Talk:Spain

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

"Andalusian"

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

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

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

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[1] es una variedad o dialecto[2] de la lengua española que se habla en Andalucía" "Andalusian is a variety or dialect of Spanish language that is spoken in Ansalusia" it just depends of the criteria we can use to denominate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.106.116 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

GDP figures

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

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 So I suggest someone updates the whole economy section which hasn't been changed for years and it is clearly out-of-date.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

Economy: include wine and tourism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Date of arrival and direction of arrival of early modern humans in Spain: "Pero ahora se sabe que el verdadero antepasado común de los neandertales en Europa y del Homo sapiens en África, no era el Homo ergaster, sino que salió del continente africano durante el Pleistoceno Inferior, pobló Europa hace más de 780.000 años, vivió en Atapuerca y fue descubierto en 1994 en el nivel TD-6 de Gran Dolina. Este primer europeo recibe desde entonces el nombre de Homo antecessor, “el explorador”." Source: [[1]]

• Date of arrival and culture of Iberians: "A partir del siglo V a.C. comienza a desarrollarse la cultura íbera en el sector oriental peninsular". Source: [[2]]. And: "Estos contactos culturales y comerciales permiten el desarrollo del sustrato indígena dando origen a un periodo orientalizante (s. VIII-VI a.C.) que determinará la aparición de la cultura ibérica a finales del s. VI a.C.". Source: [[3]]. And: "Podemos hablar de una etnia heterogénea que formó un mismo pueblo de una forma progresiva: del 750 al 550 a.C. es un periodo pre-ibérico; del 550 a.C al S.V es el ibérico antiguo. El ibérico pleno alcanza del S.V hasta la entrada de los romanos." Source: [[4]]

• Date of arrival and culture of Celts: "En Heródoto, autor del siglo V antes de Cristo, se encuentran las referencias más antiguas sobre los celtas." Source: [[5]]

• Scholarly information about Tartessos (dates, location, culture): "Hace cerca de 3.000 años el suroeste de España fue habitado por una cultura cuya grandeza no fue igualada en mucho tiempo. Gracias a la explotación de minas de oro y plata y a su comercio con los fenicios, el pueblo tartésico alcanzó un grado de riqueza y desarrollo admirado por los historiadores griegos." Sources: [[6]], [[7]] and Location: [[8]]

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

¡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)

Jewish communities

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

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

Languages spoken in Spain

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

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

The article states:

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

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

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)

Environmental Issues of Spain

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

POPULATION

POPULATION & RELIGION

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

In 2007 Spain officially reached 45.2 million people

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

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

And 22% don't declare religious belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.202.61 (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION Andalucía 8.039.399 Cataluña 7.197.174 Comunidad de Madrid 6.061.680 Comunidad Valenciana 4.874.811 Galicia 2.771.341 Castilla y León 2.525.157 P.Vasco 2.141.116 Islas Canarias 2.020.947 Castilla La Mancha 1.975.179 Región de Murcia 1.391.147 Aragón 1.295.215 Extremadura 1.088.728 Principado de Asturias 1.074.632 Islas Baleares 1.029.139 Comunidad Foral de Navarra 605.022 Cantabria 572.503 La Rioja 308.566 Ceuta 76.343 Melilla 68.795 TOTAL: 45.116.894

Spanish identity

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

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

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

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)

Lame Introduction

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

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)

Wrong Battle Name

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

False

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

It was user Crònica who did that [9]. 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)

Bullfighting is not a sport

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

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)

Spain GDP Per Capita

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

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

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)

Coat of Arms

What's going on with the coat of arms' image?? - One user is putting a PNG which is 90 KB of size and with big resolution [10] - Other user is putting a SVG which is 384 KB and 200x200 by default [11]

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)

Juan Carlos I

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

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

Spain public health system

23.01.2008 Hello, There is nothing in the Spain article on how is organized the public health system. I have heard that it is managed regionaly, but don't know more on the subject. Could someone give me more information? Thanks! Guilounette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.202.5 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain position by size

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

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

Spain economy

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

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

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

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

OK, now Spain is growing slightly faster, but:

1. Spanish GDP per capita is still only 90% than Italian one.
2. There are more big companies in Italy itself (or even in South Korea!) than in Spain. --Chargin' Chuck (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Official name

Traditionally, and in reference to its form of government, Spain is called "Reino de España" both in an outside Spain. However, I cannot find any legal document that specifies this denomination as official. "Reino de España" does not appear anywhere in the constitution [12] (the term Estado español appears numerous times, whereas the term Nación española only occasionally). Not even, as it is usual in passports, does the name appear as such in the Spanish passport [13]. I have found some international agreement that use the term "Reino de España" [14] (Usage is one thing, official declaration of the toponymy is another thing). The question, open to discussion is, what constitutes an official denomination? If the denomination is not used in the constitution of the country, is it "official"? --the Dúnadan 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly official! [15].

