Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 7 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spain article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 28 days

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:VA

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

Archives

the Spanish languages. The term literature in Spanish will refer to any production in Spanish whatever the state it is produced. /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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/Bankia)

This has been updated. By the way, some of Europe's most successful banks are Spanish. See Santander and BBVA. It's the regional, internally oriented banks that are in big trouble, crushed by the collapsing prices of the housing market.

Edit war

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: Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

188.78.25.132 (talk · contribs), who are you? You sound much like LTblb (talk · contribs). 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:V as I have already explained, and WP:NPOV, which seems to escape you. Misplaced Pages does not adopt the POV of Spanish historiography. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Spain articles
• Top-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles