Talk:Foreign relations of Spain

Spain–Zambia relations was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 February 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Foreign relations of Spain. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Spain Top‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philippines[edit]

What about the Philipine - Spanish Relations?

They are limited since the Spanish defeat in the Spanish-American War of 1898. Today, Spain tries to reinforce its relations with Philippines along other East Asian nations and the Instituto Cervantes have a program to expand the Spanish language in the islands, but some issues like the condem to Death penalty of the Spanish-Filipino citizen Francisco Larrañaga and the closely alliance of Gloria Macapagal with Bush administration complicate them.--Menah the Great 12:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Removed " Some Spanish are very happy for this, and they prefer have better relation with the European Union members than the USA." That's an opinion of the writter, not a fact.

Copied[edit]

This entire article is directly lifted off the State department's profile of Spain. Maybe someone should actually take the time to research and write a real article.

refinement[edit]

This page has serious organizational problems...also a lot of important details were left out... the referendum of NATO? The Madrid conferences? The Perejil conflict? The Iberoamerican Summits? Immigration? I mean, The whole pages needs to be recast.

Proposed WikiProject - Bilateral relations[edit]

There is now a upstart WikiProject to establish a concensus about WP's International bilateral relations articles, including "X-Y (country) relations" articles, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Interested parties should add their names at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force if they wish to play a part in the discussions or have an Interest in this going forward. Thank you for your attention. CaribDigita (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany-Spain[edit]

I would like to see a source for that "crisis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.44.179 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Please set out here the reasons why you wish to change the text for discussion about inclusion. We can go through them line by line as you wish. Regards, Justin talk 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, once it's challenged (see WP:BRD) it's you the one who have to justify why you include it.

On the other hand, I can't see any "consensus" here regarding your editions. As it had clear flaws and put undue height to the Olivenza case (without any description of the Gibraltar case) I've preferred to neutralize it and ask for sources to the most dubious statements. As you don't want to discuss your edition before introducing it, we'd better wait for a more neutral edition.

BTW, the following statements require sources:

"The population is 80% ethnic Portuguese and 30% of Portuguese language"
"Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation)"
"On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public"

Finally, I wonder why you remove the exact wording of the treaty of Vienna in English (you can see in wikisource). --Ecemaml (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny guy, BRD applies to the existing consensus and by any standard being in the article as long as it has my last edit represents the existing concensus. I reverted you to invite you to explain your accusations of POV, giving that RHoPF, Richard Keatinge, Pfainuk all agreed that I'd create well written, reliably sourced prose worthy of inclusion here. There is a clear consensus but I am perfectly willing to discuss with you, however, if you're going to level accusation of POV you're going to have justify that. I wouldn't expect an apology for your bad faith presumption but would welcome the opportunity to discuss content with you in a reasonable manner without bad faith attacks or personal abuse. Your choice, what do you say?

My sources are in the article, taking the last point, I was unaware I'd done so. If you would care to highlight what the issue is I'm sure we can rapidly reach agreement. But lets not edit war eh? Justin talk 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

¿Is there already someone alive? I see the article a bit outdated... As an example, the article says that Portugal's and Spain's goverments are both socialist, and Zapatero stills being the president! That was a year ago as minimum... 79.147.170.193 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foreign relations 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Foreign relations 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→Very helpful info thank you (Gabeshootman (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]