Talk:Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Spain has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as B-Class.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Spain, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Flag of Spain.svg
Flag of Spain.svg Spain portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-Class, High-importance)
Wikiproject Europe (small).svg
Flag of Europe.svg Europe portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Countries (Rated B-Class)
BlankMap-World6.svg
BlankMap-World6.svg Geography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
WP0.5 Icon.png This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] 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 sanjay

.

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)

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.] - [Law 39/1981, of 28 October, regulating the use of the flag of Spain and the other flags and banners

(BOE no. 271, 12 November) Article One.

The flag symbolizes the nation of Spain is the sign of the sovereignty, independence, unity and integrity of the country and represents the highest values expressed in the Constitution.

Article Two

   1- The flag of Spain in accordance with the provisions of article four of the Spanish Constitution, consists of three horizontal stripes: red, yellow and red, the yellow double the width of each of the red.
   2- In the yellow could be entered, as the regulations indicate, the shield of Spain. The shield of Spain are, in any event, flags referred to sections one, two, three and four the following article.
   3- Treatment and honors to be rendered to the flag of Spain is determined by the regulations are available and in the case of the Armed Forces, by its specific provisions.

[edit] 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.Then the fire nation attacked the whole world??????????? 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)

Stagnation of shit. Pera. i need serious help pleez

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!)

[edit] 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.

The following images also have this problem:

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)

[edit] 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)

Hi, browsing quickly in google I found this link: http://www.iberianature.com/material/mesta.html, which may lead you to more detailed info. By curious coincidence, this weekend (25/26 Oct 2008), the centre of Madrid was inundated by thousands of sheep - due to shepards exercising their historical rights to drive sheep along the 'rights-of-way' (cañadas reales) one of which happens to pass right through the centre of Madrid, which centuries ago was a non-descript village in the middle of Castille which subsequently become the capital of Spain!!!! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish economy

I have updated or corrected information according to these courses: the CIA world fact book.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Walky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.123.244 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


[edit] ETA

I'm loathe to open another can of worms here, but... In the paragraph "20th century" it refers to ETA as a 'separatist' group ( "....supportive of the separatist group ETA."). All media in Spain, and I'm fairly sure abroad too, refer to ETA as a "terrorist" group. What you all think? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right and it is reconized as such by the E.U. the United States and a long etc. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that up until 23 October, 2008, it had said in two different places: "...the terrorist group ETA." and "the terrorist organization ETA." (here is the change: [1]). It was changed by User:Valenciano with an edit summary of "terrorist per wp:words to avoid". I don't have strong feelings either way, but I was under the impression that it was both a separatist and terrorist organization. Kman543210 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo after the Cuisine part

The distance between the heading "Cuisine" and the actual text is larger than it should be. This should be corrected by someone with editing permission.

[edit] .cat domain

The .cat domain is shown along with the .es in the main chart, this section is supposed to show the country code TLD .cat is NOT a country code TLD the cc TLD has only two letters, it is a sponsored domain such as .coop .museum, furthermore the .cat is used outside spain too. somebody should please fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.209.73 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a particularly grey area since the .cat domain means something like "cultural domain, Catalan" and thus it is used mainly in two countries which have Catalan as either the only official language (Andorra) or cooficial in part of its territory (Spain). It is also used by Catalan speakers around the world, mostly in southern France and in some part of the Italian islands (Sicily maybe? I don't really remember my "history of the Iberian Peninsula languages" class). I agree thus that it should not appear in the "country TLD" cell in the infobox, but the REF footnote should stand. Habbit (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Catalan is spoken in Spain, Andorra, France and Italy. Furthermore, as it has been said, it is NOT a territorial domain. So, even if it was used only in Spain, it would make no sense to have it here. --77.224.26.82 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The domain of spain is .es, Catalonia is not a country, so even with that considerations it shouldn't appear on this article, but maybe in the catalan language area. Thanks --79.109.51.158 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please, no maps of past empires and domains in this article

If we start with one (ie: the Almoravid) then why not the Roman, Visigothic, Ummayad, Almohad, Aragonese, and Spanish? Maps are useful technical aids in the easily accessec specialised history articles, but are of no use in this article. Provocateur (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps of quick reference for a general knowledge are common and useful. IE, the map of actual Spain is useful, and in the History section, the map of the Empire is a needed quick reference, as in other articles on Wikipedia, such as the map of the British Empire in the UK article. Of course, we are not going to add all the maps of each statu quo of Spain in each period of History (iberian, celts, roman, visigothic, etc) as you say, but a map that shows with one glance the historical influence of the Kingdom of Spain is a must to understand even actual Spain. So yes, it's a past empire, but the areas of influence are still active. Please do not delete.--Infinauta (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Infinauta, please trust the readers' intelligence - the historic maps are just a click away - and why should we start being selective about which maps we include? The only maps that belong in this page are those refering to contemporary matters. Provocateur (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That's your own point of view, of course. Many of us do not agree... you know, Wikipedia has some rules concerning these issues. And yes, the UK has its empire in the main article. David (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Provocateur, you are welcome to give your opinion, but do not take unilateral actions (such as deleting), as this is been discussed, and you seem the only one here claiming to erase the map. As I told you, we are not adding thousands of maps, but only two: the actual one and the empire along history one. Both are crucial to understand modern Spain, but also its areas of influence, either in the past or nowdays. Also, in a specific section about Spanish Empire (in the Spain), it's crucial to add a little map to have a quick reference about that Empire. I repeat again, please do not take unilateral actions, you're the only one here claiming to erase it, if you want to discuss about it, let's talk and so everyone can participate, Provocateur (by the way, doesn't you name means agitator in french?).--Infinauta (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this might happen. This argument has already happened before. I'm not going to engage in an edit war but I might ask for an adjudication sometime much later -I'll let you know. I used to enter short, provocative edits (mainly annon) - one example being the Glorious Revolution (1688) which was at the time inexcusably bland and Whiggish, so I chose this name later- a few small edits provoked a reaction and its now a much better article. I've done so much work to make and keep this subsection coherent - (as for maps, see my comment on trusting readers - they are also a distraction, here) This time I'm the provoked. Adios Provocateur (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visigoth Kingdom

I know that this is not a forum of discussion about the content of this article, but it seems to me that there is an important deficiency to resolve:

What about the Visigoth Kingdom? The Suevi and Vandal Kingdoms are cited indeed, but any mention is found of dynasty that reached the political and territorial unification of the Peninsula after the Germanic invasions.

Thanks,

Explicito (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guesses About Population makeup in the Distant Past Not Acceptable

Again and Again - this is supposed to be only a brief introduction. Introducing highly contentious figures like "90 percent of world Jewery" and "20 percent of the population were Berbers" is foolish in the extreme - These sorts of estimates are at best guesses based on highly unreliable extrapolations and not upon any proper census data. Over and over again, in recent years, studies have shown that like the rest of Europe - Spain's present population was pretty much set in the Neolithic period. If there had been such a massive presence of Berbers in Spain for hundreds of years during the time of ISlamic rule, why is it then that it only shows up as a tiny influence of 3.4 percent in today's Spaniards? [2] - so please leave highly questionable census style figures out of these articles - they'll just end up looking foolish (see Genetic history of Europe : lots of excellent quality studies by pros linked to it) Provocateur (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture & Classical Music in Spain

There should be references to Spanish Classical Music Performers, Opera Houses and Orchestras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And zarzuela.--Infinauta (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


also regarding cinema- while pan's labyrinth takes place in Spain, it is a mexican movie by a mexican filmmaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.211.33 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim invasion of Catalunya

rfavor were wrong. Aragon was invaded by Muslims. Catalonia was not invaded PLIS YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG. ARAGON WAS INVADED BY MUSLIMS. CATALAONIA WAS NOT (WASN'T) INVADED!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.209.198 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC) You are WRONG. CATALONIA WAS MUSLIM FOR 84 YEARS, over eight decades, 15 times more time than the Nazi occupation of France. 84 years is a lot of time, time enough for intermarriage, and leave an important cultural heritage in Catalonia.--88.18.151.15 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I should say that many of my fellow Spaniards, like the author of the comment above, don't like to accept the Muslim conquest of their territories. They believe that being under the Muslim rule during a historical period is something to be ashamed of. Needless to say, this proves historical ignorance (since Muslim rulers of, for instance, the Umayyad caliphate were often more liberal and cultivated than their Christian counterparts). This also proves prejudice and traces of racism.
About the Muslim rule of Catalonia (it was, actually, invaded), please refer either to the Catalan, English or Spanish wikipedia articles about Catalonia's history. Regards. --85.62.37.2 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist%C3%B2ria_de_Catalunya

Of course what is now called Catalonia was invaded by the Moors and was Arab for decades. In fact, the present Catalonia is a modern construction consquence of the Hispanic March of Charlemagne, and that is why Catalan has many similarities to the Occ languages in Southeastern France. The former, indigenous, Civilisation in Catalonia was almost completely destroyed by the Frank colonizers from Languedoc. Catalonia was as much colonized by the Occ speaking Franks as Mexico by the Spanish speaking Spaniards 600 years later.--88.18.148.161 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notation

The numbers indicating population are expressed in Spanish notation--ex. 1.000.000 (one million) On the English page, there should be commas. ex. 1,000,000 (one million)

Or do we prefer to keep it as is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colsanders48 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that a similar question arises, I have some question for you, David, is it correct that the Basque language date system follows a different convention year/month/day? I guess it is correct, possibly an Arana's thing just to differentiate from the general Spanish system, but I am just curious. And, by the way, I assume private entities do not follow this system, but does the Basque government? MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 12:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Areas

Metropolitan Areas are two tables ands completely different even for the same named areas. crapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.248.219 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The table shows incorrect data. The metropolitan areas of Palma de Mallorca and Murcia are bigger than Vigo area, which has to descend to position 13-15, depending on the "generous eyes" when looking at its metropolitan areas. The proposed study includes, among others, the city of Pontevedra, capital of the spanish province. This city is certainly not part of the Vigo Metropolitan Area. But even with those "optimistic" calculations, the areas of Murcia and Palma de Malorca, and possibly others, are bigger than Vigo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionvillage (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unification of Spain

The first date of Spanish unification is said to be in 1469, but that's a miskate. In 1469 Isabel and Fernando got married, but they were not still queen and king of Castilla and Aragon. Actually, they had to fight with other candidates. That first unification was in 1492, when they became king and queen respectively. Can I change it? And sorry for my English, I'm a Spaniard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.120.251 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Proceed.--Infinauta (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No I can not, because the page is protected. Let some registered user do it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.93.80 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spain doesn't exist as country since the reign of Philip V (1700-1746). Before that it was a DINASTIC union know as Hispanic Monarchy. Isabel and Fernando was kings of Castilla and Aragón, no Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.193.74 (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New data for the economy section

I cannot modify the article. Yet there is this new piece of information that should be included. It is about salaries in Spain and other countries. The study is the latest of this kind, for 2008, and has been published by the French newspaper Le Figaro. It is in French, but the table can be understood easily. According to the article, salaries in Spain (after taxes) are among the highest in the world. They are higher than those of France, the United Kingdon or Belgium, for example. In fact only countries like Germany or the United States have higher salaries, and the Spanish salaries are very close to those two countries.

See:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/photo/patrimoine/salaires_infographie.JPG

http://www.lefigaro.fr/emploi/2009/01/26/01010-20090126ARTFIG00321-tour-du-monde-des-salaires-la-france-a-la-traine-.php?ppcseid=4128&ppcsekeyword=salaires+en+france&mmtctg=1184714430&mmtcmp=15980004&mmtmt=5&mmtgglcnt=0&mmtadid=3121830780

Jaime.

[edit] Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg

There's a discussion at Non-free content review about the Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg image. At the moment the consensus appears to be the image shouldn't be included. Accordingly, I'll replace the image with a free photograph. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moors in Catalunya

I believe the writer who states that Catalunya was not invaded by the Moors is more correct than not. The Moors did reach Catalunya in 711, and took Barcelona by 717, so technically Catalunya was invaded. However, with the help of the Franks, Girona was retaken in 785, and Barcelona in 801. Considering that the Moor invaders weren't expelled totally from Spain until 1492, their presence in Catalunya was relatively brief. Although in subsequent centuries there were other muslim incursions and further reconquests, Catalunya can rightfully be proud of its record in resisting, and succeeding in repulsing, the muslim invaders. And no, being invaded by arabs is not a cause for pride, for Pete's sake!Cd195 (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From 717 to 801 Barcelona was Arab for 84 years!!!That´s 15 times more than the Nazi occupation of France or the American occupation of Japan, much more than the time that took to Conquest the Aztec and Inca Empires in America, more than the time which have past since the end of the Spanish Civil War...Eight decades is time more than enough to leave an important influence in a territory. 84 years is a lot of time, enough for intermarriage, exchange, trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.10 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well right now you have the highest percentage of Moors and Subsaharan Africans in the country. Immigrants make up close to 20% of the population in that region, most of them from North Africa. So you must be quite upset, according to your statements. On the other hand, following your type of reasoning and more than probable political affiliations, Catalunya is indeed a nation of losers, since they are under the Spanish and so have been for 500 years. Are you proud of being a loser too?. Jove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.239.100 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Catalonia was certainly invaded, but it was Charlemagne who expelled the Moors from there and turned it (and parts of current-day northern Aragon) into the Marca Hispanica. So, saying that Catalonia can be proud of its quick expulsion of the Moors is like saying that France should be proud of its resistance & performance in WW2. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Succession Law?

Wasn't there a promise by the current government to bring an amendment to the constitution to change the succession law to full cognatic primogeniture? Meaning the first born inherits regardless of gender? What ever happened to that?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened is that change in particular requires two-thirds majority, calling a referendum and holding fresh elections. Definitely not something to be done pro bono by a PM: both Mr. Aznar and Mr. Zapatero had the opportunity to make the change in 2004 and 2008, but other things need to be reformed too (like the election law, the Senate, etc.) and so the constitutional reform process as a whole is stuck. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Habbit! I did not know it had been shelved as it had, for I had thought it had broad support from all parties, and would have been a great non-partisan change. Too bad that it hadn't been. I love the Spainish Royal Family, but hope to have the succession law changed to be gender neutral.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Economy section

The entire economy section (and many others too) of this article is written in extremely defensive and apologetic tone. More space is devoted to comparisons with other European nations to show how Spain ranks better than is given to stating facts and their interconnection. While comparisons are good to give readers perspective, it has been overdone in this section. Please consider rewriting it to a more facts-based, neutral tone.

अभय नातू (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guernica image

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg about the imageof the Guernica painting, which is a non-free image. The agreement there was that the non-free image was overused, violating our non-free content criteria. Moreover, there was agreement there that the image should not be used on this article. Please do not re-instate the image here without first changing that consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I challenge here the concept of "non free image". Guernica was donated by Picasso himself to the people of Spain should the country become a democratic one again. That is clearly sourced, search the references in the painting's article. I wonder WHO and WHY uploaded this low-res reproduction as a copyrighted material. Normally all contemporary art is copyrighted, because authors have not died more than 100 years ago, but this is not the case as property of the painting was explicitly transferred to the Spanish sovereign government. I wonder again... do you think that the Spanish government is REALLY going to sue Wikipedia for this? Do you understand the meaning of the painting for Spain? Do you understand anything of this?David (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If the license is incorrect, please document that and fix it (which would be greatly appreciated, because it would eliminate the issues with overuse of an image that is marked as nonfree). I did make a small search but I did not find any info suggesting the painting is copyright-free. Can you provide a reference for its copyright status? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm on it, but this is a though search, I appreciate your understanding... Cheers! David (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No problem; if you can find anything, it would be wonderful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inmigration section

"The big size of underground economy" is cited as one of the main reasons for inmigration. I think this statement needs, at least, a citation. Besides, I think today, with computers tracking every movement, the underground economy is increasingly difficult to maintain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionvillage (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] We Want YOU!

For those interested in the debate about whether or not Picasso's "Guernica" can be used in this article, please participate here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg - we are especially interested in reading the comments of those who can guide us on the legal side of this issue.Provocateur (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I absolutely agree, this is outrageous. This paranoia will kill Wikipedia for sure, one of the most used icons out there and we can not use it in the Spain article! I think this is a fundamental image for Spain. I have been doing my research on the legal status, but I can not find anything conclusive other than the stated whish of the author himself. Please, anyone with legal knowledge help us! David (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Fake skyline images

There are 2 fake pictures in this article. The one of Barcelona business area and the one of Valencia business area. Many of those buildings and towers don't exist yet and they are nothing but a mere project that -maybe- will be a reality in the future. I think those 2 pictures should be removed.

(In reply to the unsigned comment above) Working in one of the buildings which appear in the photo for Barcelona (Imagina Building to the right of the photo), I can testify that all these buildings not only exist but some new ones have popped up since the picture was taken. This can be checked using Google's Street ViewDrar3g (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the Valencia image as it was obviously completely unsuitable (re WP:OR, also tagged it for deletion) but I'm not clear on the problem with the Barcelona one. If it's been manipulated it's not so obvious and a decent replacement might not be so easy. Can you be more specific on the exact problem(s) with that one? --mikaultalk 07:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph was unsigned, perhaps after adding my reply it looked as if there was a single comment signed by me. What I intended to say is that there's nothing wrong with the Barcelona picture, and that the existence of the buildings which appear on it can be verified using Google's Street View. 85.58.250.69 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked, the image of Barcelona is faultless. IP from Madrid (competition?) confused be. Inter-man (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 8

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 8 has the article Azerbaijan–Spain relations to decide of the article should be restored or deleted from Wikipedia. If you have an interest in Spanish matters, please join the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Spain, Espana.

The Εspana, "Ισπανία" produce from the Greek words "εις Πάνα" meaning "to the Pan". Panas "Πανας" is the Greek semi-god having the legs of a goat. el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Πάνας for more. There is a myth that Hercules chase Pan. So, him and Basques go to Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entravma (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that thing with 3 tildes (Entravma (talk)). I only known this etymology. I am not a vandal. It seams the wiki has a system for protection or confidence. Please give me directions at domas 392 a t in . gr

[edit] Official name

Why is the name "Kingdom of Spain" in the summary chart? That name was used -I don't know why- when signing the EU adhesion (so it's used in the EU currently), but the official name is plainly "Spain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.162.155 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm spanish and the official name of my country is Kingdom of Spain (Reino de España). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.193.74 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Same as the official name of France is "French Republic", and the official name of UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinauta (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect external link

I can't edit the page so I'll note that the external link URL for the World Factbook entry for Spain is incorrect. The last part should be ".../SP.html", not ".../sp.html", i.e. the "sp" needs to be capitalized. --129.162.1.41 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, but the link is correct. Try clicking on it. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spain's GDP

Spain's GDP (PPP) is listed as $1,397 trillion however it should be $1,397 billion as per the International Monetary Fund, the same for it's GDP (nominal) listed $1,611 trillion but it should be $1,611 billion.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=184&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=73&pr.y=17 Coinmanj (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History section; too long?

Am I alone in thinking this? There is loads in the history section but not very much elsewhere. There isn't a really coherent, developed section on transport, heathcare, nature (ie - landscape, rivers, animals) and so on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do have a very long history ;-) Is it a dozen spinoff articles, something like that? It's true that some areas, like transport, are really poor even in spinoff form and for some reason a flora & fauna section has always been lacking. Last I looked there was nothing at all in the entire encyclopedia on the subject. I'd say history and other main sections were about the right size though. --mikaultalk 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Economy section language bias/POV issues

The Economy section, particularly towards the end, is using negative language that's not terribly NPOV. The facts should be stated without using a biased wording (whether positive or negative). - Korpios (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

most important, it's a copyright violation, copypasted from Theanalytic.com. someone should remove it immediately.--93.45.87.135 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Minority group section

What a joke is that. What does a genetic study have to do with minority groups?. Firstly, to introduce an article that have been widely rejected as a piece of bad research is cherry picking of the worst kind, and secondly, in any case, it has nothing to do with the section. What kind of people are participatiig in this article?. The minority group section has to do the the only real minority in Spain, the Roma people, plus the millions of new immigrants. Somebody should fix that. Bambo.

Agreed. Thus, the link to the study does not lead to the scientific article itself, but just to a piece of news. Anyway, not a reliable source, and not relevant information neither.--Infinauta (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of Jews in Spain before the Inquisition in 1492 is written to have been around 80,000, but most sources say between 100,000 and 800,000 with a number that was probably around 250,000. Here's a source that sites this. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1492-jews-spain1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.65.38 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sol what. Their possible descendants, whatever the number, are not members of any minority is Spain. To introduce that as members of a minority is absurd. They are commom everiday Spaniards that you cannot distinguish from the rest and they have no clue about it. Spaniards come from a lot of peoples. Bambo.

