hence, I'm ensuring adequate coverage as per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with it, as of it now, is enough with it's developed in Restoration of democracy --Panotxa (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Spain really a full democracy when it is actively suppressing policial rights?
Hi, Spain is on the top 20 of the best democracies in the world, according to the yearly Democracy Index: https://infographics.economist.com/2017/DemocracyIndex/ Please, stop trolling this article.--Pennyflor (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I agree (as all sources do) that Spain is largely a democratic state, but it is not fair to include that there are questions being asked as to whether it is a 'full' democracy in light of its assault on political rights in Catalonia? We have a situation where police have been deployed to prevent people from indicating their political preference in a referendum - not the actions one would expect in any full democracy anywhere in the world. As I say, numerous reliable sources are making this point so why can it not be included in the article? Lin4671 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

By reliable you mean Assange's twitter account? Please stop trolling here.Gaditano23 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * How about the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations? UN Rights Experts are quoted as stating "The measures we are witnessing are worrying because they appear to violate fundamental individual rights, cutting off public information and the possibility of debate at a critical moment for Spain’s democracy.”


 * This "expert" is no expert. He also happens to be a holocaust-denier and a rabid anti-semite.Gaditano23 (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't just dismiss as a troll someone who says something you profoundly disagree with: check the matter for yourself. Lin4671 (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's fairly obvious that Spain is no longer a full democracy. The issue is with sources, as Rajoy's turning Spain away from a fully democratic state is so recent (same thing as with Erdogan who is doing the same in Turkey but started earlier). So I would avoid describing Spain as a democracy in the article, but unless we have sources to the contrary, we should not state that it is not a democracy either. Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeppiz It is fairly obvious to ignorant people who inform themselves on social media. To anyone moderately educated, it is fairly obvious that Spain is among the most democratic countries in Europe. The only "oppression" there is in Spain is of Catalans who dissent with the Catalan government's radical stance (who happen to be the majority).Gaditano23 (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Gaditano23, I dare say my education far exceeds yours, but that's rather beside the point. What is relevant, however, is that you have shown time and time again that you have no interest in contributing constructively to Wikipedia, your whole presence here is just to push a blindly nationalist WP:POV. You do it here, and you do it elsewhere. If you cannot edit constructively, perhaps consider spending your time doing something else. At the very least, you should not edit anything related to Spain. Jeppiz (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeppiz Please go back to playing Fifa or whatever you do in your free time. You are wasting all of our time pushing fringe theories.Gaditano23 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You still have serious problems with wording (and maybe not only with wording). Being a democracy only means that the people elects their rulers. That has nothing to do with suppressing or granting rights. Lironcareto (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether a country is a democracy or not and what the definition of democracy is cannot be settled on Wikipedia. Suggest we follow the published democracy indices used by international think tanks Historicalchild (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Mention that Catalonia as disputed area?
After Catalonia's independence declaration, this article (and the maps) should indicate that Catalonia is a disputed area, i.e., it should explain that Spain sees Catalonia as an integral part of Spain, but that Catalonia sees itself as an independent country. --Twid (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I second. This standard seems to be used elsewhere, where there are disputes over territory - Moldova/Transnistria, for example.  Unfortunately, this standard doesn't seem to be universal - the eastern Republics in Ukraine, for example, are not shown as in dispute in Ukraine.  So, I'm a little confused as to exactly when a break-away region should be shown as a disputed territory. CarlsonC (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this too. The maps, and other parts of the article should reflect this recent news. I would think in the Ukrainian case, it was simply done in a more disorganised way, with rebels and almost guerilla tactics. Catalonia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo etc, all have parliaments and the infrastructures of a state, whereas the east of Ukraine does not. Number10a (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In agreement with 'disputed area' option. There's definitely a dispute over this situation, between the Spanish Parliament & the Catalan Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. For instance, the European Union article still shows the UK in dark green although the Brexit vote happened almost one and a half years ago already. Therefore, as long as Catalonia isn't administered by military and police forces that no longer listen to Madrid, as is the case in Eastern Ukraine or in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir that India continues to claim for itself, Spain should remain dark green throughout, especially because the government body that declared independence has already been stripped of all its powers.
 * Why would a change be made to the EU map? The United Kingdom is still a member of the European Union. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If Catalonia had declared independence with effect from 2019, of course it shouldn't be shown yet. But as far as I know, the declaration had immediate effect, and Catalonia's parliament and government don't consider themselves part of Spain any more. --Twid (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Same as above. I support mention as well highlight on map in infobox.--21:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal, change the area of Catalonia on the map to light green as a "claimed and disputed" territory- --TF92 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What are the criteria for stating that something is truly disputed? The Catalan government was already stripped of all governing power prior to their grandiose announcement. Do we now include Texas as disputed territory in USA, because some people with no legal power declare it? Strictly speaking, is this not the same scenario concerning actual governing powers? Even if one puts it at "disputed," Catalan has zero ability to enforce its supposed territorial integrity, unlike truly disputed territories, so even then it would be de facto and de jure under the control of Spain in this scenario. Not to leave out the immediate nonrecognition by the entirety of the EU of this supposed Catalan Republic, and the enforcement of active direct rule from Madrid.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a false comparison, not only in historical context butthe fact that an entire bloody war was fought over whether states can secede from the Union. They can't, whereas Spanish autonomous regions have mechanisms to do so.--<font face="Constantia"> <font color="DarkKhaki">Sıgehelmus <font color="Coal"> (Talk) &#124;д=)  21:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have tried putting Catalonia as a disputed territory on the map, but the file seems to revert instantly. any idea what might be happening here? Finley jones (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't change that on a de jure and a de facto sense, Madrid is in full control of Catalan at this moment, including direct rule and financial control.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all the commentators here. We should treat this as the same as Ukraine & Crimea or Serbia & Kosovo. Catalonia should be shaded light green on the map with an explanation that it is a disputed territory. Richardeast (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have already uploaded a file that would work for this, it's in the edit log of EU-spain.svg. The only problem is that the image keeps reverting. Finley jones (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We can say there is a disupute about Catalonia without saying it is a disputed area Historicalchild (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Valencian
Valencian is a co-official lenguage, so please add this in the right column