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

The European Union states [16]:

• Official title or short name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Maurice, neither the CIA, nor the European Union, nor the Spanish Wikipedia are primary sources. You are citing tertiary sources who do not have any juridical authority in Spain. I repeat, that denomination does not appear anywhere in the constitution. I ask again, does anyone know of a law (i.e. de jure) that stipulates that the official name of Spain is "Reino de España" or is it more a de facto stipulation based, of course, on its form of government. (Please do not cite encyclopedias, Wikipedias or international organizations). --the Dúnadan 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note, let me translate one of your sources:

"Denomination of the Spanish State in international agreements...

"The convenience of unifying criteria on the correct form of referring to our country in the text of international treaties that Spain subscribes has motivated a consultation from this Department to the State Council [...] answering the following:

"That the denominations "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain" are equally admissible to refer to the Spanish State in all international treaties it be part of, even though, the second has a more individualizing entity [sic] [...] in consequence in international treaties or other agreements negotiated as of this date, there cannot be any other denomination but "Spain" or "Kingdom of Spain" avoiding formulas such as "Government of Spain" or "Government of the Kingdom of Spain" and other incorrect [formulas]." (end of quote, bold mine).

What do you guys think of this law? As far as I can tell, and only in international treaties, both "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain" are "admissible" (official?). Should we change the introduction of the article to say that "Spain" (officially in international treaties either as Spain or Kingdom of Spain)?

--the Dúnadan 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely Dunadan, if you are getting bored, try to find something else to entertain you! But quit trying to add such useless proposals. The constitution of Spain does not have EVERYTHING in it. Thank God you are not interested in UK's politics... Why don't you also propose the same thing for France? It's constitution does not mention anywhere "French Republic" neither [17]. The conventional long form of a country's name is the official name recognised by the United Nations when it becomes a member. You also have a reference from the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs... What more do you want? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maurice, why do you have to resort to insults? Whatever the Constitution of France says or does not say, is a matter that must be discussed in France. However, the Spanish constitution does not declare any "official name", and the source you provided, which you must have read, states, very, very, clearly, and without the shadow of a doubt that in international treaties the terms "Spain" and "Spanish Kingdom" are equally valid. I am using the same reference, the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs (I don't know why you put it in bold letters, but since you did, I did too =P). Does any other user want to offer his/her opinion on this matter? --the Dúnadan 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's incredible... "resort to insults?"... For God's Sake, Where did I insult you? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read for yourself, what you yourself write. I insist also that you read the constitution and the source you provided. Any other user has any opinion on this matter, or should I proceed? --the Dúnadan 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

POLITICS

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

POPULATION

According to the article in Spanish Wikipedia, the population of Spain is nearly 45 millions based in Spanish Government's 2006 census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.1.172 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2 things

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

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

The .cat domain

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

It shouldn't appear as Spanish domain, because is not a "territorial" domain, but a "cultural" domain, so it also belongs to Andorra and all the calatan speakers around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.86.77 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nation Master's list by economic importance

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

International rankings

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

That might be correct, but in the 2007 survey Spain is ranked 33 out of 169 countries. link: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

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

jews in spain

Firstly jews have always been a part of Spain as said our spanish king [18] Jews are not nostalgia in spain . Additional Jewish emigration to Spain in more recent times is primarily the result of four events: after the 19th century, some Jews established themselves in Spain as a result of migration from what was formerly Spanish Morocco, the flight of Jews escaping from Nazi repression, immigration from Argentina. Spanish law allows Sephardi Jews to claim Spanish citizenship.Finally Spain is seen by northern european community members as a retirement place and as a warm place to raise young families. Many thousands of families have immigrated from the north to southern spain(murcia) and among these thousands have been hundreds of jewish families ..to retire and or to raise children. This is a modern phenomenon and is seen in murcia spain in both polaris world and trampolin hills.[19] you accept expelling jews converting jews but not killing the jews while in fact almost 100000 jews were killed in those days. raquel samper comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.17.233 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Education system

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

Spain Jews Monorities not to be confused with immigrants

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

Languages

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

As it is mentioned before, the article 2.1 of the 1978 Constitution states that "Castilian is the official Spanish language in the State". Then, the article 2.2 states that "The rest of Spanish languages will be official in their Constituent Communities as it will be stated in their Regional Constitutions" (Regional constitution is a free translation for Estatuto). That is later explained in <8.2. Languages>. I've noticed other entries in wikipedia include other languages as "regional languages" (i.e. India or Pakistan). That could be a solution to substitute that footnote nr 2 and it would leave the Country Summary like: Official languages: Spanish; Regional languages: Aranese, Basque, Catalan/Valentian, Galician.Suzusan (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

President or Prime Minister?

Under the Politics heading, the article says "President of the Government: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, elected 14 March 2004." Under the picture of (what I assume is) him, caption says "José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain." So what is he? Is he a president or is he a prime minister? I'd really like to know, and I'm sure others would, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDCAce (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Prime Minister is an anglo-centric term. It's used here for letting know the real meaning of the term "Presidente del Gobierno" as it's not a President of a Republic, and, therefore, head of state. There is not a prime minister in spain, as there's no government president (afaik) in the UK.

--Repking (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish economy

The article mentions the 9th potision in the economy section for the Spanish economy.In fact, according to the International Monetary Fundand and the CIA Fact Book, it is the 8th in 2007, over Canada. Only the World Bank places it 9th below Canada in 2006, so the 8th position shoudl be stated, rather than the 9th. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

9th or 8th economy in the world?

Hi evreybody. I would to know what is really the position to spain in the global economic world, because, in the top of the article, says that spain is the eight economy in the world, but, in the section named economy of spain says that the position is 9th... then... Wich is the correct sentence? thanks and sorry by my poor english lol, ciao! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.17.46 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the section above. It is the 8th according to 2007 estimates at Current Exchange Rates. It should corrected to 8th in all cases. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change to the part that still stated ninth. In future, anyone can correct these if they're obvious errors without having to discuss them on the talk page. Kman543210 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aranese as Recognised regional languages

I know Aranese has the status of being co-official in Catalonia... But does it have the same status status of recognized language nationwide? I've never heard of the spanish parliament giving it to this language. If so, Aranese should be erased from this section in "Spain"'s article.

As far as I'm concerned, in the eyes of the Spanish government, Aranese is not (much) different from, let's say, Asturian, which also has some kind of protection under the Asturian Autonomous Statute legislation.

Anyone has a clue? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to "in the eyes of the Spanish government", but I believe this part of the info box was added to recognize the languages that were given official status in each region. The difference between Aranese and Asturian is that the Catalonian government has given Aranese co-official status, but the Asturian government has not given Asturian co-official status. Neither is as widely spoken as Catalan or Basque in their respective regions. I think in this case we should add what has been made co-official rather than deciding what languages are more important. Kman543210 (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what can be the difference "in the eyes of Spanish government". As far as I know, all the languages mentioned in the box have the same status: languages which are co-official in some autonomous community. Right? --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

locator map; orange or green

• 
• File:Location Spain EU Europe.png

I am an editor busy on the Germany article. There, we recently had the discussion on whether to use the orange or the green map. Most contributors simply like the style of the orange version more and so it will (for the time being) remain our type of locator map. However, to me it was very surprising to find out that more EU countries (the ratio is 2:1) actually use the green version. So, I was wondering whether this is done on purpose, because you prefer the green version? Or would you like to change? Tomeasy_talk 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments at all? What if I propose to change it...Tomeasy_talk 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference between the two. The orange looks a little more colorful and less drab. The green and grey looks a little drab to me. Kman543210 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange version looks better as all counry boundaries are black and visible in every scale (locator map is used in small scale). White boundaries are looking as empty spaces, not lines. So boundaries network is not clear.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Europe eastern edge is more correct at the orange map Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

None of them!... the orange one is not proportional, because it is done in an Mercator projection, while the green one looks correct in its proportions because it is done in ortogonal projection. I agree that the orange one looks better in its colours, borders and so on. The problem is that if you look at it, the northern countries look much bigger than they are in reality, because the cylindrical Mercator projection magnifies sizes, the further north a country is projected, the bigger it looks. The best would be the orange one with the green one proportions, but... such is life! :( David (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Green mp is not in ortogonal projection, but possibly in a conical projection. Mercator projections are widely used in WP as it is possible marks automatic placing (position map stubs). The most enlarged Arctic territories were cut at orange map. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Any projection of a sphere on a plane has its inherent problems. While Mercator gets very wrong with surface areas close to poles, conical maps do not map direction correctly. In the green map for example the northern border of Spain is almost parallel to the eastern border of Europe in the Ural. The angle between those orientations is merely 30°. This is quite wrong. The Mercator projection is true in this respect, so one can clearly see in the orange map that the angle difference is almost exactly 90°. That is, the orange map shows correctly that the northern border of Spain is east-west oriented and the border of Europe in the Ural is north-south oriented.

I do not want to tell you guys what should be more important for you when deciding for one map or the other. I just wanted to show that no map projection is perfect and you either loose this property or that. However, I find the explained projection related limitations (both) minor. From my point of view, there is one main reason to install the orange map: It simply makes the article look more professional as it is more esthetic, more detailed, and better contrasted. Tomeasy_talk 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian-Spanish relations

Hi there, any editors interested in writing and contributing to the article Moldavian-Spanish relations? I just started the article. Thanks in advance! History (Middle Ages - anything?), economy and migration need some good contributions and major expansion. Thanks is advance.--Moldopodo^talk 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of España in IPA. Can anyone, who is able to access this article, correct it?

