Spain joins NATO[edit]

Spain joined NATO under the last UCD's Government, with Calvo Sotelo in office; the government rushed to because polls suggested that the PSOE, a party that opposed it, would eventually win the next general elections. The Referendum that came later asked the voters to leave (or not) the Organisation while modifying the status of the relationship. The result was not to leave it. I have fixed this mistake. --Uncertain 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18th c. Spain - Enlightenment & Backwardness[edit]

I am relatively new to this process. Nonetheless, I am concerned about the characterization of Spain in the eighteenth century. Spain emphatically DID absorb the ideals of the Enlightenment (e.g. - The Jesuits before their expulsion or the military reforms following the Seven Years' War). Nor did Spain fall impossibly behind England and France. As late as 1796, Spain had the largest navy in Western Europe, as well as 4 of 7 and 5 of the 9 largest warships in the world. It retained control of the largest European empire in the world (the English and the French both lost the bulk of theirs during the 1700s). And all this was accomplished without the enormous national debt incurred by either England or France. Moreover, if we want to push things even further forward, more than half of all the ships fighting at Trafalgar -- on both sides -- were built by the Spanish in Spain and Havana. How might we correct these misperceptions?

Can you source? my book says the second largest navy after the British in 1786--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps[edit]

Historical maps of Spain: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/spain_910_1492.jpg jengod 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ferdinand and Isabel[edit]

I'm not sure why there is no mention of Ferdinand and Isabel, the union of Castile and Aragon, etc. Given that that this was a pivotal set of events in the creation of what became Spain, shouldn't there be substantial discussion about this? See, e.g., Treaty of Alcaçovas for starters. NorCalHistory 19:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead section not compliant with WP:LEAD[edit]

The lead section is not compliant with WP:LEAD. The lead section is supposed to summarize the entire article, and entice the reader to read more. NorCalHistory 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I am continuing to add to the lead section, I am aware that my additions are also not (yet) compliant with WP:LEAD, because the additions occasionally refer to matters which are not (yet) included in the main text (such as the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand). The hope is that additions may be made to the main text, so as to fill-in missing information. NorCalHistory 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The heavy editing of the lead section is essentially done, and I have upgraded some of the early sections (taking better material from Spain). The rest of the main text needs filling, such as the Ferdinand and Isabella story.NorCalHistory 21:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead section is still not in compliance. It's supposed to be a concise summary of the article. Right now it's huge. In fact I was reading through the lead just now and I was surprised to see a table of contents at the bottom, 'cause I thought that was the actual article. It's wayyyyyy too long. Most of that info does not need to be there. 68.8.108.62 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging by the above comments, the reason the lead section is so long is that the article is too short.--Shtove 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIKIPEDIA[edit]

This web sit is reall get any info from it

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia[edit]

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I request that this conversation (also) take place at WP:SPAIN? As a courtesy to the WP:SPAIN members, I will place a link there to this conversation. EspanaViva 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spain since 1978 section[edit]

The "Spain since 1978" section should be restructured to be written in complete sentences, instead of sentence fragments. If "The Unión del Centro Democrático governments. 1981 The 23-F coup d'état attempt." is meant to be a section subhead, it should be turned into that: as it is, it looks like someone's class notes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer review requested for Madrid article[edit]

A Peer review has been requested for Madrid, the article about the capital city of Spain. Please feel free to edit the Madrid article to improve it and/or leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Madrid. EspanaViva 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spain in the American Revolutionary War[edit]

Help expand this article, please. Spain doesn't get her due credit for her contribution to victory in the war. You can help correct that. SamEV 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article states the following:

The eighteenth century saw a new dynasty, the Bourbons, which directed considerable effort towards the institutional renewal of the state, with some success, peaking in a successful involvement in the American War of Independence.