 * Valencian is indeed co-official but it is effectively Catalan, linguistically. I say this being thoroughly opposed to Catalan nationalism, but if the re-direct of Valencian is Catalan, it doesn't make sense to add it as a separate language. Dialect from Lleida is closer to that of Valencia than it is to that of Barcelona.Sonrisas1 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are many ‘dialects’ in the world that are classified as languages. Valencians do not think of their language as the same as Catalan Historicalchild (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spain. 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 tag to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/napoleonic_wars/6361907.html?page=2&c=y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503183726/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/33/IMG/NR021833.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/33/IMG/NR021833.pdf?OpenElement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529192351/http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20T%C3%ADtulo.%20Prefacio.%C3%8Dndice.%20Informe%20%2827.02.08%29.doc to http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20T%C3%ADtulo.%20Prefacio.%C3%8Dndice.%20Informe%20%2827.02.08%29.doc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/17476/cuestion_fernandez_E_2004.pdf?sequence=1
 * Added tag to http://www.iwahq.org/uploads/sgs/sg%20on%20statistic%20and%20ec/doc%20and%20reports/IWA%20international%20statistics%200806.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930083055/http://www.ferede.org/general.php?pag=estad to http://www.ferede.org/general.php?pag=estad

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) 15:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spain. 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/20080821113429/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/spain.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/spain.htm

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) 03:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semitic
change ((Semitic)) to ((Semitic languages|Semitic)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:e6b0:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk • contribs)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017
BernardaAlba (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 18:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Unitary" State
To preface, I study law in Spain. I am writing regarding the article's description of Spain's form of government as "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy." I believe this is incorrect. I will give my arguments below. All references to the Spanish Constitution in English are derived from.

First. A unitary state, according to Wikipedia, is "a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (sub-national units) exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate." This definition has two fundamental elements: (1) such a State must have a central power which is supreme and (2) the competencies of the sub-national powers must radiate from the central power, without any further powers being possible.

Second. As in any State of laws, we must refer to the constitutional texts to determine the form of government or organization of said State. Article 1.3 of the Spanish Constitution states "The political form of the Spanish State is that of a parliamentary monarchy." Additionally, Article 2 states "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible country of all Spaniards; it recognises and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed, and the solidarity amongst them all."

While Article 2 references the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation," this cannot be construed as a prescription for a unitary state. Such an interpretation would contradict the bolded part of the citation, as well as the articles which I outline below.

Third. The competencies of the central power and the regional powers (Autonomous Communities) are governed in Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution. It is true that, through Article 148, the Spanish Constitution authorizes the Autonomous Communities certain competencies while, through Article 149, reserving competencies to itself. Critically, article 149, which reserves a number of powers to the Central Government, also states that:

"Matters not expressly assigned to the State by virtue of the present Constitution may fall under the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Communities by virtue of their respective Statutes. Matters for which jurisdiction has not been assumed by the Statutes of Autonomy shall fall within the jurisdiction of the State, whose laws shall prevail, in case of conflict, over those of the Autonomous Communities regarding all matters over which exclusive jurisdiction has not been conferred upon the latter. State law shall, in all cases, be supplementary to that of the Autonomous Communities."

(1) These provisions are not substantially different from Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If Article 149 of the Spanish Constitution were ground to label Spain a unitary state, Amendment 10 of the US Constitution would suffice to label the United States of America -- a federal republic extraordinaire -- a unitary state. (2) The States reserves competence over those expressly unreserved powers within an Autonomous Community if and only if that Autonomous Community has not reserved itself competence over that matter. The Autonomous Communities' competences are derived from their own Statutes of Autonomy, created by their own Parliaments, and are not handed down by the Spanish Parliament. Only in case of a lack of self-attribution of competence by the Autonomous Communities would this cause State law to prevail. (3) Supplementarity ("supletoriedad") is not superiority. The meaning of this term is, at its simplest, that, in defect of Autonomic law, State law applies.

Finally. The Constitutional Tribunal of Spain has recognized the capacity of Autonomous Communities to attribute themselves the competencies which are not expressly attributed to the State as early as 1988 -- 10 years after our Constitution was promulgated. See SENTENCIA 49/1988, de 22 de marzo.

Therefore, I would ask the members of the Wikipedia community, particularly those who might have knowledge of the Spanish legal system, to opine on whether the article should list Spain is a unitary state or whether this label should be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.203.40 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Spelling Errors
There is a spelling error in paragraph four in the second or third sentence. It reads "This left to many wars..." and should be "This led to many wars..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.47.82 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)‎
 * Thank you for spotting this, I have now corrected it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent (Oct. 28) Catalonia Edits
It looks like there are some typos in the recent addition about Catalonia. Change "Spainish" to "Spanish," "proceed" to "proceeded," "community" to "communities" and "regards" to "regard." blah blah blah very thing is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.167.62 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018
Please change "Spain hosts world's third-largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. It is a secular parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy,[12] with King Felipe VI as head of state." to this "Spain hosts the world's third-largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. It is a secular parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy,[12] with King Felipe VI as head of state. Simpleba (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018
is a sovereign country 2A02:C7D:1BC:5A00:8DDA:B42A:AEE:72E8 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ That's what a Sovereign state is. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  00:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)