Jump to content

Talk:Spain/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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.

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

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!)

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)

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)

Spanish economy

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

See: http://wiki.riteme.site/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)


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)

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.

.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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.

Agreed. And what about writting Valencia Region as a South part of Catalonia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.70.11 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Western Sahara

http://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)


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'''

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)

Peer review request

To all interested persons :P

I've listed the Monarchy of Spain article for peer review because…

My eyes have been on it too long and not enough views that have generated comments! lol. I have watched the page for a year looking to see if there were improvements, but none. So, this past summer I started editing the artical answering questions that I myself would have for the Spanish monarchy. There are other sections I wish to add (such as the Monarchy, media, and the people), but before I go further I wished to get comments on what is present.

Thanks, ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Positive Discrimination

"Gender based affirmative action" ie positive discrimination, though that itself is an oxymoron. Why is it being softened with the politically correct phrase "gender equality". Justin talk 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points:
  • Positive discrimination applies to may other issues than gender. It is not the same as Gender equality
  • Your recent edit added a wikilink into a section heading which is not right according to WP:MOS
I agree that Gender equality is more suitable and is a direct translation of the Spanish concept. I do not see it as a softening of anything at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I would positively disagree but accept the compromise of putting a wikilink in the text. Its still PC nonsense. Justin talk 09:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about a WP:NPOV. The article reports a policy of the present government. The opinions of editots about that policy are of no relevance here. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually NPOV is not served by repeating verbatim the policy of the Spanish Government but reflecting how that is represented in the mainstream opinion. Secondary not primary sources. If you're planning on templating the regulars at least get policy correct. Justin talk 10:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish is a culture not a language

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, Spanish is a culture and not a language... In Spain and countries that were conquered by Spain mainly speak Castellano. Consequently, the majority of the people that live in spain speak Castellano and minority languages are Catalonian, Valancian, Galician, etc. Furthermore, Spanish is a term that defines the people who are living within the borders of Spain and is not a Language....Therefore, Castellano is Spains official language.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.83.225 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but Spanish is also much used in the English speaking world as a description of Castellano. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong indeed, Spanish (in Spanish Español) is a correct language name and is often used even by most Spanish speakers themselves. Castellano is also correct but only used in Spain when trying to accomodate other languages of Spain in a conversation. Otherwise, i.e. in English, is a little used/known term. Your point may be not neutral, as Español (Spanish) is quite often a disliked term by nationalist Basques and Catalonians. David (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Both Spanish and Castilian are thecnically correct, bot the main question is that, puting asides any controversy about Spain's nationalisms and regionalisms and it's multilingual reality, the language is primordially known in English as Sanish and NOT Castilian, independentely of Names given to the Spanish language in Hispanophone countries. The Ogre (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

El Escorial

In the picture of El Escorial is written that this building is the historical residence of the King, in that is a mistake. Only Felipe II used it like a residence. Actually, the true function is to be the royal pantheon and a monastery where some kings went to there to have a rest. I know it beacause i'm spanish, i'm able to translate some information about this if you want it. good bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.77.197 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is a palace, an archive, a museum and mausoleum for Spanish royalty, and very well worth a visit if you are visiting Madrid - I'm an 'anglisajon' and live a few kilometers away! See Article El Escorial —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

Pan's Labyrinth is a Mexican/Spanish Film and not won the Academy Award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.54.10 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth is a Spanish film set in Spain with a whole Spanish cast and a Mexican Director. It won 3 Academy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelPerez91 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Pan's Labyrinth is a JOINT MEXICAN/ Spanish film. It was directed by a Mexican director and PRODUCED BY ESPERANTO FILMS-A Mexican production company. The cast was Spanish, the Director and MONEY source was Mexican. I think we all see this rather obvious cooperation now, yes? ¿Tenemos un acuerdo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.192.151 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory

I'm in the process of writing a book about European prehistory, and have compiled a rather extensive bibliography for the movement of early Homo sapiens through the continent, and I can't find any sources places Homo sapiens in Spain proper at 35,000BP. One would need an actual archaeological article, of course, not merely a guess by a historian. The Altamira caves, at 18,000BP are well-dated and there are scant artifacts sometime before that (22,000BP), but as the ice age ended, there were still very few people living in Spain - only towards the northern part. THe cave itself was inhabited only intermittently, perhaps by hunter-gatherers passing through (passing through an area does not, in my mind, constitute settlement - you need signs of settlement to say settlement). These cave painters are clearly part of a larger tribal grouping that had its own territorial notions, and they came and went, staying only briefly, for thousands of years. Anyway, if someone does have a citation for artifacts (I'm fairly certain there are no bones at 35,000 in Spain), I would like to see those citations very much. I'd also like to know what the actual artifacts are, as Spain was Neanderthal territory at 35,000BP. At any rate, one would need a citation to show that these artifacts were indeed Homo sapiens. In my view, there's no clear evidence of Homo sapiens in Spain until Altamira. Of course, they didn't just arrive one morning and paint the caves - they had to have had some lead time - but how much to give is another issue that only an expert can provide. So, I'd like to know who the expert was who gave the 35,000BP date. Certainly, France has modern Homo sapiens by that date - but in only a few isolated areas. To have them instantaneously cross the Pyrenées and be found in Spain at the same time requires methods of movement unknown to contemporary prehistorians.--LeValley 19:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Pyrenees is an imposing mountain range but unless there is a strong organized military force it is easy to get around in coastal areas at its eastern and western ends where there would have been rich forests and fisheries to exploit. The tough hunter gatherers of prehistoric times would have spread around the Pyrenees into northern Iberia in a matter of years, decades at most. As for the small populations in France of the time - hunter gatherer populations had very low densities, as I'm sure you know, but they ranged widely. Provocateur (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting ancient history on countries of the Mediterranean including Spain:

From a site called "Hellenic Travels to the Past" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.10.148 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago I made it to Barcelona. During the course of site seeing I came across the ruins of “Teatre Grec” (Greek theatre). To say I was astonished would be an understatement. To say that I am Greek “blind” is also an understatement – a rare condition that disrupts a person’s vision so that they only see Greek things.

The site was closed but I remonstrated with the security guard. “My ancestors built that theatre – I demand to see it!!” This was my childish yet desperate attempt to see the site up close. The security guard was either amused or felt that there would be no harm in a deranged tourist from seeing the site. So I took some pictures and went on my merry way to the local tapas place in search of an elusive Greek salad. When I made it home to Australia I researched the old Greek theatre of Barcelona. Well lets just say it was old but not ancient. It was built in 1929 in a Greek style, hence the name. As for the so-called ruins I came across – it was in renovation phase. Despite my disappointment at not finding an ancient site in Barcelona it did however get me thinking (which can also be a rare phenomenon). Had there ever been a Greek presence in places such as Spain and Western Europe? I know for a fact that Hercules had been there. In previous articles I have talked about the Greeks that I met in Southern Italy – Magna Gracia. Now to find out what lies to the west of Magna Graecia. There were a number of Greek colonies and settlements in Spain, France, Monaco and Portugal (this last country consisted of a few traders and a visit by Hercules and me). The Greeks did not dominate these regions as they did in Magna Gracia or in the Cyrenaica in Libya for example, they did however have a lasting influence. One of the first Greeks to make it to the edge of the Mediterranean was a powerful and heroic man, and I’m not talking about me here. It was the great Hercules who built the Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Gibraltar straits to signify the supposed geographical limit of the known world. Herodotus tells us that another Greek, Captain Kolaios of Samos and his crew mistakenly sailed past the Pillars of Hercules and landed in the region of Tartessos in southern Spain (near Portugal) in the 7th century BC. The Greeks exchanged goods and whilst working on their tans made a strong friendship with the king. Kolaios and his crew returned to Samos with Iberian (Spanish) silver and minerals and stories of potential new trading lands. Within decades the Greeks had established a strong trading presence in Iberia and supplemented these activities by establishing settlements. Some scholars debate the size and the existence of a number of the settlements. It is certain that a town existed in the region approaching modern Gibraltar and within the boundaries of Tartessos. The town was called Mainake however not much is known about its history. Another town located in southern Iberia but facing the east was Hemerskopeion. These places ensured that Greek merchants could facilitate their trade with Iberians and had a base that was not controlled by their great rivals the Phoenicians. Many archeological sites in southern Spain have unearthed Greek pottery from the 700’s BC onwards. Phocaea – a name I can’t pronounce and is a place I have never been to. This was a great city on the coast of Asia Minor towards the Hellespont. It was captured by the Persians in 545BC, however its maritime activities in the 200 years prior to this date led to the establishment of some of the greatest cities in the world. During the great Greek colonial epoch of antiquity the Phocaeans established the colonies of Emporion and Rhode in northern Spain (above Barcelona). The latter colony was established before the ancient Olympic Games and the former was to become an important centre of commerce. The presence of Greeks in the southern regions of Spain and Portugal was to last until the seventh century AD when Byzantine control was overthrown. The Phocaeans established the colony of Massalia about 600BC. A local story tells us that Protis from Phocaea was invited to a “coming out” event by a local king for his daughter. Protis was your typical Adonis (or perhaps a Hercules) looking Greek so the girl fell in love with Protis and they were given as dowry the land in what would become Massalia. Massalia which today is known as Marseille (France) was to develop as a leading city in the Mediterranean and was the first Greek colony in the west to reach a population of over 1000. It was a city that remained independent until 49 BC when it was captured by Julius Caesar after a 6 month siege. The locals resisted as best as they could using all their Herculean reserves in the process. The City was one of the last of the Greek colonies in the far west to retain its Greek character and language, holding on at least until the arrival of the Visigoths in fifth century AD and into the next. Massalia founded a number of other colonies in the region including Agathe, Olbia, Antipolis and Nicaea. Nicaea was founded by the Massalians in 350BC after a victory over a neighbouring kingdom. The City was named after the Greek Goddess of Victory, Nike and is not to be confused with any sponsorship deals involving Tiger Woods. I have been to both Nice and Marseilles and it is amazing that from such humble, Greek origins they are today large and vibrant French cities. Another great City that owes its development to the Greeks is that of Monaco. Founded as Monoikos by the Massalians in the sixth century BC it is also known as the Port of Hercules after he stopped off here during his travels. And like Hercules I too stopped here many years ago for a quick drink. There are other areas of France where the Greeks had small trading settlements or like Alalia in Corsica had established a significant town. Speaking of Corsica, its time to point out that the Byzantine Empire – the medieval Greek empire, held the island of Corsica and all of the Mediterranean islands for a significant period during the sixth and seventh centuries AD (not BC). The Byzantine rule during this epoch also extended to southern Spain and northern Africa. This ensured that towns that were formerly Greek colonies and many of the people living in those locations continued to speak Greek or identify with that culture. However, unlike Byzantine control of Magna Gracia or the Cyrenaica in Libya it would be difficult to say that the Greek speakers were overwhelming dominant in those areas. The Greeks were responsible not only for establishing so many prominent colonies and trade but for introducing olive and wine to France. It was the Greeks who introduced these products to France and ensured that wine was made in that region for years to come. Think about it, what would the world be like if French wine was not produced the way we know it? So the moral of my story is, next time you think you have come across an ancient Greek theatre, please make sure it is. Otherwise you might just find a series of Greek colonies and some anecdotes about Hercules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.10.148 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quality-of-Life_Index

The article states it has the seventeenth place in the quality of life index. In fact it is the 10th. Someone correct it please. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


P.I.G.S.

Does anybody have an idea why Spain is included in the unsavory PIGS (Portugal, Italy/Ireland, Greece, and Spain) category in the English language media? Listed below are recent BBC, of all sources, report of the following national standings with regard to deficits and national debts: 

   Nation   Debt as % of GDP      Budget Deficit as a % of GDP
     UK       68.6                         13
 Greece       112.6                        12.5
  Spain       54.3                         11.25
Ireland       65.8                         10.75
  Italy       114.6                        5.3
Germany       73.1                         3.5

       Source: European Commission/ Economic Forecast 2009

It seems to me that, Spain's numbers are not that bad compared other countries. Just today, Moodys investor services threatened to downgrade the USA and the UK. --Scipio-62 05:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the black legend and cheap anti Spanish (and anti Catholic)propaganda are well imbued in the Anglo world. Behind it probably a bit of jealousy indeed. Spain, in spite of the current crisis(damm important as it is) , is on its way up while the UK clearly in decline. In some respects Spain already ranks better, like in the quality of life index, health system or human development index of the United Nations, where it ranks clearly above Anglo countries like New Zealand or the UK itself. In a few decades, if recent trends continue (latest dacades), it would be no surprise to see countries like the UK fall behind Spain in other fields too. It seems that it kills them.

Just some links to support my claims:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quality-of-life_index http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Human_development_index

And in terms of per capita income already incredibly close to the UK, in spite of having suffered from a 40-year-old dictatorship and political and economic isolation. In fact, according to the CIA very very close. The incredible pace at which Spain has closed the gap over the latest 3 decades can predict the near future.


http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

In short, it seems that all these facts are killing them. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.74.199 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As to why Spain is listed as a member of PIGS, perhaps you would be better off addressing your comments to the media which describe Spain as such. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which relies on information from verifiable and reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree about this Black Legend nonsense. The one English language periodical I respect the most is the Economist. But even they are not immune to this form of anti Spanish cultural xenophobia. I recall reading an Economist article in the the aftermath of the Olympics held in Spain of the early 1990s. It was about "how the party was over" and the Spanish economy would crash and burn, so to speak, during the world wide economic slowdown of that period. The Spanish economy, as it turns out, blossomed powerfully during the late 1990s up until 2006. And given the difficult economic events unfolding right now, I observe this form of cultural Yellow Journalism rearing it's ugly head once again. I don't know what the crypto ethno supremacists are going to do when The Spanish economy recovers and powers new growth and clout.--Scipio-62 02:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the artcile on Spain? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For example how this is also reflected in the article. I have stated above that Spain ranks 10th not 17th by the quality of life index rating in the world, as the link in the article shows itself, but no one who can edit the article has moved a finger. Just one example. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In 2006 I told them the housing boom was undermining the long term prosperity of the country. Of course they ridiculed me but who is laughing now? The crisis in Spain is not in the public (government) finances as in Greece - it is in the dangerous financial state of the "cajas" - that is, the 40 plus small savings banks which are exposed to the country's sinking real estate market. As the government intervenes to save them, private debt will become public debt. It is time Spaniards woke up from their illusions.Provocateur (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Population

Discrepancy of statistical reporting:

Spanish government (used in this article): 46,661,950 (1 January, 2009)
IMF: 46,188,000 (1 December, 2009)
EUROSTAT: 45,828,172 (1 January, 2009)
UN: 44,904,000 (1 July, 2009)
CIA: 40,525,000 (1 July, 2009)

I rarely find a western country where there is such disagreement between the U.N. and the national statistical agency (by over 2,100,000) [assuming U.N. modeled growth rates]. They also discredit the IMF (by ~900,000) [ditto], and massively disagree with the CIA (by >6,100,000) [normalis]. The CIA indicates massive overstatement of foreign and seasonal workers, and illegal immigrants by the Spanish government.

Perhaps more odd is the fact the EUROSTAT, who generally take their info directly from the country's in question, is 840,000 lower, on the exact same date.

The U.N. report on Spain specifically states they (the Spanish immigrant agency) have lost count of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, which leads one to believe the Spanish government source is just overestimating, or worse "guestimating". Slaja (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


46.951.532 January 2010 (INE)--62.42.11.79 (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Image in section Geography

Having an image of Llívia, a location in media France, in the section Geography is not so representative.--Ssola (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There is not an Ethnic group such as "spanish"

Ethnic groups in Spain : Castilians ( with andalusians, aragonese, asturians and canarians ), catalans ( with valencians and balearic ), basques and galicians. Non territorial ethnic group: gypsies.

