Talk:Spain

Mention of the culture

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.Moxy🍁 16:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2026

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. The country also has one of the largest numbers of World Heritage Sites and is the world's second-most visited country."~2026-30385-48 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

At this point, it seems clear that Inherli is ignoring the discussion and even the indications from other users. Since this is a clear case of stonewalling by Inherli, who is imposing his own version without discussion, I think we should revert his edit and restore Largoplazo's version as the base. ~2026-30385-48 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Seriously, is nobody going to do anything about Inherli? He is completely refusing to take part in the discussion despite having been pinged several times, and all he does is patrol the article to remove information that is actually referenced, while trying to get the article locked under the pretext of block evasion. That can't be an excuse to refuse to engage in Talk discussions. This is clearly abusive behaviour. Largoplazo, Barjimoa, Moxy, Enćenćecasïdća, Darth Stabro.

Thanks. Léopold Favre (talk)

And this is clearly a new account created by the user behind JaierRT and Abatsuki. Inherli (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to report whatever you want. That said, you have been warned to stop using "block evasion" as an excuse to hijack the article. There are other users who want to keep the referenced content that you are removing so recklessly. Léopold Favre (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the considerable deadlock in this already lengthy and stalled discussion, please feel free to read and contribute your views to the dispute resolution request opened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spain Léopold Favre (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Co-official languages in the infobox

Calling it co-official languages is misleading. These are regional official languages and not national level languages. We don't need translation of those 4 languages in the infobox. Thus removing it. If you have counter arguments, would love to hear. Beshogur (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also instead of a note, I propose to add those 4 (5* with Valencian) to the infobox as Official regional languages like North Macedonia example. Beshogur (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried this but somehow doesn't show up. Beshogur (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Might need correction for ethnic groups -> nationality & not sure about regional languages. Beshogur (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Left the protected / other minority out, redundant. See also European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Beshogur (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Glottonymia: I know Catalan and Valencian are varieties of same language, but per constitutions, they're separate languages. Similarly to Serbo-Croatian. We don't list them with / but as separate languages. Beshogur (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Added note to Catalan and Valencian. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Beshogur. I see your point, but I don't think that the Spanish legal system treats them as separate languages. Claims in either direction (they are legally equivalent or they are legally different) are hard to back up with sources, for no Spanish law has even been issued stating "these are the four (or five) official languages of Spain" (the constitution does not mention any language other than Castillian (Spanish)). There are nevertheless some points that can be made to the effect that Spain does not treat them legally as anything but two names for the same language:

1) First and foremost, it is worth noting that there is case law about this particular issue. Long story short, in 1995 the PP-led government of the Valencian Community made an attempt to differentiate both languages so that certificates of knowledge of Catalan would be legally unsuitable as Valencian knowledge certificates. The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that Valencian and Catalan were legally equivalent and that therefore no distinction could be made. You may read the full story here. As you may check in the linked news, the ruling by the Supreme Court is quite clear: treating Valencian and Catalan as legally different clashes with the state regulation on Education and languages, and the use of this or that name by the Statute of Autonomy of the Valencian Community does not settle the issue. The ruling goes indeed quite far, for it explicitly states that the language spoken in Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Andorra and Valencia is the same, and then goes on to state that, insofar as Valencian is just a variety of that language, all certificates of Catalan should be suitable as certificates of knowledge of Valencian.

This has happened many times, indeed. For the Civil service entrance examination to be held in Valencia in the late 2000, politicians tried to make those who held a degree in Catalan Philology unsuitable for teaching in Valencian, but the Valencian Superior Court ruled otherwise (). As of 2012, there were at least 45 instances of case law stating the legal equivalence and the interchangeability of the names "Valencian" and "Catalan": . On top of that, the official institution that regulates Valencian, the Valencian Language Academy, also stated in 2005 that the two names are legally equivalent (point 6 in page 4).

Case law is quite clear, but there are still a few minor points that support the idea that Spain does not make any legal differentiation.

2) The requirements to be hired by the state to be a teacher of Valencian are the same as the requirements to be a teacher of Catalan (page 46). Namely, both require Catalan Philology-related degrees.