The Bourbon reform also reaped rewards in the success the Spanish had against the British in the War of Jenkins Ear(1739) and the military success they had in 1744 in their re-assertion of power in Italy at the expense of the Austrians.--Charles A 04:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

spain[edit]

what were the needs and wants that made spain come to america

Clearly there are many needs and wants that Spain had. But what is important is to look at the type of empire that Spain was. By understanding how a state ruled, it usually gives way to why their actions occur. In general, one can sum up reasons as "God, glory and gold." That tends to be the motivation for countries in the Age of Discovery. Spain put a lot of emphasis on the saving of souls. When they went to new areas, they brought with them missionaries that were there to convert the indigenous population. The more people they could save, the more freedom actual Spanish people had in the realm of Europe because they were more likely to have papal support as well as more support from the common class.Spartemis (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)SpartemisReply[reply]

References[edit]

Isn't this article really a "portal" to the more detailed history articles? Aren't they the ones that really need the references - not this one?

I would argue that there absolutely should still be references in this article. Of course there should be more citations in more specific articles, but I think it's just as important to make sure to back up our information with proper sources in this article. It is probably one of the first articles someone will look at for any number of Spain-related topics, so it should definitely have a nice, factual, and well-cited introduction to the more specific articles. Snackerdoodle (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I may cut down the introduction a bit, since it is getting somewhat long for an intro. Also, some of the illustrations in the introduction are rather large, and I'll likely move them to their respective sections in the article. AlexiusHoratius 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cut down the introduction to three paragraphs, plus the introductory sentence. The major events are still mentioned, and the size is now more in line with WP:LEAD. AlexiusHoratius 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poorly written[edit]

4 Muslim Occupation and the Reconquest (8th–15th centuries)

I got confused reading this part. I think it's very poorly written. There are a lot of things not mentioned, example what is Al-Andalus and what is reconquest, just to name two unexplained terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.27.144 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I´d like to add, that reading this secting I was curious about what where the northern kingdoms that have never been conquered by the moors. I don´t nkow the answer so maybe someone oculd add this? I just know that Asturias, the cradle of Reconquista had been conquered and the Reconquista started as uprisals in Asturias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.102.165 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrible![edit]

Has anyone actually read this garbage? "The history of Spain spans the period from pre-historic times, through the rise and fall of the first global empire, to Spain's modern-day renaissance in the post-Franco era" I would not accept this as a paper from a college sophomore. This is: trite, biased, silly nonsense! It lacks any academic substance at all. Please fix. You can start by throwing this article in the trash and starting over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoblite (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Is that big coat of arms at the top really needed? I think it is superfluous because the coat of arms is not discussed in the introduction. I suggest replacing it with the History of Spain series template that appears below. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question - Mesta[edit]

Can anyone who watches this page direct me to a relatively brief, in English, but authoritative account of when, how and why the Mesta collapsed? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Slrubenstein! What's the Mesta? The Ogre (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An association of sheepherders/woolproducers formed by the Crown of Castile in 1274 I think. Wool produces by the Mesta was one of Spain's biggst explorts in the 17th century. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AH! Ok, the Mesta. Let me search. The Ogre (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first Global Empire was Portugal.

In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4(or 5) Continents and the first one spread by some more Subcontinents - and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5(or 6) Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526.

- Let us respect the Truth and History.

Of course Spain and Portugal joined in 1580 to 1640 had formed wider a double truily global empire.

In other way You could write that the Spanish empire with the Portuguese, was one of the first global empires. Became better historical justice.

Charles V was the most powerful monarch of his day[edit]

source : [1], if anybody would be kind to put it as a citation i.e. [1], please do so because i don't know exactly how to do it. Thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost forgot: Done. This article is on my watchlist, so that's why I saw this. SamEV (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks !--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly how many references/sources/citations need to be added to satisfy the article banner (which asks for sources)?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About a couple of hundred, is my guess. SamEV (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what?! wow that's a lot!
Well, it's only a guess. And for some reason I thought you were referring to featured article status. SamEV (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slavic peoples in Spain[edit]

