Talk:Spain

"اسبانيا" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect اسبانيا and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#اسبانيا until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

This is an excellent article. However, the lead contains an erroneous sentence:

"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fourth century, which ushered in the migration of Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula."

This does not match the paragraph in Section 2.2: Roman Hispania and the Visigothic Kingdom:

"The Germanic Suebi and Vandals, together with the Sarmatian Alans entered the peninsula after 409, henceforth weakening the Western Roman Empire's jurisdiction over Hispania. These tribes had crossed the Rhine in early 407 and ravaged Gaul. The Suebi established a kingdom in north-western Iberia whereas the Vandals established themselves in the south of the peninsula by 420 before crossing over to North Africa in 429. As the western empire disintegrated, the social and economic base became greatly simplified: but even in modified form, the successor regimes maintained many of the institutions and laws of the late empire, including Christianity and assimilation to the evolving Roman culture."

As you can see, the lead says that the Germanic tribes and the Vandals invaded in the fourth century after the Roman empire collapsed, but the main body says that they invaded in 409 (which was the fifth century) before the empire collapsed. The Roman empire collapsed in the later half of the fifth century.

The main body is the accurate account of historical facts, while the lead is inaccurate.

Sources:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Late_Roman_Army/c9bgAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=alans+invade+rome+409&pg=PR16&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/In_Search_of_the_Romans_Second_Edition/0KiqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=alans+invade+rome+409&pg=PT151&printsec=frontcover

I request that the lead be changed to something like this: "After sacking Gaul, Germanic tribes and their Alani allies entered the Iberian peninsula in 409, where they established kingdoms that survived the collapse of the western Roman empire". This would match the historical facts and the main body.

Thank you for your help to make a great article even better. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:A0D6:8A4D:7BA4:D167 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think that if the word collapse evokes the specific date of 476, even that is not the intention (which is to refer to the loss/decline/outsourcing of central imperial authority to foederati throughout the protracted 5th century which may be seen as a slow-motion collapse of central imperial authority), similar words such as "waning" or "dwindling" (or simply fall: the linked article fall of the Western Roman Empire actually concerns about the aforementioned protracted process and not to the final nail on the coffin) could be entertained as an alternative to adjust the wording. But a great effort has been made to be succint in the lead (some editors may be willing to go even further with trimming) and none of the new bits of information in the proposal is particularly important to the lead all things considered (most notably, the mention to the sack of Gaul is utterly non-relevant in the lead of this particular article). I am not sure which could be the point of the (charged?) wording "survive" either (other than a dubious claim of translatio imperii?)--Asqueladd (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd, it's really very simple. The lead must be a summary of the main body content. The main body clearly says that the Germanic tribes and the Alans invaded in the 5th century century, and before the collapse of the Roman empire. Yet the lead erroneously says that this happened in the fourth century, after the collapse of Rome.

This is also consistent with any reliably published source, such as this

"From 407 to 409 the Vandals, with the allied tribes of the Alans and Suevi, swept into the Roman Iberian peninsula. In response to this invasion of Hispania, the Roman emperor of the West, Honorius (384-423), enlisted the aid of the Visigoths, who entered Hispania in 415, and in 418 Emperor Honorius made them foederati, or allies, of Rome."

It's a very easily verified historical fact that the German/Alan alliance invaded Iberia in the 5th century. It is also a fact that the Roman empire had not collapsed by then, however weakened it might have been. The above quote demonstrates this, and so does the main body of the Wikipedia article.

If you don't prefer my proposed summary for the lead, that's fine. I didn't say it has to be exact. It doesn't have to mention Gaul or the word survived. However it does have to say that these invasions occurred in the 5th century and before the collapse of Rome. The way the sentence currently stands is just a major defect in the article and a serious liability to its reputation. Perhaps something like this is better:

"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the early 5th century, when the migration of Germanic peoples and the Alans in to the region brought political upheaval shortly before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire."

