Jump to content

Talk:Spain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by La verdad murcia (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 27 April 2008 (→Languages spoken in Spain). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive
Archives



LISBON

Talking about fagit Roman Empire age, it is written that romans improved Lisbon. Lisbon is in Portugal, not in Spain.

Well, it isn't actually a big mistake, and I don't really know if the aim of that sentece is to talk about all the peninsula in general. --Folken90 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPAIN'S SIZE

It says "At 194,884 mi² (504,782 km²), Spain is the world's 51st-largest country. It is comparable in size to Turkmenistan"

I think it would be better to say "it is comparable in size with France" for example, as it is a much better reference than Turkmenistan. And with all my respects to Turkmenistan, if someone doesn't know exactly how big spain is, I truly believe telling him/her it is "more or less like Turkmenistan" will make him say "oh, now it is much clearer".

Please consider it. Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stromboli22 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you. --Codorado 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggestion. Can the admin change that or unprotect the page and we'll do it? Not sure what are we waiting for? don't see much discussion here about this. Thanks Charlygc (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision please

"According to calculations by the German newspaper Die Welt, Spain is on pace to overtake countries like Germany in per capita income by 2011"

I think this sentence doesn't make much sense anymore. It is posted in the "Economics" section of the article, quoting an EU article from January/February 05. Germany is currently leading the EU out of its economic stagnation after 9/11 with growth rates of roundabout 3% in 07. So even if Spain keeps up its good rhythm in terms of growth, it will take longer, if it was ever to happen.

NAME

In my driving license, issued 2006-03-07, you can read in bold letters "REINO DE ESPAÑA". 89.129.170.189 09:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICS

The facts about the manifestations in front of the headquaters of politic party PP after the attempt in 11th March is a total proved thing, but nobody has been able to show any relationship between this and the PSOE, even the Spanish Courts which has taken this subject in the last years, so it can be taken like an unbiased information. What are the Spanish courts? The Senate, the Parliament and the Congress, all together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.9.170 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) The Spanish Courts are two: The Senate and The Congress. It could be similar to UK Courts. The Lord's One is the Senate, and the Common's One the Congress, Although that they don't have the same rights, of course. Remember that here in Spain we use roman right, and not common laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.123.205 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POPULATION

According to the article in Spanish Wikipedia, the population of Spain is nearly 45 millions based in Spanish Government's 2006 census. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.1.172 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAP

Holy cow (or should I say, ay dios mio!), people have some pretty strong views on the appropriate map of Spain to use! May I suggest that all of you that have input on this, use this discussion page to discuss it? I'm starting to get dizzy from all the changes back and forth, people reverting each other, etc. That's what the discussion section is for, really. I'm actually neutral on the issue, but since I am interested in this article and have edited it a few times, I notice how the map seems to change almost daily, with people admonishing others not to change it in the comments section. Let's hash it out here, get everyone's viewpoint on which is better and why, and see if there's consensus. Sound good? --Anietor 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is already being fought on the discussion pages of the UK, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (and maybe other countries too). Feel free to check the current discussin status on them. Luis rib 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very extensive and detailed discussion on it going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries where the aim is to try to standardise the formats of geo-locator infobox maps for all countries, so after some considerable exposure to this discussion, I now realise we should all participate in that where we have views. MarkThomas 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hispanophone map must be updated. Refer to Hispanophone. FiLoCo 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


EU map

These pages show the location of the country within the EU in the infobox map: Austria, France, Germany, Portugal,Republic_of_Ireland, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, ThiEstonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,

the topic is still controversial in Sweden. United Kingdom

Is this topic still controversial in the Spain article? I know that the EU version does not show the Canary Islands... Thewikipedian 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the time the poll and survey on the WikiProject Countries talk page were closed, 25 European Union member states had adopted the David Liuzzo map with entire EU in a separate shade (like the map shown here for Spain), and Sweden had the identical Liuzzo map except that the EU was not highlighted but its talk page stated to await the outcome of the WikiProject. In fact there was no clear voting outcome regarding EU-highlighting or not, but seeing the 25 other EU countries' maps, now Sweden became the 26th. That leaves only Spain... I think it would be best to follow all other EU countries (and many European non-EU countries that use the Liuzzo map of Europe of course without indicating the EU): The poll and survey had shown that many contributors,(we hate america and we are going to bomb the shit out of there cities, Queza;s will rain) regardless their personally preferred map style, put great weight on having a reasonable uniformity in location maps.
About the Canary Islands, though I realize that Spanish people may have rather strong feelings since there are still Spanish/Moroccan disputes about several areas, I think that is not to be Wikipedia's main concern; I wrote my personal view regarding the choice for a location map of Spain on the WikiProject page, see my short phrase, and the slightly longer comment of 2007-02-23 00:33-01:19 (UTC). Kind regards. — SomeHuman 23 Feb2007 04:19 (UTC)
File:EU location ESP2.png
modified Liuzzo's map

I've modified the Liuzzo's map (at right), now shows the Canaries, the autonnomus cities and the Rock according to their size. I think a person who has drawn voluntarily such cuantity of maps it's logical that don't take into account this issues, but anyway the map without the Canaries was incorrect so I´ve replaced the old in all wps, too.
This second map should be uploaded replacing the first because the other don't any have sense--Serg!oo 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, use this map! Serg!oo has included those territories not shown before in Liuzzo's version, and that was the only reason for not using it! Sdnegel 3 April 2007

Population figure correction?

I think the population of Spanish cities contains some errors. The Spanish edition of wikipedia gives the following figures, which come from the Spanish Institute of Statistics. [This is the entry: Demografía de España: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograf%C3%ADa_de_Espa%C3%B1a]The entry has links to its sources.

It provides this list of cities(2006):

  1. Madrid 3.128.600
  2. Barcelona 1.605.602
  3. Valencia 805.304
  4. Sevilla 704.414
  5. Zaragoza 649.181
  6. Málaga 560.631

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.180.216 (talk)

Hi there, your mistake is to think that the figures in the article relate to the city population only, in fact referring to the metropolitan area. Regards, Asteriontalk 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown maps created by Eddy Izzard, that are available for the countries of the Antartican continent, and for countries of the Antartican Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:40 (UTC)

"Andalusian"

I am moving here the following piece of text because it doesn't seem relevant enough in this context: "Andalusian" is just one more dialect of the several existing of Spanish within Spain.

The Andalusian dialect (also called andaluz) of European Spanish is spoken in Andalusia. There are several phonetic differences from Castilian Spanish, some of which are reflected in Andalusian-influenced Latin American Spanish. This differences can be seen in the phonology as well as in the intonation and vocabulary.

Mountolive | Talk 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings about the removal. Nonetheless the phonetic and lexicological differences between Andalusian Spanish and Castellano estándar are indeed much greater than those of any other dialect. Regards, Asteriontalk 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Is the american english a dialect of the british english ?? nooo

Is the andalusian spanish a dialect of the castilian spanish ?? neither, it is simple

¡Oh, Dios mío! I'm Spanish. THE ANDALUSIAN IS A DIALECT OF THE CASTILIAN SPANISH. We only have 4 official languages: 1. Spanish 2. Catalán 3. Gallego 4. Vasco (Euskera) The andalusian has many grammatical and phonetical mistakes, but IT'S SPANISH! Some examples of andalusian: Helado (ice-cream) --> "helao"

Pescado (Fish) --> "Pescao"

Casa (House) --> "Caza"

Queso (Cheese) --> "Quezo"

Zumo (Juice) --> "Sumo"

Zapatos (shoes) --> "Sapatos"

Hijo (Son) --> "Hiho"

etc...

We can say this words as a dialect, but when we are writting, we can't use this "andalusian" words.

WE CAN'T WRITE: Tengo una "Caza" WE MUST WRITE: Tengo una Casa


I'm Andalusian, and you're wrong. Andalusians write and read Spanish correctly but it sounds too different and too unique that it is easily recognisable. Although the less educated people usually write as they speak (wrongly at different levels)most andalusians do it correctly.

So there's a great controversy for outside viewers. But from the inside, people at some cultural level consider Andalusian different to the Castilian just phoneticaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.8.93 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a Spaniard and I didn't even know anybody considered Andalusian a dialect... As I see it, it's just Spanish with an accent, just like people on almost every region of Spain have different accents.89.128.223.165 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Spain...let's see, Andalusian is just spanish, but with phonetical differences due to the historical evolution of the language in this place. As Spanish Wikipedia says: "El andaluz[1] es una variedad o dialecto[2] de la lengua española que se habla en Andalucía" "Andalusian is a variety or dialect of Spanish language that is spoken in Ansalusia" it just depends of the criteria we can use to denominate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.106.116 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDP figures

There has been some back and forth editing in the country info box on Spain's GDP ranking. I think there is a dispute because some editors are using IMF figures, and others are using World Bank figures. I looked at about 20 other countries' articles, and when the rankings of the two organizations don't match (which is actually rare), IMF numbers are being used. So I think it would be appropriate for this article to do the same, for consistency. You can see the List of countries by GDP (PPP). So let's stick with the IMF numbers, unless we're going to change the rankings for all the other countries...and I shudder to think of the edit wars THAT would create! --Anietor 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because i thought it was vandalism (it wasn't). Feel free to revert me or leave it if you guys are ok w/ it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is some confussion with this. Just yesterday I updated the main article Economy of Spain with GDP Eurostat 2004 figures which just came out recently. Please feel free to check the absolute value there, if this is of any help (or maybe it makes it more confusing?...damn).Mountolive | Talk 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree w/ Mountolive here because of two reasons:

I think those are good points. Eurostat may indeed have more accurate numbers for member nations. My concern is one of consistency with other countries' articles, though. The country info box doesn't list just raw numbers...it lists international rankings as well. Does Eurostat give rankings as well as the hard data? And would it give rankings for every country, or just European nations? I'm just thinking of the possible confusion of having more than one country's info box list it as having the same world ranking, because some numbers are based on Eurostat and others on IMF or World Bank data. Any thoughts? --Anietor 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to discuss these points at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using an alternative source shouldn't be a problem. However, don't change the rankings. Just add a note saying something like "rank is based on 2005 IMF data", which is what majority of other country articles use. --Polaron | Talk 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence 'As of 2006, absolute GDP was valued at $1.084 trillion according to the CIA Factbook' is taking out of context and gives an outsider the idea that Spain is a poor or small country. Just because CIA do not update their data (they still maintain that Spanish' GDP per capita is 80% of the 4 largest European nations when according to Eurostat it has already surpassed Italy's GDP per capita in 2006) does not mean wiki shouldn't. Spain's GDP for 2006 was confirmed by the IMF, Eurostat and the Spanish authorities to be 980 BILLIONS OF EUROS. With a Euro at about 1.45 dollars over the last number months in 2007 it is clear that this section needs to be updated. Please do so. Charlygc (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA has just updated their data with the 2007 figures - gives Spain an absolute GDP of $1.365 trillion and a per capita of $33.700. According to them France has 33.800 per capita (just like Japan) and Italy $31.000. So I suggest someone updates the whole economy section which hasn't been changed for years and it is clearly out-of-date. Thanks. Charlygc (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images cluttering

I see that User:E-romance is adding more images to the article. This is a good thing but it would be more better if we can keep a ratio of 1 to 1 (a picture per section). Otherwise we'd be ending up cluttering the article. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I removed one image. I don't dare to remove the one of Merida because is very good and illustrative. To me the article is now pretty much ok images wise. Mountolive | Talk 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU membership

The membership to the EU is yet neither mentioned in the introduction nor in the history section. Lear 21 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length

I am moving here the following paragraphs per lenght concern. These either belong better in some other articles where they are probably already contemplated (for example in ETA's article) or are even outdated.

Initially ETA had targeted primarily Spanish security forces, military personnel and Spanish Government officials. As the security forces and prominent politicians improved their own security, ETA increasingly focused its attacks on the tourist seasons (scaring tourists was seen as a way of putting pressure on the government, given the sector's importance to the national economy, although no tourists were injured) and local government officials in the Basque Country. The group carried out numerous bombings against Spanish Government facilities and economic targets, including a car bomb assassination attempt on then-opposition leader Aznar in 1995, in which his armoured car was destroyed but he was unhurt. There have also been a number of ETA attacks that seem to have been directed at the general populace, such as the bomb in the supermarket Hipercor in Barcelona (21 killed, 45 seriously wounded of whom 20 resulted disabled), Plaza de Callao in Madrid, and the recent (December 2006) car bomb attack on the multi-storey public car park at Barajas Airport, Madrid, which killed two people. The Spanish Government attributes over 800 deaths to ETA during its campaign of rebellion.

On 17 May 2005, all the parties in the Congress of Deputies, except the PP, passed the Central Government's motion giving approval to the beginning of peace talks with ETA, without making political concessions and with the requirement that it give up its weapons. PSOE, CiU, ERC, PNV, IU-ICV, CC and the mixed group —BNG, CHA, EA y NB— supported it with a total of 192 votes, while the 147 PP parliamentarians objected. ETA declared a "permanent cease-fire" that came into force on March 24, 2006. In the years leading up to the permanent cease-fire, the government had had more success in controlling ETA, due part to increased security cooperation with French authorities.

Mountolive | Talk 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also moving this one, because, at the end of many lines, actually it turns out to be that there are not remarkable differences (nor the United Kingdom process should be noted here either).

with varying levels of self-government. Differences within this system are due to the fact that the devolution process from the centre to the periphery was a process initially thought to be asymmetrical, granting a higher degree of self-government only to those autonomous governments ruled by nationalist parties (namely Catalonia and the Basque Country) who were much more vocal in the matter and seeking a more federalist kind of relationship with the rest of Spain. Conversely the rest of Autonomous Communities would have a lower self-government. This pattern of asymmetrical devolution has been described as a co-constitutionalism and the devolution process adopted by the United Kingdom since 1997 shares traits with it.

However, as years passed, the Autonomous Communities which in the beginning were thought to have a lower profile have caught up in terms of self-government with the nationalist ruled Autonomous communities and the gap in terms of self-government is not that wide anymore.

And, finally, this one also, as the European Constitution which got approved is moribund now and there will have to be news in this regard.

On February 20, 2005, Spain became the first country to allow its people to vote on the European Union constitution that was signed in October 2004. The rules state that if any country rejects the constitution the constitution will be declared void. Despite low participation (42%), the final result was very strongly in affirmation of the constitution, making Spain the first country to approve the constitution via referendum (Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia had approved it before Spain, but they did not hold referendums).

Mountolive | Talk 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further length edits

I have also done a substantial amount of condensing of material (some of which went into footnotes). The intent is to begin to prepare this article for Good article status. Because of the substantial amount of editing done, I have removed the length tag and the citation needed tags. If other editors feel that they are warranted, you are welcome to replace them, but please place a specific explanation here, so that fixes can be made. EspanaViva 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I like it! The readable prose size is now down around 36 kb - in the range of optimum (the gross size is around 56 kb).
Next, there's more stuff that can come out. This overview article I summarize as "What are the 250 most important facts that people would want to know about Spain." If it's not in the Top 250, doesn't it really belong in a more specific article? (The number "250" was chosen for rhetorical effect, folks) - really, for this overview article, the intent is to ask editors to ask themselves: "Is this one of the most important things that readers will want to know about Spain?" (not "This is something important I want to tell people . . .").
Plus . . . most importantly, we now need to start adding specific citations for stuff that anyone wants to add back in. Provocateur, for example, your "horseshoe arch" addition is a lovely piece of info, but if you add a citation for that little tidbit, it will greatly increase the odds of it staying in! Seriously, to the extent that people have books, websites, reliable sources for the history, geography, politics, etc. facts that are currently in the article, please start adding those (footnoted) citations! EspanaViva 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took that piece of information from the Visigothic Art article . Just wanted to hint that the Visigoths were not totally uncivilized barbarians! Anyway, I've seen such arches.

1 Do we need a mini-history in the intro before the mini history that follows?? Given that the article is long (though already greatly reduced) this seem redundant. 2 Only Granada was under Moorish rule for 8 centuries - most the south was under the Moors for a tad over 5 centuries and most of the north (excluding the Christian hold outs) ranged from a couple of decades to a bit over 350 years. To state that "much of the area" was under an Islamic caliphate for 700 years is easily misunderstood as meaning "most of Spain" was under Islamic rule for 700 years (or so) (or until 1492) - this is a very common misconception which does injustice to understanding the complexities of Spanish history and indeed its culture. We should not be promoting it, even if inadvertantly. Anyway, on the whole the article is starting to really shape up. Cheers Provocateur 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article looks much better - tighter, not rambling. Now it has much easier to find refs for the material that's in there.
About the lead section, WP:LEAD says:
"The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:
  • In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
  • The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
  • A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
  • Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs."
You're certainly welcome to try to skinny down/corrct the lead's summary of history (I ran out of sandpaper trying it!), but I think we've got to have at least a few sentences, given the length of the history section in the main text of the article. Cheers to you too! EspanaViva 09:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy: include wine and tourism?

Just an idea... it's a big page already, but wine & tourism are huge in Spain. I'd be happy to put something v brief together if it's a popular idea. --mikaul 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - you're suggesting adding a few sentences/a paragraph here? I like the idea . . . you've got lots of nice citations to go with what you want to add? ;) EspanaViva 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure if it's a good idea, provided that we were reducing the article's length. Still, if you think is relevant, then add a reference to tapas as well. Mountolive | Talk 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. tourism belongs in economy indeed; wine, while still being a growing industry, is not relevant enough to get its own mention in that section. It should be elsewhere. Mountolive | Talk 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a short para on tourism and took the liberty of mentioning the housing boom. Have a look and weed it out if you think it's too much
    • I've suggested a short Culture section above, which would be a much more appropriate place for tapas. Apart from the bar, that is.
      • Agree about wine. Just not big enough economically. However it is a big deal in global wine terms (3rd biggest producer) and one of the biggest consumers. Again, it might work well in a section on Culture. --mikaul 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The turism figures for 2007 have just been released - Spain received 60 M visitors that spent 46 Billion Euros. That places 2nd in the world only behind France in number of visitors and in terms of revenue (only behind the States). Please include this there. Charlygc (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of . . . Citations for the Pre-History sub-section

As we move through this article sub-section by sub-section and upgrade it to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we are currently in search of citations/footnotes to support the following elements in the Pre-History sub-section:

  • Date of arrival and direction of arrival of early modern humans in Spain
  • Date of arrival and culture of Iberians
  • Date of arrival and culture of Celts
  • Date of arrival and culture of other early peoples
  • Scholarly information about Tartessos (dates, location, culture)
  • Date of arrival and culture about Phoenicians and Greek colonizers
  • Date of arrival and events regarding Carthaginian
  • Date of arrival and events regarding Carthaginian/Roman interactions

if you have websites, books, articles to add as a footnote, please do so! EspanaViva 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



It was quite a fast search, but here's what I got:
  • Date of arrival and direction of arrival of early modern humans in Spain: "Pero ahora se sabe que el verdadero antepasado común de los neandertales en Europa y del Homo sapiens en África, no era el Homo ergaster, sino que salió del continente africano durante el Pleistoceno Inferior, pobló Europa hace más de 780.000 años, vivió en Atapuerca y fue descubierto en 1994 en el nivel TD-6 de Gran Dolina. Este primer europeo recibe desde entonces el nombre de Homo antecessor, “el explorador”." Source: [[1]]
  • Date of arrival and culture of Iberians: "A partir del siglo V a.C. comienza a desarrollarse la cultura íbera en el sector oriental peninsular". Source: [[2]]. And: "Estos contactos culturales y comerciales permiten el desarrollo del sustrato indígena dando origen a un periodo orientalizante (s. VIII-VI a.C.) que determinará la aparición de la cultura ibérica a finales del s. VI a.C.". Source: [[3]]. And: "Podemos hablar de una etnia heterogénea que formó un mismo pueblo de una forma progresiva: del 750 al 550 a.C. es un periodo pre-ibérico; del 550 a.C al S.V es el ibérico antiguo. El ibérico pleno alcanza del S.V hasta la entrada de los romanos." Source: [[4]]
  • Date of arrival and culture of Celts: "En Heródoto, autor del siglo V antes de Cristo, se encuentran las referencias más antiguas sobre los celtas." Source: [[5]]
  • Scholarly information about Tartessos (dates, location, culture): "Hace cerca de 3.000 años el suroeste de España fue habitado por una cultura cuya grandeza no fue igualada en mucho tiempo. Gracias a la explotación de minas de oro y plata y a su comercio con los fenicios, el pueblo tartésico alcanzó un grado de riqueza y desarrollo admirado por los historiadores griegos." Sources: [[6]], [[7]] and Location: [[8]]

Regards, Maurice27 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias, Maurice! ¿pero, tiene algunos en inglés? (have any in English?) EspanaViva 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried... But couldn't find anything. :( Maurice27 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major overhaul of Roman Empire and Germanic invasions sub-section

As part of the continuing overhaul of this article (to prepare it for Peer review, GA status, and hopefully FA status), I will shortly be posting a re-write of the Spain#Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_invasions subsection. All editorial comments (and especially reliable source and footnotes) are welcome! EspanaViva 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Spain#Muslim_Iberia sub-section

As part of the continuing effort to move Spain to GA status, I will shortly be posting a revised Spain#Muslim_Iberia subsection. The main editing is to condense and to move footnote material to footnotes. Please feel free to make any further editorial changes! EspanaViva 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of ... Citations for the Spain#Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_invasions sub-section

As we move through this article sub-section by sub-section and upgrade it to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we are currently in search of citations/footnotes to support the following elements in the Spain#Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_invasions sub-section:

  • Events of the Second Punic War in Spain
  • Events during Roman expansion and control in Spain
  • Prominent Hispano-Romans
  • Date of arrival and effect of Christianity
  • Date of arrival and events regarding post-Roman cultures in Spain
  • Date of arrival and events regarding Visigoths and Visigothic kingdoms

if you have reliable source websites, books, articles (in English preferably!) to add as a footnote, please do so! EspanaViva 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of references to the Library of Congress website, and Library of Iberian Resources Online. Please add additional citations if you have the information available. EspanaViva 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review requested for Madrid article

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 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification

As part of the continuing effort to move Spain to GA status, I will shortly be posting a revised Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification subsection. Please feel free to make any further editorial changes! EspanaViva 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue: Unification.