It´d be interesting if somebody knowledgeable (it´s not my case) could provide information about Slavic peoples in Muslim Spain; I think it´s a fact unknown by most people. --Xareu bs (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1st or 2nd?[edit]

There is constant interference here from the Portuguese who insist the Portuguese empire was the first global empire. Well remember, Columbus' expeditions not only crossed the Atlantic before before Da Gama's reached India, but also began the first settlements across the ocean in the America's, while the first Portuguese trading posts in Asia came into being years later. As the historian Garrett Mattingly noted long ago, the (early) Portuguses empire was a bankrupt wholesale business - a point supported by recent scholarship. One can hardly call that 15th century chain of slave trading posts down the west African coast the first global empire. Anyway, one could argue quite reasonably that the first true global empire really came into being with the formation of the Iberian Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.95.37 (talk • contribs)

Maybe. But the question here is not what one could argue, but what credible published academic sources say. And they say contradictory stuff. So, the best solution, either for the Spanish or the Portuguese empires, is to say that they were among the first global empires. Wikipedia is not a competition... The Ogre (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nationalities of Spain, self-government, power devolution/returned home rule[edit]

This article does not mention anything about the devolved powers to the Nationalities and regions of Spain. Currently Spain is a pseudo-unitarian country, as it is defined as a unitary state, but it acts as a federacy (decentralisation), pretty different than contemporanean France (which seem to be more of a centralised country) and very similar to the United Kindgom. Is it possible to expand a bit the section of the contemporanean history of Spain?

Catalan, Basque, Galician nationalism is also part of the History of Spain, as far as i know. A slight mention could be added as well. When did ETA begin? Nothing says here, it mentions previous Spanish government acused them of the Al-Qaida attacks to Spain. ETA is also part of the history of Spain, isn't it? Perhaps someone could add here when all this begun. 178.101.134.126 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Conversion[edit]

I think that this article does a decent job at giving an overview on the history of Moorish Spain; However, I think there could be a lot more clarity in describing the overall history of al-Andalus. I feel as though there are a lot of things that have been left out. These omitted facts make it seem as though the author is telling this history with a very Christian bias. This could just be the authors personal choice, and I respect that, but I think that he skips over some key facts in order to give a much too simplified and fairy tail version of the history of Spain. The main thing that I think he skims over is the process of Spain being taken over by the Muslims. This is a very important time in Spain's history and it had a huge impact on Spanish culture, society, architecture and pretty much every other aspect of Spanish life. Another thing that the author skimmed over was the fact that almost 75 percent of Spain's population converted to Islam in this time. This was an extremely important event that happened over the course of several centuries. Overall this article is decent, but there are some parts of the history of Spain that need to be expanded upon to get a clear idea of what shaped it to be the nation it is today. Voitik2 (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map needs fixing[edit]

This map, File:Iberian Union Empires.png, used on this page, has some mistakes. I wrote about it on the map's talk page at the Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Iberian_Union_Empires.png --basically, given the dates 1581-1640 far too much of North America is shown as part of the Spanish Empire. I will try to fix it if I get the time, but wanted to post here to ask whether South America is shown accurately or not, given the dates. Thanks. Pfly (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent unsourced edits to the article[edit]

(talk) is making substantial unsourced changes to the article's text. This user seems to have quite a history (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30) of being blocked for sockpuppetry and edit-warring, and seems eager to launch one of his campaigns at this article. Carlstak (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell me what is "substantial unsourced changes" and we can solve the problem if any.--Santos30 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead too long[edit]

This is mostly cosmetic, but in keeping with how we tend to format lead paragraphs in WP:SS articles such as this one, the current one is far too long. It is almost a short article on the "History of Spain" in its own right. Instead of slapping a ((Lead too long)) template on it, let me ask if it's alright if I trim it down a bit? For reference, this is the shape of the current lead section:

The Iberian Peninsula was first entered by anatomically modern humans at about 32,000 years ago. Spanish prehistory extends to the Iron Age, during which there were settlements of Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians on the Mediterranean coast. The indigenous civilization Tartessos covered the southwest, the "Iberians" dominated the eastern side of the peninsula, the Celtiberians and other Celtic groups were in the interior and northwest, the Lusitanians in the west and the Vascones in the north. Under Roman rule, a common culture and legal system was established and Latin, the origin of the modern Romance languages, became the language of Roman Hispania. In the latter stages of Roman rule, Christianity became the dominant religion. The modern name Spain derives from Hispania, the ancient Roman name for the Iberian Peninsula. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, near the end of the fifth century, parts of Hispania came under the control of Germanic tribes, the Vandals, the Suebi, the Visigoths and the Byzantine Empire. The Visigothic Kingdom conquered all of Hispania and ruled it until the eighth century. Near the beginning of the eighth century, a Muslim army, made up largely of Moors and some Arabs, invaded and conquered the Visigothic kingdom. The areas under Muslim rule became known as Al-Andalus, which at first covered nearly the whole peninsula. Over time, various small Christian kingdoms and counties formed in the north of the Iberian Peninsula and began to coalesce into larger states, gaining territory at the expense of Muslim control, a centuries-long process that is known as the Reconquista. After the collapse of Muslim unity in the eleventh century, the balance of power swung toward the Christian kingdoms and by 1250, the Christian kingdoms, the Kingdom of Portugal, the Kingdom of Aragon, the Kingdom of Castile and the Kingdom of Navarre, ruled nearly the whole peninsula except for the Muslim kingdom of Granada in the south-east. Although colloquially and literally the expression "King of Spain" or "King of the Spains" was already widespread, and although the two crowns, Aragonese and Castilian, were held by the same monarch, and although the different kings had the long-term shared intention of uniting the peninsula under a single kingdom to restore the Visigoth unity, they were never proclaimed officially as a single kingdom until the enactment of the Spanish Constitution of 1812. Portugal was also ruled by the House of Habsburg with Castile and Aragon but this came to an end with a revolt after sixty years. The year 1492 is the traditional starting point of the modern history of Spain, with the fall of Granada to Christian forces, the successful voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World and the expulsion of the Jews. The Spanish Empire was launched, as was the Spanish Inquisition; Jews and Muslims who refused to convert were expelled from the country. From the early 1500s to the 1650s, Spain was the most powerful state in Europe; it controlled the largest overseas empire in the world for three centuries, including possessions in the Americas stretching from California to Patagonia, as well as colonies in the western Pacific, among them the Philippines. Spanish literature and fine arts, scholarship and philosophy flourished during the 16th and 17th centuries. Spain became embroiled in the political intrigues and wars of Europe, of which the most important were the Italian Wars, the Eighty Years' War, the Thirty Years' War and the Franco-Spanish War Spain's European wars led to economic damage and the latter part of the 17th century saw a marked decline of power under the last Spanish Habsburg ruler. The decline culminated in the War of the Spanish Succession, which ended with the relegation of Spain to the status of a second-rate power with a reduced influence in European affairs. The 18th century saw a new dynasty, the Bourbons, which directed considerable efforts towards the renewal of state institutions, with some success, and a successful involvement in the American War of Independence in 1775–83. However, as the century ended, instability set in as the French Revolution destabilized Europe. The end of the 18th and the start of the 19th centuries saw turmoil unleashed throughout Europe by the French revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and the military occupation of Spain by the Bonapartist regime. This triggered a successful but devastating war for Spanish independence that shattered the country and created an opening for what would ultimately be the successful independence of Spain's mainland American colonies. Fragmented by the war, Spain was destabilised as different political parties representing "liberal", "reactionary" and "moderate" groups throughout the remainder of the century fought for and won short-lived control without any being sufficiently strong to bring about lasting stability. Nationalist movements emerged in the last significant remnants of the old empire (Cuba and the Philippines) which led to a brief war with the United States (1898) and the loss of the remaining old colonies at the end of the century. Although it had been used in treaties as far back as the seventeenth century, it was not until the constitution of 1812 that the name "Españas" became the official name for the Spanish kingdom and "King of the Spains" became the official title of the head of state. It was not until the constitution of 1876 that the singular form of the name, "España" (Spain), became the official name of the Spanish state. Following a period of growing political instability in the early 20th century, in 1936 Spain was plunged into a bloody civil war. The war ended in a nationalist dictatorship, led by Francisco Franco, which controlled the Spanish government until 1975. Spain was officially neutral during World War II (1939–1945), although many Spanish volunteers fought on both sides. The post-war decades were relatively stable (with the notable exception of an armed independence movement in the Basque Country), and the country experienced rapid economic growth in the 1960s and early 1970s. The death of Franco in 1975 resulted in the return of the Bourbon monarchy headed by Prince Juan Carlos. While tensions remain (for example, with Muslim immigrants and in the Basque region), modern Spain has seen the development of a robust, modern democracy as a constitutional monarchy with popular King Juan Carlos, one of the fastest-growing standards of living in Europe, entry into the European Community, and the 1992 Summer Olympics and 1982 World Cup. After 2008, a recession hit Spain hard, with the bursting of the housing bubble, unemployment reaching over 25%, and sharp budget cutbacks needed to stay in the Eurozone.