The current symbols used in the IPA for Spanish language is Template:IPAes (e̞ is a mid-vowel). It should be remarkable the pronunciation of the official name of the country as other articles do. Reino de España would be typed as Template:IPAes. 84.120.160.88 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Population estimates for January 2008, 46,063,511

Spain gets to 46.06 millions inhabitants, with a percentage of 11.3% foreigners in the country. Source http://www.ine.es/prensa/np503.pdf 84.120.136.94 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook gives a July 2008 estimate of 40,491,051, and above article gives 40,840,000 Spaniards with an additional 5,220,000 foreigners. Does anyone know if foreigners are usually included in the population figures for each article? Kman543210 (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the articles of UK and USA give native population plus migration, see Demography of those countries and the links provided. --Bentaguayre (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would consider INE's report as a primary source and use their figure. After all, the CIA did not make a census in Spain. --the Dúnadan 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure about the figures though. The U.S. figure from CIA is 303,824,646 and the article is 304,393,000. The UK figure from CIA is 60,943,912 and the UK article is 60,587,300. They match, so that's why I was wondering how the population figures are done. The CIA figure for Spain matches the census, but then there's an added number. There are probably more immigrants coming to the U.S., so either they're not included in either or they're included in both. Kman543210 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, all residents in the US are counted in a the census regardless of status, in which case, the US figure includes all immigrants legal or otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised about the US numbers matching the CIA numbers. But in the case of other countries, the numbers of the national censuses and what the CIA reports are very different (higher or lower), and the difference is not necessarily due to immigration. --the Dúnadan 15:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the INE is the primary source. No one knows in the world better than the INE as far as Spain is concerned, as it is easily understood. Those data should be updated whereever necessary. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Curiously the CIA Factbook didn´t include immigrants in the overall population count but but now includes immigrant to calculate income per head (not before, and that´s why before Spain´s income per head was clearly higher than Italy´s but not, after the change in the CIA Factbook, it is slightly smaller) If the CIA uses immigrants for per capita income they should take into account for the whole population estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.150.19 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister or President?

The same man is titled both President and Prime MInister.; As Spain has a vice -president, I would assume that the title president would be the valid one.

Regards,

Macman175 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

People feel the need to pack details into the summary of the history section - it is there only to paint the very broadest of outlines of the country's history in the smallest of possible spaces. Please Do Not Add Any More Details To It! If people want to know more they will find their way to the appropriate histroy pages. Thank you Provocateur (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, don't add any links to this little subsection; there are links aplenty in what follows and they have the advantage of a little bit of context. I even wonder why we bother with this summary, the history beneath it is already a brief summary in itself. Thanks Provocateur (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Provocateur, in that no summary is needed for the History Section (that section should already be a summary, even if it is divided in subsections). However, I do believe that that particular summary (or a smaller summary) could be included in the introductory paragraph, as it is done in other articles: see United States (last two paragraphs of the introduction), France (third paragraph), Italy (second paragraph), South Korea (second paragraph).

--the Dúnadan 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Peñon de Vélez de la Gomera

"two autonomous cities in North Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, that border Morocco." Peñon de Vélez de la Gomera also borders Morocco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.47 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

High Speed Rail

don't know if/where its fits but high-speed rail infrastructure seems of interest [20]--Billymac00 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity and limits of Spain

The article said "Distinct ethnic groups within Spain include the Basques, Catalans, and Galicians." citing the US Department of State. I think that this statement is clearly tendencious, bordering the limits with fascism. It is trying to said that there are three different ethnic groups in Spain? and who is supposed to live in the rest of the spanish territory? a "spaniard ethnic group", not named, that occupies and rules over the others?

First of all it is important to remember that "ethnic group" is not a well-defined anthropological concept and its use here maybe is due to an attemp to create paralelism with balkanic and caucasic conflicts. The problem of the national identity of several populations within the world is complex and delicate but it is clearly important to remember that "national identity" is principally a question of feeling supported by a personal or collective point of view about the own history.

Spain is not a plurinational country in which there is a principal ethnic group ("spaniards") and three mononational territories (basque, catalan and galician countries). Actually the situation is more rich: spain is a plurinational nation in which people shared one or more national identities and no one of the so-intended ethnic regions is mononational: aproximately a half of the basques and a third of catalans are not "ethnic/original" habitants of that territories but a great percentage of then (but absolutely not everyone) considered that their "national identity" is preferentially that of the region they habit that the spanish. At the same time there is a percentage of "ethnic" people that feel Spain as their main national identity or even they feel "national" of other regions (like the catalan speaking aragoneses or basque speaking navarres).