Again -- I am not demanding that the proposed change be exact. Anyone can write it as they see fit, but the important thing is that it clarifies two important points: the Germanic+Alan alliance migrated in the 5th century, and this happened before the collapse of Rome. Both of which are indisputable historical facts and already in the main body. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:95EC:DD2:E937:A531 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you understand by "collapse of the Western Roman Empire"? If by that you understand its very end and the city of Rome (a fixed date by the late 5th century and not something gradual), then we can rework the wording (so that's the reason I proposed some word conveying "graduality"). I note again that the article Fall of the Western Roman Empire deals about a process concerning a gradual loss of authority dating back to the late 4th century, so any 5th century migration takes place after the early stages of the process. Insofar we can convey the process as the gradual loss of authority (apparently "fall" does the trick), no additional information is needed. We can also reword the body of the article. We can also change in the lead "collapse of the Western Roman Empire" for something like "receding of Roman imperial authority". The point is not to expand the lead section with more details. To that end of trimming the lead, I also happen to think that non-Roman peoples into the peninsula is preferable to Germanic peoples and the Alans into the peninsula.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Please change the lead to this:

"Hispania remained under Roman rule until the Visigoths emerged as the dominant power in the fifth century."

This allows us to bypass completely this discussion about Germans, Alans, the collapse of Rome, et cetera, while also trimming the lead as you propose.

The lead must be a straightforward, concise summary of the content of main body of the article and verifiable through reliable sources. Wikipedia articles and our own perspectives (original research) are not reliable. Thanks. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:5C22:89ED:3D44:1CB4 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I am afraid that that is not exactly an improvement, tho. The until is problematic too because it suggests uninterrupted succession (again a short of translatio imperii). I don't think that there is a compelling case to strenghten that idea of succession (if you ask me, it solidifies nationalist and teleological visions of history). Do you think so? There were other non-Roman tribal confederations exerting control over parts of the peninsula before the Visigoth Kingdom exerted control over the [bulk of the] peninsula (this is not original research in any form whatsoever). That is the most important but. We may also consider minor "buts" such as Roman rule returning under Justinian after the "Visigoths emerged as the dominant power".--Asqueladd (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've left it this way. If you don't think it is an improvement over the former version, say so, I am willing to revert it back and continue to engage in this historical discussion.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You say that "there were other non-Roman tribal confederations exerting control over parts of the peninsula before the Visigoth Kingdom exerted control over the [bulk of the] peninsula (this is not original research in any form whatsoever)."

Can you specify the names and territories that that those "tribal confederations" ruled, and the period. 66.81.172.149 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Alans, parts of Hispania Carthaginensis and Hispania Lusitana provinces, early 5th century CE. Alani Lusitaniam et Carthaginiensem provincias, et Wandali cognomine Silingi Baeticam sortiuntur (Hydatius, Chronicon, XVII dixit [1]).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

And how long was the presence of alans in Hispania?

In "Alans" the article say that "Following... in 409, the Alans led by Respendial settled in the provinces of Lusitania and Carthaginensis... Although the newcomers controlled Hispania they were still a tiny minority among a larger Hispano-Roman population, approximately 200,000 out of 6,000,000...In 418 (or 426 according to some authors), the Alan king, Attaces, was killed in battle against the Visigoths,uthors)... Although some of these Alans are thought to have remained in Iberia, most went to North Africa with the Vandals in 429."

So, they entered in 409, and exit in 429. And during this period, they were fighting with hispanic romans, and visigoths...

Sounds more as an "Anarchy Period", than a "rule" period. 66.81.171.65 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The points are clear. Your personal divagations look like talk-page talking points concocted ad hoc as we go along, to which your refusal to adress other concerns (the pseudohistorical translatio imperii, the urge to be extremely succint, the current historiography stressing elements of socioeconomic continuity versus collapse vis-à-vis the WRE, the need to stay in topic, et. al., and last but not least, it is not yet clear what it is exactly wrong now in the lead) add up. I don't intend on entering a pointless (endless) discussion.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you think that my divagations are personal... I thought that speaking in that terms was unpolite at Wikipedia.

I don´t want to speak like you, so I will only ask you questions.

First of all, and speaking in terms of "traslatio imperii". Do you think that the huns ended the roman empire rule in part of Italica, or in the Gaul? Why in that case there is no "translatio imperii"? How many time is needed to end the roman rule, and think that a new state or group of states appeared? Is there a rule that told us when one people rules?

The second question is ¿Why don´t you "think that there is a compelling case to strenghten that idea of succession?

I "ask" you because if there is not, "it solidifies nationalist and teleological visions of history". Have you heard about PNV, BILDU and ETA, for instance. They denies the "traslatio imperii" question, but not for historical reasons (as far as I know, there are no such documents). They even use violence to kill people that think diferent.

Why the "no traslatio imperii" is the supreme truth?

