Talk:Spain

There should be some discussion in the article about Spain's complicated relationship to Western Sahara, which by many accounts (e.g. the United Nations) is still technically a Spanish colony. Nosferattus (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Spain officialy abandon that zone with the mouvment "La Marcha Verde" 1975. ~2026-10790-70 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

As there is a difference of opinion on whether Spain is (mostly) in "southwestern Europe" or "Southwestern Europe", there is a discussion at talk:Central Europe#Capitalising informal region names to which editors of this article may wish to contribute. JMF (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. I'm Spaniard and I was shoked to read that Pedro Sanchez is the Prime Minister. Here in spain there is not a prime minister as in UK. However, Pedro Sanchez is officialy the President of the Government, usually named directly in a coloquial way as the President of Spain (there is any other president). I want to remind that here in spain, even though the king his the chief of the army among other functions, in real life is more like an honorific role that focus on the protection of the citizents and as institutional representation of spain in various events. ~2026-10790-70 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I was surprised that you picked up on a single mention of "prime minister" as though that were the only one in the article, but in fact the article consistently uses "prime minister". So I looked at Spanish Wikipedia and found that the corresponding article speaks of the position as "presidente del gobierno". Curious, I ran Google searches on "government of Spain" and "gobierno de españa pedro sanchez". I found that while Spanish sources consistently have "presidente" or "presidente del gobierno", as your comment would lead one to expect, English sources consistently refer to the role as "prime minister". This was surprising, so I looked a little further, but didn't have to look for as an explanation is offered here at Prime Minister of Spain#Official title. It turns out English does the same thing with the Prime Minister of Italy, the "Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri".

I'm trying to work out the reasoning, taking into account that we don't do that (or I don't think we do) consistently for all countries. Maybe it's a combination of "prime minister" being the basic English term for a government leader chosen in that manner and the fact that those roles aren't simply "the president" but "the president of the government" or "the president of the Council of Ministers", while English considers "prime minister" to be their role with respect to the countries. That's all speculation by me, unrelated to the fact that English Wikipedia is using the standard term applied in English to the leaders of the government from those countries. Largoplazo (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• remove "which spanned all continents". reason: Spain did not have colonies in Antarctica or Australia.

~2026-16359-70 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. I thought perhaps the original writer meant for 'spanning continents' to refer to the circumnavigation earlier in the sentence, but this would be redundant anyway. Prolabelmaker (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Many country introductions include brief mentions in their final paragraphs of the country's cultural influence, such as its language, tourism, art, and so on. See France, Italy, United Kingdom, etc

The introduction is a summary of the body of the article. That content should therefore be retained here as well, since it is an important aspect that is covered and well referenced in the body itself.

Thanks. Abatsuki (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I second this. I've been seeing unjustified reversions lately in this page and this is yet another one of them Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

See [1] about the "cultural superpower" WP:PUFFERY. Largoplazo (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the current shorter version is good, and I agree to avoid puffery/peacock language. However, on the culture stuff, I said then and I remain of the idea that I am not opposed to refer to Spain as "a cultural superpower" with a line in the intro about Spanish arts, language and tourism . I don't necessarily see it as puffery/peacock if it does not say "the most, greatest, best country/power/people". If "a cultural superpower" is qualified as puffery, then it should also be removed from other articles like the Jamaica, Italy, Korea and US ones, out of consistency. Barjimoa (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Barjimoa. Wikipedia should aim for neutrality and consistency, so I support moderating the wording where necessary. That said, describing Spain as a "cultural superpower" is not puffery, since doesn't describe Spain as "the best" culture or similar. The same kind of characterization is commonly applied to countries such as Italy, France, Japan, or the United States, among others. In this context, for Spain, the term is well established and It is supported by reliable sources cited in the article. Abatsuki (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

"Cultural superpower" has no objective meaning and is about as puffy as puffery can be. Largoplazo (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Speaking in this more at length: I earliest my history browsing has turned up the phrase "cultural superpower" was November 17, 2022, when it was introduced in this edit by a user who, three months later, was globally locked as a sockpuppet of another globally locked user. Then the discussion I linked above took place. Strangely, at least three of the accounts participating in that discussion, covering both sides of the matter and bickering with each other, were all determined, as the discussion was happening, to be socks of JamesOredan (not the same master as the first sock I mentioned was tied to). The remaining participants all, or nearly all, agreed on the unsuitability of the phrase. So its removal was not "unjustified". In addition, the discussion took place less than two years after the addition. In other words, not very longstanding. Largoplazo (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What do you think of this wording?