I strongly recommended the removal or rewrite of that part of the article, maybe using other references like the Eukobarómetro or the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas studies.

There is also another not neutral statement in the section about territorial claims. How is possible that in Wikipedia we can find such an statement like "Portugal does not recognized the spanish sovereignity over Olivenza" without any reference to support this. This is absolute false! Obviously that Portugal will be glad for recovery Olivenza, as Spain with Roussillon and Merindad de Ultrapuertos now part of France, but this not represent no formal claim for the city. Please, fixed it.

Finally, can someone fix the Plazas de Soberanía article?, is rather Francoist!! Why Autonomous cities of Spain redirect there? After the Spanish Constitution one thing are the populated cities of Ceuta and Melilla and other the islots in the Morrocan coast. --SantiRelloVarona (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello SantiRelloVarona! I quite agree with your comments regarding identity and ethnicity in Spain. Regarding the matter of Olivenza, it is true that the Portuguese state does not recognize Spanish sovereignity (for example, in official maps the border in that area is never drawn), being also true that the matter is not pressed, that is to say, there is no active demand from Portugal regarding that territory. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information!! Really the portuguese don't draw the frontier line in that part? It is not the Guadiana River? Well, is funny!! Cheers! --SantiRelloVarona (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... It's crazy! This matter should be settled by now. If you want to see some details about it look up this site in Engish (notice that it's from a Portuguese pressure group, so their POV is quite obvious, but you can see there many factual references to the Portuguese state's position). The Ogre (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, ethnicity is a term which does not fit well to the cultural realities in Western Europe. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that the concept of ethnicity is complex when applied to the cultural realities of Western-souther Europe. And of course we cannot ignore the complexities of national identity within Spain. While I do not particularly support the US Department of State's claim, but given the complexity and controversy around this issue, I think all users should bring sources either clarifying [or contradicting] other sources, instead of simply giving their opinion and claiming that the US Department of State's statement is bordering on "fascism". The solution now, chaning "ethnic groups " for "cultural groups include the Basques..." is also akward and inaccurate. Using the same argument, what is the rest? A "Spaniard cultural group"? If anything, perhaps we should resort to the word "nationality" as used by the constiution, perhaps? --the Dúnadan 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity can be a very broad and sometimes ambiguous term. The fact that many people from the Basque country, speak a different language, and may share a common history different from other regions can make them, by definition, could be a separate ethnic group. Ethnic groups can be defined by a distinctive culture, religion, or language or any of the combinations, and sometimes people consider themselves as a separate ethnic group based on their own self-identity rather than reality. I'll echo exactly what Dúnadan said that we should review several different sources rather than go from our opinions or perceptions on the situation. I think using nationalities or ethnic groups can both be ambiguous too, even though the constitution uses "nationalities". By definition, everyone who is born in Spain is a Spaniard, as Spain is a nation. Kman543210 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, "nationalities" to refer to a group of people (instead of "citizens of a nation") is not only acceptable according to dictionaries [21], but it is actually used in several academic papers and reputable publications in English in reference to Spain [22] [23], [24], [25], [26], and also other countries like the United Kingdom [27] and even China.[28]), and used (in reference to Spain) decades, and even a century, prior to the constitution of 1978 [29], [30]. In other words, I don't think "nationality", being the chosen word by the Spanish Parliament, is that ambiguous... and it has the benefit of being the "consensual" term amongst the diverse political parties of the constituent courts.--the Dúnadan 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Spain

• 
• 

I see that authors do not agree on which of the two above is the official flag of Spain. One author already stated in the edit summary that his judgment was based on the constitution, which is certainly the ultimate reference to this question. However, it got reverted without comment. So, I am wondering what's going on. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(presumably edit conflic)

I have changed the Flag of Spain on the infobox because it was wrong. The flag of Spain is defined on Spanish constitution as divided into three horizontal stripes: red, yellow and red, the yellow stripe being twice the size of each red stripe, without any mention to the coat of arms.

The law regulating the flag says the same but stands too that "En la franja amarilla se podrá incorporar, en la forma que reglamentariamente se señale, el escudo de España."(on the yellow stripes may be incorporated, on the way the regulations will state, the coat of arms of Spain). And the law continues: El escudo de España figurará, en todo caso, en las banderas a que se refieren los apartados uno, dos, tres y cuatro del artículo siguiente. (That is to say that the State and war flags and ensigns must be charged with the Spanish coat of arms, not the rest).

More: The only national regulations currently on force about flags and banners in Spain is the Royal decree 1511/1977, of January 22, (por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de Banderas y Estandartes,Guiones, Insignias y Distintivos).