As is made clear further (From the Renaissance to the Nineteenth Century), the "Spanish state was established when the first Bourbon king Philip V of Spain united Castile and Aragon into a single state". Is it not true that until that time, there was not in fact a unified crown, but rather several crowns held by a single monarch, with the corresponding cortes of each kingdom which the monarch would convene separately. Thus, the so called Spanish crown was, until Philip V, much like the crown of the English monarchy, whereby the present queen of England is also the monarch of Canada and Australia? Is it not thus misleading to state that there was a single, unified Spanish crown as of the Reyes católicos, rather than as of Philip V?

--YuriBCN 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Muslim influence

A long time ago a put in some sentences to highlight the contribution Mualims made to reviving Greek learning. Now there are attempts to make out that they also introduced it. In fact it came with the Romans and never completely died out - the Catholic church made sure of that - even if its level had fallen - with the fall of the empire - so please everybody with either pro or anti Muslim/Jewish biases, stop trying to claim all the credit one way or the other. Also we must avoid implying that the country was mainly under Muslim rule until 1492 -that is a major distortion of what is a complex history Provocateur 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to correct what you believe are inaccuracies. My major concern is only a brief accurate summary of events. EspanaViva 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention, of course, my other primary concern is that material in this article be referenced. Even in the sub-sections that have received attention thus far, there remain statements which are "unsourced." While those statements remain for now (to allow others to provide source information), eventually they will need to be addressed as "unsourced" statements. EspanaViva 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with these edits [9], [10]. They give more context indeed. Thanks for the references EspañaViva. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Spain#Rise_as_a_world_power:_From_the_Renaissance_to_the_19th_century subsection

As part of the continuing effort to move Spain to GA status, I will shortly be posting an overhaul of the Spain#Rise_as_a_world_power:_From_the_Renaissance_to_the_19th_century sub-section. Please feel free to make any further editorial changes/corrections! EspanaViva 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of . . . References for Muslim Iberia and Fall of Muslim rule and unification subsections

As we continue to move through this article sub-section by sub-section and upgrade it to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we are currently in search of citations/footnotes to support the Spain#Muslim_Iberia and Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification sub-sections.

I have added a number of references to the Library of Congress website, and Library of Iberian Resources Online. If you have reliable source websites, books, articles (in English preferably!) to add as a footnote(s), please do so! EspanaViva 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References will be expected for every paragraph and for every (important) factual statement

I don't know if any of the people working on this article have been through a Good article or Featured article process before, but as a general rule, references will be expected for every paragraph, and for every important fact. As they say here, "Paris is in France," what may seem very obvious and well-known to the average Spaniard may not be well-known at all outside of Spain. Spain's continental wars for example are very little-known outside Spain and Europe. So, you may not feel the need to add references, but once they are added, please do not delete them!

(Also, for the other people working on this article, I'm going to have to be stepping away from Wikipedia for the next ten days or so because of RL work, and my ability to work on this article is going to be very limited for a while. I do expect to add a few things here and there, but I'll be returning at a regular scale in about 10 days.) EspanaViva 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I am partially bringing from Portugal article this suggestion

==Facts and figures==
  • Official and Common date format: DD/MM/YYYY (ex. 06/09/2006), dates are written out as DD de MM de YYYY (ex. 18 de Agosto de 2005)
  • Decimal separator is a comma: 123,45
  • Thousands are separated by a point (dot?) 10.000.

Morover, that article makes the See Also in a smaller kind of letter, which also seems a better option to me than the way it is now here, all in a different article. Mountolive | Talk 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Jews never part of nostalgia in Spain have always been in Spain and are as Spanish as catholics. The Jewish population is around 35,000.Your article talks about jews as different ,not normal spain people ,immigrants who entered long ago to mix-in with regular real spanish blood.This is a common thread mistake in most wikipedia articles. The Federation of Israelite Communities of Spain currently consists of thirteen traditional and Orthodox communities, the largest of which are located in Madrid, Barcelona and on the Costa del Sol (Málaga) and in Murcia. There are also groups of Conservative Jews and associations of secular Jews. In Barcelona, a Reform community, the Progressive Jewish Community Atid (Future) of Catalonia, is active.Today many jews move to Spain to retire from the colder northern community countries or come to spain to raise children.Polaris World and Tramplin Hills in Murcia are examples of such communities with growing Jewish population. raquel samper directora comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewish spain (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands

Why do all the maps on this article show Gibraltar as a part of Spain and why does the map showing the Spanish speaking world show the Falklands as speaking Spanish? Gibraltar is in no way a part of Spain and no one on the Falklands Islands speaks Spanish they all speak English. I wrote on here before asking why Gibraltar was shown as a part of Spain and someone said Gibraltar was too small to be displayed yet I see the small colonies belonging to Spain on the north coast of Morocco are displayed in every map and yet they are only the same size as Gibraltar. Can someone please change the maps so that Gibraltar is clearly displayed as not being a part of Spain and also change the map of the Spanish speaking world to show the Falklands as not Spanish speaking.

I agree! The Ogre 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish speaking world map now changed. The Falkland islands do not appear as spanish speaking anymore. About Gibraltar, That map comes from the wikimedia commons. It has been already tried to change, but the size of Gibraltar and the resolution of the map does not allow to do anything. On the other hand, you are welcome to upload another map about the location of Spain. --Maurice27 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revise the text relating about Spanish American War, someone vandalised these subject!

Acentos?

Why are accent marks written in some words that shouldn't have them? Aragon appears systematically with an accent mark, something correct in Spanish or Aragonese but not in English. Accent marks should only be written in those place names directly taken from Spanish which have no traditional form in English. --Purplefire 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I personally dislike this sort of anglacism but can't logically argue against them in this context - agreed (but decline to edit them out :)) mikaul 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Thank you to all who contributed to the mini history section. It grew like topsy and then was refined and greatly reduced in size - No more reductions in size, however, as it will lose details that make it interesting to the general reader - Thanks to all. Cheers Provocateur 06:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Please leave empire map off this page - it is an extra image & it already has a prominent place on other well connected pages. Provocateur 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 66 kilobytes long

As the message tells when editing, it may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. We should start to remove or reduce some sections.

We could start with the section with their own main article. Any idea? --Maurice27 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can see a way of reducing it further. The History section is big, for example, but very little could be removed without losing continuity. If anything, the artice is lacking in a few areas - Education and Culture are obvious omissions. Looking around, it seems a lot of national articles are quite a bit bigger: France is 75k and both the UK and US articles are well over 100k. Whereas we have systemic bias to thank for that, the sheer volume of info these subjects generate means even when the page is split, there remains a need to keep a decent-sized precis in order to keep things flowing on the parent page. As far as I can see here, that's already been done. mikaultalk 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello Kk loach 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)I dont think so,i think more things can be added which are very necessary to know about spain like Alhambra.i m working on it and very soon i add a section about Alhambra and i hope you will like adding stuff.Kk loach 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[7-8-2007] [kk_loach][reply]

Minority groups

The figures for the British population is very low. British estimates speak of close to one million residents in Spain, more than 700.000 permanent immigrants and about 75.000 pensioners. See these links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm

In fact, according to these data, Britons probably make the largest foreign group in the country. 65.11.163.158 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very interesting. Looking at the sources for the different figures (footnote 50 in the article v. the links mentioned above), it appears that the difference is that the article currently reflects the number of British cizitens "registered" in Spain, which may be smaller than the number actually living there. The difference is quite significant, though. From what I just researched, it is not required that immigrants register. Many do, however, in order to take advantage of various healthcare or social welfare programs. (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=331) Given that background, I think it would be appropriate to revise the number of British citizens upwards in the article. I will do that, but first I would be interested in hearing from other editors on this, since the adjustment would be so significant, particularly if you have a contrary view on the implications of being "registered." --Anietor 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is not true. people from morocco are the largest foreign group in spain. british are the fourth, after colombia and equator

The Jewish Community, madrid toledo barcelona murcia accounts for less than 1 percent of total population.however it is the third fastest growing after africans and british. Spain is the retirement capitol of the EC nowadays and many jews from the north are moving here to retire or raise kids. synagoges centers even schools are opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.4.98 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentry Democracy

Parliamentry Democracy should be added after Constitutional Monarchy in the info box to keep it consistent with the use of this term for other similarly governed countries. We wouldn't want school children to cruise around thinking that Canada is a parliamentry democracy while spain somehow isn't because they compare the two info boxes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.141.232.14 (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]



Languages spoken in Spain

Althought Spain has many diffrent dialects, it is said that they should probably just learn English.

The Basque is co-official in northern Navarre. The bable (asturian) is protected by the Asturias' Autonomie Statut.

The article states:
There are also some other surviving Romance minority languages such as Asturian / Leonese or the Aragonese or fabla. Unlike Catalan, Galician, and Basque, these do not have any official status due to their very small numbers and the absence of a written tradition.
This is a rather subjective appreciation, showing a linguistic prejudice. While it is true that Asturian and Aragonese are spoken (nowadays) by less people, and that their written tradition is not outstanding or comparable to that of the other languages (but there is a written tradition!, stating there's an absence of it has clearly been said by someone who knows little of those two languages), it is also true that those factors are not the real cause, as Aranese is indeed co-official and it has even fewer speakers than Aragonese (about 4,000). The truth is that Asturian and Aragonese, due to its historical lack of social prestige in the last five centuries, had come to be wrongly regarded as mere Spanish dialects, and it was still so in the 70's. In fact, many Spaniards are still today unaware of them being languages apart from Spanish. That is the main reason, although things started to change some years ago and the Statutes of Asturias and Aragon kind of protect their languages and quite a few associations demand that they are co-official too in the areas where they are spoken, something that could well happen in five or ten years. If that is not so, Aragonese will probably be the first Romance language in Spain to disappear, as there are very few children who speak the language. Purplefire 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 majority languages in Spain. The spanish is the oficial language, but it has a catalan leanguage spoken in Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca Islands (about 10 milion people), Euskera wich is spoken in Basque Country, and Galician wich is spoken in Galicia. Please, correct this part, it's a silly mistake. In murcia in the south we speak Panocho as well as castellano spanish.Panocho is a kind of spanish used in the murcia orchard and today continues in use although it is considered local.Otherwise Murcianos speak a spanish with their local accent which is considered quite good by the Instituto Cervantes. comunidad judia murcia

Thanks

The Basque language has a rather odd status in Navarre: it is "official" in the basque-speaking and the so-called "mixed" regions, but not in the non-basque areas. However, the Spanish regulations on "Common Administrative Procedures" (Procedimiento Administrativo Común), concerning citizens' relations with the public administrations, recognises their right to use the languages official within the autonomous communities in which they are recognised as such, and establishes that procedures in which intervenes the General Administration of the State (Administración General del Estado), at offices in the community concerned, shall be processed in the official language of choice of the citizen (in the case of Navarre, either Spanish or Basque), as per their language rights. See the Boletín Oficial de Navarra of 12 February 2003.
--YuriBCN 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Germanic invasions

The article says: "The highly romanized Visigoths entered Hispania in 415, and the Visigothic Kingdom eventually encompassed the entire Iberian Peninsula after the Roman Catholic conversion of the Gothic monarchs." However, it's not true that Germanic tribes settled the entire peninsula, even less the Visigothic Kingdom. As can be clearly seen in the article of the Visigoths, the northern part of Iberia did not stand under the rule of Visigoths, which is quite important. Also, the quote cited does not say in any part that "they encompassed the entire Iberian Peninsula". If you agree, I'll change it to "almost the entire peninsula" or so. Keta 09:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Environmental Issues of Spain

In this article I have not seen anything relating to Spain's stance on the environment, global warming, and so on. Is there anything we can add? Blahmaster 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

The Spanish GDP per capita is slightly above the European average (EU-27) at 102%. Somebody should correct that part and it is more than 90% of the four leading economies.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union


65.8.154.52 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

  The 102% figure provided in the economy of the European Union is an estimate for 2008 and estimates should not be included.

There is a bit of confusion as regarding the above/below the European average comment depending if we're talking of the EU25 ot EU27. But I agree the 90% figure is probably not accurate at this stage and should be removed. 22:00, 25 May 2007


Another interesting article for the immigration part:

"Spain is the most favoured destination for West Europeans considering to move from their own country and seek jobs elsewhere in the EU"

Spanish GDP per capita stood at 105% of the EU average in 2006 according to eurostat. Just behind France (111) and ahead of Italy (103). Charlygc (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) See:[reply]

http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1406161495

65.8.154.52 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POBLATION

POPULATION & RELIGION

It is mathematically impossible for all three of these statements from the article on Spain to be true simultaneously:

In 2007 Spain officially reached 45.2 million people

About 76% of Spaniards identify themselves as Catholics, about 2% identify with another religious faith,

The recent waves of immigration have led to an increasing number of Muslims, who have about 1 million members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.169.240 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NEW INFORMATION

Andalucía 8.039.399 Cataluña 7.197.174 Comunidad de Madrid 6.061.680 Comunidad Valenciana 4.874.811 Galicia 2.771.341 Castilla y León 2.525.157 P.Vasco 2.141.116 Islas Canarias 2.020.947 Castilla La Mancha 1.975.179 Región de Murcia 1.391.147 Aragón 1.295.215 Extremadura 1.088.728 Principado de Asturias 1.074.632 Islas Baleares 1.029.139 Comunidad Foral de Navarra 605.022 Cantabria 572.503 La Rioja 308.566 Ceuta 76.343 Melilla 68.795

TOTAL: 45.116.894

LDS change

71.219.99.144 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not Protestant, it belongs in the Christian denomination and restoration category.[reply]

deleted/modified paragraph on immigration

Have deleted the following paragraph:

Spain currently has the second highest immigration rates within the EU, just after Cyprus, and the second highest absolute net migration in the world (after the United States).[1] In 2006, from the total number of immigrants arrived in the European Union, 44.7% chose Spain as their final destination.[2]

The second part of the first reference is misleading and the second reference is a dead link. In the case of the latter, if the original reference can be found, please include it again. --Technopat 09:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Territorial disputes

Spain doesn´t recognize the portuguese soberany over the Savage Islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.254.55 (talk)

It is not so simple. Prove your statement, please! The Ogre 13:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This statement seems to be true. The spanish defense minister denied the portuguese soveraingty in the spanish senate in 1998. (See: [11]). --Maurice27 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. As the discussions at Talk:Savage Islands have proven it. Mind you, I did not say that there are no ambiguities between Portugal and Spain regarding the Savage Islands. What I said is that one can not state straightforwardly tha Spain does not recognize the sovereignity of Portugal. I believe that, today, the problem is more over the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), that is to say, the waters. What I am saying is that the Spanish official position is not a simple one. The Ogre 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely don't know. To honor the truth, I never heard about those islands' soveraingty being disputed. The only international disputes for Spain know to me are:

"in 2002, Gibraltar residents voted overwhelmingly by referendum to remain a British colony and against a "total shared sovereignty" arrangement while demanding participation in talks between the UK and Spain; Spain disapproves of UK plans to grant Gibraltar greater autonomy; Morocco protests Spain's control over the coastal enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and the islands of Peñon de Velez de la Gomera, Peñon de Alhucemas and Islas Chafarinas, and surrounding waters; Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over the territory of Olivenza based on a difference of interpretation of the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz" CIA world factbook [12] --Maurice27 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Spain is NOT the official denomination

As regarded in the Spanish Constitution, the official denomination is "Spain". There's only a reference to Monarchy as governing system. The constitution text never mentions the word "kingdom". I don't change it because I'm not a registered user in the English project and I won't check it up frequently. I beg someone to do so. Reply here. -- 19:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alert to buonafide editors of this article

An un-named editor (200.60.57.14) has made a large number of recent changes, some of which are substantial changes to content. This editor has left no explanation for any of the changes they have made. Someone who knows the subject very welll ought to vet these changes and perhaps discuss if they should be kept. I'm suspicious of any significant change that isn't explained... however, this is not my subject, I simply came here because the same person made an inappropriate edit to a page I have just revised.

--Amandajm 12:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern. I have reverted those changes, since they were all unexplained. Thank you. Mountolive.-

who can i rate

Kk loach 14:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)hello[reply]
can any one tel me please that how can i rate this article?
thaks.[8-7-2002] [kk_loach]

Idea for Article on Spain

Most countries have a list of flora and fauna, it would be nice if the article on Spain contained such information. --- 7-11- 2007

Spanish identity

Why is it stated that Spain has not got a specific identity? Years of common history and a glorious past have resulted in a strong identity feeling among the Spanish population. I know it, and I think I have the right to say it, because I am Spanish, as you would have noticed due to my poor English level. I would like that false statement to be changed. Thank you.

What does a sentence like 'Spain has a specific identity' mean? I tell you: it means nothing. It does not add any content to the article and it might violate the neutrality policy of wikipedia. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.201.132 (talk) 16:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I´m Spanish and I think that this sentence ("is a country formed by several nations located") is stupid. Spain IS a nation itself. There are some secessionist sensibilities in Catalonia and Euskadi, but this doesn´t determinate Spain as a fist of countries without any kind of national personality. With that point of view, France, Russia or United Kingdom are not countries, because they also holds independentist movements inside their frontiers. It must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.177.242 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain is one of the most clear specific national entities in Europe as many centuries of common history from all of its territories can atest. To deny the spanish identity would be to violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia, as the growth of internal separatisms is just nowadays trying to put in doubt Spain's history and identity. Centuries of literature talking about Spanish cultural identity can't be put aside by this trend. Gallando 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, you can't be serious. People from northern Spain (Galicia, Asturias, etc) are completely different from people from southern Spain (Andalucia, Murcia, etc). I have lived in Asturias, Alicante and Salamanca and I can tell you they are worlds apart.89.128.223.165 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, you can't be serious. Have you lived anywhere else than in Spain? That would be galaxies apart, by your measures. Yes, we are different, and therein lies part of our "glory". E pluribus unum and In varietate concordia are the mottos of the US and the EU, but they could as well be a definition of the concept of a Spanish nation. Yes, plural. Yes, one. Hmmm... I'd better diverge from this argument, for this is starting to look theological. What I mean is that, of course, full-fledged centralism has no place in a country like Spain, where we reckon our very identity has arisen from a lot of different peoples (Romans, Visigoths, Muslims, etc.), but one of today's biggest threats to the prosperity of the whole of Spain and their autonomous communities in particular is the stinking, 19th century, race-and-language based nationalism. And I'm not talking just about the terrorist group ETA which speaks of "the occupant Spanish State" and dares to call us fascists while simply killing _any_ innocent not agreeing with them. I'm also talking about (truly) fascistoid nationalist parties, which will try anything short of banning the Spanish (Castilian) language to perform a bloodless ethnic cleansing in "their" territories. Sigh Habbit (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? People from northern France (Normandie e.g) are completely different from people from southern France (Marseille e.g), as people from northern Italy (Milano e.g) are completely different from people from southern Italy (Napoli e.g). And i can't see that statement being thrown when talking about France or Italy concept of nation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.128.4 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen from the fact that the question of national identity is used as a political weapon in all elections in Spain, I do believe that it is relevant. That is what probably makes a difference between the Spanish case and the French and Italian situation. However, the part of

("nationalities", a carefully chosen word in order to avoid the more politically charged "nations")

seems to be more an opinion than a fact. I may agree with it, but I don't think it reaches the level of fact. I think it should either present refferences or be removed. --Suzusan (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink vs. Purpure (Purple) Lions

I was wondering, why does the Spanish coat of arms have a pink lion instead of a purple lion, like on the official flags that flow in Spain? Can or should this be changed? That goes for the specific page about the Spanish COA as well.

El Espanameño 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spain's history changed?

It seems rather odd to me that the 20th Century history section states only this one sentence on Franco's regime:

The only legal party under Franco's regime was the Falange española tradicionalista y de las JONS, formed in 1937; the party emphasized anti-Communism, Catholicism and nationalism.

Is that all Franco's regime did? Emphasize? Wikipedia does link to a detailed view of Spain under Franco, which states that the regime wasn't as innocent as the main entry on Spain might suggest (by omission):

Franco's government executed, jailed, or subjected to forced labour thousands of republicans...

Shouldn't some of those details be included into the main article on Spain? Also, it's quite ironic that Picasso's Guernica is included in the main page, but no mention is made of the Bombing of Guernica given that thousands perished and given that the 2004 Madrid train bombings is mentioned in the next section (as of result of which less than two hundred died).

Also, is this all can be said about Spain's conquering of the Americas (beyond the enumeration of its dominions at its apex):

It was the first empire about which it was said that the sun did not set. This was an age of discovery, with daring explorations by sea and by land, the opening up of new trade routes across oceans, conquests and the beginning of European colonialism. Along with the arrival of precious metals, spices, luxuries, and new agricultural plants, Spanish explorers and others brought back knowledge that transformed the European understanding of the world.

Will an editor at least flag the history section as incomplete and biased until some proper editing is made? Ninel 23:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the "The Twentieth Century" section the side of Franco is called "Nationalist forces" which is not a correct translation of the spanish term, the correct one would be "National forces". I would also change the statement "under Franco's regime" by "under Franco's dictatorship" and that would be far more true, in order to inform about the period to an unknowing reader in such few lines.

A curious fact about early XX century in Spain, the dictatorship of "Primo de Rivera" (here called "autoritarian rule", strange for a government imposed after a military coup) was openly called in that period "dictablanda" as opposed to "dictadura", the spanish for "dictatorship", which from Spanish literally translates as "dictator-hard", so that "dictablanda" means "dictator-soft" because it didn't feel like a true dictatorship.

It is sad to have so much dispute about the Civil War's causes and Franco's regime so as to not mention almost anything in this article, very sad. Were I to write it, I'd mention that the Civil War started after very hard political disputes between right and left-wing parties which led to violence in the streets and selective murders of political opposites (remember Europe was immersed in that violence everywhere, Germany was a similar case, with nazis and communists disputing the streets).

Truth is the Civil War started with a military coup led by, among other military men, general Francisco Franco. I personally understand why they did it but I can't absolutely agree with anybody attacking a democracy, independently of its frailness. The result was a dictatorship with no democracy and without many freedoms (reunion, information, ...) that lasted from 1939 to 1975 (Franco's death).

This "regime" follows to the letter the most pure definition of a dictatorship and nobody can be offended by it and try to deny here that truth. Also to say that the Civil War was started by a military coup against the Republic's left-wing government is undisputable. To discuss the "reasons" why it was done does not avoid saying who started a civil war against the internationally recognized government of Spain before the war (the Republican government). In this Civil War both sides committed abominable crimes, as always happens in Civil Wars were the situation is not one country invading a different one, it is half a country trying to destroy and prevail over the other half, it is an inner war where both sides are fighting for their own country (and political views, we must always remember the immense hatred against opposites in that part of XX century), which makes it fierce and merciless.

To be fair it must be stated that under the almost forty years of Franco's dictatorship there was a period of economic growth and construction/modernisation of vital infrastructures (mostly in the later years, after Spain started being seen as an ally against Soviet Union and received important amounts of money from USA). It is also true that after the Civil War Spain was a devastated country (as much as its own soul, it was a true brothers' war), which was also a good reason not to join Hitler and Mussolini's campaigns.

Very fierce and inhuman retaliation was conducted by the winners of the civil struggle, the National side, in the early years after the war (which lead to a partisan movement that was joined in 1945 by returning Republican soldiers that had escaped Spain and kept fighting fascism with the Allies, inside French units, as the Leclerc division and the French Foreign Legion).

During all the period, fear was widespread among people with political views distinct to that of the regime, and had to act in clandestinity. Censorship was the rule.

About Spain's position in WW2 it can be said that not only Spain exported wolfram to Nazi Germany (which was used in anti-tank shells) but also that a military formation of some thousands of volunteers called "División Azul" (Blue Division, as blue was the color of the Nationals, as opposed to the red of the left-wing adversaries in the Civil War) was attached to the German Wehrmacht (Army) and served in the Russian campaign. It was formed mostly by fierce anti-bolshevists and there were also some people whose position, or their families', in the Civil War was doubtful to the view of the winners and volunteered in order to be accepted by the regime. Curiously, having such a different culture than the German Army, Spanish soldiers were not badly regarded in the Russian towns where it mingled in the frontlines.

Gallando 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lame Introduction

why the heck is the intro paragraphs for spain so lame compared to the UK, Italy, america, etc. its so generic. How about listing how it was a major global power during the age of discovery and its contributions in the modern world? doesnt have to be long but right now its just lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.151.44 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I could type it out. What do you guys say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.247.29 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself I prefer the current low key approach. The summary at the beginning of the mini history here gives readers enough of an idea of the country's very important and dramatic history. No need to shove it in their faces in the opening paragaraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.95.138 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Battle Name

The battle that stopped the Muslims was the Battle of Tours, not the Battle of Poitiers. Poitiers was a battle in the Hundred Years' War between England and France; the English defeated the French at Poitiers almost 600 years after the Franks defeated the Muslims at Tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.68.85 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False

In the text someone has writen "is a country formed by several nations located" this is not true, and the spanish don't feel it. Anyway the Constitution is explicit. I can not understand how this could be wrote.--Usuntil 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was user Crònica who did that [13]. I also think that clause should be removed. Anna Lincoln 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´m Spanish and I think that this sentence ("is a country formed by several nations located") is stupid. Spain IS a nation itself. There are some secessionist sensibilities in Catalonia and Euskadi, but this doesn´t determinate Spain as a fist of countries without any kind of national personality. With that point of view, France, Russia or United Kingdom are not countries, because they also holds independentist movements inside their frontiers. It must be removed.

I´m Spanish too and I agree with you, but is necessary to make a little specificacion; the Constitution of 1978 (actualy our Costitution) includes this text: "La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas." ( The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions belonging and solidarity among all of them.). Similarly, in the section devoted to the autonomies spoke of "historic nationalities" (Galicia, the Basque Country, Catalonia and Andalusia, if I am not mistaken), which agreed to autonomy in a different way to that of the rest of the communities. I hope I have clarified this difficult conflict and apologize for my poor English. LasMatas01 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 I'm also Spanish, and I'm agree with both you, however, i think a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community.  It's true that Catalans, Basques, Galicians and Castillians are not the same (they have different history and languages), but they are part of the same country, Spain is plural  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.106.116 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer "Colony"

This article states that spain shares a land border with the "Colony of Gibraltar". Gibraltar is no longer a "Colony", and should more accurately be described as the "British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.229.189 (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disagree. Gibraltar is a colony. "British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar" (exhausting to say) is just a circumlocution. Word "Gibraltar" comes from arabian ""Jeb-el-Tarik"...British? I don´t think so...

Gibraltar is not a colony because its inhabitants have decided many times via referendum to be inside the United Kingdom. --147.83.137.103 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As of 2007 not only is Gibraltar being considered a colony but also a "Non-self-governing territory" by United Nations UN SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION even if it has conducted an internal referendum. The status of Gibraltar as an English colony comes from the Utretch Treaty of 1713. I think UN is a respectable source of the current state of affairs. Gallando 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored British overseas territory. The term "colony" was dropped in 1981 under the British Nationality Act 1981. And Gibraltar also has full internal self-government under its constituion. — Chris.B | talk 15:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Europe, in a statement to Parliament: It has also been the UK's longstanding view that none of its remaining Overseas Territories, including Gibraltar, should remain on the UN list of non self-governing territories.
b) Emyr Jones Parry, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations: The new constitution provides for a modern relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I do not think that this description would apply to any relationship based on colonialism.
The term 'colony' is sufficiently outdated that the UN no longer use the word except in a historical context, and neither should we. --Gibnews (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This's a burocratic and politic dissimulation similar to the miraculous conversion of the Spanish colonies of the Sahara, Ifni and Equatorial Guinea (then Fernando Poo and Rio Muni) into provinces. I, like Spanish that I am, respect British sovereignty of Gibraltar only and only because that this is the political situation that Gibraltarians want, but not because the UK had historical or political rights. LasMatas01 13:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

== Failed States Index ==

Why Spain was included at the list of Failed States Index as "moderate" ? It lacks the FSI. In other countries, like Nepal there is it. Belem tower 08:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfighting is not a sport

Please, review the Sports section because "Bullfighting" is not an sport (actually, I think it is the most horrible, wild and shameful image we can offer to the rest of the world). And if you want references to popular sports in Spain, please include Basketball, Handball and Formula 1, where Spain is the worldchampion. Diegodr 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i like spain =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.28.202 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most of spanish young people are against bullfighting and it's even been banned on some regions. 89.128.223.165 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish government

In this part it is said: "Spain is, at present, what is called a State of Autonomies, formally unitary but, in fact, functioning as a highly decentralised Federation of Autonomous Communities; it is regarded by many as the most decentralised nation in Europe"

FALSE: "formally unitary"!!! this is absolutely misleading as it has a central government with far more competences than countries like Germany and Switzerland, to mention just two; the executive power is held by the central government led by the president, the legislative branch is at the top held by the Congress and the Senate and they can over-rule any local or autonomic regulation as they do to this day with some Statutary proposals recently presented. The judiciary branch is at its top levels absolutely centralized, the first level is autonomic. With these facts at hand who can state with any degree of truth that Spain is only "formally unitary" speaking about its functioning??? All these facts lead also to the second false statement:

FALSE: "Federation of Autonomous Communities" --> the spanish system can NOT be called "Federation" at all (the Constitution never speaks a word about federation, nor does it give federal powers to autonomies), it could be fairly said that it is a country composed of several Autonomies, but never a federation as it implies far higher levels of autonomy than its autonomies have today (to be a federation is actually one of the short-term aspirations of separatists)

FALSE: "the most decentralised nation in Europe" --> Switzerland is undisputably the most being formed as a cantonal federation, and afterwards Germany would be the second as it is divided in highly autonomous city states and Lander (federal regions).

With the facts provided in the current version of the article and by comparison with other countries' articles like Germany and Switzerland's ones, it is sufficient reference to state that the redaction of this section is OUTRAGEOUS IN ITS FALSENESS. Please correct it.


Under "Spanish Constitution" it is said: "even though the Constitution does not formally state that Spain is a federation (nor a unitarian state), Spain has a decentralized system in practice"

This statement is FALSE, in the 2nd article of the Spanish Constitution it says: "Artículo 2 La Constitución se fundamenta en la INDISOLUBLE UNIDAD de la Nación española, patria común e INDIVISIBLE de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas."

"Article 2 The Constitution is founded in the INDIVIDABLE UNITY of the Spanish Nation, common fatherland and INDIVISIBLE of all spanish people, and recognises and grants the right to the self-government of the nationalities and regions that integrate it and the solidarity among all of them."

Not only someone is trying to bias the article to make readers think Spain is a "Federation" (which is not at all, as can be read in the Constitution) but also to say it is not a "unitarian state" (in the above article of the Constitution it is stated the absolute opposite). PLEASE CORRECT THIS.

Gallando 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong the fonetical audio for Spain, it says /s'pa/ instead of /espaɲa/, can someone record a new one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.34.186 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All changes done, with reputable references added Gallando 09:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain GDP Per Capita

"However, Spain was recently ranked 13th in the European Union and 28th in the world in terms of GDP per capita.[3]"

This statement in the first section is taken out of context and makes Spain seem a poor country to a person uninformed of global macroeconomics.Drewbie500 09:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Agree - Spain has recently (2006 figures) surpassed Italy in GDP per capita according to Eurostat and CIA using the latest estimates for 2007. For the same reason the comment about Spain's GDP per capita trailing behind the G7 nations is no longer true Charlygc (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

What's going on with the coat of arms' image?? - One user is putting a PNG which is 90 KB of size and with big resolution [14]

- Other user is putting a SVG which is 384 KB and 200x200 by default [15]

They are both identical!!!!!! Let's leave the smaller filesize one (which is nonetheless the one with bigger resolution when clicked)

I'll undo any changes unless a good reason is commented here before!

Gallando (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG files are generally preferred in Wikipedia as they are vector images and have "infinite resolution". The CoAs of other countries also tend to be in this format. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 12:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics in the United States - requested move

Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at Hispanics in the United States, due to the request that the page be moved to Hispanic Americans. Would you like to comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos I

Is there a reason the king is referred to as Juan Carlos I, and not just Juan Carlos? The official website refers to him as el Rey Don Juan Carlos, without the "I". Also, other articles such as on Queen Victoria don't insert the "I". This is a question that has been raised on the Juan Carlos Talk Page if anyone has some thoughts or input. I thought I would bring it up here, since any change would involve editing this article as well. --Anietor (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fully agree. General usage on monarchs dictates that the ordinal should be used if there is more than one monarch in the line with the same name. Thus, Elisabeth of England was only Elisabeth I after Elisabeth II came to the throne. Another example is Queen Anne, who is NOT referred to as Anne I. --YuriBCN 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain public health system

23.01.2008

Hello,

There is nothing in the Spain article on how is organized the public health system. I have heard that it is managed regionaly, but don't know more on the subject. Could someone give me more information?

Thanks!

Guilounette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.202.5 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain position by size

Spain is the fourth country by size in Europe, not the second. The order is Russia, Ukraine, France, Spain.

Can someone actualize this information. --147.72.234.5 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain economy

I think Spain economy is understimated in the article. It has been called latrely a success story.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5461495_ITM

It has already surpass Italy in percaita incomeand France and Germany are next in line. Chloe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - The whole economy article is obsolete and needs to be fully updated. It does not mention anything about big Spanish companies and it should. Here's a hint - Santander is the 8th biggest bank in the world, Telefonica the 2nd biggest telecomunication company in the world, Iberdrola is the leading clean (renewal) energy company in the world, Inditex is a world-class fashion company, Spain is home to the biggest construction conglomerates in Europe, etc The list goes on. Someone familiarized with the Spanish economy should update this. Thanks, Charlygc (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official name

Traditionally, and in reference to its form of government, Spain is called "Reino de España" both in an outside Spain. However, I cannot find any legal document that specifies this denomination as official. "Reino de España" does not appear anywhere in the constitution [16] (the term Estado español appears numerous times, whereas the term Nación española only occasionally). Not even, as it is usual in passports, does the name appear as such in the Spanish passport [17]. I have found some international agreement that use the term "Reino de España" [18] (Usage is one thing, official declaration of the toponymy is another thing). The question, open to discussion is, what constitutes an official denomination? If the denomination is not used in the constitution of the country, is it "official"? --the Dúnadan 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Absolutly official! [19].

One is the conventional short form (name of the country), the other one is the conventional long form (Form of government of the country). "La denominación correspondiente a la forma o modelo de gobierno suele incluso incorporarse al nombre o denominación oficial del estado, por ejemplo: República Argentina, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Reino de España, Federación Rusa o Gran Jamahiriya Árabe Libia Popular y Socialista. Sólo hay dieciocho países que no lo hacen así, por ejemplo: Jamaica, mientras que once sólo indican que son "estados". La forma más común es "república", con 132 casos de muy distinto tipo. Las monarquías son 33 (18 de ellas "reinos")(es-wiki)".

The European Union states [20]:

  • Official title or short name?

The long form (official title) is used when the State is targeted as a legal entity:

"This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "The French Republic is authorised to ..."

NB:If the recurrence of the name of a State in the text leads to a preference for using the short form, it can be introduced with the phrase ‘hereinafter referred to as ...’.

  • The short form (short name) is used when the State is referred to geographically or economically:

"Workers residing in France". "Exports from Greece ..."

So, may I end up saying that it is all about good and old protocol. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Maurice, neither the CIA, nor the European Union, nor the Spanish Wikipedia are primary sources. You are citing tertiary sources who do not have any juridical authority in Spain. I repeat, that denomination does not appear anywhere in the constitution. I ask again, does anyone know of a law (i.e. de jure) that stipulates that the official name of Spain is "Reino de España" or is it more a de facto stipulation based, of course, on its form of government. (Please do not cite encyclopedias, Wikipedias or international organizations). --the Dúnadan 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note, let me translate one of your sources:
"Denomination of the Spanish State in international agreements...
"The convenience of unifying criteria on the correct form of referring to our country in the text of international treaties that Spain subscribes has motivated a consultation from this Department to the State Council [...] answering the following:
"That the denominations "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain" are equally admissible to refer to the Spanish State in all international treaties it be part of, even though, the second has a more individualizing entity [sic] [...] in consequence in international treaties or other agreements negotiated as of this date, there cannot be any other denomination but "Spain" or "Kingdom of Spain" avoiding formulas such as "Government of Spain" or "Government of the Kingdom of Spain" and other incorrect [formulas]." (end of quote, bold mine).
What do you guys think of this law? As far as I can tell, and only in international treaties, both "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain" are "admissible" (official?). Should we change the introduction of the article to say that "Spain" (officially in international treaties either as Spain or Kingdom of Spain)?
--the Dúnadan 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely Dunadan, if you are getting bored, try to find something else to entertain you! But quit trying to add such useless proposals. The constitution of Spain does not have EVERYTHING in it. Thank God you are not interested in UK's politics... Why don't you also propose the same thing for France? It's constitution does not mention anywhere "French Republic" neither [21]. The conventional long form of a country's name is the official name recognised by the United Nations when it becomes a member. You also have a reference from the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs... What more do you want? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice, why do you have to resort to insults? Whatever the Constitution of France says or does not say, is a matter that must be discussed in France. However, the Spanish constitution does not declare any "official name", and the source you provided, which you must have read, states, very, very, clearly, and without the shadow of a doubt that in international treaties the terms "Spain" and "Spanish Kingdom" are equally valid. I am using the same reference, the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs (I don't know why you put it in bold letters, but since you did, I did too =P). Does any other user want to offer his/her opinion on this matter? --the Dúnadan 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's incredible... "resort to insults?"... For God's Sake, Where did I insult you? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read for yourself, what you yourself write. I insist also that you read the constitution and the source you provided. Any other user has any opinion on this matter, or should I proceed? --the Dúnadan 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owners of Spain?

"the two owners of spain are emma bruce and jessica tomkinson."

Somebody can explain the first sentence of the article? Thnx. Carlos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.55.245 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14-M

Just this sentence: besides possibly affected national elections scheduled for March 14, three days after the attack, which was, arguably, the main goal of the terrorists. is enough compromise to POV to grant the section the tag. There are other subtle phrases in the paragraph that are suspiciously written.--David (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I added a reference to that excerpt you are mentioning here. As for the other phrases which you find suspiciously written, it would be better point them out, discuss their rephrasing if it was necessary than than simply tagging the section, dont you think? Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Mountolive. Adding some dubious web references does not eliminate the POV, the wording of the phrases has to be changed as I did. Remember that we must only tell the different points of view, not incorporate them as facts in the body of the article. The goal of the terrorists is not known, even "arguably", and "arguably" itself is not NPOV. David (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, I have partially restored a removed excerpt indicating that the effect of the bombings were harmful for the PP expectations. It is self-evident and doesnt need much discussion the fact that no party wants to see hundreds of demonstrators in front of their premises calling this party leaders liars a mere couple days before the elections are to be held, while all is being covered by an intensive media attention. Then, as a rule of thumb, if it affected negatively the PP, then it affected positively the PSOE, so I was originally going to restore this one too. But then I thought maybe it is this part which you dont find neutral, so this latter part, I have finally ommitted it. Note that it is 'the effects' of the bombings (i.e. the popular reaction) which is the subject of the sentence, not the bombings themselves. For the bombings themselves could have had as their effect a popular gathering around the ruling party, but it was the contrary what happened. In other words, the bombings are one thing, and the inference and responsabilities of both PP and PSOE outcomeleaders in the turmoil that followed is another thing (which this article is not the right place to explain in detail). Hope you agree. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability is not an excuse to present conspiracy theories that present the point of view of a minority. WP:Verifiability is not to be interpreted alone (as the policy clearly states) but in conjunction with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Giving a conspiracy theory, while referenced, WP:UNDUE weight by making it an encyclopedical affirmation is not compliant with WP:NPOV. If due weight is to be given, the theory that a political party, the PSOE "backed up" the bombings (or at least the rendering of that sentence seemed to imply that), it should be qualified as such, as the minority—and extremist—opinion of one POV-source not as a fact verified by proofs. I strongly suggest eliminating that qualification which has all the necessary ingredient to become a politically-charged bomb that will trigger unnecessary edit-wars of users that will bring POVs to accuse either party (PP or PSOE) of conspiracy theories. I would be more than happy to request the aid of an administrator or even for mediation, if you guys deem it appropriate. --the Dúnadan 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with this removal. Wikipedia gathers all kinds of conspiracy theories and that doesnt mean that wikipedia endorse them, just collect them based on their relevance. Unfortunatelly, it is not so easy to find a reliable source (not biased) supporting that claim, but good faith advises that we shouldnt eliminate an excerpt which rings true (don't know how familiar you are with this, Dúnadan, but maybe David can support me if I say that, yes, some people think that the PSOE "backed" the turmoil in front of PP premises by sending sms -I seem to remember that one was 'caught' doing so from his 'official' phone- or by pledging to and amplifying unconfirmed Cadena SER reports which turned out to be wrong in the end).
If the problem with this removed sentence is the reference (I am not happy with it either) then just restore this removed sentence unreferenced. If the problem is the verb (to back) then just find a better verb to cover the action. But concealing this state of mind (whether we like it or not) it is not the best idea.
As for the edit-wars, I think that line has been there for years and I haven't seen any of those...so far. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think conspiracy theories are encyclopedical (you will not find them in Britannica, Hispanica, Encarta), and unless clearly identified as such, they violate WP:UNDUE.
To say that the PSOE backed up the Madrid bombings (which is different from backing the "turmoil", but even that...), even if sourced with a POV reference, is not compliant with the other policies in Wikipedia. "Good faith" has three unavoidable limitations (CITE, OR and NPOV). Remember that what "rings true" or is a "state of mind" based on reports that turned out to be wrong in the end, and cannot be fully verified, cannot be included in Wikipedia. If at all, all sorts of conspiracy theories could be included (and even there I have my reservations) in a very specific article, say 14-M Bombing attacks at Madrid, but not in the general Spain article.
It would be similar to including a sentence in the History section of United States saying that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks, according to some sources. Or, as you know, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories of "Spain" against Catalonia, of which I could find dozens of "sources", some of which, to many people "ring very true", but they are not included in Wikipedia, and probably should not, as you would probably agree.
But I would be more than happy to ask (an) administrator(s) and other users with good-standing for their opinion and/or mediation, if you like.
--the Dúnadan 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are getting from the removed redaction is that the PSOE backed the bombings, then it is indeed an unfortunate one. I'd say that the idea behind that removed excerpt is that, yes, the PSOE backed the turmoil which followed and some PP members resent that. This hardly falls in any conspiracy theory whatsoever. It could be documented that the PSOE did nothing to stop the turmoil which followed, but actually 'massaged' it somehow (how much it was involved is impossible to determine nor should make us bleed here: for some it would be the main agent behind the demonstrations, for others just supported and joined them).

I would do it myself, but I guess you will feel more comfortable with your own wording, so please feel free to work on a clearer redaction to better express this if you find the removed excerpt misleading the way it was. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 17:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the original sentence: "These incidents are still a cause of discussion, since some factions of the PP suggest that the elections were "stolen" by means of the turmoil which followed the terrorist bombing, which was, according to this point of view, backed by the PSOE."... terrorist bombing which was... backed up. I guess it was a very unfortunate "redaction".
But you missed my point when I said "turmoil... even that". Two questions I have in mind:
  • Are there any reliable and irrefutable proofs that PSOE backed up the "turmoil" than [naturally] ensues a terrorist attack besides sms messages that turned out to be false or any other "theories" but not "facts"?
  • If so, is a purported "backing up" of turmoil a water-shed historical event, on par with, say, the Civil War, that merits the inclusion of this theory in the History Section? Aren't there any other suspicions on the same event, backed up by other politicians/historians, or of other events that would merit their inclusion?
I think this is a more political issue, not a hard fact, and users will probably "back up" the parties they support (or they sympathize, even if mildly).
I'll invite a couple of admins and unrelated users (users with good-standing in other issues that are not involved in Spanish or Catalan-related articles) to ask for their opinions, if that is fine with you.
--the Dúnadan 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean much better now that you isolate this sentence and put some focus on it. And you are right, it could be wrongly inferred that the PSOE was behind the bombing somehow, which is indeed extreme, disparated and doesnt merit recognizition in the Spain article.
But, as I said before, I think the point which merits recognition is some PP ranks and numbers being resentful of how the PSOE handled the aftermath of the bombings.
As it is, the PSOE (and other parties) view of the events is reflected in the text. They'll tell you that the interim PP government lied. The PP will tell you that they were just promptly passing the info they were receiving from the CNI, and that this was changing. Since we lack (and will continue to) any Congressional committee to determine who is (more) right on this, then the article would be imbalanced towards the PSOE if only their view is reflected as it (partially) is with the current "redaction" (what's the problem with "redaction" to put it in quotation marks?).
I may try some wording soon. Feel free to work on it if you found it not ok. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might not be expressing my concerns properly. Wording (what you call redaction) is not the problem, content is. This is still a theory, conspiracy theory, which is based on speculation and it is unproven, whether because of lack of constitutional or congressional resources or not. Like I said, there are dozens of possible "theories" concerning 14-M incriminating both parties (I've heard preposterous claims that seem to ring "true" to some, incriminating PP), and that's all they are, theories. They might seem plausible and "ring true" to you, but they are by no means WP:FACTS. Like I said, I could bring a dozen conspiracy theories regarding Catalonia, that ring true to many Catalan ears and that some users we both know will erase them without thinking twice. PSOE adherents will probably object to that "theory" being presented in an encyclopedia (and no encyclopedia ever presents unproven theories), and would point out to other "proofs" against PP of this or other events. I suggest we stick to facts and leave the interpretations and possible theories, politically oriented, for forums.
--the Dúnadan 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Leaving aside for one moment the rights or wrongs of the way the issue is described here, it just seems to me fundamentally unbalanced to have this issue dominating the 21st Century section of the article about Spain. For some people in Spain the effect of the train bombings on the elections is clearly the most important event, but I think most people outside of that political argument would regard the bombings themselves as being the key event that requires attention. In any case, I think the correct place for examination of the issue in any detail is inside the article about the bombings or one of its associated articles - despite the lamentable state of those articles.
On the issue itself, it is really a very partisan viewpoint that the demonstrations outside PP headquarters are what changed the outcome of the elections. There were only a few thousand people protesting, it wasn't shown on most TV channels and the idea that this is what brought about the change of government is frankly very far fetched. Most respectable analysis of the elections will focus on the fact that voters sympathetic to the left were mobilised in greater numbers than on previous occasions, it would be extremely simplistic and distorted to suggest that happened just because of a few sms messages. The suggestion in any case that the elections were "stolen" should never appear - I don't know of any respectable source suggesting anything other than that the results are a reflection of the number of votes cast. Southofwatford (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dúnadan, I think you are wrong this time. If the only acquaintance I had from you was the above post, I'd say that you consider wikipedia like revelated Truth. But I know you know (we know) this is not wikipedia's function, to spread truth, just to (try to) spread knowledge.
The text you are removing is clearly stating that some sectors of the PP believe that the PSOE fueled turmoil, in the same fashion as the text as it is now quotes PSOE as accusing PP of not telling the truth. You know very well there is quite some difference in saying that someone thinks something than then endorsing those reflections.
You also know very well that, in the end, in politically charged articles, wikipedia has to be presenting all notable point of views. And that is what the excerpt removed tries to.
Sure, there are lots of conspiracy theories, some completely disparated (even to the point of laughter) others which may "ring true" to some and may ring as utter crap to others.
But, in the end, there are only two versions of the aftermath which are relevant enough. One is that of the PSOE, which accuses the interim PP government of not telling the truth. This one is present in the text already.
The other one is that of the PP, which accuses the PSOE of fueling the incidents. This one is the one you removed, despite being notable and properly referenced. Dunno how much familiar you are with the topic, but, for users who are not, Alfredo Urdaci is a quite notable (conservative) journalist. He even came to head the news service at the public Spanish TV (TVE) appointed by the PP. You may agree with him or not, but one thing is clear: he is not a crazy man or something, nor he is a common guy unrelated to this either professionally or politically (like some of the conspiracy theorists). Therefore I would appreciate it if you didnt just didnt remove the (few) valid referenced pieces I could possibly bring.
Yes, looks like you havent expressed your concerns properly so far. In the beginning it looked like you wanted to bar the PP version of the story. Then I thought that you were only concerned about the neutrality of the "redaction" and, because your concern, I think the new wording is both much more exact and NPOV than before's, besides, the new reference is also much better. Thanks for the inspiration.
But now it looks once again like you wanted to block this point of view by removing again the new wording along with the new reference. You did so first by saying that it could be misleading. I agreed it was and has been changed. Now you are erasing the new phrasing once again and that's when I think you are wrong. The new phrasing you just erased -and I am restoring- is not misleading, it is actually very clear. As for its trustworthiness, it is the reader to decide which one political account from the aftermath s/he prefers, if s/he wants to swallow one, that is to say. But for that we need both sides to be represented in the text.
On the face of your repeated reversions, I guess you were right with one thing from the beginning: yes, better call an administrator. I thought the matter was clear enough without bothering anybody nor engaging in protracted discussion, but looks like I was wrong and you are right, so, yes, please get the attention of some administrator to this case and let it be soon: at least this time (for a change) looks like the matter could be speedily solved.
Per previous exchanges we have had, I'd say that you are more familiar than myself with the fantastic (petty side of) wikipedia, that is why I'd appreciate it if you took the necessary steps to report this (petty) incident. In this regard I would appreciate it if you confirmed whether my belief is correct or not that removing validly referenced statements is regarded as vandalism.
Vandalism or not, and despite my ignorance of wikirules beyond good faith, I'd say I am not asking too much if I asked you to please bear with the restored excerpt -if my explanations here aren't satisfactory enough- until at least one administrator has expressed his/her opinion, because it is a referenced statement per NPOV concerns, and that has a value by itself Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It's entirely unfair to suggest that the removal of the Urdaci interview clip (which is neither properly attributed or placed in any sort of context - where does it come from?) is vandalism. To imply that any removal of sourced information is vandalism would probably mean that many of the best editors in Wikipedia are vandals! The issue of the controversy surrounding the elections is already included in other articles where it has greater relevance and can be given the depth it requires - to duplicate such coverage here is content forking and leaves the section on an important event completely unbalanced. Southofwatford (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest replacing the disputed paragraph with something along these lines:
Although initial suspicions of responsibility for the bombings focused on the Basque group ETA, evidence soon emerged indicating possible Islamist involvement. Because of the proximity of the election, the issue of responsibility quickly became a source of political controversy. The opposition accused the government of attempting to conceal the truth about those responsible, whilst the governing PP accused opposition parties of being behind street protests outside of their headquarters.
It's a rough version which can be improved, but it attempts to summarise the controversy without introducing insinuations about the legitimacy of the electoral process that took place. It also leaves more in-depth discussion for other articles, thus allowing the bombings themselves to be portrayed as the significant event here.
Southofwatford (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I absolutely approve this new paragraph you propose. Mountolive's view of the whole thing is too biased, that's why I instantly put a NPOV tag as soon as I read it. I've trying to "swallow" it as it is now, with all the recent patches... but it still reads awfully and "smells" like certain something. You are right, let's put the stress on the importan event, that is the killing of 191 innocent people. Leave the controversies to other articles, don't put THIS in Spain. David (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should not use conspiracy theories in this article re 14-M, it may well be appropriate on wi9kipedia, we have lots of conspiracy theory articles, but this is the article on Spain. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Guess what, I am not really opposed to the paragraph suggested by Southofwatford...but I can't help noting it is saying basically the same thing than before, but just in a more vague way, isn't it? It just shies away from the concrete description of it. Do you guys realize about that? Are you aware that your point of view sounds like "we will only tolerate a mild account of it, but what they say is just too heavy to appear here" (that was before SqueakBox eliminated any unconvenient remnant, of course)....sounds like self-imposed censorship, doesnt it? Is it hardcore porn for you to quote PP sectors accusing the PSOE of being behind a massive sms sending? If that was the case, please excuse my gross taste here.

In contrast, I'd like to think that readers here have a high enough IQ to make their own appreciations as long as the partisan character of from both sides is clear. I'd like to think that they could be spared a mix of good faith&bias censorship like the one that has been instated.

It looks like you guys are just too uncomfortable with the massive sms theory, and the fact that you don't like it is enough grounds for you to remove it despite it being properly referenced (in the words a very prominent journalist which was a part of the story). The fact that you won't let a referenced text to appear and illustrate how a significant tract of people sees it, but you prefer to substitute it by a more general P.C. account, it actually speaks of your own bias and insecurities. And then SqueakBox came to finish the job and ease any remaining insecurity.

So let's make a summary of the story before I run away from here: some sectors in the PP have their own views of what happened in the aftermath of the attack, a number of PP ranks have stated so along with the media related to the PP; I was lucky enough to find a proper reference to cover it (it's not so easy sometimes). Then the next thing we know is that you guys remove it both text and reference on the grounds of this being biased, like if the text didnt make very clear that this is a claim from the PP. In contrast, the PSOE version of it (that the government lied) is not a conspiracy theory in your view, you assume it as true, am I wrong? Next question would be on which grounds do you base your claims of the PSOE account of the story being the good one. But dont worry, I think it's clear enough to spare everybody some confusing blabla about how neutral you are.

But what I find really astonishing is that, still, you (David, in this case) have the dazzling chutzpah to call me biased ¿?¿?

I thought expressing all views and support them by a proper quote was one of the main parts of the 'business' here in wikipedia. And I still think it despite your latter-day mix of P.C.&bias, but I definitely forgot of the power of mob rule, though.

Because no one seems interested anymore in calling an administrator to shed some light here, right? Apparently you have decided that it's much better to have two or three editors with the same ideas to settle what fits and what doesnt fit in here...because there is always the risk of an administrator would see it differently.

By the way, SqueakBox, very nice work of suppressing any additional "inconvenient" text remaining (inconvenient for your POV, that is to say). Now you have completed the circle and readers are finally deprived of the PP account of the story. Only the PSOE one is in the text now...just the way a-ha, a-ha you liked it.

You are right if you thought that the rest of editors here wouldnt have any problem with your further unilateral removal (no one has said anything, looks like they won't). You were a bit more drastic than them and went straight to a good old-fashioned deletion of content. They were a bit more diplomatic and just changed the wording for it to appear more palatable for left-wing editors. But, don't worry, SqueakBox, I actually salute bold editors like you in imposing their POVs over more sneaky ones which drag you dawn to too much blabla and wasted time in talk pages only to impose a similar result in the end.

