Jump to content

Talk:Spain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grshiplett (talk | contribs) at 12:55, 7 January 2014 (→caption is in pidgin English: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article

POV edit by User:James Bond 000

I reverted[1] 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 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, 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Iberian Union in 1581
File:Spanish Empire in 1581.png
The Spanish Empire in 1581
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
188.78.25.132 (talk · contribs), who are you? You sound much like LTblb (talk · contribs). Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Elizium23, your obsesion and harassment is becoming more evident. It has something to do with that you participate in the project in Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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.. 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)[reply]

caption is in pidgin English

"purpose of spanish kings as" in the caption to the image of Phillip and Charles.

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

Basically, this tacked-on phrase makes no sense as it stands and in not correct either in orthography or grammar.

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spain&oldid=589595357"