That Royal decree has been modified only in 1981 (on their rules about the description of the coat of arms), and 2001 by adding a new rule about the Prince of Asturias Standards, and establihes The following:

Rule number 1: "Bandera Nacional: La bandera nacional es la compuesta por tres franjas horizontales, roja, gualda y roja, la gualda de doble anchura que las rojas." (the national flag consists of three horizontal stripes: red, yellow and red, the yellow stripe being twice the size of each red stripe), and includes the flag design, without the coat of arms.

Uses: GENERAL.

Rule number 3: "Bandera nacional con Escudo de España: La bandera nacional con el escudo de España es rectangular, con tres listas normales a la vaina, y escudo en ambas caras." Uses: Buques de guerra, arsenales, plazas marítimas, sus castillos y fortalezas, así como otros cualesquiera de las costas, aeródromos, campamentos, cuarteles y demás dependencias militares. Ministerios y edificios de la Administración del Estado, incluyendo los situados en el extranjero que gocen de la extraterritorialidad. (I daren't translate it, sorry).

I think the Constitution, the Law and the regulations are enough clear to state that the flag of Spain is the one without the coat of arms, and the other one though it is not forbidden for civilian uses, it is established only for institutional uses.

So, if somebody find the law where it is established that the flag of Spain must wear the coat of arms, please bring it here. If not the flag must be changed on the infobox.

--Ignacio (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To me it appears pretty clear that the flag without the coat of arms is the official flag. Just one question to this: "the flag of Spain is the one without the coat of arms, and the other one though it is not forbidden for civilian uses". So in Spain the popular use of the flag with coat of arms is not forbidden? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is right. actually the flag with the coat of arms is used everywhere in Spain, because its popular use is not forbidden by the law, as it is in Germany or Austria for instance. I think it was only a legal oversight. --Ignacio (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: In Germany the use of the official flag combined with the official coat of arms is not restricted and very popular, too. In fact, this combination has no official evidence whatsoever, it's only popular. However, a very similar state flag exists and the use of this flag is in deed restricted to official institutions. It you are interested, have a look at this Talk:Germany#Flag_Error. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the expressed here above by Ignacio. I would only say that it will be interesting to make clear in the article that the one with CoA is the one to be used in official purposes but also "tolerated" and (may I even say) "encouraged" in civil use as it lacks of the legal restrictions of use of other flags. The one with CoA has become the flag used de facto by the majority of Spaniards. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering... the one used and encouraged everywhere but not in Wikipedia?? doesn't anybody find it odd??David (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It sure is an oddity, but that's what presidencia del gobierno claims: "La Bandera de España está formada por tres franjas horizontales, roja, amarilla y roja, siendo la amarilla de doble anchura que cada una de las rojas", según establece el artículo 4.1 de la Constitución Española de 1978." (no mention of the CoA). Notice, on the other hand, to fulfill the oddity, that the flag displayed in that very same link, does have the CoA...

We have to deal here with the "problematic era" the spanish transition was. After Franco's death, it was urgent for the government to declare the "rojigualda" (Without CoA) as the official flag in order to "prevent" (I guess) the so-called republicans (I myself like "Loyalist" better) to ask for the republican flag and the francoist to keep the eagle... And probably, Juan Carlos I wasn't popular enough in 1978 as to include a CoA with a crown in the national flag... Those are only my 2 cents, of course. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One proposal would be to leave the one WITH CoA in the article Spain and make the predominant one in Flag of Spain the one WITHOUT. The debate shouldn't be what flag is the official one... But rather what flags are to be displayed in countries' articles here in wikipedia... Civil ones? Official ones? Maybe there is a guideline which can solve this in a fast way. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question you guys found here. I'd go for the one with the CoA, if only because, as seen in flag of Spain (and, actually, everywhere in Spain with an official display of flags) all those flags pictured there at the article wear the CoA. What Maurice says about the Crown not being so firmly established during the transition as to get the CoA officially incorporated to the flag rings very true. But, then, as years go by, fact nowadays is that everyday use has made the flag with the CoA the standard, at least officially. As you guys point out, the law does not mention the CoA regarding the flag, neither for good nor for bad. But, as a matter of fact, I'd say the CoA is present in 100% of flags used by official institutions, while it is the sports and private use where you can see flags without the CoA (but even there it is getting more and more popular with it). I think the fact that CoA it is not considered by the law (neither sponsoring nor banning it) complemented with the fact that most (probably all) of the official institutions use the flag with the CoA, it suffices to use this one with the CoA in this article. Mountolive _{please, behave} 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the point, the consensus. See the Spanish, French, German.... etc Wikipedias. All have the CoA, and there IS a law of 1981 that establishes the use of the CoA version for official institutions. I suspect that the user is trying to overdo it or even to be noticed. I suggest a quick poll here and right now:

• Oppose to the civil version, per reasons above. David (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the usage of the flag with the CoA. The Law essentially allows for the usage of both, and in case of doubt, I think it's reasonable to go with the one flown in The Congress of Deputies, The Spanish Senate and The Royal Palace - as well as following the standard set by other encyclopaedias. CarlosPatiño (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU seems to use the flag with CoA and Britannica does so as well. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see this is a controversial question. In my aim was only to put on the table legal questions about this. And I insist: one question is the "de facto" situation (included references in other sources -as we say in Spain, "mal de muchos... consuelo de tontos" or in another versions "... epidemia"-) and another the legal status of the flag. What we must decide here is what is the criterion we must aply for those questions: "Everybody does it, so it is ok"?.

Other question, Mountolive. You say "the fact that most (probably all) of the official institutions use the flag with the CoA". That is not only a fact, that is compulsory by law.

About the proposal of to leave the one WITH CoA in the article Spain and make the predominant one in Flag of Spain the one WITHOUT, I think it coul be a salomonic solution, but I think too that is precisely there where the CoA on the flag seems more unnecessary, because the CoA is repeated in both symbols.

Anyway, I'll do not an edit war for this. Decide what you believe is more correct. Both flags are enough beautiful. Saludos. --Ignacio (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignacio, let's wait a bit. I have made contact with a relative which has a degree in protocol related to the symbols and heraldry. I asked him about which of both flags is the one to be used, the civil or the official. His answer was that the official is to be used and that he will send me by email some sources and information about this. I noticed to him what the constitution and the 1981 law say. His answer remained that the one with CoA still to be remain as the principal one. Give me some hours to see if I receive this information. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting new section on topic above 'cos otherwise the indents go haywire...

The official website for matters regarding the Government of Spain, i.e. La Moncloa http://www.la-moncloa.es/Espana/ElEstado/Simbolos/Legislacion/BanderaLey39-81.htm offers the following:

Ley 39/1981, de 28 de octubre, por la que se regula el uso de la bandera de España y el de otras banderas y enseñas

(BOE núm. 271, de 12 de noviembre) Artículo primero. La bandera de España simboliza la nación; es signo de la soberanía, independencia, unidad e integridad de la patria y representa los valores superiores expresados en la Constitución.

• Artículo segundo
• 1.La bandera de España, de acuerdo con lo preceptuado en el artículo cuarto de la Constitución española, está formada por tres franjas horizontales, roja, amarilla y roja, siendo la amarilla de doble anchura que cada una de las rojas.
• 2.En la franja amarilla se podrá incorporar, en la forma que reglamentariamente se señale, el escudo de España. El escudo de España figurará, en todo caso, en las banderas a que se refieren los apartados uno, dos, tres y cuatro del artículo siguiente.
• 3.El tratamiento y honores que deben ser prestados a la bandera de España se regirán por lo que reglamentariamente se disponga y en el caso de las Fuerzas Armadas, por sus disposiciones específicas.

...

• Artículo tercero
• 1.La bandera de España deberá ondear en el exterior y ocupar el lugar preferente en el interior de todos los edificios y establecimientos de la Administración central, institucional, autonómica, provincial o insular y municipal del Estado.
• 2.La bandera de España será la única que ondee y se exhiba en las sedes de los órganos constitucionales del Estado y en la de los órganos centrales de la Administración del Estado.
• 3.La bandera de España será la única que ondee en el asta de los edificios públicos militares y en los acuartelamientos, buques, aeronaves y cualesquiera otros establecimientos de las Fuerzas Armadas y de las Fuerzas de Seguridad del Estado.
• 4.La bandera de España, así como el escudo de España, se colocará en los locales de las misiones diplomáticas y de las oficinas consulares, en las residencias de sus jefes y, en su caso, en sus medios de transporte oficial.

...

Basically says that in any official context that requires the flag of Spain, it must have el Escudo de España on the yellow bit. It is perfectly clear. The only fiddly bit is where it says, in 2.2 ...se podrá incorporar,...en la forma que reglamentariamente se señale,... (...may include... as established by law...), but this is fully resolved by stating categorically the cases in which the CoA is to be used on the flag. In other words, it makes no mention of when it isn't necessary :) , but clearly states when it must be used.

The same website goes on to refer to the use of el Escudo de España:

Royal Decree 2964/1981, de 18 de diciembre, por el que se hace público el modelo oficial del Escudo de España, and available here: http://www.la-moncloa.es/NR/rdonlyres/BAFAC478-8C85-4EAC-B250-0709ED453905/71672/2964_1981.pdf clearly states that it is to be included on all the flags flying both on the exterior and in the interior of all the buildings and premises of the central, institutional, regional (autonomy), provincial, insular and municipal Administrations; as well as on all public military buildings, barracks, ships, aircraft and any other premises of the armed forces and security forces of the State [...]; premises of diplomatic missions and consuls; the residences of their officials and on their official means of transport.

It goes on to add that it must figure on diplomas, official publications, etc. (except postage stamps) and reiterates that it must figure on public and official buildings and objects which require the use of the symbols of State. Following a list of various periods of time for the CoA to be incorporated; depending on a series of variables, it gives a maximum of 3 years.

My own interpretation is that there is no legal obligation (in any of the above references, at least) for any private citizen to have or use a Spanish flag with the CoA on it; the inference being that you can put a smiley on it instead if you like to hang it in your sitting room, but all official uses are fully regulated. Of course, some might argue that Wikipedia is not an official Spanish body and therefore not obliged to use the prescriptive symbols of the Spanish State... If anyone needs help in translating any of the above, feel free to ask --Technopat (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pyrenees" can use a link

Section 1.1 the mountain range deserves the square brackets for a link since it is one of the major mountain ranges of Europe. Someone with edit authority, please edit those in. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The official Spanish flag

The Official Spanish flag includes the coat of arms on it, I know it because I am Spanish and I know the Spanish Constitution. This is the correct flag:

Flag of Spain

Can you tell where on the Spanish Constitution (or in any other Spanish law) says the flag must wear the coat of arms? --Ignacio (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ignacio, please stop gaming the system. As you and several others have pointed out above, the actual wording of the Spanish Constitution - which you yourself insist on so much - makes no mention of any CoA. No one disputes that. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, constitutions are [written] sets of principles that lay the foundations for laws, and laws then put into practice what the constitution sets out in broad terms.

As has been pointed out over & over again, the specific law regulating the use of the flag (1981) - and which, to date, no one has even tried to claim is anti-constitutional - clearly states that the CoA must appear when the flag is used as an official emblem. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Constitutional Court itself uses the flag with the CoA - in accordance with the law.

Wikipedia therefore has the obligation of using the flag that the Spanish state has decided is its official emblem. Mention may - and should - be made in the text of variations on the theme, including the exact wording of the Constitution, the exact wording of the law, etc.

Our personal, aesthetic or political reasons for excluding the CoA - or including it - are neither here nor there. --Technopat (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get confused, Technopat. The debate is not on "personal, aesthetic or political" questions, it is only on legal regulations. It is perfectly explained on the "Flag of Spain" article: There are two national flags in Spain, one (the one with the CoA) for "official" purposes (as the state flag in Germany and other countries) and other for general purposes (the plain one), the same as in Germany. The difference between Germany and Spain is that the Spanish "state" flag is not forbidden for other uses, and the "de facto" situation (and most of the people in Spain wrongly believes that it is the constitutional regulation) is that the flag with the CoA has become the one for general use. But this fact do not change the legal regulations on that matter, not only the constitution, but all the current laws.

What I can not accept as an argument is "I know it because I am Spanish and I know the Spanish Constitution". OK? The question is still open. --Ignacio (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell

Change the Spanish Flag to the civil flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDP3 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stagnation

In the second sentence in the third paragraph of the Introduction, it states

"Napoleon's invasion of Spain in the early 19th century triggered independence movements that tore the empire apart and left the country politically unstable. In the 20th century it suffered a devastating civil war and came under the rule of a dictatorship, leading to years of stagnation"

Stagnation of what? This isn't clear and doesn't help. I advocate that "leading to years of stagnation" is simply removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrueHeadfoot (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Highest Unemployment Rate in Eurozone

Current economy paragraph does not reflect the current Eurostat figures. Spain has 11% unemployment rate, which is the highest among the EU-15 countries. http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014581.shtml --91.127.86.186 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UT

Thank those economists & politicians who vociferiously supported unchecked immigration alongside the unchecked housing boom. Now the piper has to be paid - and with interest! I've been waiting for a couple of years to say this. I have nothing but scorn for economists, generally. Perhaps we should include a brief comment of this in the article so as to enlighten readers as to the cause of the unusually high unemployment after nearly two decades of strong economic growth. Provocateur (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

De-linking

Introductions are not the places for the links - that is in the BODY - where there is some context - So in the first part of the mini history on this page - no links (except for dates) - THERE ARE LOADS OF LINKS in the sections that follow - and they are IN CONTEXT. I've also re-written part of the intro so its not merely a repeat of the opening of the mini-history section but more provides the setting to that history. Hasta luego (hmmm!)

Image copyright problem with Image:SelloJuanCarlosI.jpg

The image Image:SelloJuanCarlosI.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can anyone who watches this page direct me to a relatively brief, in English, but authoritative account of when, how and why the Mesta collapsed? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)