66.81.171.65 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Genocide nonsense

In the article says: "Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest, while more died from various new Eurasian diseases that travelled more quickly than the Spanish conquerors. The death toll during the initial period of Spanish conquest, from Columbus's initial landing until the mid 16th century, is estimated as high as 70 million indigenous people out of a population of 80 million, as imported diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus decimated the pre-Columbian population. Disease killed between 50% and 95% of the indigenous population. Some scholars have described the Spanish conquest during this period as the largest genocide in history."

Wikipedia says that genocide is: "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part."

So, I don´t understand how spaniards comitted genocide.

To begin with, only Castille sent troops to America, so it is wrong to assign a genocide to the spaniards, and it is wrong to include this information in the article "España". It would be like to assign the wars that took place in the mediterranean, to España, and not to Aragón.

As far as I know, Castille had 4.300.000 inhabitants in the XV century. Even if They send to America his whole population. It´s incredible that 4.300.000 people killed eighty million in such a short period. May be if they had had machine guns like the nazis, or nuclear bombs, like USA... It´s clear that indigenous peoples fighted against Inca´s empire and Aztec´s empire, so the national topic doesn´t mach. [2]https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=poblacion+de+castilla+1492

In the other hand, it is know as one of the most renowned writers in spanish an incaican descendant; his name is Garcilaso de la Vega, also known as "el Inca Garcilaso". So, in Spain there was no problem with "misgenation", as it is said in other part of the article. So the ethnic or racial topics doesn´t match as the cause of genocide.

In relation with diseases imported to the "new world", there are various facts: - Colonization took place by Spanish, Poruguese, and even english, french and dutch, among others. - Diseases were spreaded without any intention, and killed also Spaniards. Even more, Spain sent missions to spread vaccination in America. So attribute intentionality to the deaths sounds like nonsense. But if we take seriously, then we have to think that americans sent to Europe syphilis, in retaliation. As I have said is nonsense.

In summary, it is wrong, and should be changed.

It would be like if in "Francia" article, told genocides commited by Napoleon... Or if in England article speaks of genocides against spaniards, Welsh, Irish, French... Or if in USA article speaks of japaneese genocide, or Nicaraguan, Serbian or Panama...

I still got surprised when Wikipedia ask for money, when all its articles have wrong and misleading information. 66.81.172.166 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Some scholars have described the Spanish conquest during this period as the largest genocide in history, according to a book written by the American historian Norman Naimark. We simply cite the source. —Alalch E. 14:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You can find a lot of text from scholars that describes España as the most important empire during three centuries. Even more, they say that España gave the world the first globalization era, and it is only an opinion. There is no scientific way to measure that fact. There is no "important-o-meter". May be it was important, but it impossible to quantify.

As I said, the use of the term genocide doesn´t match wich the definition given in wikipedia. There was no ethnic, racial, etc... prosecution. And there were castillians... Etc...

Its use is almost "neo tongue" in this case. If you change the meaning of a world, the article is nonsense.

So, the fact is that if it is "published" by "some scholars", it is the truth. Even if the scholar can´t fund his thesis in facts...

There were a lot of "scholars" in the nazi Germany, that described jews and other people as sub-humans. In your opinion, it is right to reflect that opinion because there were scholars?

It is the end of history, I suppose.

P.D: And the end of wikipedia as a source of free information, may be it is useful for propaganda.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.172.153 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We actually have an article about "subhumans". We say what reliable sources said about those nazi "scholars" and their theories. Yes, the truth here is that one scholar said that some other scholars described the Spanish conquest ... as the largest genocide in history. That is precisely the fact which we are carrying over to the encyclopedia. We are not saying that this was a genocide (at least not in this article). This information is included because it's a relevant viewpoint. It's relevant because it is a viewpoint of multiple scholars (according to one scholar; the reference does not reveal who these scholars are and it would be nice to know, and to develop this preferably further in some other article such as Spanish Empire). He didn't say "(all) scholars", "most scholars", "many scholars" which implies that many scholars either don't have a position on the issue or disagree (such as about applying the notion of genocide to such events). If you can find an authoritative opinion (such as from a scholar) that this specific thing should not be called genocide, that those who do call it a genocide are making a mistake etc., it will be considered for inclusion. Sincerely —Alalch E. 22:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A: We actually have an article about "subhumans". We say what reliable sources said about those nazi "scholars" and their theories.

