Talk:Spain/Archive 2

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.

In this section it says the Moorish population grew very large during the later Muslim dynasties but nothing is said about this in the Al-Andalus article. I am doubtful of the validity of this claim because it says there were many moors in the Ebro river valley but this is an area of spain that was only briefly under Moorish control. Can someone either source this or remove it? (I know some Moors came but I think this section as it stands is inaccurate) KingOfAfrica 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I put that in. Zaragoza, in the heart of the Ebro river valley, was under Muslim rule from the early eighth century to the early twelth century - 4 centuries! - plenty of time for a large Moorish population to grow. Indeed, so important a Muslim centre did it become that it broke off to be the capital of its own independent Muslim (taifa) kingdom, centred in the rich valley - surviving long after other northern Muslim controlled areas had fallen to the Christians.

That means nothing. Most Muslims in Iberia were local converts! The Ogre 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

- Eventually.

• In the Middle Ages, in Spain, "Moro" or "Moros" is mostly "Muslim" not Moroccan. Besides waves of Asian or Northern African Muslims, many Spanish natives converts or not, was not distinguish from Moros. Anselmocisneros 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this part of the article is a little bare, so I'm going to add a few lines about the Prestige disaster of 2002, as the Wikipedia article said it was the worst environmental disaster in Spanish history. We need more information for this section! Istabo 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

the last couple of lines of this section read very poorly, like someone just half-heartedly pasted some info in there. as well, does referring to ETA's attacks as "terrorist" denote POV? is there consensus on this issue? Murderbike 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against defining ETA directly as a terrorist organization, but the attacks were terrorist indeed (see September 11, 2001 attacks for a precedent example). Asterion^talk 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "terrorist" has been co-opted by ruling governments to be used as a tool for emotionally influencing public opinion. Certainly the bombing was horrible and many people were unduly killed, but why must it be defined as a "terrorist" attack. It would be perfectly sufficient to say "Many people(insert exact numbers here) were killed or wounded and this had a profound effect on the public. This effect was most evident in the following elections...etc." To use the jargon of government leaders to define acts that, by their very nature, define themselves is to fall prey to propaganda. I recommend rewording this section to remove such keywords as "terrorism" and the like. - unregistered user: thaumaturgistguy 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your article says: "On March 11 2004, a series of bombs exploded in commuter trains in Madrid, Spain. This act of terror killed 191 people and wounded 1,460 more, besides having a dramatic effect on the upcoming national elections. The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings had an adverse effect on the then-ruling conservative party Partido Popular (PP) which polls were giving as a likely winner of the elections, thus helping the election of Zapatero's Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE). There were two nights of incidents around the PP headquarters, with PSOE accusing the PP of hiding the truth by saying that the incidents were caused by ETA. These incidents are still a cause of discussion, since some factions of the PP suggest that the elections were "stolen" by means of the turmoil which followed the terrorist bombing, which was, according to this point of view, backed or fuelled by the PSOE. These incidents did interfere with the last day of campaigning when, according to the Spanish electoral system regulations, any kind of political propaganda is prohibited and PP's candidate (Mariano Rajoy) appeared in some newspapers as interior minister."

Are you sure that the bombs atacks caused a "dramatic effect on the upcoming national elections"? Are you sure that PP were won the elections without the atacks? I'm spanish and I'm not sure. Are you fortune tellers or wikiwritters?

This part of de article is not neutral.

84.123.205.143 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am Spanish too and let me remember you that Rajoy indeed appeared as a response to the previous appearance of Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, which had broken the reflection day to accuse not only the Government but also the PP of lying to manipulate the election. Oh, and IIRC Rajoy had left the Government long before due to, precisely, his nomination as the PP candidate: the Interior Minister at the time was Ángel Acebes. So whether or not the PP Government was lying, withholding information, or being withheld some by the PSOE member and CNI chief Jorge Dezcállar, we still don't know, but the party that first ignored the electoral rules was the PSOE. Habbit 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody PSOE's member was the 13th march 2004 night in Genova street. The spanish PP's government was lying a lot of time when the muslim attack was the main way since 12th march. That part of the article is not neutral. There are alot of Spanish people who don't think like you. 84.123.85.153 00:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this "Murcianese" that anons keep adding? //Dirak 12:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Murcianese is a language which a lot of people have spoken in Murcia's region along the centuries although people don't speak this language in the streets nowadays. However a lot of people try to use this language in streets and in schools because Murcia have a strong personality. You can see http://www.llenguamaere.com (in Murcianese) and http://www.jarique.com (in Spanish)

Oh my Good! murcianese??jajajaj, eso NO EXISTE ,ES UN DIALECT DEL SPANISH y lo digo yo que soy español

I'm a "murcianese"(that word doesn't exist) from Cartagena and actually we speak that "language"(it's not an official language like catalán or vasco but an official dialect like andaluz for example)but we don´t learn it at school, nobody teachs it. we call our dialect "panocho" but I don't think it has an official name. Anyway,if the article talks about andaluz or extremeño, I think murciano should be mentioned as a dialect recognised by the royal academy of the spanish language on the same level as andaluz.

i am from Murcia. Here the people speaks spanish, with other acent, but spanish. The "murcianese language" doesn´t exist... In Andalucia the people speaks spanish too, not a dialect. The different acents of a language are not dialects.

what does this mean "Spain, to the east and to the south of Galicia, borders the North"? something is wrong with this phrase. please correct it. Yelin 09:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I took care of this. Not only was it grammatically awkward, it incorrectly implied that Galicia is an independent nation as opposed to an autonomous community. --Anietor 05:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE!galicia no es ninguna nacion!(traduction please at the english)es una autonomia more! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.33.145.17 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Translation: Galicia is not a nation! It is an autonomous . --Anietor 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the new "estatuto", It is. Although It isn't an Estate-Nation separated from Spain, Inside of Spain there are several nations and, in my opinion, that is positive.

The article begins:
"Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain (Spanish: Reino de España, España)" (bold added)
I think it would be appropriate for the Spanish translations to be in the same order as their English versions. In other words, switch the order of the Spanish translations of the two names and have it read:
"Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain (Spanish: España, Reino de España)"
or
"Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain (Spanish: España, Reino de España, respectively)"
Just thought I'd see if there were any objections, since I don't want to change the first sentence of this great article without some input. --Anietor 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, hearing no objections...done! But I invite anyone to double-check my edit. There was a lot of other "stuff" besides the text, and I hope I preserved it properly. Thanks! --Anietor 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the section on Religion, and referring to church attendance, someone inserted the statement "Interestingly, these numbers do not differ much from those found in the , considered a liberal country, were Church attendance of at least once a month is about 19%". This is not accurate, seems to be a POV (would it really be that interesting, even if true? Doesn't sound very encyclopedic), and even the citation contradicts the assertion. To begin with, the source (http://www.cbs.nl/nr/rdonlyres/775b8373-86f8-4a17-8872-c4ecfbcb2766/0/2006a3pub.pdf Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 2006, page 43), is actually from 2004 for the church statistics, and refers to percentages of all respondents ages 12 and up. By contrast, the Spanish figures (http://mas.lne.es/documentos/archivos/20-11-06-cis.pdf) are from a survey conducted Oct. 2006 and the question regarding church attendance was asked of a subset of respondents (those that identify with a certain religious tradition) ages 18 and up. The numbers themselves are also not the same. Given the difference in years of the stats, the differences in the respondents' demographics and the numbers themselves, this sentence should be removed. I notice that it was actually removed previously, about a week ago, but has been put back in. --Anietor 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be part of the section. The article, and the section, are already too big, and the comparison doesn't add anything, in addition to being inaccurate. --68.8.228.104 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted that comment. I checked the data from 2004. Church attendance of at least one a month in Spain was 22%, in The Netherlands 19%. I don't think there is a big difference... But you are right, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic, my apologies. I just started editing in Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago and I am learning how to write the things properly. My intention was to show that spaniards are not as conservative as people think, I would say they are even much less than in my country. By the way, I am Dutch. Best regards, Marjolijn van der Hijden. PD: what is a POV?

I see, POV = Point of view. Maybe, but not far from reality.

Hi, Marjolijn. No apologies needed. I apologize if my comments seemed too critical. I understand why you put it in originally, and I understand that it was in good faith. I'm relatively new at this myself, so I understand what you're going through as far as how to edit things. Regards. --Anietor 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

it's amazing that there is no mention of the anarchist contribution to the spanish civil war in this article (Anarchism in Spain). i'll try to work it in myself. Murderbike 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding to official languages, there's something wrong with the color chart. "Valencian", spoken in the Land of Valencia, is a dialect of Catalan and, thus, it's an official languaje. Aranese, an occitan dialect, also is official inside of Catalonia.

YOUR COMMENT IS VERY FOOLISH, VALENCIAN IS NOT A DIALECT OF CATALAN, IT COMES FROM VULGAR LATIN, AND WAS THE FIRST LITERARY ROMANCE LANGUAGE.

Please don't refer to people's comments as "foolish". Unfortunately, neither the original user nor the user who responded rather rudely signed their entries...but regardless, we should encourage the open exchange of ideas and candid dialogue in the talk sections. I have no opinion either way on the issue of the derivation of the valencian language, but I do have an opinion on rudeness. (I'm against it!). --Anietor 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Valenciano is not considered as a language, it's a dialect from catalan.(I'm not either from Valencia or catalonia, so, my opinion isn't influenced of nationalism). And the first literary romance language was castilian (spanish).

To me it seems like spain has had it ups and downs with the entire world throughout the 20th and 21st century. Spain had to deal with not only its own civil war, but than was brought into the 2nd world war. Not to mention that they were kicked out of the UN until 1955 and they were only allowed back in because we needed something from them for out own benefits. Than in the 21st century they suffer 2 tragadies. One of those tragadies was a train bombing that killed 191 people. I just hope that the future is good to them, but I can say one thing they are at least moving foreward. they have pulled troops out of iraq and are acutally dealing with thier own problems which is a lot more than i can say for us. ----Jason 20 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.188.167.109 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
:Stephanie Ambrose Span 101 sec 52

Reading Spain's history of being conquered time and time again and conquering some was more history than I would assume. Looking at the history of the United States the brief story that colonists fled prosecution to a new world. It seems all those that fled left their main lands history with there originating country to take on a new history. This leaves the United States with a shorter history. This is why I felt so intrigued that Spain was conquered many times and with each conquered came culture. The Muslim culture conquered Spain in the 8th century. This was a different conquering for Spain because the Muslim culture rarely forced their culture on Spain. They accepted many religions as those of the book and hardly possessed the land of the land owners. When the Muslim reign fell to Christian rule Spain only became stronger. After some time Spain began conquering on their own. Spain is rich in culture because of the history they have. They have been conquered and they have conquered which created a unique country Spain.

--216.184.3.210 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Stephanie Ambrose span 101 sec 52

We tried to be fair to the Moslem period and point to its positive contributions that helped spur on not just Spain but all of western Europe - a fact often forgotten by many. At first the Moors were such a tiny minority when their army conquered Spain from its Visigothic overlords that they had to be tolerant to the mass of the population, which was Roman Catholic Christians, if they were to remain in power. Christians and Jews were made "dhimmis" - unlike, say pagans, who would of been wiped out, Christians and Jews were "people of the book", but failing to see the truth of Islam as the final revelation they were put in a socially disadvantageous postion designed to humiliate them - until they converted or left. Anyway, under the later Almoravids and Almohads Christians and Jews did suffer much persecution. 58.84.95.28 02:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ceuta did not return to Spain in 1415. This is not true, as stated in this article. Ceuta was conquered by the Portuguese in 1415, and only returned to Spain much later.--Taliska1 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Taliska1, the article is incorrect on that point. Is there a reason you didn't change it? Is it a contested issue that has been the cause of any battles recently? I'll update it shortly, unless I hear that it's something being argued...don't want to get in the middle of an edit war! --Anietor 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I made up this template to include in this page but I can't find any good spot to put it. If anyone wishes to give it a try, please do it.

{{Spain Close Up}}

When placing this template in a page, use {{Spain Close Up|align=right}} or {{Spain Close Up|align=left}} to position it appropriately.

Maurice27 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting - are other countries getting this template as well? EspanaViva 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the template intended to leave aside any pre-1492 history? I reckon there should be links for Al-Andalus and Hispania at the least in the history section. Your thoughts? Asterion^talk 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my initial reaction - I like the concept a lot, but I'm concerned about clutter. Are there going to be so many boxes on the tops of these pages, that no one is going to find the content!

Here's a thought - take a look at the U.S. State's similar boxes (say, New York) - they're horizontal in format, and sit at the bottom of the page. Also, are other countries going to get these? How are they handling the format/clutter question? EspanaViva

This template is just an idea I had. I just included what I thought would be most representative. It is true that Hispania and Al-Andalus SHOULD be included as they are 1/2 of our Era. But I thought that would make this template too big. If there is a concensus or ideas which people would like, there is no problem for me to add them. Anyone can if they wish. I will also give a try to the horizontal one which I will post later. Regards, Maurice27 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I did this new one, please feel free to participate. Let me know what you think. I can do the same for France (being myself French), but I lack of lots of information for other countries. Let start by this one

{{Spain Close UP 2}}

Any ideas? Regards, Maurice27 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like it, and I think that you're getting closer! I have some "tweaking" ideas, but I'd like to wait to see what others think. If you don't mind, I think that this discussion should also be taking place on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spain page, where there are a number of other active editors who might want to say something. I'm going to post a summary of this discussion (and include your sample) there. EspanaViva 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree,its great,,by what I see it lacks nothing'!You should do it more, you are a great artist at Wikipedia!Oh by the way, I put up both templates. Trampton 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss my proposal. Jimp 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, and it would seem to make sense, but I reckon that there should be some kind of signpost link to redirect so that if anyone looking for archeological finds in prehistoric Spain, for instance, doesn't draw a blank and come away thinking what a washout the whole thing is. I'm sure Wikipedia already contemplates these things, but have no idea as to how to go about it. Be interested in more feedback on the proposal to merge. Regards,--Technopat 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, may I suggest that you also post a Rfc on the WikiProject Spain and WikiProject Portugal pages. I think that you will also find some useful opinions there. EspanaViva 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that after lunch, in Spain (possibly it was Mexico), the entire place shuts down for a short nap. Is this true, and if so, why isn't it mentioned? 71.0.242.38 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That was true, even though is getting less common. Still, one thing has not changed and are the crazy operation hours, usually from 9 to 13:30 and again from 16 to 20hrs. However, these may be based as much in the siesta (the short nap time) as in the bad economic situation after the civil war, which made people have to strive for two part time underpaid jobs for which the break in between was necessary in order to commute etc.

I agree it may be interesting, but I just don't see this info fitting in the Spain main article. At least I don't know how to fit that myself. Mountolive | Talk 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's nowhere in the current article where this phenomenon really fits. It may be an interesting tidbit, even as the practice is waning as Spain further integrates into the European economy, and is affected by globalization generally. I also would be concerned about perpetuating any stereotypes of the time-oblivous Spaniard (like the equally offensive image of the sombrero-wearing Mexican sleeping with a zarape next to a cactus). I guess I don't think it's really that important for the article, but wouldn't be opposed to a reference to the unique working hours traditionally kept in Spain if it is done appropriately. --Anietor 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree too. I'm not sure how unique the horario is, but it's certainly noteworthy. Considering this and other 'quirks' of Spanish life, wouldn't a short section on Culture be a good idea? Works nicely over in France.--mikaul 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As all of we know, there are two basic models applied to the American continent:

1. America is a single continent, divided in North, Central, Caribbean and South.
2. The Americas, with two separate continents, North America (Can, US, Mex and Central America) and South.

I created the article North America (Americas) that is about the region/subcontinent of the American continent. It was nominated for deletion because they say it is the same as North America (meaning continent). Both articles are about different subjects.

Please READ the evidence, comment and vote here. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 10:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you put this comment on the Talk Page for Spain? A talk page is to discuss improvements to its associated article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please justify, or it should be removed. --Anietor 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also important that voters from the parts of the world where the America as a single continent is taught, express their free opinion and vote. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a good initiative from your part Alex. However, and according to Talk page guidelines we must Keep on topic. Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is the american english a dialect of the british english ?? nooo Is the andalusian spanish a dialect of the castilian spanish ?? neither, it is simple

¡Oh, Dios mío! I'm Spanish. THE ANDALUSIAN IS A DIALECT OF THE CASTILIAN SPANISH. We only have 4 official languages: 1. Spanish 2. Catalán 3. Gallego 4. Vasco (Euskera) The andalusian has many grammatical and phonetical mistakes, but IT'S SPANISH! Some examples of andalusian: Helado (ice-cream) --> "helao" Pescado (Fish) --> "Pescao" Casa (House) --> "Caza" Queso (Cheese) --> "Quezo" Zumo (Juice) --> "Sumo" Zapatos (shoes) --> "Sapatos" Hijo (Son) --> "Hiho" etc...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andalusian is not Spanish: Royal Languaje Academy (Real Academia de la Lengua) aserved it as Andalusian is an official dialect. There is no reason to don't show it on the map. 15:05 19 june 08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.86.235 (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Official dialect" means that it's a dialect of Spanish and not a separate language. Galician, Catalan, and Basque are not dialects but rather distinct languages with their own dialects. There's no need to separate the different dialects of Spanish on the map when comparing it to other regional languages. Kman543210 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

It was quite a fast search, but here's what I got:

• Date of arrival and direction of arrival of early modern humans in Spain: "Pero ahora se sabe que el verdadero antepasado común de los neandertales en Europa y del Homo sapiens en África, no era el Homo ergaster, sino que salió del continente africano durante el Pleistoceno Inferior, pobló Europa hace más de 780.000 años, vivió en Atapuerca y fue descubierto en 1994 en el nivel TD-6 de Gran Dolina. Este primer europeo recibe desde entonces el nombre de Homo antecessor, “el explorador”." Source: ]

• Date of arrival and culture of Iberians: "A partir del siglo V a.C. comienza a desarrollarse la cultura íbera en el sector oriental peninsular". Source: ]. And: "Estos contactos culturales y comerciales permiten el desarrollo del sustrato indígena dando origen a un periodo orientalizante (s. VIII-VI a.C.) que determinará la aparición de la cultura ibérica a finales del s. VI a.C.". Source: ]. And: "Podemos hablar de una etnia heterogénea que formó un mismo pueblo de una forma progresiva: del 750 al 550 a.C. es un periodo pre-ibérico; del 550 a.C al S.V es el ibérico antiguo. El ibérico pleno alcanza del S.V hasta la entrada de los romanos." Source: ]

• Date of arrival and culture of Celts: "En Heródoto, autor del siglo V antes de Cristo, se encuentran las referencias más antiguas sobre los celtas." Source: ]

• Scholarly information about Tartessos (dates, location, culture): "Hace cerca de 3.000 años el suroeste de España fue habitado por una cultura cuya grandeza no fue igualada en mucho tiempo. Gracias a la explotación de minas de oro y plata y a su comercio con los fenicios, el pueblo tartésico alcanzó un grado de riqueza y desarrollo admirado por los historiadores griegos." Sources: ], ] and Location: ]

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

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

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

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

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

The article states:

There are also some other surviving Romance minority languages such as Asturian / Leonese or the Aragonese or fabla. Unlike Catalan, Galician, and Basque, these do not have any official status due to their very small numbers and the absence of a written tradition.

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

There are 4 majority languages in Spain. The spanish is the oficial language, but it has a catalan leanguage spoken in Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca Islands (about 10 milion people), Euskera wich is spoken in Basque Country, and Galician wich is spoken in Galicia. Please, correct this part, it's a silly mistake. In murcia in the south we speak Panocho as well as castellano spanish.Panocho is a kind of spanish used in the murcia orchard and today continues in use although it is considered local.Otherwise Murcianos speak a spanish with their local accent which is considered quite good by the Instituto Cervantes. comunidad judia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comunidad judia murcia (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Navarre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asturias and Salamanca worlds apart? you are crazy unsigned comment added by 84.125.30.207 (talk) 8 July 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I´m Spanish too and I agree with you, but is necessary to make a little specificacion; the Constitution of 1978 (actualy our Costitution) includes this text: "La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas." ( The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions belonging and solidarity among all of them.). Similarly, in the section devoted to the autonomies spoke of "historic nationalities" (Galicia, the Basque Country, Catalonia and Andalusia, if I am not mistaken), which agreed to autonomy in a different way to that of the rest of the communities. I hope I have clarified this difficult conflict and apologize for my poor English. LasMatas01 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also Spanish, and I'm agree with both you, however, i think a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community. It's true that Catalans, Basques, Galicians and Castillians are not the same (they have different history and languages), but they are part of the same country, Spain is plural —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.106.116 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts about the manifestations in front of the headquaters of politic party PP after the attempt in 11th March is a total proved thing, but nobody has been able to show any relationship between this and the PSOE, even the Spanish Courts which has taken this subject in the last years, so it can be taken like an unbiased information. What are the Spanish courts? The Senate, the Parliament and the Congress, all together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.9.170 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Courts are two: The Senate and The Congress. It could be similar to UK Courts. The Lord's One is the Senate, and the Common's One the Congress, Although that they don't have the same rights, of course. Remember that here in Spain we use roman right, and not common laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.123.205 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed. Most of spanish young people are against bullfighting and it's even been banned on some regions. 89.128.223.165 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) In Murcia we invite everyone tto our bullfight and to eat the bulls tail after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comunidad judia murcia (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Spain has NOT surpassed Italy, in contrast to their claims. According to lots of official infos, Italian GDP per capita is still over 35000 $ (the 20th in the world), while Spanish one is only 32000 $. --Chargin' Chuck (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When using absolute GDP figures per capita it is true that Italy is still ahead of Spain (same as it is true that Italy's GDP includes it's underground economy when Spain doesn't). If Spain's underground economy was considered it's nominal GDP would be about 20% higher, certainly surpassing Italy's nominal GDP per capita.

But this is not the point - the figures that are always used to compare countries are GDP per capita using (PPP). And last time I checked Eurostat's, IMF's, World Bank's and CIA's figures for 2008 and 2007 are all showing Spain ahead of Italy. Charlygc (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What's going on with the coat of arms' image?? - One user is putting a PNG which is 90 KB of size and with big resolution - Other user is putting a SVG which is 384 KB and 200x200 by default

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

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

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

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

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

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