Yeah

Once again, Will this section ever become serious? Now the Guanches. As said, there are many historical peoples that have contributed to the Spanish gene pool, but they are not any minorities, they are the Spanish themselves, or shall we add as minorities the Romans, Visigoths, Arabs, etc, etc and etc. Let us be serious. Bambo.

Yeah, furthermore, the guanches are extinct indeed, so they are not a minority anymore.--Infinauta (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "historic divisions"

Andalucía (Andalusia) was not a "historic region". It accessed to the "fast via" to the autonomy because it followed a special procedure regulated in the Constitution. The authentic historic regions are those who had aproved in the past (during de II Republica) their own statutes of autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.117.203.242 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IEC and Real Academia

Seriously, shouldn´t the mention to the IEC go after the Real Academia Española? No doubt the IEC is an important institution, but in no way it can be compared to the Royal Academy in terms of prestige, importance, etc

Agreed. In fact I don't see IEC sharing importance with "Music", "Cuisine", etc. Common catalan vandalism.

[edit] The PM & his Vices

Shouldn't the Prime Minister's subordinates be Deputy Prime Ministers, instead of Vice Presidents? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought yes, but according to Deputy Prime Minister, apparently the vices have made it to the English language, too... MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 18:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks to EADS-CASA article

I have a problem which a pair of American users, what for an inexplicable reason they disliking the fact of EADS-CASA is building the Eurofighter Typhoon in Spain.

This users, User:Dave1185 and User:BilCat was deleting repeatedly some references and pictures about the Spanish Eurofighter that I write in the EADS-CASA article. I don’t understand the reason of that attitude… In spite of being a fact confirmed that EADS-CASA makes these planes for the Spanish Air force, these American users insist that the plane is not a product of EADS-HOUSE and erase everything related with this fact.

anybody can help me with the EADS-CASA article, and to stop that guys?.

Greetings for all


Tengo un problema con un par de usuarios Americanos, que por alguna extraña razón no les gusta el hecho de que EADS-CASA está construyendo el Eurofighter Typhoon en España.

Estos usuarios User:Dave1185 y User:BilCat han borrado repetidamente algunas referencias, y imágenes sobre el Eurofighter español que yo había puesto en el articulo de EADS-CASA. No entiendo la razón de esta actitud. A pesar de ser un hecho contrastado que EADS-CASA fabrica estos aviones para la fuerza Aérea Española, estos usuarios americanos insisten que el avión no es un producto de EADS-CASA y borran todo lo relacionado con este hecho.

Alguien puede ayudarme con el articulo de EADS-CASA y a parar a estos tipos?

Saludos a todos Bielasko (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Western Sahara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spain_%28orthographic_projection%29.png

Why is it now claimed that Western Sahara is somehow part of Spain? Officially, Spain does not claim sovereignty over Western Sahara. That map should be removed and replaced with the standard one: peninsular Spain, the Canaries, the Balearic Islands, Ceuta, Melilla, and the plazas de soberanía. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosPatiño (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the image by greying out Western Sahara. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a change

I feel that the pic of Franco could be removed from the History section, as it has now been about 30 years since he was in power, and while not disputing his impact on Spanish society, I feel that the Spanish constitution of 1978 has had an equally influence on Spain. So, being Wiki bold I intend to change it. If anyone would like to keep Franco's image there, I suppose here we should discuss?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


[edit] HDI 2009

A few days ago, the new HDI report for 2009 was published (See Human Development Index). Spain's score and position has changed (from 0.949 and 16th position to 0.955/15th). Could someone who is allowed to edit this article update that information? Regards. --Petesampras96 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Spain is in 15th position in HDI, not 16th. Is it possible to change it in the introduction section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.116.147 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC) ''''Bold text'[[Link title]]'

[edit] Don Quixote

I replaced an image corresponding to the text on Don Quixote. The problem is that Picasso's painting is a non-free copyrighted work (it was from 1955). Our non-free content rules do not permit us to use a non-free work in this way. The image is being used only to illustrate the claim that the novel Don Quixhote is an important piece of literature, and that claim can be conveyed without the use of non-free artwork. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spain"