• Briefly mention the Spanish Golden Age, as it is a relevant period in the country's history.
• Include a very short description of the reach of the Spanish language, without using figures, as these are unnecessary and may change over time.
• Briefly refer to tourism and heritage, eliminating references about being popular among europeans.
• Everything else has also been removed to make the wording more concise and readable.

"Since the Spanish Golden Age (Siglo de Oro), Spanish culture has been influential worldwide, particularly in Western Europe and the Americas. The Spanish language is the world's second-most spoken native language and the most widely spoken Romance language. Spain is the world's second-most visited country and hosts one of the largest numbers of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Spain is a secular parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with King Felipe VI as head of state. A developed country, Spain has a high nominal per capita income globally, and its economy ranks the fourth-largest in the EU and among the largest in the world. Spain is considered a cultural superpower with an influence that extends beyond its borders, and promote its cultural value through participation in multiple international organisations and forums"

Thanks. Abatsuki (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's puffery, it's peacock, reads like chauvinism, it's weasel and it's high time that we move away for good from these James Oredan-infected topics #culturalsuperpower #spanishgoldenage #heritagesize (prior attempts stirred by the stonewalling of James Oredan socks made them a massive waste of time for editors in the past). The litmus test of all this rubbish is that it attempts to assess the importance of "culture" and "influence" without putting forward any substance non-correlating to self-aggrandizement. What if we could tackle countries in more meaningful terms than being caskets for hosting heritage items to be showcased, boasting about vague influences in other places before advancing any understanding of it in domestic terms, and whatnot.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Chauvinism? Those are quite strong words. At no point does the text claim, nor suggest, that Spain is better than other countries.

• Why can the introductions of Italy, France, Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Jamaica be described as "cultural superpowers", while Spain cannot, even when the claim is properly sourced?
• Why is it considered unacceptable to refer to the Spanish Golden Age in Spain's introduction, while there is no issue with mentioning the Dutch Golden Age in the introduction to the Netherlands?
• Why can Spain's tourism not be mentioned in the introduction, while there is no problem doing so for France, Italy, or Turkey?

I believe we should aim for consistency across Wikipedia. Abatsuki (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I couldn't care less about the introductions of Italy, France, Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Jamaica (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Re-added content contains distillated puffery here, in Botswana, and on Pluto. This article has been sadly hijacked for so long by the vision of a blocked account and its sock puppet accounts, and hopefully this iteration be the last.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Read carefully what WP:Puffery actually means on Wikipedia, rather than your own interpretation of it, and why it does not apply in this case. Thank you. Abatsuki (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I know what puffery is. Don't gaslight me. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you were less defensive, acted in good faith, and above all paid even minimal attention, you would have seen that my reply was addressed to the user Asqueladd, not to you. Be more careful next time before accusing someone of gaslighting. Abatsuki (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

To be overly strict and pedantic about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to the extent that the article on Spain lacks an introduction highlighting its cultural significance—when other countries do have one—is to have little understanding of how Wikipedia works. In fact, the superpower article describes Spain as a cultural superpower, so not including this in the Spain article due to Wikipedia’s policies (not rules) is like not listing Joe Biden as Trump’s successor and predecessor as President of the United States. Wikipedia must be understood as a system, rather than adopting an attitude of ‘I couldn’t care less what other articles say’.