RQ: If you have such an article, and you use it to justify that if in the article a "scholar" speak of other "scholars"... What about using "genocide" article, and use the meaning given by Wikipedia itself.

There are many TV channel that show programs with "scholars", telling how extraterrestrial demigods make the pyramids, and there are no mention to this in the article.

Is it bullshit? Why is a mention to a book written by a "scholar" that tries to next Africa and Asia to Greek civilization?

May be is there a opinion instead of facts?

A: Yes, the truth here is that one scholar said that some other scholars described the Spanish conquest ... as the largest genocide in history. That is precisely the fact which we are carrying over to the encyclopedia. We are not saying that this was a genocide (at least not in this article). This information is included because it's a relevant viewpoint. It's relevant because it is a viewpoint of multiple scholars (according to one scholar; the reference does not reveal who these scholars are and it would be nice to know, and to develop this preferably further in some other article such as Spanish Empire). He didn't say "(all) scholars", "most scholars", "many scholars" which implies that many scholars either don't have a position on the issue or disagree (such as about applying the notion of genocide to such events).

RQ: So it doesn´t matter if genocide doesn´t match with one or more "scholars". Even more it is not important that facts don´t match with the term. I don´t understand why is not reflected the opinion of scholar that believe in UFO´s intervention in the pyramid´s building. I supposse in wikipedia "Scholar" means somebody semianalphabet that doesn´t understand the meaning and use of word.

A: If you can find an authoritative opinion (such as from a scholar) that this specific thing should not be called genocide, that those who do call it a genocide are making a mistake etc., it will be considered for inclusion.

RQ: So the question is that a "scholar" published some nonsense, even if it doesn´t have sense. But I suppose that somebody decides what piece of nonsense is added to the article, may be you. Goebels would be very proud of his achieves.

As I already said if the article fails in something so primary as using words, it is a piece of crap.

Thats were you see the trick. Sincerely. 66.81.172.152 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So you know about Goebbels' theories. Is it horrible that you're aware of them? And, in making that analogy, you appear to expect that others are aware of them. Well, even Wikipedia provides information about them, as twisted and mistaken as his theories were. Is that horrible? Or is knowing of the existence commonly propagated falsehoods just another part of knowledge, of awareness of what sorts of things there are in the world in which we live? If you disagree with that, if it's horrible to know, to be informed of Goebbels' theories, then maybe we all need to visit hypnotists to have this terrible awareness of Goebbels' theories stripped out of our brains at the same time as the information about his theories are stripped from Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If I tell you that over there in the sky is the moon shining, while I am pointing at it with my finger; don´t you should discuss if it is the moon or not, instead of speaking about the dirty in my nail?

I suppose that someone tries to use wikipedia to commit genocide (It´s nonsense, but for neo-tongue supporters it a valid sentence).

Thats were you see the trick (AGAIN).

P.D: Genocide. 66.81.172.130 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Norman Naimark is a serious scholar (a reliable source), and when he cites "some scholars" characterizing this specific period in history as being marked by genocide, we believe him (we believe that there are such other, unnamed, scholars), but we don't go as far as to say that it was genocide, we just attribute the statement to him that there are such scholars. Please understand that this is a VERY qualified application of the genocide label. The way to improve the encyclopedic coverage on this specific content point is not to simply remove the statement of Naimark, but (1) to identify which exact scholars actually applied the notion of genocide to this period, (2) which (if any) scholars disagree. Please understand that we are essentialy in agreement that the current state of the article is not perfect. Wikipedia is a work in progress. —Alalch E. 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part. Thats Wikipedia say.

Now, you BELIEVE, that less than 4.5 million of CASTILLIANS (Not Spaniards) could traveled ACCIDENTALLY to America (they though they where in Asia, so they called indigenous people "indios"), in order to destroy INTENCIONALLY, aztecs and incas that were commiting genocide with other peoples, with armies of 1500 men or so; that married with natives whose descendants where even Famous writers in later events; and that took Biological weapons to kill native people commited genocide.

And you BELIEVE the article is right, and the use of the word genocide is right.

Of course I undestand.

Thats were you see the trick (AD NAUSEAM).

P.D: If you believe in Naimark, then I can´t only say "AMEN"... Or die in the holly fire for my sin of thinking. 66.81.172.163 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that it was a genocide. It says that it has been called it a genocide. That is a true statement. The article expresses no judgement whatsoever about whether calling it a genocide is "right". Please stop carrying on about the article saying things that it does not say. You're wasting everybody's time and attention. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So the mention of a "scholar" mentioning genocide asociated with the Spaniards, doesn´t mean it is true or not.