I felt compelled to preface this with something of a "lead to the lead", to begin by stating that this whole thing is indeed going to be about the history of Spain, thusly,

The modern Kingdom of Spain is the successor of Habsburg Spain, which unified a number of disparate predecessor kingdoms in 1500; its modern form of a constitutional monarchy was introduced in 1812, the current democratic constitution dates to 1978.

If you ask me, the lead should consist on one short paragraph or sentence on each of

  1. Prehistory and antiquity
  2. Middle Ages
  3. Early Modern / Habsburg Spain / Empire
  4. 1812 to Franco
  5. 1978 to present

so, maybe five or six sentences in total. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the lede is not "too long" lots of people ONLY read the lede-- they want a succinct history of Spain not am index to a long article they will not read. Other people will skip the lede entirely and go straight to one section that they are really interested in. Rjensen (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Mention of Pre-Roman Africans[edit]

Golden Age of the Moor, 1992, Van Sertima pg. 1:

"In Al-Makkarys History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, however, we learn of a great drought that afflicted Spain about three thousand years ago, a catastrophe that was followed not long afterwards by an invasion from Africa."

"The drought that devastated Spain, however, is described by a number of Spanish historians. Pedro de Medina in Libro de las Grandezas de Espana, published in Seville in 1549, dates the drought at 1070 B.C. Ibn-I-Khattib Al-Makkary describes it in some detail. It is Al-Makkary also who informs us of how Africans banished from North Africa from an African king against whom they revolted, entered Spain and took control of the country. The leader of the Africans is recorded as Batrikus."

"These Africans first cast anchor at a place on the Western Shore of Spain and settled at Cadiz. Advancing into the interior of the country, they spread themselves about, extending their settlements, built cities and towns and increased their numbers by marriage. They settled in that part of the country between the place of their landing in the west, and the country of the Franks in the east, and appointed kings to rule over them and administer their affairs. They fixed their capital at Talikah (Italica) a city now in ruins, which once belonged to the district of Isbilah, which is in modern day Seville. But, after a period of 157 years, during which eleven kings of the African race reigned over Andalus they were annihilated by the Romans, who invaded and conquered the country."