3) While it is true that websites depending on the Spanish government often incorporate versions in both Catalan and Valencian, others don't. Among the websites of the current 22 Spanish ministries, for example, 10 incorporate both versions (, , , , , , , , , ), 10 have a unique Catalan version (, , , , , , , , , ) and 2 others only have a Spanish version. This does not happen with Galician or Basque (there are no pages translated into Catalan but not into Basque, for example), so the inclusion of Valencian in the ten first websites can be thought of just as an inclusion of Valencian variants, rather than the fulfilment of a legal obligation to include two separate languages.

4) Official institutions devoted to language learning, like Escuela Oficial de Idiomas or UNED's language school, never offer separate courses on Catalan and Valencian. In UNED, there is a single course named Catalan/Valencian, whereas the EOIs that include Spain's co-official languages among their offer always call it "Catalan", except for the Valencian Community (this is so in Madrid, for example, where the courses offered include Catalan, Basque and Galician, but not Valencian, and in Aragon, which offers Catalan but not Valencian).

7) The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, signed and endorsed by Spain, does not make any distinction (it does mention both names, but lists them under "Catalan"): page 4.

8) When the Spanish government made a request to the Council of the European Union to the effect that the co-official languages of Spain be made official languages of the European Union, they asked only for Basque, Catalan and Galician ().

I therefore believe there is no reason to list them separately. If the problem is the slash (and I too find it anti-aesthetic), there are many solutions that could be adopted. The specialized literature, in general, does not list “Catalan” and “Valencian” separately: as a matter of fact, they tend to use only the name “Catalan”. This is the case of Ethnologue, in particular, which is a source Wikipedia heavily relies on, but it is also the case of the vast majority of university handbooks (chapter 21, for example; there are many more if required) and even the CIA factbook. I.e., Wikipedia appears to be an exception, for it generally employs the name with the slash – some years ago this was quite different. There are currently a few proposals for a common name, such as Catalanovalencian, but none of them has been received much recognition. Perhaps a hyphen, as in Serbo-Croatian, would look better? Glottonymia (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Glottonymia:I appreciate your research, as a Catalan, you surely know it better, but my pure motivation was about aesthetic purpose on the infobox. Putting a slash seems inappropriate. Yes the constitution doesn't mention regional languages, but statute of autonomy do.

Ministry of Territorial Policy literally separates them.

1. The native language of the Valencian Community is Valencian. 2. The Valencian language is the official language in the Valencian Community, as is Spanish, which is the official language of the State.

For example in the Balearic Islands, it's called Catalan. Also from my understanding, many Valencians do not accept Valencian called as Catalan: Valencian linguistic conflict. So as wikipedia users, we should act NPOV and consider what the de jure law say (regarding infobox). That's why I think the note is appropriate. You can still edit the note. I think the note is pretty explanatory: Valencian is the official name used in the Valencian Community for the Catalan language. It's better than putting a slash, which can confuse many readers. Also found the original European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages pdf, it says Catalan (called Valencian) in the Valencian Community. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Beshogur, I believe your edit is just perfect!

Just so you know, I am not Catalan, but Valencian, so I am pretty aware of the conflict. And yes, Wikipedia should just stick to the majority view of experts, which, of course, is not incompatible with both names having a place. I believe the article currently reflects that fairly well. Glottonymia (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

FWC world cup champions

Add this information. ~2026-37261-40 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026

change "The country's national men's football team won the UEFA European Championship in 1964, 2008, 2012 and 2024 and the FIFA World Cup in 2010, and is the first team ever to win three back-to-back major international tournaments." to "The country's national men's football team won the UEFA European Championship in 1964, 2008, 2012 and 2024 and the FIFA World Cup in 2010 and 2026 and is the first team ever to win three back-to-back major international tournaments. this is in the sports sub-tab of culture. Ruinedblade (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done Day Creature (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Total population above 100%

Under the demographic section it says: "...people born in Spain accounted for 85.4% of the total population and people born abroad accounted for 20.3% of the total population." That adds up to 105.7% of the total population. Is one of these numbers incorrect? ~2026-41837-42 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Both numbers seem to have been miscalculated, and they have been corrected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)