I understand that you understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you should not deffend to add sentences with "information" that could be true, or not; just because it is only gossip emmited by one "scholar".

Please stop carrying on about the article saying things that it does not say. You're wasting everybody's time and attention. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

It is a longterm question, I suppose. But please, If you can only say that I am wrong, but you can´t prove that in castilla where more castillians in 1500, if you can´t prove that they were in America by accident (not with intention), etcc... Don´t waste your time, and mine. 66.81.169.244 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

[ec] I don't believe the article is right. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for it's own purposes. I work on improving the online encyclopedia that is Wikipedia, but I don't take it as a reliable source unto itself (which would be a huge and obvious mistake). I believe Naimark when he says that there are "some scholars" who characterized the specific period in history as being marked by genocide (i.e. that he didn't lie that there are such sholars). If you can find any evidence that Naimark is not being reliable when he says this, or that among relevant scholars none said anything of the sort (evidence of absence, not so promising I'll admit), or that there are in fact scholars who make an explicit claim that what happened was not genocide, let us know, and we will think together on how to incorporate this and enrich the article. Another way to argue is to say that including this claim attributed to Naimark gives undue weight to a view held by a small minority (of scholars) — find evidence that even if the claim originates from legitimate scholars, it is still, among the totality of scholars, a relatively fringe viewpoint. Stay constructive and you may persuade editors to enact your desired changes after a consensus is formed. I am currently leaning neutral on this issue. Take a look at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to see what the options are. —Alalch E. 17:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a typical re-run of the "The English (and maybe some others) are pushing the black legend!!!" nonsense again. No OP, the "English" are doing nothing of the sort, with almost none of the modern historiography over Spain's dealings in South America coming from the UK, let alone England. The idea that anti-Spanish sentiment exists in England today is a myth held onto by a few radical Spanish ethnic nationalists online. Almost nobody in England has heard of the black legend or its counterpart, because as stated prior the current discourse over the Spanish Empire originates within non-European circles entirely: Namely, scholars on the colonial legacy (nearly all of which are North and South Americans) of the Americas and indigenous activists and scholars themselves, many of whom characterise the Spanish Empires forcible assimilation of the indigenous peoples as either oppressive or flat-out genocidal. --SinoDevonian (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This a typical re-run of the "I don´t have arguments(and may be other reasons) to refute the claims!!!" nonsense again.

No OP, the "persons" are doing nothing of the short, with almost everyone of the modern speakers of english understanding the meaning of "genocide", as it is stated in Wikipedia, it is normal that the current discourse over the use of the term genocide is the reflected in "genocide".

The idea that neo-tonguish sentiment exists in english Wikipedia today is a myth held onto by a few ¿semi-analphabet? radicals online.

Almost nobody in english Wikipedia has heard of genocide as a non intended prosecution or its counterpart, because as stated prior the current discourse over genocide originates within wikipedia articles entirely: Namely, articles written by persons alphabetised in english (nearly all of which are earthlings) of the non-activist groups that reject comments unfounded in wikipedia themselves, many of whom characterise the Wikipedia manipulation and use of neo-tongue of the activists people as either oppressive or, flat-out, culturally genocidal.

Next time, you can say that Cristobal Colon travelled to America aided with GPS, and his intention was to anihilate the aztecs and Incas. And you can remark that he took loads of biological weapons. And that castillians didn´t exist. Spain was behind them.

Thats were you see the trick (If you read "genocide" article, sure)

66.81.169.227 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@66.81.172.166 I think adding more information about the silver mines the Spanish empire operated would clear up any doubt that what happened was a genocide.

also, of course England's article should have information about the many genocides they participated in. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So, in Europe, at the same time that castillian operated silver mines in Potosí, the people that operated the coal mines of the Rurh, or in Wales, were in better conditions in terms of work? They were exploited as well, and died by thousands...

Are you trying to justify the use of the word genocide because castillians exploited poors in mining activity?

In that case, are we commiting genocide when we buy an iphone made in china by a semi-slave worker?

66.81.169.138 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023 Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction

Change "Spain has the twelve-highest life expectancy in the world." to "Spain has the twelfth-highest life expectancy in the world." Jbernabeus (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done—Alalch E. 11:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Spain Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)