Why is there no mention of these events and people? Especially when the they managed to build large settlements in Spain long before Romans and Germanic tribes arrived in the area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A760:E44:CD7E:560E:AA41:F1E0 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks like afro-centric pseudo-historical trash. I wouldn't touch it even with a ten inch pole, to be honest per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Al-Makkary lived in the 16-17th centuries. By virtue of his notability and documented historical authority on the topic (the history of Al-Andalus), his account of events is relevant.
When approaching statements from secondary sources (and especially if statements appear extraordinary), it can be useful to refer to primary sources. In the case of the account quoted above, it can be observed that in the primary source it is stated, "After the defeat and destruction of the Africans, the empire of Andalus devolved to the people of Rome and their king Ishban, son of Titus". The notes in the translation of the primary source by Pascual de Gayangos identify king Ishban as Vespasian, son of Titus. Vespasian lived in the 1st century, and therefore suggesting that he lead an invasion in the 10th century B.C. (as the secondary source claims) is nonsensical.
It is possible that the events quoted occurred as described by Al-Makkary. If the events did occur, they would have occurred over the 1st century B.C. and 1st century and not in the 10th century B.C. (as the secondary source claims). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits made by relatively new user[edit]

When O'Callaghan says "Spain was not only a major market for slaves..." he is not saying, "Al-Andalus was a market of Christian slaves". He is saying that Spain at the time was a *buyers'* market for slaves. This is clear because O'Callaghan's following words are "but also a base from which they were shipped elsewhere in the Muslim world", which would be a *selling* transaction.


Reducing O'Callaghan's words to "Al-Andalus was a market of Christian slaves" is so unclear and such a distortion of O'Callaghan's actual statement that it effectively misrepresents what he said. User Rekkwint has shown a clear tendency to misinterpret the texts of sources he cites, and this calls into question his comprehension of English, which by all appearances is lacking.

REKKWINT asks user Asqueladd in bad English: "The source if it says what you have undid; look: pag 152 ;why have you deleted it?" I would have reverted it too. Carlstak (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Armada[edit]

"Over 8,000 English sailors died from diseases such as dysentery and typhus while the Spanish Armada was at sea." What is the reference for this? Should it be "Spanish sailors"?MikeVdP (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)MikeVdP (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Maybe the reference should be something like "while 8,000 English sailors died from diseases...Spanish sailors suffered 20,000 dead..." See the article on the Spanish Armada.MikeVdP (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rif War Casualties[edit]

The claim Spain suffered worse casualties than any other European country waging an African colonial war in the twentieth century is, while I’ll admit possible and certainly close no matter what; is still lower in overall casualties, including fatalities, than the United Kingdom suffered in the Second Anglo-Boer War twenty years prior. At the very least the statement may need to be qualified or contextualized. OgamD218 (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article length[edit]

It's way too long. People read these on their phones. This runs 48 printed pages. It should be refactored. I"d suggest keeping it to 5k words. Lfstevens (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not too long; the subject is the history of Spain. I don't read it on my phone. Nor do I print 48 pages. Those who only want a summary can stop after the first five paragraphs. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry are you saying you represent the audience? The subject can be covered in any number of words. 500 to 500,000 and has been. We're supposed to be encyclopedic in length, not comprehensive. Hope others will join the conversation. Lfstevens (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Lfstevens (talk · contribs). However, I'm certainly not the only person who doesn't read such articles on a phone. That would be the purpose of a dictionary entry or a tourist guide. I support concision wholeheartedly, but encyclopedic articles are allowed to be comprehensive.

Nevertheless, it's worth reviewing the Wikipedia guide on article size. This article is just over 200,000 bytes, beyond the point at which "division should be considered". That is a guide, not a rule, because some subjects simply require long articles for adequate coverage. The article about the United States is slightly under 300,000 bytes and those for France and the United Kingdom are more than 350,000 bytes. Even the articles for several American states are longer than that for Spain. It doesn't mean the Spain article couldn't be shorter; as you say, it could be made any length. What, then, would you remove? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would remove lots. I might keep only a little past the intro. WP is about providing quick, accurate answers, not about answering every question in a single article. Each article should provide basic info on its subject, with the secondary goal of eticing readers to dig deeper. It's about readers, not writers. Lfstevens (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a level-4 vital article "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article". A short article with not much more than the lede to summarize such a vast subject would not even come close to meeting that criterion. Carlstak (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Spain[edit]

500 paragraphs 165.16.185.218 (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories