Talk:Spain/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep due to vandalism.

There is nothing about art in this article, and there is no article on Spanish art or on Spanish painters. Am I missing something?

I love Spain!! Is a beautiful country!! Beautiful people, beautiful places... is a great country and the spanish art is the important inside Europe and on the world: Picasso, Gaudí, Velázquez, Dalí, etc...

the picture of Franco should be deleted, would be the same as if pictures of Hitler in German Article takes place or Pol Pot in Cambodian article, or is Spain still proud on Franco?

Who said anything about Spain being proud of Franco? Franco is an important figure in Spanish history; thus, he should be mentioned here, and mentions of him should not be whitewashed. - jredmond 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Francisco franco has nothing in common with Adolf hitler, i'm spanish

Yes, he has a lot to do. He was a militar dictator with fascist ideology that killed many people just for thinking differently to him. Besides both had good relations.

According to some statistics at least 500000 to 600000 work legally or not in Spain, a lot of them have given residency status, they can integrate very well since the romanian language is a latin one like spanish.

There are really a lot of Romanians in Spain, but not only Romanians. Spain has received more than 700.000 immigrants in 2005, having the highest rate of immigration in the European Union. Thanks to this Spain has reached 44 million people in 2005, which is a blessing since Spaniards do not want to have babies anymore. Many of these immigrants come from North Africa and South America, and Also from Eastern and Northern Europe. An interesting case is the British. There are about 225.000 British residents, according to the official census in Spain, but this figure if very far from the real one, because most British immigrants do not register when they live in Spain. According to the British Foreign Service they are close to one million, probably making them the biggest group of immigrants in Spain. Years ago they came to Spain to retire, and many continue to do so, but now most of the newcomers are between 30 and 50 years old. There are also many Germans in a similar situation. Still, if considered together, South-Americans are the biggest group, Morrocans being the second biggest group according to the official Spanish statistics. I am Spanish and they are all welcomed. Immigrants are always ready to work the hardest and they will certainly boost the Spanish economy.

After the latest statistics there are 1,000,000 romanians that work in Spain. --Bombonel 09:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the "Identities section" (number 16), whose previous text seemed too based on personal opinions or perceptions, and not in actual data, which is what an encyclopedia like this should have. My source for this data, that correct greatly some subliminal quantifications that were present in the previous text, are cited at the end of the section, and I owe it to Miguel, who referred to it in the "Identities" section of this discussion (see below). There are also other surveys that give similar data (some of them even reported by Catalanist newspapers whose ideology is quite alien to the results of this very surveys: La Vanguardia).

I also correct some miscitations of the Spanish Constitution, as well as some "weasel phrases" that, according to the Wiki instructions (page "Cite sources", section "When you add content") should not be included in a Wikipedia.

---

I removed this from Spain/People: '*If only strict Spain is considered the number lows to 21,894,895.' The same thing has been done to France. (1) "lows to" is not English and (2) I think the person is removing the Catalan-speaking population from Spain's population (maybe the Galician-speakers and Basques, too?) and the Occitan-speakers from France. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but it seems to be a home for separatist movements. --MichaelTinkler

Not true -- Religions: Roman Catholic 99%, other 1%

---

Removed from article:

In fact, Spain does not exist as a nation. It's just a State made from different nations (i.e. Catalunya or Catalonia, Euskadi, Galiza, Castilla and so on, each of them having their own language). As Castilla has dominated by militar means the different neighbour nations since the XVIIIth century (except Portugal, of course), they have imposed their vision of a "united, great and free" Spain, which does not exist accordingly to reality. Dictator Francisco Franco (died 1975) designed king Juan Carlos I in order to make sure that Castilla would dominate the rest of nations as it had been doing for the last three centuries.

ATTENTION!!!!!! Meese are taking over the world you need to run for cover or become one with the meese this is important you need to do as I say or you will not live until the end of the world. Meese are very harmful animals!

What the #%$@ is a Meese, and no I will not become one will the Meese. someone should remove the meese thing from this article.

Don't worry, the Meese were destroyed by a super duper pooper scooper!

Spain not a nation? Seems real fishy to me. I've heard of the UK as described as being composed of "component nations" but not Spain. Is there a cite for this? --mav 08:14 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Spain is considered by many, including a large part of Spanish population, to be a group of nations unified under a single State. Any good History book will explain that. Of course, the centralist policy of Spanish government has led to a Spanish nationhood which is the one people identify with Spain internationally. Anyone with a good knowledge of Spanish reality know better: Spanish identity is, in fact, an overlapping succession of diferent national identities, some of them conflicting ones. Castilla is the core nationality of Spain, but no one calls themselves 'Castilians' - Castilians speak of themselves only as Spaniards. Gallicians, Catalans and Basques, otherwise, speak of themselves (at least a significant part of these regions' populations) as, first of all, pertaining to their nationality: Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia. The situation is even more confusing, since there are regions with ambiguous identities, like Valencia, Balears, etc. The Spanish Constitution, although affirming the sovereignty of the Spanish Nation, recognises historical nationalities. Each nationality has a different language (Basque, for instance, is one of the oldest languages in the world; Catalan is spoken by more than 7 million people, etc). Until 1714, Spain was a loose confederation of kingdoms and statelets, under the same king, until that very king - Philip V - invaded parts of his own country - that's the origin of the present situation, apparently simple, but in fact extremely confusing and, I dare say, interesting. I am Portuguese (the only Iberian nationality without any kind of political Castilian rule) and I can attest that differences between some aspects of Catalan culture and Castilian culture, for instances, are far greater than differences between Castilian culture and the Portuguese one, although, obviously, the relationship of Spain's many peoples created strong ties between them, which are more evidently visible than differences to foreigners. This situation is so strange to most people because foreigners tend to see foreign realities in their simplified image. Spain is not bullfights, flamenco and Spanish language: Spain has four official languages (Spanish/Castilian, Catalan, Basque and Galician, although Spanish is the only one official throughout the whole State), many kinds of music (some sounding quite un-Spanish to foreigners ears) and there are regions that abhor bullfights (like Catalonia). Spain is a wonderful country, modern and thriving, with multiple identities which, if they are a source of conflict, also are the real richness of that country (whether we consider it a nation or not). Marco Neves 22:38 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves -- if you want more references to this situation, contact me: [email protected]

Wow! Great info - somebody should integrate much of that into the article. --mav

Done :-). check the identities section and post coments!

Thewikipedian

I would like to point that, although there is a lot of people in Catalonia and Basque Country that deny the existence of Spain as a nation, far more people in Spain consider Spain a nation. Nationalists in Basque Country and Catalonia have the right to say their countries are nations, and the right to politically fight for that, without using violence. However, those who consider themselves spanish owe the right to claim Spain is a nation. Spain is not only Castilla, Spain includes Andalusia, Extremadura, Valencia, and other regions where most of people don't have any problems about being considered spanish. We share a common culture, language and history. The current legal status of Basque country and Catalonia is in controversy, but this does not alters our view of the rest of regions as just that: regions in a nation, called Spain. What it is really happening here is that Catalonian nationalists deny the existence of what they hate. This can be proved by seeing that the current draft for a Catalonian constitution does not mentions the word "spain" at all, and this word is simply not spelled by Catalonian nationalists. These people want to present their desire as something real, however, the non-existence of a nation called Spain is just an illusion that this encyclopedia should present just as that. References to Franco dictatorship are common between Catalonian nationalists, but they simply do not mention the fact that this dictatorship imposed its view of Spain in all of the regions, and killed people everywhere just because their political ideas. These nationalists want to present Civil War as war of Spain against Catalonia, but this is again not real, it was a real civil war, suffered mainly by left-winged spaniards.

I want to say that Felipe V (Philip V) never invaded parts of Spain as Mr. Neves says. There was a civil war (Guerra de Sucesión). By the way, no matter what some Catalan nationalists tell you, in that war nobody was talking about independence or things like that but about who was going to be the king of Spain. Obviously the winner punished those that fought against him and that's why some regions lost their particular laws and privileges while others regions that remained loyal to Felipe kept them.

Tidbits of this is visible various aspects of the daily life in Spain. The National Anthem has lyrics, but they are never sung because it was not possible to agree on the language it which it would be sung. People just stand in silence as the anthem is played. Many times the European identity is stronger than the Spanish one, especially among the non Castillians. Catalans would for example, even if not advocating out right independence from Spain, in many cases rather see themselves a region of Europe, than a province of Spain. -- Mic 05:13 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. The Marcha Real has no lyrics, but it didn't have them already durign Franco's regime when no question about language was imaginable. -- Error 02:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It did have lyrics during Franco's regime: "Arriba, España, etc." They were removed after the transition for democracy. Marco Neves 02:58 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

Were they ever official? From what I know, "Viva España, alzad los brazos " were just the most frequent of several proposed lyrics but never official. Can you do some research? I am lazy :) (Should this be at the Marcha article?) Error 04:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The anthem has had several sets of lyrics throughout its history, but none have stuck. Miguel 18:14, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

There were no questions about language because the government transmitted an image of Spain which did not correspond to what people really felt. Franco fall just short of denying that Catalan, Basque and Galician existed: in fact, his government sometimes called Catalan and Galician dialects, which is linguistically absurd: Catalan is mainly related to languages outside Spain (Occitan) and Galician is related to Portuguese. Franco never said Basque was a dialect because it would be just plain stupid, Basque being some millenia older than Spanish. Marco Neves 02:58 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

It is linguistically wrong to call Catalan and Galician 'dialects', but not absurd. They are extremely close to Spanish — far closer than the various dialects of Chinese.

As far as vocabulary is concerned, Catalan is closer to Italian than to Spanish. And Galician is definitely closer to Portuguese than to Spanish. Boraczek 13:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not really, Catalan is not closer to Italian than any other latin (romance)language. In fact Catalan is part of the linguistic sub-family wich include french, occitan(south france), and catalan. So, Catalan is closer to french than italian and spanish.

It is a debatable issue, a big part of modern politics of Spain is around those issues. There are some big commonalities among Spanish citizens, there some big differences. Some politicians accent the former, other the latter. For example, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 (from memory) talks about a Spanish nation formed by regions and nationalities (note: not "nations"). "Nationality" is an ambiguous term to keep everybody sort of happy. Some people on the so-called "historic nationalities" (those with a greater degree of autonomy) claim for more or even independency (within the EU). It is difficult to know how popular are those views. I guess it depends on the exact question surveyed. Parties promoting straight independence remain minoritary. But local parties with independentist leanings can be majoritary in their areas. These pretensions are seen as crying for privileges by others. There even thos who vote "Spanishist" in Spanish elections and nationalist in local elections.

Actually Castile didn't enjoy much of its "superiority". It happened that Castilian institutions were weaker and gave more hand to kings. Thus, the kings tried to base the Spanish empire on Castile. The Spanish language became the common language in Spain, which is resented by many of the Spanish citizens who speak another mother tongue. Castile though since 19th century remained as a agricultural country. And the Basque Country and Catalonia went into industrialization, ensuing immigration from other parts of Spain (Andalusia, Galicia, Castile). Madrid, though, as the center of Castile and Spain, has also become developed. And it's currently peopled by large numbers of immigrants from Spain and now abroad (I guess this is similar to London, but lower-scale). There have been some attempts to develop a Madrilene identity, but it's rare for a current Madrilene to have ancient Madrilene ancestors. Thus, Madrilenes don't much understand what their former cousins are asking for.

So currently, there are those who claim for superposed identities. "I am Basque, I am Spanish and I am European" and those who prefer ethnic nationalism.

I hope I have not been too redundant with other WP pages. -- Error 02:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, error! (curious name) I mostly agree with your contribution, but I have some remarks, hope you don't mind ;) It is important to say that the Spanish language became the common language of Spain due not only to immigration but also to an active legal imposition of Castilian on other regions (or nations, nationalities, whatever). Some Spaniards deny this fact, saying that Spanish imposed itself by the will of the people, but the fact is laws and police action during the 19th and 20th century (!Actually, it wasn't only in the last 2 centuries, the imposition of castillian starts before in the 18th century and national opression with Conde Duque de Olivares in the 17th!) contributed to this: for instance, there were lots of regulations forbidding the use of Catalan in many places: in one of those laws, it was forbidden to speak Catalan on the phone, so, legally, you could speak Catalan with your mother unless you were speaking on the phone... In fact, Gaudí, the famous architect of Sagrada Familia, was arrested once for speaking Catalan in a specific situation. Ok, this doesn't deny what you said, it's just a remark. Another thing: it's true that Spaniards have much in common and many differences between themselves at the same time, but the fact is those 'commonalities' are shared, in their majority, with Portugal, creating an Iberian identity most people would rather say it's just Spanish (by the way, "Spanish" is a word that comes from the Latin for Iberian - it is applied to present-day Spain only since about 1714; any 15th-century Spaniard would speak of Spain as the entire Iberia, with its multiple independent states, calling himself some other thing, more specific). So, the present configuration of the Spanish state is rather an arbitrary one. Had Portugal remained in Spain and Catalonia stayed independent after 1640 (when both nations - at that time nobody said Catalonia was not a nation - tryed to free themselves from Castilia) it would seem as natural for as to speak about a Portuguese historical nationality and a Catalan nation as it is today to speak of Portugal as an independent country and Catalonia as a region of Spain. Happily, all this is confusing and interesting and languages and cultures never stop amazing us.

There was some of everything. As Latin lost its status as only prestige language, Spanish became the language of administration of power. Enterprising noblemen learnt it. Camo&etilde;s himself used it. So the elite used it to achieve power. Local institutions lose power to the common ones (read Castile-based). With the Borbons and liberalism, a politics of unification came, based on Castile and its language. Most of the scarce printed production in Galician and (in Spain) Basque until 19th or 20th century was religious works aimed to the common (literate) people. They were the language of peasants, not of the educated. I am meandering. I mean, there was legal pressure, and there was a process of "bettering" among people. I'd like to have something about the extension process in Spanish language but I am not sure if I could do it NPOV and wouldn't like to have too much battling with opposing views.

About the validity of "Spain", I think it is like "Italy". Certainly, 16th century Europeans knew that somebody was Italian, even though there wasn't a political unity until 1830? The same with Spain. I presume that the Portuguese fought against the evil Spaniards, not the Castilians, Galicians, etc. The same about the Americas, though the heavy weight was on Castile (in a late sense), the colonisation was by "Spain" (at least after the early stages).

Not quite as Italy... 16th century Europeans used the word "Spanish" to include all Iberians, not only those in present-day Spain. Camões, the great Portuguese poet, said "Portuguese and Castilians, we are all Spanish", something that would shock any present-day Portuguese. Portuguese do think Spaniards to be their great enemies, but only retrospectively. Until 16th/17th century, Portuguese people distinguised between the various Iberian peoples, being Castilians the enemy and, for certain periods, Catalans the ally (Portugal, England and Catalonia were alies for some time, which is proved by the importance of Saint George for the three people). The term Spain has gone trough more or less three stages: (1st) Spain was a geographic labelling, meaning Iberia and a utopian project of uniting all Iberian peoples under the same king; (2nd) in 1580 all Iberians came under the same authority, in a loose confederation of kingdoms and statelets when Portugal was inherited by Philip II - some years later, the Count-Duque of Olivares started the foundations of a centralist state: that was the moment when Spain began meaning a unified state, acquiring political meaning beyond utopian desires. (3rd) When Portugal recovered independence after 1640, "Spain" kept that political meaning, and only then did the present-day configuration of Spain take shape - more specifically, it was inscribed in law when the Decretos de Nueva Planta abolished the independence of the Catalan-Aragonese part of the Spanish Crown, creating what Olivares had dreamt (and, before him, many Castilian and Portuguese kings), but without Portugal. I don't deny that the term was used by Castilians before 1580 to describe their state, but only sporadically, not following popular use and bearing always in mind the project of unifying Spain (latin Hispania, all Iberia). So, we can say Spain was a political project of Castilian kings which resulted in a truncated version of the first project: Spain never fully achieved its unification, since Portugal managed to remain independent. To speak of Catalans in the 14th/15th century as Spanish and common enemies of Portugal is an anachronism. Marco Neves 14:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

But I'd say that in 16th century and later the feeling greatly changes. -- Error 02:38, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

I think most of the current borders have some of arbitrariness. Had the things gone different in the War of the Hundred Years or Satsuma or..., we could have the Royaume Unie de France, Angleterre, et Ecosse, a Christian Japan and a Shinto one, or one Great Colombia and several small Brazils. But, those events happened and certainly had some effect on reality. -- Error 04:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, all those events had an impact on reality, but in the case of Spain, political unification didn't mean the unification of people's hearts. For instance, France and Italy are unified nations, in spite of beginning as groups of nations; for same reason, Spain didn't achieve such homogeneity, in spite of all the efforts of central governments. But, of course, Spain do exist, a Spanish State is a reality and many people feel Spain to be their nation, with all legitimacy (with the same legitimacy as Portuguese have the right to feel themselves a nation and, for that matter, Catalans). Marco Neves 14:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

Some Corsicans, New Caledonians and Padanians wouldn't agree with you. Sicily had chances for independence after World War II (Mafia-style independence, probably)

I would also like to add that it's disgusting that some people just can't understand that these questions are to be discussed in forums like this one and go on killing innocents to achieve some kind of ethnic Basque state (and it is also a pity - but not a crime! - that the Spanish government insistently tries to link every independentist in Spain with terrorism...). Marco Neves 02:43 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)ps: sorry for the confusing text...

Hug? Nationalists and Independentists can run for free elections in Spain. In fact, there are now nacionalist governments in Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia. Terrorist are others, and spaniards know this...

Is Gibraltar autonomic? Talous 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the history section and found a number of problems to discuss/fix:

• The original peoples of Spain (Iberos in Spanish) should probably called Iberians, but this links to a Caucasian region. We need a good disambiguator to fix this.
  • We need to mention Tartessos
  • A look at Roman accounts of the conquest of Hispania will provide a partial list of tribes still existing around the 2nd Century BC. This includes at least Lusitania and Numantia.

More later. Miguel 03:30, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

• • • Didn't Spain practice some kind of communism in the past? I will suggest we briefly mention about it under the economy section

Hello, was anything happening in Spain between 300 and 800? Yes, Germanic rule. I don't feel qualified to write this, but that's a huge hunk of history to leave out. The history as it stands here looks like the Muslims took over from the Romans, which, well, it's a little like people hunting great dinasours. --Zachbe 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zach, You're right. Vandals#Iberia, Visigoth#Visigothic Kingdom in Iberia, Recceswinth, Orosius, Isidore of Seville and Roderick. If you can try to merge some of the contents of these articles with Spain that would be great. I am just being busy for the time being. Cheers -- Svest 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

The wikipedian

I fixed the following issues:

-missing info about the gascon language (aranese)

-Spain has four climate zones, not one

-moved the initial paragraphs to a new introduction section

-moved some text from the political issues to territorial claims

-renamed autonomous comuntities to administrative divisions to include provinces.

-Castilian is the offical name for spanish in Spain. It is prefered, therefore Castilian should be used in all article instead of spanish .

I don't really agree with this, as Spanish is the name of the language in English and Castilian is the name of a particular dialect of Spanish which is not even spoken on all of Spain. The use of castellano versus español is not even clearly delimited in Spanish, and different liguistic and political considerations have to be taken into account in each instance.

The choice of castellano in the Spanish constitucion is to be able to call the other languages of Spain lenguas españolas.

I would therefore advocate using Spanish for the language, Castilian for the dialect of Castilla, and languages of Spain for Spanish, Basque, Catalan and Galician.

Miguel 23:44, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

---

Well, I did replace castilian to spanish after a similar discussion in talk:Spanish Language. Though, I still find strange that the english language considers castilian dialect and spanish the language.

TheWikipedian

The national language is called 'Spanish' in English, or alternatively 'Castilian' if contrasting with the other languages of Spain, or when talking about the middle ages. What is the 'Castilian dialect'? If you mean dialectalisms of Castile such as laísmo, then say so. If you mean standard Spanish, then say so. Catalan, Basque etc. are languages of Spain. —Chameleon 13:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

the status of valencian as a language is not clear in the wikipedia. The Catalan Languagewiki considers valencian a variant of catalan (..."Part of Valencia (País Valencià, Spain), where it is coofficial with Spanish and where the language is officially named Valencià (Valencian)."

However, the Valencian wiki states "Valencian is similar to the Catalan spoken in West Catalonia and Andorra and is nearly indistinguisable from the Catalan spoken in Southwest Catalonia. Linguists tend to regard Valencian simply as a variant or dialect of the Catalan language or even as merely a different name for the same reality. However, some groups in Valencia claim Valencian to be a distinct language."

For now, we should we should avoid an edit war on this issue, and find more sources on this subject.

Well, no serious scholar of the roamnce languages has any doubt that catalan is the language spoken in Valencia. It is rather sad that confusion exists in the wikipedia, since catalan is precisely a very unified language compared to other romance languages like italian or portuguese, or even spanish. This is a politically motivated confusion that should not have its place in a knowledge-aiming discussion. If a majority of valencians do not want anything to do with Catalonia, that is a political discussion where all opinions should be heard. What I think is unacceptable is to desinform about the catalan language to support political objectives.

Yes, we should avoid it, taking into attention the fact that some Valencians make it a point of honour to consider Valencià a language and not a dialect. However, I'm Portuguese and to me it would be just fine if Valencian were a language. But I've read and studied lots of texts in both varieties (Catalan and Valencian) and I have encounteres very few palpable differences. It seems just logic to consider them (Catalan and Valencian) two official standards of the same dialectal continuum (the same could be said of European and Brazilian Portuguese, even if the concept of dialectal continuum would be hard to apply in that case). With some work, a criterion could be devised to establish what is and what is not a language in Iberian Peninsula (to apply it in other places could be inaccurate): for instances, in contact zones between Spanish and Catalan and Spanish and Portuguese, a person can speak one or both languages, but it is hard to find someone who constantly speaks a mixture of both (even if it can be found as a joke or in same other contexts) - there is a break rather than a continuum. In the case of Valencian/Catalan, probably no one speaks both "languages", but speaks a variety (ideolect) which can be nearer to one or other standard. Very few people feel the need to learn Valencian if they speak Catalan and vice versa. It could be called the "continuum criterion". I've not created it, but I'm trying to apply it to this particular situation. It still needs some work, but I'd love to hear opinions on the subject.

--Marco Neves 23:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the same name is used for a language and one of its dialects. In very broad terms, Catalan has three dilects, Catalan, Valencian and Majorcan. Politically this causes problems in Valencia and Majorca, because to say that Valencian and Majorcan are dialects of Catalan can be construed as meaning that they are dialects of the Catalan of Catalonia. In actual fact, the Catalan of Catalonia is a dialect of the Catalan language, and if you increase the level of detail in your analysis, the Catalan of Catalonia breaks down into a number of other dialects. The reaction of some in Valencia is to claim that Valencian is a separate language from Catalan in its own right, which is patent nonsense. A useful analogy might be the split of Serbocroatian into Serbian and Croatian since the early 1990s for purely political reasons. A choice was made to magnify the dialectal variation in order to claim two dialects of the same language to be two separate languages.

See Croatian language, Serbian language, Bosnian language, Serbocroatian language. -- Error 01:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree you you. However, the very division of Catalan in three dialects is rather political, since, linguistically, it would make more sense to divide Catalan in Western Catalan and Eastern Catalan (with further subdivisions). Linguistically, Catalan spoken in Andorra has more to do with Valencian than with "Barcelonese". Marco Neves 05:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is the Catalan of the Balearic Islands the same as Western Catalan? — Miguel 00:08, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

Actually the Serbocroatian article (from memory) mentions that the difference between Serbian and Croatian does not match the linguistic division of dialects in whatever-kavski. Speakers of the same *-kavski would give different names for the language. Speakers of different *-kavskis may use the same standard version.

These articles showed me how encyclopedic my ignorance of the history of southern slavic languages is, I stand corrected. Taken collectively, however, the articles appear superficially to be completely contradictory on the issue of how many languages there are in the former Yugoslavia, how many dialects, and who is a dialect of who, apart from containing disputed sections. — Miguel 03:30, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

They had wars on that (and other issues), don't be surprised if Wikipedia can't raise a consensus.

While we're at it, it might be worth pointing out the example of the Norwegian Nynorsk. The Wikipedia article does not discuss the history, but there is an external link small country with two languages that explains the political origin of nynorsk (essentially created by a 19th century linguist to be as different as possible from Danish).

Another interesting case is the standard literary form of Basque, called Batua, did not exist before 1960, and was created by academics as a blend of the existing Basque dialects. — Miguel 03:49, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Actually every language in Spain (but for Aranese?) underwent a phase of standardization by picking from dialects. (See Antonio de Nebrija for Spanish and others institutions for the other languages). The case of Basque was maybe the most recent and with most different dialects.

I am not trying to imply that languages that have been standarized lately are somehow "lesser". The point is that it takes a lot of knowledge of political as well as linguistic history to present a balanced account of these issues, and that Spanish and Catalan are by no means alone among European Languages in this respect. — Miguel 00:08, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

And I remember a passage in Canterbury Tales on how somebody asked for "eggs" and was answered that they had but "eyren".

This situation is avoided in Spanish by reserving the name Castilian for the Spanish of Castilla, but not all the time. As I have pointed out before, the choice of names for the language and its various dialects is a political statement, whether you intend it or not. The thing to remember is that language is a fundamental part of identity politics, and when languages or dialects are given the names of political entities, political problems arise and linguistic accuracy is lost. Within Catalan, the Valencian article correctly states that Valencian is indistinguishable from the catalan spoken in Tarragona, and sometimes one encounters the name "southern Catalan" for this dialect, as distinct from the "northern Catalan" of Lleida and Girona and from the catalan of the Balearic islands. In Spanish, one often sees "southern Spanish" (español meridional) used to refer to the Spanish of Estremadura and Andalusia and the Spanish of America which is descended from it. Then again, there is as much dialectal variation within the Spanish of America as there is in Spain, ans to put the Spanish of Mexico and Argentina in the same "dialect" is a definite stretch.

Anything I could write about Catalan/Valencian would probably be disliked both by Catalanists and Valencianists anyway, so I'll abstain. Miguel 16:38, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

I never saw the name "castellano" being used in Spanish for the Spanish of Castilla, but always as equivalent to "español". English uses Castilian to signify "Spanish spoken in Castilia", but Spanish don't. Marco Neves 05:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember is castellano is commonly used in Andalusia. Anyway, isn't it used when discussing the early history of the language?

Indeed, Castellano is the proper name for the dialect of Latin that Spanish is descended from, among other things because it originated in the territory of the County of Castilla. But already 1492 it must have had some of the dialectal variation it has today, as the Spanish of America and the modern dialects Andalusian and extremeño are supposed to be descended from the same southern Castilian dialect. — Miguel 00:08, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

I deleted the Olivenza disputy problem with Portugal. I first saw this in the CIA World Factbook, and was the first time I hearded about it. First of all nobody in Spain cares about Portuguese claim just because Olivenza has been Spanish for many centuries and it's located in the Spanish side of the Guadiana rived (the border between Spain and Portugal in that zone).

Congratulations; you have learned something. I restored the information, that others may learn too. - Montréalais

Yes, I've learned you don't have any idea about Spain. So for you Bin Laden's claim of Al-Andalus (Andalucía) must be considered seriously? Olivenza's disputy hasn't been a problem for centuries. I'm thinking to write about Great Britain's claim of Virginia and the other colonies...

While it's quite unheard of in Spain, there are some groups in Portugal that think it important. And it has some real-world influence, the bridge across the the Guadiana has been incomplete for years because both countries didn't agree. -- Error 01:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They didn't agree about the payment. They reached an agreement but the Spanish PP goverment decided at first not to pay. Then they paid. Anyhow the problem was economic and not political in the same way the central Spanish goverment has problems with some project about roads, railroads, etc with many of Comunidades Autónomas goverments. And yes, it's true there are some Portuguese groups claiming Olivenza, so that territorial disputy should appear in Portugal but not in Spain because Spain and Spanish people doesn't have problems with Olivenza.

Let me get this straight:

1. a territorial claim by Osama Bin Laden is on the same footing as a claim by a neighbouring country.
2. a dispute that people on one side are not generally aware of does not need to be discussed in connection to that side.
3. the fact that the side having de facto control of the territory "doesn't have a problem" with it (and why should they?) means it should not be mentioned in connection with it

I don't think any of these arguments make sense, and all three are to some degree offensive to Portugal. The mention of Olivenza is appropriate in an article about Spain, all the more so if it would result in educating us Spaniards about our own history. Miguel 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• The problem here is that Olivenza is not claimed by Portugal. There does not exist a formal claim from the Portuguese government (unlike the Gibraltar case), and the claim is not supported by the Portuguese people. Olivenza is claimed by minoritary nationalist groups in Portugal.

So I guess the information can lead to misunderstanding among the people who is not aware of the issue, and therefore, I will remove it.

Oh Montrealais,

I am a little bit tired of foreign people who try to explain us how our country works. I am from Extremadura, from a city 20 km away from Olivenza. And you have not a clue about what you are talking about

*I happen to leave in that same country and I do believe that we need some help to understand how your country "works". Please, tell me more about Olivenza.

It seems to me that everything about Olivenza (or Olivença...) is explained in the article about it (at least if it isn't vandalised!). Check it out! User: The Ogre

It is not quite correct to say that Portugal does not claim Olivenza. They do, and there is a formal claim, however they do not pursue this as obsessively as the spanish government does it's Gibrlatar claim. --Gibraltarian 08:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Since only one side of the story was shown , i added what could be the legal basis of the Spanish position. (Met)

I'm Spanish and this is the first time I hear about this dispute. I'm not too sure it should have such a prominent place in the Spain article. Maybe in a trivia section or something, but really, for someone trying to find out about the country and reading about that will give them an unrealistic view about the importance the spaniards give to the issue. Gibraltar is the one claim spaniards do care about. Just an opinion. Raystorm 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no point to include the data from the CIA World Factbook in the religion section. The info from the CIA World Factbook is clearly wrong. It is not true that 94% of Spaniards are catholic. If an official Spanish poll in 2002 (performed when the right-wing and pro-catholic PP party was in power) says that 80% of Spaniards consider herself as catholic, it is clear that this value is closer to reality than 94%. If you want to say that 94% of Spaniards are baptised, maybe I would accept the deal.

I went in and added data from the latest CIS poll (someone had already done that, but I rearranged stuff a lot). I think the best readability is achieved by writing running test at the top avoiding statistics as much as possible, and then conclude with detailed statistics. — Miguel 15:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that many Spaniards use very different and looser criteria to identify themselves as Catholics than is used outside of Spain. So looking at the raw statistic that 80% of Spaniards consider themselves Catholics is very misleading to people who don't understand what being Catholic means to a Spaniard. I have added a couple of paragraphs which hopefully help to bring some clarity to this. JamesJohnson 29 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

I don't know why there is no way to correct the first paragraph. As the first (anonymous) comment says, the CIA World Factbook is wrong (not only because it is inconsistent with other polls but also because these figures are incompatible with the current flows of immigration (of muslim, orthodox or non-religious origins)). The first paragraph must be fixed in some way. I reformulated the first paragraph to include other statistics and it was reverted without any explanation. If you don't want statistics just use something like 4/5 of the Spanish population or a majority of the Spanish population. But you can't say 94% of Spaniards are catholic when 26% do not believe in God or are unsure (how can these people be catholic?).--158.42.184.155 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Answering to 158.42.184.155, Catholicism is more like a tradition here in Spain than a deep personal belief. It has nothing to do with what you'd find in other countries. People only go to Church for the great celebrations, marriages and the like. It may have something to do with coming from a very repressive religious background, with Franco and so on. I think that if you wanna see how many real catholics are in Spain, you should see the stats for people who've had their confirmation. The numbers are stunningly low. Raystorm 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a link to the spain article from wikitravel. How I make this?--Pz-engl 19:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. You just have to add a "{{wikitravel}}" tag, preferably in the External Links section. The link is automatically generated. =] – Kaonashi 01:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good to see that Spain has good levels of sanity http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain&curid=26667&diff=0&oldid=0. (Presumably it should be sanitation, but I'm going to leave it there for a while - just for the amusement factor.) Noisy | Talk 13:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hahaha I think sanity is not one of the main features of the Spanish people. I will improve this.

This moron here probably thinks he is more sane than the Spanish people.

The latest CIS survey on "institutions and autonomous communities" was conducted in September 2002. The section on "nationalist and regionalist sentiments" is well worth looking at in relation to the Identities section of the article. — Miguel 19:00, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

The paragraphs of Culture, Rankings and templates have disappeared. Could anyone repair this? --Waninoco 09:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe someone deleted it.

Removed vandalism---68.81.105.166 23:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "(for instance, some have their own educational and health systems, others do not)" is wrong since all Autonomous Communities have already their own education and health systems. Anyway "have their own" sounds odd to me because Ministries of Education and Health exist... maybe it would be better to say that the Autonomous Communities "manage" or something like this.

All the bio articles use President. This one needs to as well to conform, wikipedia should not be using President in one place and PM in others. The Spanish clearly use the word Presidente not the words Primer Ministro. While they use a system similar but by no means identical to the British I don't see that as relevant. We need the common usage word not a word that will supposedly of itself explain the type of system the Spanish have, --SqueakBox 17:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

In Spain, "Presidente del gobierno" (literary "president of government") is the same meaning as "Premier Minister". "Jefe del Estado" is the same meaning as the "Head of State", wich in some states is the same as "President". --Martorell 17:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The important thing is to be consistent throughout the series of articles, including List of Presidents of the Government of Spain,--SqueakBox 18:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

We should change everything to "Prime Minister", which is the correct translation of presidente del gobierno according to my translation teacher at University, who was right. — Chameleon 18:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

But why in Spain you put "Prime Minister" and for example in USA no, in Spain is the "President", as same as USA, for example, in other countries will be a "Prime Minister" but in Spain is a "President"

If we wan to do that as a consensus that is fine with me, but lets start with List of Presidents of the Government of Spain, which will need an admin to change. I don't oppose changin that article name, and if it does change then is the time to change all the other articles, including this one, --SqueakBox 18:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Let's start with the articles that don't require admin intervention, by which time an admin may step in to do those that require it. — Chameleon 19:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think we need to start with the list article. As there appears to be consensus this should be easy enough to persuade an admin to do. Glaring inconsistency merely weakens Wikipedia's reputation, and otherwise I can see the list won't get changed. So please start there, --SqueakBox 19:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not helped by having 2 articles: List of Presidents of the Government of Spain and List of Presidents of Spain. List of Prime Minister's of the Government of Spain is still open but List of Prime Ministers of Spain is a redirect. I am highly sceptical about having 2 articles listing this office's holders,

Do you realize that back in the time of the 2nd Republic there was a Presidente de la República and also a Presidente del Gobierno? What does the List of Presidents of Spain contain, then? And remember that Franco was Generalísimo and Caudillo but never Presidente, and his heads of Government were called Presidente del Gobierno.

I think it is best (and least ambiguous) to have a Head of State of Spain and a Head of Government of Spain, plus a disambiguation page at President of Spain and a redirect at Prime Minister of Spain. The same goes for the list articles. Regarding Head of State vs. Head of Government, bear inmind that the EU uses these titles because, for instance, there are both Monarchies and Republics within Europe, and any other usage would be confusing or misleading. — Miguel 19:56, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

There is no rush to rename List of Presidents of the Government of Spain, as its title is not too bad. It is an over-literal translation, but at least it is clear that the head of government is referred to, rather than the head of state which implied by the English word "President". In this article, however, you are reverting to a version that implies that Zapatero is the President of Spain. — Chameleon 19:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see you've done some moving about. List of Prime Ministers of the Government of Spain is a bad name still. The "Government" part is redundant. A Prime Minister is the Head of Government. You also need to fix all the now numerous redirects. — Chameleon 19:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the redirects, but there is clearly still a naming issue (that has rumbled on for years). All I want is consistency, Miguel's head of government sounds good, --SqueakBox 20:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, Muslims controlled the Iberian peninsula for 700 years, and we only have two sentences on this? I would love to learn more about this if anyone could write more. Yafujifide 1 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I came to the talk page to make the same point. I am no expert in history, but I know that there is an extremely rich one of Islamic Spain. It was a great society in its day; I've always found it very interesting. Also, the article's notes about linguistic ties to Arabic are understated. It was not merely about a few borrowed words. I have read that the Moors fundementally changed the way Spanish is pronounced, in particular, the current Spanish pronunciation of the letters J and R and possibly others owe a large part to them. Also, I'm pretty sure that many Arabic words entered other European languages through the Spanish. But I am not knowledgable enough to be an expert about any of this or write about it in any detail. --Anonymous 3 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Don't speak about Arab influence to a Spaniard, I was literally attacked in Madrid for asking a group of Spaniards what influence Arabs had on their country.

You just came across the wrong type of people.

I agree that Islamic Spain should be elaborated more (Cordoba became the centre of knowledge and technology in Europe for a while), but you also have to remember muslims never did conquer all of Spain. The basques (who, as far as I know, never faced attack from the invading muslims) stayed independent and northern tribes successfully fought them off... -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 1 January 2006 12:56 (UTC)

No, basques were summitted to muslims between ca.720-ca.800. Even Asturias, the born place of the Reconquista, were controlled by muslims during some years (Visighotic Kingdom fall in 711 and Pelayo rebealed in 718).

Everything I read states that the basques were independent, if not atleast as a Vassal of CHarlemagne... -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 20 January 2006 20:21 (UTC)

Wait a minute... What is the idea of a total control of Spain by the Muslim?! That is WRONG. Yeah wrong, the northest regions (IN ADDITION OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY, that it was called "Reino de Navarra)León and Aragón were still cristian. Actually the Muslims helped in the culture and in the science but, not just in Spain, in all Europe. You see, we can include the middle North part of the Peninsula in the cristian side. And Don Pelayo was a king of Asturias, not Spain, because there was a lot of kings in the cristian reings.

Ties to Arabic are not underestated, but out of place as they should be found in the articles refering to each one of the spanish languajes at the time.I would really apreciate you provide some evidence on arabic influencing spanish pronunciation (castillian i guess) and if so i encourage you to use it to improve the spanish languaje article

Hi:

You can find a lot of information about it in this page: http://www.proel.org/mundo/espanol.htm (in spanish)

Cheers!

I think J used to be X and pronounced as in French/Portugese, something like zsh? Jabon used to be xabon pronounced zshabon. ? --Jondel 03:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's no use trying to tell a English-speaking person how the J is pronounced in Spanish...

J in Spanish is pronounced as G in dutch (Gratis, Golf, Gulit, etc... in Dutch), and the letter is called "jota". It has nothing to do with X or zsh. In Latin America, they use to pronounce it as an H. Svest 21:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, svest, but you're way off. The "jota" is pronounced the same throughout the spanish-speaking world, as a fricative, 'h'-type sound(not sure of the precise linguistic classification, I think it might be "voiceless fricative"). The 'x' is where a divergence has occurred in pronunciation over the centuries. This is most obvious in the Spain-Spanish spelling of Mexico--"Mejico". Most of us know that Mexico is pronounced ME-hico in Spanish. What we don't know is that in Spain, the spelling Mexico would be prounounced ME-shico. This is why in Spain you don't find any Xaviers--it's spelled Javier now. In mexico and latin america, however, the x spelling is still quite common. Looks a lot cooler, too, in my opinion. ThePedanticPrick 16:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The example of Mexico/Mejico is a good one. In Mexico City they pronounce it Mehico while in Madrid they pronounce it Mejico. And as I said also that the jota is pronounced simply as in dutch gratis in Spain. The jota is not pronounced the same through the spanish-speaking world and I've been speaking spanish for 28 years. The differnece can be found even inside mainland spain.

Therefore, j in spain is as g in dutch or as if you pronounce Khomeini in english. j in latin america is as h. I am listening to guajira Guantanamera now and guajira is pronounced gauhira by the cuban Groupo Raison.

The X is another story. In mainland spain it is pronounced somehow like ch as for Charles in english. The example is Xabi Alonso the football player. So, in spain x it is still pronounced ch. Cheers -- Svest 17:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Most of what you're saying makes sense, but I don't understand why you keep comparing 'j' to various hard-g sounds. There is nowhere in the spanish-speaking world where a 'j' makes a hard 'g' sound. ThePedanticPrick 14:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry for the confusion. I compare 'j' with 'g' in dutch as it is pronounced the same. It's not the hard-g but the soft one. You are right of course that in Spanish there is no soft 'g' but only hard one as for 'G'loria Estefan. But, as I said, the best example is the one in dutch when you pronounce 'G'ratis or the one in English when you pronounce 'Kh'omeini. I am sure everybody knows how Khomeini is pronounced in all languages of the world. Cheers. Svest 17:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

---

Hi:

Just for the log: Texas (State of) comes from old castillian "Tejas". A "teja" is a ceramic piece used to cover the roofs.

Cheers!

P.S.: Autocorrection: Texas is written "Texas" in old castillian. It is written "Tejas" in modern castillian due to the facts exposed by ThePedanticPrick

Spain has already surpassed 2 G8 countries are there any plans to let Spain in the G8?

I don't know, but I think that has much more good reasons to be part of G8 than Russia...

Not only than Russia. In 2005 the Spanish GDP has surpassed that of Canada, becoming the 7th biggest economy in the world at Current Exchange Rate Prices. Consult the data in The Economist.

Anybody Knows, why Spain isn't in the G8?? I don't understand...........

Bold textSpain is a very powerful country inside europa and very importantly internationally speaking. Spain has changed very much in the latter years, has grown very much ... but many countries do not want to recognize it, would lose power opposite to Spain, I suppose that this it is the reason.On the other hand, it is not only an economically powerful country (it overcame in GDP to Canada) besides The Spanish Navy has overcome the Italian and nowadays it is the sixth most powerful of the worldI do not know the exact reason ... but the G8 should silver the countries that must form a part of himBold text

I couldn't find any spain related notice board, so posting it here. I have nominated Pedro Almodóvar for next week's Cinema Collaboration of the Week. pamri 17:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Its the current CCOTW. Plese help improve it. pamri 16:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why Spain isn't in G8?????? is the 8th economy on the world...

Hi folks. I've just started the Spanish portal. I need some help to develop it and keep it updated. Cheers - Svest 22:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

The map included in this article is almost ridiculous. It lacks some important cities, and shows a tiny town were there should be another city (Pasajes -> St. Sebastian). Canary Islands are not even displayed. Should be changed ASAP.

I think Tartessos should be elaborated more int he article, it is afterall the first civilization of Iberia and possibly western Europe... -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People

There are statistics that are saying that there are 1,000,000 people in Spain.

We'll be glad to have those statistics. If you have them, share them with us. -- Svest 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I second the motion! There seem to be nothing more than crude guesses, which are confused by the seasonal and circular migration of Romanians -- especially since the removal of the Schengen visa requirement from Romanians. However, any datasource would be most welcome!

Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the latest data from the Permanent IMmigration Observatory of the Spanish Labour Ministry, as of 30 sep 2005 there are 175.000 legal Romanian residents. This figure includes the 110.000 who were legalised in 2005. One Italian statistician (Cangiano) estimates the total Romanian population in Spain at 200-230.000, implying around 50.000 illegally present Romanians in 2005.

--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense Martin. What doesn't make sense is that 5% of Romanians are living in Spain alone! I am not sure if the IP that introduces this claim is doing that in good faith or just applying vandalism. -- Svest 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

No, it is not vandalism, and there is the same problem with stats on Romanians in Italy. A new explanation of this is in press, showing that the total recorded figures of Romanians in Italy and Spain may well be very high but there are never so many at any one time. The semi-legal/illegal circular migration of Romanians -- often of only 3 months -- is linked with free movement into Schengen countries since 2002. In fact, conventional measures of immigration are inadequate to explain the reality, which is complex and fast-changing. Maybe I will add something to the pages on Spain and Italy, but it is not easy... --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There are really a lot of Romanians in spain, but not only Romanians. Spain has received more than 700.000 immigrants in 2005, having the highest rate of immigration in the European Union. Thanks to this Spain has reached 44 million people in 2005, which is a blessing since Spaniards do not want to have babies anymore. Many of these immigrants come from North Africa and South America, and Also from Eastern and Northern Europe. An interesting case is the British. There are about 225.000 British residents, according to the official data in Spain, but this figure if very far from the real one, because most British immigrants do not register when they live in Spain. According to the British Foreign Service they are close to one million, making them the biggest group of immigrants in Spain. Years ago they came to Spain to retire, and many continue to do so, but now most of the newcomers are between 30 and 50 years old. There are also many Germans in a similar situation. Still, if considered together, South-Americans are the biggest group, Morrocans being the second biggest group according to the official Spanish statistics. I am Spanish and they are all welcomed. Immigrants are always ready to work the hardest and they will certainly boost the Spanish economy.

It has been noted that there are a few wikipedians from the Spanish version sharing their knowledge here with us. This is a good example. I'd just ask for help at Spanish portal if possible. It's badly maintained and I've been asking for help since a couple of weeks now. I must say the Spanish portal in the Spanish Wikipedia is awesome and I'd love to see the same here. -- Svest 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Guys! Please use the talk page to resolve your edit warring. I am afraid this article would get protected as well as other consequences. Cheers -- Svest 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

It seems strange that the "reversionary" clause has been overruled by the UN Charter when the UN itself has issued a couple of resolutions (2231 (XXI) and 2353 (XXII)) stating that UK and Spain has to reach an agreement to finish the colonial status of Gibraltar. If it is "a fact" that the clause is overruled, why do such resolutions exists? It seems a clear contradiction and proves that featuring the clause as overruled is just an argument from one of the sides, thus not complying with NPOV. But Gibraltarian usually removes one side of the discussion and presents his arguments as the only truth. --Ecemaml 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ecemaml is just obsessed with having the last word. He presents his warped arguments.....I then add the contrary viewpoint......and then he insists in adding a little bit just to have the last word. The resolutions have one purpose only.....UN requests spain & UK to "overcome their differences". NOT because of the reversionary clause, but because there is clearly a dispute. The reversionary clause is only activated in any case if the UK gives up sovereignty, which they have made crystal clear they will not. But in any case Article 103 of the UN Charter similarly makes it crystal clear that UK's obligations under the Charter overrule and annul any obligations under any other treaty. This is a simple fact, but his country's annexationist tendencies and ignorance of democracy does not like it. --Gibraltarian 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Being crystal clear is your interpretation. The interpretation of the Spanish government is the opposite. And showing both sides of the dispute is what is called NPOV. I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view:

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

Therefore, I will call for an arbitration with regard to your attitude. --Ecemaml 18:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

MY attitude?????? hahahahaha, you have a cheek!--Gibraltarian 01:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're very funny, indeed. However you haven't explained why removing one of the sides of the discusion honors NPOV. --Ecemaml 11:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You are an obsessed troll, and I have better things to do. Get a life.--Gibraltarian 13:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please stick to the question and avoid personal attacks (you know, that's a violation of wikipetiquette)? Again, as you insist on removing one of the sides of the discusion, I'll simply remove both and leave the article with just facts. If you want to discuss who is right or not, please go to Disputed status of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to throw my stick in the fire here, I have to agree with Gibraltarian, Ecemaml, you're acting trollish. The Gibraltar referrenda on the question of sovereignty have definitively fallen in favor of continued participation w/in the British realm, as opposed to either independence or incorporation into Spain. Like it or not, Gibraltar will continue to be independent of Spain, if not from the UK, because the vast majority of her citizenry are incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a part of Spain. Why? I have a few reasons I could throw out there for your consideration...Gibraltar has one of the world's highest percentage Jewish populations in the world (why, pray tell, would Jews object to becoming part of Spain? Study the past 500+ years of Spanish-Jewish history, and the question will become moot.), the UK is perceived as far more prosperous than Spain (with good reason), so what Gibraltarian would give up UK citizenship and its prestige in order to become a hairy-chested (and exposing it, to bring a stereotype to the fore) Spaniard? The Spanish government is obscene in its intensive assault on the sensitivities of the residents of the Rock, to the extent their efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of Gibraltarians end up effectively alienating them, almost to the proverbial man. Is this an item for discussion here on the talk page? perhaps yes. Is it sufficient fodder for inclusion in the article? Without noteworthy citation, categorically, no! Tomer^TALK 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is said here that Britain is perceived as far more prosperous than Spain, and with good reason. Well, it should then be explained why thousands of Britons emigrate to Spain every year or why The Economist, a serious British magazine, places Spain in position number 10 and the UK in position number 29 in its world wide quality-of-life index 2005.

On the other hand, a serious discussion does not need to mention things like hairy-chested Spaniards, as a stereotype. It is true that the stereotype of British men for many Spaniards is the one of an albino sissy, but I do not think that it is correct to mention these terms.'

Hi TShilo12. I think you miss the point here. I'm not talking about the democratic wishes of the Gibraltarian people, which are beyond any doubt against any link with Spain. The "dispute" here is about the validity of the "reversionary" clause and the position of Spain with regard to such clause. You talk about "The Spanish government is obscene in its intensive assault on the sensitivities of the residents of the Rock, to the extent their efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of Gibraltarians end up effectively alienating them, almost to the proverbial man." and you and me could agree on qualifying such a behaviour as "obscene" but it doesn't change the point I'm trying to point out: Spain still considers the reversionary clause as a valid argument to claim Gibraltar. Does it consider it? Yes. Is the "reversionary" clause nowadays overruled by Article 103 of the UN Charter)?. I don't know, since I'm not a lawyer myself. Full stop (since that's what the paragraph is talking about and as the WP:NPOV states, all point of view should be shown, not the ones that one of the sides like). I hope everything is clearer now. And yes, I agree with you, discussing about how evil Spain is for Gibraltar is something for the Talk page. Stating the position of Spain in a territorial claim is definitely needed.

That is, to be neutral and accurate, the paragraph would be something like this:

Spain has called for the return of Gibraltar, a tiny British possession on its southern coast. It changed hands during the War of the Spanish Succession in 1704 and ceded to Britain in perpetuity in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht (the treaty also stated that, if Britain wished to give up the possession, Gibraltar should be returned to Spain. However, whenever asked, Gibraltarians have massively voted against any relationship to Spain (1967, 2002)

--Ecemaml 07:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomer! And that hairy-chested stuff? -- Svest 20:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Sorry if it was offensive...I couldn't stop myself from laughing while I was writing it. :-) Tomer^TALK 21:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I believe you didn't mean it anyway.  ^{Wiki me up™}

Sorry, but my English is sometimes not good enough. hairy-chested stuff? --Ecemaml 07:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In order to know better the oposition of gibraltarians against any kind of change of their legal status, I wonder which would be the answer to this question if submitted to them in areferendum in Gibraltar: Do you prefer to go on being a British colony, renouncing to be a tax paradise, and thus loosing your unique economical strength (all the profits related to wash money of drug dealers, rusky mafia, etc..) or to change the soberanity of Gibraltar reamining your tax status untouched?. Bear in mind that the reason of the opostiton of Gibraltarians to change their soberanity is mainly economical, meanwhile for Spain is a question of proud and prosecution of the organised crime.

Is there a special reason why this article has its own infobox, which just uses {{Infobox Country}} in turn, anyway? We're currently standardizing all country articles to use the latter, but I want to clarify first whether there's a special reason for the anomaly. Cheers! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since noone said anything to the contrary up to now, I substed the country-specific template. If there is opposition to this for whatever reason, it would be appreciated if you discussed this before simply reverting. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not possible to locate the first dataset in the Minorities section, and it is unclear what the data given are. Presumably, they are from municipal registrations -- but these data are definitely overestimates are there is no mechanism to deregister people. if they change municipality or leave Spain. I have added the latest data for residence permits, which clearly are a minimum figure but more reliable. THe author of the section with the larger numbers should provide a working link and explain what the data are, otherwise they need to be removed. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the population of Muslims and Jews in Spain today? Islam was once Spain's predominant religion, and Judaism was also popular, but now all I know is that most all Spaniards are Roman Catholics. Can anyone help? Stallions2010 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In Spain are 600.000 muslim and 250.000 jews, now are minoritary religions

There are actually 14,000 Jews in Spain, they were only allowed back in the country in 1868, see History of the Jews in Spain. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The spanish article is to long it need to be shortned its boring

EDITORS SUCH AS MARCO NEVES AND MO0 CHANGED MY ARTICLE BECAUSE TO THEM I changed it to much... This article needs to be shorter it is to long i know because I added most of the pics on this article. I also downsized France with no problem yet these editors keep on putting it back to the long abnormal 65 kilobyete size while my short, neat article was only 31 kilobyetes long(the normal or average for a wikipedia article) I am not a vandal I improved the article and made it shorter, it does not need to be that long. If anyone has a brain out there please help me restore what I put I am 24.49.248.115. I made the article readable and organized it I mean who wants to read an article that is that long I mean you get bored right? Take articles like Denmark its short, sweet and perfect. This article is more like the article of France, in which I fixed and made it better. Now the article of France is organized and NORMAL so please help me anyone and tell hgafak.

First of all people will be more inclined to take you seriously if you have a username and sign your posts on talk pages. Secondly, if the article needs to be shorter then standard practice is to split sections off into sub articles (e.g. History of Spain) and leave a summary of it on the main article with a link to the more detailed article. Thryduulf 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in article that

Islam restricted the ability of Muslim rulers to tax other Muslims, making it financially advantageous for a ruler to have non-Muslim subjects.

I think it is negating the tolerance of ISLAM against other religions.

There are two systems in Islam for taxing.

Zakat -- for muslims The payment of zakât is obligatory on all Muslims. In current usage it is interpreted as a 2.5% levy on most valuables and savings held for a full year if their total value is more than a basic minimum known as nisab (the value of 3 ounces of gold). At present, nisab is roughly US $1,300 or an equivalent amount of any other currency.

Jizya -- for non muslim subjects

The technical meaning, is a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State.

In return the non-muslims were exempted from the military service. Their protection becomes the responsibiliy of Muslim state and soldiers at front.

The amount of Jizya in spain were set at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.2 Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt from it. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy.

Calculations

Please note following

1. All the muslims have to pay 2.5% tax on savings, if they are by todays standard is over 1300$ per year. In current days only homeless people have less than this amount of money saved in one year for Americans/Europeans. Spain in those days by all means an attractive place for working.

2. Only Male Non-muslims with reasonable income were supposed to pay Jizya. Current day average Arabian curreny costs about 0.4 - 0.6 US Dollar.

3. Over a saving of 1300$ (minimum taxable amount) a muslim is paying 32.5 $.

  And in spain days richest pays 48 units of Arbaian currency. 
  It makes it 48*0.6=28.8 US $ for richest non-muslim.

Conclusion

From here one can compare the output of taxes if the people were forced to accept Islam. By no means a Muslim government can generate more taxes from the same number of non-muslims.

So,

Conversion of non-muslims to muslims was never been a subject of financial issues. It is a matter of propagating the oneness of God and creating the societies in accordance with the purpose of creation of humans.

MOreover, Forcefull conversion of subjects is prohibited in Islam and they never did it

Muslim Spain sounds alot like Modern Israel... Spanish Christians were treated in the same way as muslims are treated now over there! Anyone else sees the similarity?

I'm editing to point that Iberian Peninsula consists of Spain, Portugal AND Andorra. So, Spain is the largest of the THREE countries that make up the Iberian Peninsula.

I hope I'm not doing anything wrong. --Danielmachin 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an external link at the bottom of the main Spain page to "http://www.spanish-talk.co.uk/" with the link text "Learn Spanish — All aspects of Spanish Language & culture"

IMO this is a rather cheap made for AdSense site with little to commend it to people looking for information on the Spanish language.

Perhaps someone could look at the link and delete if appropriate.

The link appears designed to gain PR from Google, than to help the user of Wikipedia.

Having come across the bad link I cited above, I then found this http://www.ukandspain.com/, which really does not merit a link.

A senior editor probably needs to check all the external links on the page

I have added Quintilian as one on the Roman poets born in Spain. I do not know how to do the link to the article, but there is one on this poet in Wikipedia.

Not a single line on massmedia, television, newspapers?!?!?! I know nothing about the matter but I wanted to read about it. Mackan 16:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Terminology for a question regarding the use of "Spanish" vs. "Spaniard" in referring to those from Spain who conquered and ruled Latin America during the Spanish colonization of the Americas.

A Mexican project to determine Spanish expressions? Doesn't it baffle anyone else? Raystorm 17:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle... yes, put that way, it sounds really weird. However, the point is that articles about the Aztecs and the Spanish colonization of the Americas mention "the Spaniards" all the darn time. There are people who keep editing "Spaniard" to "Spanish" so that sentences that said "The Spaniards did this and that" become "The Spanish did this and that". Some of us think that, whatever word you may use to identify people from Spain today, the right word to use in labeling the conquistadors is "the Spaniards".

--Richard 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, nobody cares whether the Aztec-related articles refer to the Conquistadors as "the Spaniards" instead of "the Spanish"? --Richard 04:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the pluri-linguistic realities of Spain. However, this does not change the fact that the name of the country is officially only the "Reino de España," not "Regne d'Espanya" or any variant thereof. In addition, the language table must be altered, as Spanish is the sole official language nationwide, with (and rightfully so) the local languages being co-official. As it reads now, it makes is seem like Galician, Catalan, and Basque are equally co-official throughout the territory.

Eboracum 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like the most reliable source, but I found an interesting fact on this webpage that I believe would be worth including if verifiable. 'Spain was first called Iberia a name given to it by its Iberian inhabitants (from North Africa). The name was supposedly based on the Iberian word for river, Iber. They reached Spain around 6000 b.c. When the Greeks arrived on Spanish soil around 600 b.c. they referred to the peninsula as Hesperia, meaning "land of the setting sun." When the Carthaginians came around 300 b.c. they called the country Ispania (from Sphan, "rabbit"), which means "land of the rabbits." The Romans arrived a century later and adopted the Carthaginian name of the country, calling it Hispania. Later, this became the present day Spanish name for the country, España. Thus, because of the Romans and their language, the rabbits won over the sunset and over the river.' The original source is: http://www.ctspanish.com/rabbits.htm --SamuraiMoose

The problem with part of that derives from the fact that now the prevalent theory is that the so-called Iberians came from the Eastern Mediterranean. Still the majoriry of the Spanish do not descend from those Iberians, but from previous Iberian peoples who seem to have arrived in Spain 35000 years ago, and who became the ancestors of most other Western Europeans when the Ice Age came to an end and they recolonized the rest of Western Europe about 10.000 years ago, which adds another problem to the equation, see: , and Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b and Origins of the Spanish and the Europeans

As can be seen there is no especial genetic link between Spain and North Africa, in fact, not even with the Eastern Mediterranean; the link is not greater than the one of other European countries with those regions or smaller, which causes a problem to those old theories. HCC.

The current version of the article claims 1492 as the date of Dynastic Union of Spanish kingdoms, but... What happen in 1492 (apart of Columbus voyages)? I mean, the future Catholic Monarchs got married in 1468; Isabella was crowned Queen of Castile in 1474 and she winned the Castilian Civil War against her nephew Joan in 1479; Ferdinand was crown King of Aragon also in 1479 and was proclaimed regent of Castile in 1506; finally, he also took the title of King of Navarre (last independent state in modern Peninsular Spain territory) in 1513. So, why 1492?--Menah the Great 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why somebody has changed my addition about intelligence? Is widely agreed that Spanish people have subaverage intelligence and are brute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.127.135.211 (talk • contribs) .

Please cite verifiable sources. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What possible evidence could there be. The insinuation is not only racist, but for lack of a better word, retarded. Eboracum 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on at Talk:United States about what to call residents of the United States in English. Being American, I think you should call them "Americans". Yes, I know there are good reasons to use the phrase "Estados-unidenses" in Spanish but there isn't a good translation of that phrase into English. Thoughts? If you don't think this is a good topic to be discussed on this Talk page, feel free to reply on my Talk page.

--Richard 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested on this page that there are as many as 80,000 Jews in Spain. I think this is extremely high as an estimate. Anecdotal evidence experienced by myself and www.adherents.com suggests no more than 14,000 Jews in Spain. The article should be changed.Disevitt 10:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article Religion in Spain starts off with, "Today, a few thousand Jews live in Spain", then goes to say "Jews in Spain was estimated at about 13,000". It appears to be quoting the Library of Congress, but I cannot find a verifiable source. Unless this statement can be amended with a reference it should be removed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In a semi-presidential system, you got the President and then you have the Prime minister as in the case of France. You may also have the monarch and than the Prime minister as in the case of the UK/Britain and Spain. True that spaniards call it President but that is politically innacurate. Spain has a prime minister (not a president) and a monarch. Spaniards mean by that the President of the gov't (as a head of state) and not the president of the country. -- Szvest 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

At the 1th January 2006, the population of Spain is about 44,6 millions of inhabitants, by the INE (National Statistics Institute). Immigration has decreased almost to a half (0,81 million to 0,42 million).

Barcelona's Metropolitan Area is 5.150.000 (updated 2006) in 3.925 km2 (1.515 ml2), as it is observed in... http://bcnip.blogsome.com/la-region-metropolitana-de-Barcelona (data 2005)

Someone whose name I don't remember has recently asked for source citations in the figures about religion. While I support his petition, I don't think those figures are, as he stated in the edit summary, contradictory: they just need capitalizing. 40% of people believe in God (that's the Christian God), while 16% of people do not believe in any god (that's any kind of religion). The other 44% of people could believe in Allah (which, by the way, is Arab for "God"), Zeus, Odin or whatever. So the figures are not contradictory. Habbit 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

to what im lead to believe is that the name of Australia actually originated with the spanish. is this what is taught in Europe? I believe that Quiros came with the name of Austrialia del Espiritu Santo for an island he landed on which he thought was the great southern continent (present day Australia) in 1606.

Though it is thought that his chief pilot Luis Vaez de Torres sighted Australia when he travelled through the Torres straight - the torres straight is named after him - also in 1606.

see http://www.namingaustralia.org.au/Docs/Quirostriptico.pdf

also, Although i do not know how to speak latin but i believe that Great southern land in latin is said like "valde inferus terra". So im not sure how the theory that Australia is latin for great southern land, could someone explain that to me, or as the article says Australis means south, though the online translators say otherwise :S

Not sure about the Australia del Espíritu Santo: sounds likely but I really don't know. I can confirm, though, that in Latin Australis means Southern and -ia is a common ending naming nations like Hispania, Gallia, Italia. Therefore, yes, Australia can be translated from Latin like Southern Land or Southern NationMountolive 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a spaniard. The relatioship is plausible. "austral" in spanish means "south".

Can I add an dismabig note at the top? Because I made an article about España Boulevard, and since España redirects here, I think it'll be valid if a disambig note is added. --Howard the Duck 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In the last week or so I have reviewed all of the European country articles for Version 0.5, and the history section in this article (12 screens) stands out as being much longer than most. I don't deny Spain has a lot of history, but compare with France (2 screens, a bit short IMHO) and Germany (7 screens, about the limit IMHO). The reader is first directed to a main article on History of Spain, but the "summary" history section that follows runs to 12 screens. Could someone please try making this history overview more concise? Perhaps some of the material might even be usefully integrated into the main history article (which is around 16 screens). Thanks! Walkerma 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

just when i was going to suggest more information to add :P well i do think that the history section of spain is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very verry very very very very long.... perhaps some on muslim spain should be taken out as it rambles on as if it is the main article.

The history section is twice as long as it need be. Those who want to full detail can go to the History of Spain page. No more infomation should be added.203.214.85.30 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is way too long. Would someone with a high degree of knowledge like to reduce its size? The Ecclesiastical history section of the Valencia article is also quite absurdly long. --Bcnviajero 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A year ago it was too sketchy and even in its later parts downright insulting. Now we've turned it around but it has become too rich and has ended up a defacto "History of Spain" article. I'll start the reduction process by starting on that new (and useful) subsection on the early nineteenth century - I'll try to keep the gist of what's there but leave the nuts and bolts of personalitie, events, etc to the appropriate history page. Cheers Provocateur 03:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider the introduction to be absurdly long as well. There is no need to mention every single m2 of Spanish territory on it. The mention to Peñón de Alhucemas, Llívia (!!!) etc. on it sound exaggerated. There are many countries with many more overseas territories and they are mentioned on the proper session of the articles, not on the intro.

--Lunarboy 9:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the second paragraph, about the borders and teritories, could be moved to the Geography section, with a single-setence summary about the borders remaining in the intro. I added the mention of the exclaves in the first paragraph not too long back as a compromise between Spain being in Europe or in Europe and North Africa, and so should probably remain. Thryduulf 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There. I've shortened the early 19th century but tried to keep its basic story intact. I'll try compressing other history subsections on this page soon. Provocateur 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) It's now just over 8. Provocateur 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-30. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

i got conflicting accounts on the population of Spain.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html

it says there the population of spain is 40 million, not 44 million

hell i have left this up for weeks and no one has responded

Thant's an obselete figure, chec it in the national institute of statitistics from Spain www.ine.es

--Pedrojfg 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states "rising influx of silver and gold from the colonies in the Americas in the last decades of the 16th century ultimately resulted in economically damaging rampant inflation and led to economic depression by the 17th century."

The importation of gold was unimportant in the last decades of the 16th century, it was silver.

Most of the rest of my comments follow pages 62-69 of J.H. Elliott's "Europe Divided 1559-1598" (1968) (The dates basically represent the reign of Philip II of Spain)

Spanish Debt, 1500s Imports, 1500-1650

Azpilcueta was the contemporary Spanish scholar who originally posited the correlation. Bodin's "Response a M. de Malestroit" (1568) also covered it. Elliott, talking of this theory and its accuracy in Europe in general, writes "Neither Azpilcueta nor Bodin, however, argued that American silver was the sole cause of the price-rise, and any such assumption runs into a number of serious difficulties. In Italy, for instance, the steepest price-rise of the entire century occurred between 1552 and 1560, at a time when American silver was apparently entering the peninsula in too small a quantity to have a spectactular impact on prices. In the years after 1570, when large amounts of silver were flowing into Italy from Spain, Italian prices actually fell."

Elliott also points out that food prices rose faster than manufactured goods, which is consistent, he writes, with the very large post-plague populations increases in Europe in the 16th century.

Inflation doubled prices in the first half of the century, when silver imports were unimportant (see graphs).

I also believe this argument comes out of a certain strain of thinking on economic matters (gold-standard supporters) who think the value of money _should_ be tied to the rate that miners can extract certain elements of the periodic table from the ground (Pt,Au,Ag). If it _should_ be the basis of money, then of course when its availability changes, price changes follow.

No tiene ningún sentido ni ninguna justificación desde el punto de vista de una enciclopedia (seria) poner "Reino de España" en idiomas no oficiales en España e incluso en idiomas no oficiales ni hablados prácticamente en los sus lugares de origen (como el asturiano!!!!!! o el occitano!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

There is no reason to write "Reino de España" in all that languages which are not official in all Spain and some of them even nor in their respective areas of origin.

Why is absurd to put it in languages simply because some of those languages are official only in parts of the Spanish state? They are still official languages.

Also, please learn to sign your messages.

--Bcnviajero 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It IS absurd because some of those languages are not official. For the same reason "Reino de España" shouldn't be there in Swahili, Swedish or Cantonese, it shouldn't be in Asturianu or Occità. This is not a language related article Gololo 11:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither asturian nor occitan (aranese is not occitan precisely) are official languages de facto in Spain.

The names of the country and its languages confuses. Castilian Spanish is the official language of Spain, nationwide. It is not Catalan, Valencian, Galician or Basque, so why should these languges be translated simultaneosly and also be listed under the official languages heading?

I totally agree with this Anonymous user. Spanish is the only official language in Spain. Catalan, Basque, Gallego, Valencian, etc etc, when official, they are only in some parts of Spain, and in the Constitution, i believe it says "Co-officials languages in its respective territories". Someone should make a distinction here, because the article is not accurate. Gololo 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the footnotes would solve the issue. I've added footnotes. -- Szvest 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Constitution says that there's 5 official languages (the Spanish Constitution article about it in English and in Spanish). Why should wikipedia differ with what the Spanish Constitution says?

"2. The other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Self-governing Communities in accordance with their Statutes."

These languages are official in those Communities, those Communities are part of Spain so they are official in Spain although not in the whole of Spain. The Constitution recognizes them all as official as you can see in it's official website:

"La Constitución en lenguas oficiales de España:

Castellano

Catalán

Euskera

Gallego

Valenciano"

So I just edited to what the Spanish Constitution says and not what extreme right winged people think. Heffeque 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish is NOT the only official language in Spain. It is the official language for the whole country, that's true, but the are some regions which have both Spanish and other language as official languages such as Galicia, Cataluña, Comunidad Valenciana...

Spanish IS the ONLY official language in the country. Catalan and Basque are official only in their provinces, along with Spanish.--Gligan 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

El valenciano es un dialecto del catalán haber si nos enteramos.

False: Spain has the ninth largest economy in the world. True: Spain has the 8th largest economy in the world in 2004 and 2005. True: The fifth largest in Europe.

See The Economist. See The World Bank data:

TOTAL GDP 2005 (World Bank source)

1 United States ...12,455,068

2 Japan ...4,505,912

3 Germany ...2,781,900

4 China ...2,228,862

5 United Kingdom ...2,192,553

6 France ...2,110,185

7 Italy ...1,723,044

8 SPAIN ...1,123,691

9 Canada ...1,115,192

10 Brazil ...794,098

Thanks.

There's also a very reduced number of guanche people, the original natives of the Canary Islands (a Spaniard insular region located off the northwestern African coast).

Are there people who are acknowleged generally as Guanches or is this simply people who identify themselves as such? --Error 15:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guanches have been gone for a loooooong time. I guess some Canarian nationalists would like to stress this breeding, something quite complicated to say the least, since the Guanches were never a big population and the ones who survived the conquest merged with the newcomers leaving virtually no evidence of their culture in the current culture of the islands other than places names. In other words: no, there is no people acknowledged as Guanches anymore....at least for the moment, since some of the many Spain's haters could rise soon and do something about it. Mountolive 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have erased the highly hypothetical etimology for the name Spain taking it back to the Phoenicians, leaving the obvious and uncontested Latin etimology instead: I just don't think these bizzarre hypothetical etimologies really add anything to whatever the matter is. I have erased the line saying that there is a very reduced number of guanche people since that is simply not true for the last 500 years. Thanks Mountolive 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Philip V of Bourbon.JPG

Research before editing, see List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Spain_by_population, Zaragoza is NOT the 7th metropolitan area of Spain by far. David 17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article said that Felipe Gonzalez won three times consecutive the electiones, that is false, he won four times in 1982, 1986, 1989 and 1993

'Spain is, at present, what is called a State of Autonomies, formally unitary but, in fact, functioning as a Federation of Autonomous Communities, each one with different powers (for instance, some have their own educational and health systems, co-official language and particular cultural identity) and laws'

"some have their own educational and health systems" the word some is false, ALL the autonomous comunities rule their own heath and educational system.

Nowadays all the autonomous comunities have its own health system. The Insalud does not exist any more since 2003.

Am I the only person who thinks it strange that a history of Spain does not explicitly mention the Armada? Nortino 16:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Nor does it mention Lepanto, St. Quentin, etc. These battles have their own pages and are also mentioned in other history pages such as the History of Spain, Spanish Habsburgs, etc.

dont iu think this spain pres. really looks like Michael Keaton.--WalterHumala wanna talk? 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just kidding, the main point of my joke is Why is this discussion too short, thus the article is so long??? .--WalterHumala wanna talk? 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is vandalized every day, several times a day. Is there a way to protect it from the anonymous IP's which come over and over again with the same "penis" "homosexual" "aids" things? If so,~someone PLEASE proceed! Mountolive 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did it myself. If you don't agree, feel free to revert. Mountolive 03:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are all the facts about spain? I am intereted to find info about a specific group called the destralos. They were a mercenary group who's weapon of choice is said to be the destral (a small ax). I am try to track down the truth or false about this legend. can any one help? please send info to [email protected]. thank you. Emerald City Rock

More vandalism on the first part. Just look for "gay" And please, someone protect this page... 24.168.64.206 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

dude have you seen the vandalism recently 69.236.161.228 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

i want to delete it but i don't know how69.236.161.228 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite my edits above, I think this is a pretty nice article and 'cuz of recent vandalism it ought to be protected from anon useredits. --Walter Humala |wanna Talk? 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a sight mistake, just ignore... 24.168.64.206 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands now simply states the Spain adopted the Euro in 1999. While this is true, it is incomplete, since the date of its adoption is not the same date as when it began circulating. According to this article in the New York Times, the Euro went into circulation in various European countries, including Spain, on January 1, 2002 ( http://travel2.nytimes.com/fodors/top/features/travel/destinations/europe/italy/florence/fdrs_feat_63_11.html?n=Top%2FFeatures%2FTravel%2FDestinations%2FEurope%2FItaly%2FFlorence ). According to the same article, "the 'dual circulation' period ended for member countries on February 28, 2002."

Other sources: http://spanish.about.com/library/weekly/aa010102a.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1514799.stm

Callmenewanda 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)