I have to appreciate the straightness of your removal of the last "uncomfortable" content, which you "based" (that's a manner of speaking) on the fact that "it is not referenced", acting like if [citation needed] tags weren't there handy to avoid unilateral removals like yours or like if all similar statements (and quite bolder) throughout this article were referenced unlike that one. You have understood well the 'rationale' (?) behind the previous editions: validly referenced text was frowned upon, changed and de-referenced. And now you finish the job by removing whatever remains on the grounds that is not referenced....chapeau! hats off!

All of a sudden, it's like you shifted (when you saw it fit) from a vague anti-conspiracy sentiment (which is contradictory with wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE policies) back to the zealous wikipedian, which won't do without a referenced text...if the now unreferenced text (from which the anti-conspiracy guys removed the reference in the first place) is contrary to your beliefs, that is to say. In the meantime, the former anti-conspiracy lot are looking the other way already. Heck....it's in between a masterpiece of POV pushing and predictable behaviour!.

I am not familiar with what happened there, but after SqueakBox's additional whitewashing here I'm starting to make my own ideas about why he was blocked for an entire year at José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero...you don't like other users casting shadows on your man, do you?

Anyway, guys, it looks like, after all has been said and done, you won't let wording you dont like in, whether referenced and notable or unreferenced, all on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory. And you are not interested anymore in an administrator paying a look in here either. In turn, PSOE's (and others's) conspiracy theory (that the government knew it, but lied) is ok for you.

So, it all comes down to you knowing better about what is a gross conspiracy theory (PP's, which is not worth it even mention here, referenced or not) and what is a true and good account of the aftermath (PSOE's).

Interesting.

Enjoy your time here.

Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dispute at Zapatero was political, with a young PP supporter. Actually I like Aznar too, what I do not really like is us blackwashing either side and I think Dunadan's latest edit really helps balance things out here. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with you Mountolive - a key part of the article has been intentionally reduced to only the PSOE's version and now the article is clearly biased.

'Although initial suspicions of responsibility for the bombings focused on the Basque group ETA, evidence soon emerged indicating possible Islamist involvement. Because of the proximity of the election, the issue of responsibility quickly became a source of political controversy. The opposition accused the government of attempting to conceal the truth about those responsible'

I certainly agree that we need an admin here to shed some light and to balance this article as the editors are only giving 1 version of what happened (the version they like) and omitting key facts that ultimately had a direct impact on the outcome of the election (and because of its relevance it has to appear here). I am familiar with what happened that night, am a spaniard who lives abroad, didn't vote in 2004 and isn't into politics but I can certainly confirm that the PSOE played a very active role in those 3 days from the 11-14 and that there were SMS been sent to everyone (just as Mountolive detailed). So SqueakBox and David, this is not 1 of the 14 conspiracy theories, it really happened just as Mountolive described and your text needs to be re-written. Having a biased article in the main page of my country isn't acceptable. I urge you to do it. Charlygc (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this post short, while trying to answer some of the concerns expressed by some editors above:
  • WP:Verifiability requires the source to be reliable and non-questionable. An interview in which a person speaks of unproven speculations is a questionable source. Therefore removing it is compliant with Wikipedia's standards. Let's not debase verifiability; even sources that "deny" the Holocaust can be "verified" (in the sense that they can be accessed online), but that does not mean they are Reliable.
  • Needless to say, personal opinions ("it really just happened just as ... described"), are obviously non-compliant with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. That opinion (not based on facts but on speculation) would be shared by like-minded users with similar political preferences, and will be opposed by others.
  • Please avoid ad hominem arguments and personal direct or indirect attacks towards other users (i.e. "sneaky", "biased", "insecure"). Let's keep a high polite standard in our discussions.
  • My proposal is to end the sentence at "...quickly became a source of political controversy". There is no need to recount the details of the controversy, and much less to state or cite unproven speculations and conspiracy theories. No need to say that PSOE accused the PP of lying, and no need to say that PP speculates on the content of the purported million messages sent. I think that would satisfy all parties.
  • Charlygc, welcome to Wikipedia. Some of your proposals cannot be included in the article. As a new user, I invite you to read the three main guidelines of our community: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research. These three policies are the foundation and the standard for everything that gets posted in the articles. There are more policies that are also important, but these three are non-negotiable. I would recommend that you read them thoroughly, as they will shed light on what can be included in an article and what cannot. Abiding by these three policies will assure you a pleasant time in our community.
--the Dúnadan 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't comment anything about the personal attacks, all I will say is that the text is now closer to perfection, that is our community's ultimate goal. The reason why I started the changes, as I said, is that the previous text was clearly biased and not NPOV, it showed only the right wing's POV. The author of that text has shown here his thoughts on this, that seem to be very strong. David (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comments addressed to me above, please bear with me with the 'sneaky' reference, for it was probably out of a general frustration with some past outcomes in other articles than with this one or with either Dúnadan, David or Southofwatford. So, if you found this comment out of hand, my apologies: it wasn't really addressed to you guys after all.

As for the bias and insecurities comments, I state my claim, though. Everyone has a bias (me too) and no one should feel offended here in wikipedia if they are reminded of their own bias (unless they feel 'insecure' about having it and showing it ;).

Also agree with keeping a high polite standard here. And that should also include not showing such a thin skin that would twist other user's comments (my own, in this case) to turn them into "personal attacks" just because, for example, I say someone is biased (I have been called "too much biased" and I dont regard it as a "personal attack"). If someone felt any of my comments like a "personal attack", then it's probably himself who should read them again and decide whether that was falls into the category of personal attack or whether they actually overreacted for a moment out of the heated discussion. I apologized for the sneaky reference, for that wasnt fair but a product of the very same heated discussion. Anyone, please feel free to amend yourself if you think that calling my comments "personal attacks" was a bit out of hand, too.

The solution proposed is ok. It would be best to have both sides of the story, but if the choice is having one or none, the latter is best.

After all, there is a main article for further elaboration and, actually, the goal in this Spain article should be better compressing it than expanding existing info. I guess this is what they mean by "less is more". Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 things

a) Under the summary of Spain's history, the link on 'Muslim rulers' leads to a disambiguation page. In any case, a link for 'Muslim rulers' is a bit vague and random considering that there have been thousands of Muslim rulers. So maybe the link should be removed or replaced with something a more relevant; for example, the Abbasids. or whatever!

b) is this page locked, because it doesn't have an 'edit this page' or a lock in the corner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shj95 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The .cat domain

The .cat domain is also used in the Autonomous Comunity of Balearic Islands, because it is a language domain (not means "catalonia" but "catalan").--83.33.229.55 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe

Hello Spain! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nation Master's list by economic importance

In the article "International rankings" of Spain says that "Nation Master's list by economic importance: Rank 9 of 25 countries, only surpassed by G-8 members". Actually Spain is the 8th in this ranking, over Canada. The G-8 doesn't exist, they are the G-7 plus Russia, that it is in the eleventh position in the ranking and only go to the G-7 like observer for their global importance. LasMatas01 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

HIspanic demonym

Using Hispanic to refer to the demonym is inaccurate! The term is used in so many ways, and it almost never refers to just people from spain, but more to a culture related to the spanish language (and one could claim to a lesser extent, portuguese). Why has the article been modified in this respect? The demonym Spaniard and Spanish should be the only ones there! Nahuelmarisi (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings

It states in the article; Reporters Without Borders world-wide press freedom index 2002: Rank 40 out of 139 countries.[79]

That might be correct, but in the 2007 survey Spain is ranked 33 out of 169 countries.

link: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025


I cant edit the article, so if some of you would be so kind to make an update I would greatly appreciate it! Pereli (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jews in spain

Firstly jews have always been a part of Spain as said our spanish king [22] Jews are not nostalgia in spain . Additional Jewish emigration to Spain in more recent times is primarily the result of four events: after the 19th century, some Jews established themselves in Spain as a result of migration from what was formerly Spanish Morocco, the flight of Jews escaping from Nazi repression, immigration from Argentina. Spanish law allows Sephardi Jews to claim Spanish citizenship.Finally Spain is seen by northern european community members as a retirement place and as a warm place to raise young families. Many thousands of families have immigrated from the north to southern spain(murcia) and among these thousands have been hundreds of jewish families ..to retire and or to raise children. This is a modern phenomenon and is seen in murcia spain in both polaris world and trampolin hills.[23]


raquel samper comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.17.233 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education system

Under economy " ... an education system which OECD reports place among the poorest for developed countries, together with the United States and UK.[54]" I wonder if the comparisons are very sensible. The UK page reports the UK's education system as being the 14th best in the world, well above the average for the OECD. My knowledge of international comparisons (the PISA studies for example) tends to show the UK as doing rather well - at least as well as the average of the obvious comparison countries, Germany, France, Italy. The source cited here does not support the claim either. It would be inclined to scrap the comparison, unless someone knows of information that I don't. 89.49.213.51 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym is incorrect.

The demonym should only be Spanish or Spaniard. "Hispanic" is a generalized and incorrect "ethnic" term used only in the United States to identify Spanish language speakers. Moreover, there are many different nationalities/ethnicities within Spain itself, which would not be represented by this incorrect term. Spanish or Spandiard is the overall correct and collective term to identify the different people/nationalities within the Kingdom of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.70.230 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in the English language the correct word is Spanish or Spaniard, not Hispanic. --the Dúnadan 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain Jews Monorities not to be confused with immigrants

Jews never part of nostalgia in Spain have always been in Spain and are as Spanish as catholics.Jews are a minority but not immigrants,as indians are a minority in the usa but not immigrants. The Jewish population is around 35,000.Your article talks about jews as different ,not regular spain people ,immigrants who entered so long ago to mix-in with regular real spanish blood.This is a common thread mistake . The Federation of Israelite Communities of Spain currently consists of thirteen traditional and Orthodox communities, the largest of which are located in Madrid, Barcelona and on the Costa del Sol (Málaga) and in Murcia. There are also groups of Conservative Jews and associations of secular Jews. In Barcelona, a Reform community, the Progressive Jewish Community Atid (Future) of Catalonia, is active.Today many jews move to Spain to retire from the colder northern community countries or come to spain to raise children.Polaris World and Tramplin Hills in Murcia are examples of such communities with growing Jewish population. raquel samper directora comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewish spain (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Spanish is the only official language of the country according to the 1978 constitution. The other languages are only co-official in their respective communities. Why has the article been changed? there was a reference to this before (reference is still on main page as number 2 actually) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.128.6 (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=422 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.63.194 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is mentioned before, the article 2.1 of the 1978 Constitution states that "Castilian is the official Spanish language in the State". Then, the article 2.2 states that "The rest of Spanish languages will be official in their Constituent Communities as it will be stated in their Regional Constitutions" (Regional constitution is a free translation for Estatuto). That is later explained in <8.2. Languages>. I've noticed other entries in wikipedia include other languages as "regional languages" (i.e. India or Pakistan). That could be a solution to substitute that footnote nr 2 and it would leave the Country Summary like: Official languages: Spanish; Regional languages: Aranese, Basque, Catalan/Valentian, Galician.Suzusan (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Eurostat - Population in Europe in 2005
  2. ^ 2006 European Union net immigration balance; retrieved on April 9th
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spain&oldid=208566340"