Talk:Spain/Archive 3

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.

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

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

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

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

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown maps created by Eddy Izzard, that are available for the countries of the Antartican continent, and for countries of the Antartican Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

the topic is still controversial in Sweden. United Kingdom

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

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

• Please see further discussion on templates at
  WP:SPAIN EspanaViva
  19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Sounds good to me - you're suggesting adding a few sentences/a paragraph here? I like the idea . . . you've got lots of nice

citations to go with what you want to add? ;) EspanaViva

16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure if it's a good idea, provided that we were reducing the article's length. Still, if you think is relevant, then add a reference to tapas as well. Mountolive | Talk 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. tourism belongs in economy indeed; wine, while still being a growing industry, is not relevant enough to get its own mention in that section. It should be elsewhere. Mountolive | Talk 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added a short para on tourism and took the liberty of mentioning the housing boom. Have a look and weed it out if you think it's too much
  • I've suggested a short Culture section above, which would be a much more appropriate place for tapas. Apart from the bar, that is.
    • Agree about wine. Just not big enough economically. However it is a big deal in global wine terms (3rd biggest producer) and one of the biggest consumers. Again, it might work well in a section on Culture. --mikaul 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

It provides this list of cities(2006):

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.180.216 (talk)

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

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

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

I reverted because i thought it was vandalism (it wasn't). Feel free to revert me or leave it if you guys are ok w/ it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is some confussion with this. Just yesterday I updated the main article Economy of Spain with GDP Eurostat 2004 figures which just came out recently. Please feel free to check the absolute value there, if this is of any help (or maybe it makes it more confusing?...damn).Mountolive | Talk 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree w/ Mountolive here because of two reasons:

• Spain is part of Eurozone and it is better to source our data w/ European data than those of an international body, which is the IMF in this case.
• The Eurostat figures are more recent. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I like it! The readable prose size is now down around 36 kb - in the range of optimum (the gross size is around 56 kb).

Next, there's more stuff that can come out. This overview article I summarize as "What are the 250 most important facts that people would want to know about Spain." If it's not in the Top 250, doesn't it really belong in a more specific article? (The number "250" was chosen for rhetorical effect, folks) - really, for this overview article, the intent is to ask editors to ask themselves: "Is this one of the most important things that readers will want to know about Spain?" (not "This is something important I want to tell people . . .").

Plus . . . most importantly, we now need to start adding specific citations for stuff that anyone wants to add back in. Provocateur, for example, your "horseshoe arch" addition is a lovely piece of info, but if you add a

citation for that little tidbit, it will greatly increase the odds of it staying in! Seriously, to the extent that people have books, websites, reliable sources for the history, geography, politics, etc. facts that are currently in the article, please start adding those (footnoted) citations! EspanaViva

05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Agreed that the article looks much better - tighter, not rambling. Now it has much easier to find refs for the material that's in there.

About the lead section,

WP:LEAD

says:

"The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:

• In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
• Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs."

You're certainly welcome to try to skinny down/corrct the lead's summary of history (I ran out of sandpaper trying it!), but I think we've got to have at least a few sentences, given the length of the history section in the main text of the article. Cheers to you too! EspanaViva 09:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of the continuing overhaul of this article (to prepare it for Peer review, GA status, and hopefully FA status), I will shortly be posting a re-write of the

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

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

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

if you have

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

A Peer review has been requested for Madrid, the article about the capital city of Spain. Please feel free to edit the Madrid article to improve it and/or leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Madrid. EspanaViva 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Issue: Unification.

As is made clear further (From the Renaissance to the Nineteenth Century), the "Spanish state was established when the first Bourbon king Philip V of Spain united Castile and Aragon into a single state". Is it not true that until that time, there was not in fact a unified crown, but rather several crowns held by a single monarch, with the corresponding cortes of each kingdom which the monarch would convene separately. Thus, the so called Spanish crown was, until Philip V, much like the crown of the English monarchy, whereby the present queen of England is also the monarch of Canada and Australia? Is it not thus misleading to state that there was a single, unified Spanish crown as of the Reyes católicos, rather than as of Philip V? --YuriBCN 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Please feel free to correct what you believe are inaccuracies. My major concern is only a brief accurate summary of events. EspanaViva 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention, of course, my other primary concern is that material in this article be referenced. Even in the sub-sections that have received attention thus far, there remain statements which are "unsourced." While those statements remain for now (to allow others to provide source information), eventually they will need to be addressed as "unsourced" statements. EspanaViva 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with these edits [1], [2]. They give more context indeed. Thanks for the references EspañaViva. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I have added a number of references to the Library of Congress website, and Library of Iberian Resources Online. If you have

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

I am partially bringing from Portugal article this suggestion

==Facts and figures==

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

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

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

I agree! The Ogre 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agree. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs

) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure I can see a way of reducing it further. The History section is big, for example, but very little could be removed without losing continuity. If anything, the artice is lacking in a few areas - Education and Culture are obvious omissions. Looking around, it seems a lot of national articles are quite a bit bigger: France is 75k and both the UK and US articles are well over 100k. Whereas we have

systemic bias to thank for that, the sheer volume of info these subjects generate means even when the page is split, there remains a need to keep a decent-sized precis in order to keep things flowing on the parent page. As far as I can see here, that's already been done. mikaul^talk

15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Parliamentry Democracy should be added after Constitutional Monarchy in the info box to keep it consistent with the use of this term for other similarly governed countries. We wouldn't want school children to cruise around thinking that Canada is a parliamentry democracy while spain somehow isn't because they compare the two info boxes. —The preceding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union 65.8.154.52 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The 102% figure provided in the economy of the European Union is an estimate for 2008 and estimates should not be included. There is a bit of confusion as regarding the above/below the European average comment depending if we're talking of the EU25 ot EU27. But I agree the 90% figure is probably not accurate at this stage and should be removed. 22:00, 25 May 2007

Another interesting article for the immigration part:

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

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

http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1406161495 65.8.154.52 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Have deleted the following paragraph:

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

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

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

It is not so simple. Prove your statement, please! The Ogre 13:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This statement seems to be true. The spanish defense minister denied the portuguese soveraingty in the spanish senate in 1998. (See: [3]). --Maurice27 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"in 2002, Gibraltar residents voted overwhelmingly by referendum to remain a British colony and against a "total shared sovereignty" arrangement while demanding participation in talks between the UK and Spain; Spain disapproves of UK plans to grant Gibraltar greater autonomy; Morocco protests Spain's control over the coastal enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and the islands of Peñon de Velez de la Gomera, Peñon de Alhucemas and Islas Chafarinas, and surrounding waters; Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over the territory of Olivenza based on a difference of interpretation of the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz" CIA world factbook [4] --Maurice27 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was wondering, why does the Spanish coat of arms have a pink lion instead of a purple lion, like on the official flags that flow in Spain? Can or should this be changed? That goes for the specific page about the Spanish COA as well. El Espanameño 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Is that all Franco's regime did? Emphasize? Wikipedia does link to a detailed view of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Spain's position in WW2 it can be said that not only Spain exported wolfram to Nazi Germany (which was used in anti-tank shells) but also that a military formation of some thousands of volunteers called "División Azul" (Blue Division, as blue was the color of the Nationals, as opposed to the red of the left-wing adversaries in the Civil War) was attached to the German Wehrmacht (Army) and served in the Russian campaign. It was formed mostly by fierce anti-bolshevists and there were also some people whose position, or their families', in the Civil War was doubtful to the view of the winners and volunteered in order to be accepted by the regime. Curiously, having such a different culture than the German Army, Spanish soldiers were not badly regarded in the Russian towns where it mingled in the frontlines. Gallando 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Spain was included at the list of

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

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

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

Gallando 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at