Talk:Spain

Add co-official languages in small upper right table

Spanish is mentioned in the beginning of the article as the official language in Spain. I am referring to the table appearing on the upper right of the article. It is explained in the notes that there are more co-official languages, but I would respectfully suggest to include them also in the upper right table together with Spanish. Many foreigners do not know this, and I think it is pedagogical to portray that information in the Language section of the initial table. Based on Article 3 of the Spanish constitution. https://mpt.gob.es/politica-territorial/autonomica/Lenguas-cooficiales.html

2A02:FE1:82:9400:D1D2:965A:7E85:99D6 (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Spain - Etymology

This article states that the Phoenician word for Spain was I-Shpania. The word for ship in two Semitic languages sisters to Phoenician are: 1. Hebrew: Sfinah (Jonah 1:5, Strong's 5600 [e]), and 2. Arabic: Safinah. The root for both words is SPN. According to the article about the Hyrax (Biblical Hebrew: Shafan) this animal is distributed in Africa and the Middle East, but not in Spain. On top of this, this animal has never had any particular economic or other value, and for the above reasons it is unlikely to assume that the Phoenicians named a region of high interest for them after it. The alleged mix-up between Hyrax and Rabbit further disqualifies this explanation. In contrast, the Phoenician civilization was built on ships and seafaring, and it is more likely to assume that the Phoenicians called Spain I-Shpania in the context of ships, shipping, ship building and seafaring. 2600:4040:5A7F:3800:BD19:1943:56E9:1F92 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say. It isn't up to editors to "disqualify" what those sources say by their own reasoning, we'd need other reliable sources that contents those claims.

I don't see how your association with "ship" holds up anyway. They had ships in Phoenicia, and they sailed ships to many places. There would have been nothing special about the Iberian Peninsula that would have led them to name it after the vehicle that they had all over their own country and that they used to travel everywhere around the Mediterranean. I'm not saying this to invite further debate here, which would be off-topic for this page (which isn't for developing alternative theories of our own) but to make a point: I don't know the answer, just as you don't, it's just my own reasoning. If reliable sources did support your ship hypothesis and it were to be included in the article on the strength of that support, it wouldn't be up to me to contest its inclusion based on my own skepticism. Largoplazo (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2025

In the info box it says 50st. Could someone please change that to 50th? 2600:100C:B054:E867:7D30:544F:2F0B:7520 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I was about to make the edit but then it occurred to me to check whether you're sure it wasn't intended to be 51st. What's the source, and what does it say? Largoplazo (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

According to List of countries and dependencies by area Spain is 50th, but there's no source. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll change it to 50th, per List of countries and dependencies by area as the area is unlikely to change that much in comparison with the countries above and below on the list. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2025

in citation h remved the fiale dvierifcaation tag. 45.49.236.6 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please remove unsourced and vague puffery from the introduction.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd.

Personally, I don’t see excessive puffery here. It doesn’t claim that Spain has the best or most influential culture in the Americas. It simply states that various aspects of Spanish culture, following the Spanish Golden Age, have influenced Western Europe and especially the Americas — something that is indeed true given Spain’s history and colonization. It’s also true that Spain is currently the second most visited country in the world, has a large number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and that there are 600 million Spanish speakers worldwide. All of this, while it may subjectively seem grandiose, is actually factual.

What I do see as necessary is adding some references, which I intend to include shortly. Thank you for pointing out. JaierRT (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete this: Since the Spanish Golden Age, Spanish art, architecture, music, poetry, painting, literature, and cuisine have been influential worldwide, particularly in Western Europe and the Americas. As a reflection of its large cultural wealth" As a glaring example of shitty content, per Wikipedia content guidelines and policies WP:WEASEL, WP:PUFFERY, and WP:VER.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that this passage qualifies as puffery nor that it needs special sources. I am all for pushing back against puffery on wikipedia, but mentioning that Spain has had major cultural influence, and particularly in the Americas, is a significant part of Spanish history and is fine if it has a spot in the intro. I don't think it's promotional either. I think the intro needs to change the writing style a bit: the wording is poor in some parts (e.g. "Spain made the first circumnavigation of the globe" should be "a Spanish expedition first circumnavigated the globe") and there can be some trimming (repetitions which can be eliminated, long phrases which can be replaced by short ones that say the same thing etc.) In this passage we have "literature and poetry" but literature includes poetry so it's kinda redundant (same for "art and painting"). This is about the style. For the substance, I agree with the user above that as long as it's true and it does not say "the most"/"extraordinary"/"the best"/"legendary" or similar, then the mention of Spanish cultural influence is not puffery in itself. Barjimoa (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It is puffery, as a string of vague positive statements which no meaningful purpose other than set the mood of the reader positively towards the country's culture, rather than make the reader understand those influences (which by the way are less relevant to the topic than the cultural influences on the country) qualifies as puffery. It is also weasel wording unsupported by sources, sometimes laughably suggesting (although not directly stating as you can litigate with the plausible denial of "the Americas and Western Europe" part) stupid statements, such as insinuating that the Spanish influence in Western European architecture is worthy of mention in the lead section of this article, working as a whole as an onanistic statement ("cultural wealth"? JFC) unsupported by quality sources pondering on the pervasiveness of those vague "influences" vis-à-vis the presentation of the topic "Spain". In addition, by lacing up the aforementioned positive spin to the period-dependant, often misunderstood and misused term of Spanish Golden Age (itself a narrative historiographical framework with a positive spin), it anchors linked cultural expressions in Spain to a specific part of the early modern period, which also constitutes a form of original research). Bring quality sources about the topic.---Asqueladd (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The point is that Spain has truly had a significant cultural influence in multiple areas across Europe and the Americas; this is a historical fact supported by sources, and even the article's body mentions that. Nowhere does this claim suggests that Spain is the most influential country in the world or that it has one of the best cultures, which really would be puffery and very difficult to justify (for Spain or any country). JaierRT (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Following a discussion last year, the phrase "cultural superpower" was removed from the lead. "Cultural wealth" doesn't belong there either. Do the leads of any countries describe them as a being stricken with cultural poverty? It's vague and it's puffery.

On the other hand, to the extent that Spain's history has been about conquest and expansion, it makes sense for there to be a quick mention in the lead of specific legacies it has left in its wake. We should just avoid implying the betterment of the world on account of this (regardless of personal opinion on whether these legacies are for the better). Largoplazo (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I ultimately agree. While Spain certainly had an significant influence, particularly on the humanistic arts, in the Americas and Europe (as the references and the article support), the term 'cultural wealth' can be omitted, as it might wrongly suggest the reader that other countries have inferior or less rich cultures. JaierRT (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You are obviously JamesOredan/Nocceta. Inherli (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Even if that were the case, it’s a very poor excuse for removing tons of content supported by sources from the stable version. JaierRT (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You are using a children's encyclopedia as a source. Inherli (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a perfectly valid and widely used source. Moreover, you are deleting official tourism data, official UNESCO heritage data, and the official number of Spanish language speakers. Stop vandalizing the stable version and edit warring. JaierRT (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Britannica Kids and Wimdu blog (a promotional blog) are not reliable sources. Inherli (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

They were valid sources, but even so I replaced the ones you didn’t like with alternatives, and yet you keep reverting? Are you aware that you’re also deleting official data from the Spanish tourism authorities, official statistics on Spanish speakers, and information about UNESCO-recognized monuments? You are directly engaging in vandalism and edit warring right now. JaierRT (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

All should review WP:COUNTRYDETAIL Moxy🍁 16:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

lets propose any changes here. I see fluff additions and repeated info added. Moxy🍁 16:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)