Spain is the fifth country in the world with the most UNESCO World Heritage sites, the second most visited country in the world (and not just because of its good beaches and parties), Spanish is the second most widely spoken native language in the world, one of the best-selling books in history is Don Quixote, and the government of a part of the world for several centuries allowed its culture to spread to a very significant territorial extent. Failing to take this into account in the lead allows for an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of a country, and I don't believe that is the purpose of an encyclopaedia. You don’t want to use "cultural superpower" term? Well, we can debate that. But failing to describe anything at all is a mistake. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

To get a complete understanding of any subject, you're supposed to read the whole article. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary. It can't contain all the details. Largoplazo (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You’ve misunderstood. It’s just a brief mention of the country’s cultural impact; obviously, it’s not meant to go into detail. what do you think the lead is for? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why don't we just simply state some facts without a label... add links to all these topics?Spain's cultural exports are highlighted by fashion, high-quality agricultural goods, and creative industries such as television, music, and art.^[1] Moxy 🍁 16:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Taking everyone's comments into account, including the last comment of Alsor97, I think a good compromise would be to keep the country's cultural references in the introduction (the Siglo de Oro period, tourism figures, heritage, and language), while rephrasing the label "cultural superpower" (which seems to be the most contentious term here) to something similar like Moxy suggested. What do you think?

Thanks. Abatsuki (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Abatsuki, it's fine to me, I don't see the problem. Such things are normal for the intro/summary of country articles. This stuff can be written without puffery, it's not puffery in itself. Barjimoa (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In the lead, immediately after the existing sentence "With the restoration of democracy and entry into the EU, Spain experienced a major economic boom and social transformation.", please add the following cultural mention to the lead, as it summarizes material already covered in the article body (see the Culture section):

"Spanish culture has been influential since the Spanish Golden Age (Siglo de Oro), particularly in Western Europe and the Americas.^{[1] [2] [3]} The country also has one of the largest numbers of World Heritage Sites and is the world's second-most visited country.^{[4] [5] [6]} "~2026-30385-48 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. Barjimoa (talk)

@Inherli: why did you revert this edit? You gave no reason in your edit summary. ~Darth Stabro ^{Talk • Contribs} 17:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Inherli: the content you removed was approved through a request. Furthermore, the referenced content you are removing is part of the body of the article. You have no right to unilaterally remove it without a proper explanation, as doing so constitutes WP:STONEWALLING. ~2026-30385-48 (talk) 18:15, 1 Jun 2026 (UTC)

For the time being, given that one editor approved of the multiply sourced content, two other editors object to its removal, and the remover gave no explanation, I've restored the content. Under the circumstances, Inherli should obtain consensus for removal before removing it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

User:Abatsuki requested edit? many may think block runaround.Moxy 🍁 20:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not, but even if I were, would that really be relevant here? The request was approved, several users support the inclusion, and the material is already a established part of the article's Culture section (It is not new content), it would simply be briefly summarized in the lead.

@Inherli: appears to be actively patrolling and reverting multiple users like Largoplazo, Barjimoa and probably others, in order to stonewall the article, which could look like an WP:OWNBEHAVIOR case. It is important to note that he has not engaged in the discussion at any point, which I think is unhelpful. ~2026-30385-48 (talk) 15:39, 2 Jun 2026 (UTC)

Basically this is an ongoing content inclusion debate (see section above this one). AND...does not matter if one editor has implemented an edit request - it has been contested by multiple others now - thus by default best way forward is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That said I believe no one has contested my advice in the above section....lets get a few options there see if inclusion at all has support.Moxy 🍁 16:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure whether you're referring to your last message in the other thread, but I can see it too. That approach seems fine to me. Together with the brief mention of tourism and UNESCO, given Spain's well-established international profile in tourism industry, it should be enough.~2026-30385-48 (talk)

@Inherli has again reverted the edit, without participating here. I've responded with a message on their talk page, User talk:Inherli#Spain and edits by block evader and asked them to participate here. It turns out from the latest edit summary that they were targeting block evasion, but I've explained that it's become more complex than that, especially since they didn't explain their previous reversion. (I also took issue with the Retired banner at the top of this active user's user and user talk pages.) Largoplazo (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]