There is not an Ethnic group such as "spanish", as theres isn´t any sucha as "italians". The mayority os spain inhabitans are "caucasian" as in France, Italy or other european countries. Spanish is correct as Demonym or when refering to culture, but not as an Ethnic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.106.134 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's a fact. We should correct this. But the only problem is that the issue about the supposed etnicity called "spanish" is so deeply rooted (thanks to USA) that it's going to be difficult to convince wikipedians. What do people here think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinauta (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not the worst, the worst is that in the UK there aren't ethnics groups such as "English" or "Scottish". It says "White". Ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ang1991 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC) that is very rascist and ignorant! thats like saying thAT THERE is no such thing as ethnic Chinese or ehtnic Japanese, or ethnic Thais, becauser there are just "Orientals" no! these are separate ethnic groups and should be treated as such! grouping them all together as just "Cacasians" is just Liberal proaganda and lies,

Wrong paragraph

"Spain made peace with France in 1795 and effectively became a client state of that country; the following year, it declared war against Britain and Portugal. A disastrous economic situation, along with other factors, led to the abdication of the Spanish king in favour of Napoleon's brother, Joseph Bonaparte."

The reality is that when Spain declared war on Portugal, the troops of Napoleon, instead of heading west to Portugal, began to take over Spain. It was an surprise invasion, and this invasion led to the abdications, not the other factors. Let someone change it. 88.27.183.21 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Official Design of the Coat of Arms of Spain

Could you change the image of an unofficial version of the Coat of arms for the official recently changed?



You can see the differences between the version of the Flag and the unofficial version of the Arms

The piority is for the official design for the Coat of arms, Check it at the sources. It's more important show the official arms, the quality of the image is also fine, SVG Format.

Gordon09 (t) 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

History Main article: History of Spain After a long and hard conquest, the Iberian Peninsula became a region of the Roman Empire known as Hispania. During the early Middle Ages it came under Germanic rule but later was conquered by Muslim invaders. Through a very long and fitful process, the Christian kingdoms in the north gradually rolled back Muslim rule, finally extinguishing its last remnant in Granada in 1492, the same year Columbus reached the Americas. A global empire began which saw Spain become the strongest kingdom in Europe and the leading world power in the 16th century and first half of the 17th century.

Rewrite: During the early Middle Ages it came under Germanic rule with Iberian people heavily into politics & government but, later Spain Southern part of the country was conquered by Muslim invaders leaving the Northern part of the country to Christian rule. During and after a 700 year War with the Moorish Muslims, the Christian kingdoms in the north gradually recaptured their lands and repelled Muslim rule, finally extinguishing its last Muslim remnant in Granada in 1492, as well as capturing a part of North Africa, and the same year Columbus hired by King & Queen of Spain set sail to reach the North & South Americas. A global empire began which saw Spain become the strongest kingdom in Europe and the leading world power in the 15th century and leading up to the mid 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadius2k (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Typical, curious take on intolerance

Consider this quote from the article: "Under Islam, Christians and Jews were recognized as "peoples of the book", and were free to practice their religion, but faced a number of mandatory discriminations and penalties as dhimmis." In my humble opinion, this is revisionist history. Christians were free to practice their religion? Perhaps, IF they acknowledged their religion’s inferiority to Islam. Their testimony against a Muslim was useless in court. They had to step aside when entering a building to let a Muslim go ahead. They could not even live in a dwelling taller than that of an adjacent Muslim. Given that, and given that Muslims were not taxed and Christians were, was conversion to Islam a mystery? I would suggest adding adjectives like "degrading" and "humiliating" to the description of penalties. Cutugno (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not scientific: this is not a place to show your personal opinion on what you want history to look like, you need to back it up with scientific proof. Christians were allowed to practice and carry business normally and become members of the government and I personally haven't seen any record of what you mentioned above, but I have seen records for the opposite, so please provide evidence for the above or delete it (along with my comment here) if you fail to do that. On one more note, try to read about what the Christians did when they took over Spain, in terms of ethnic cleansing for all Muslims and Jews done in public massacre scenes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tototo99 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Read more carefully: the second part of the sentence makes absolutely clear that Christians and Jews were very much second class subjects who paid a price for their beliefs and observances - the implication is that gradually over time more and more would go over to Islam to escape their second class status (which in fact occurred in the 10th and 11th centuries). We can't fit everything here - this tiny mini-history is only supposed to be no more than a very brief overview of the country's long and complex histroyProvocateur (talk)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Celtic Origins

The brief overview here of Spain's pre-history is absolutely no place to mention speculations - no matter how scholarly - about Celtic origins. That should be done in the article on Celts - not in this briefest of overviews of Spanish history. The subject of Celts is itself a very, very complex and obscure one (even what it means to be "celtic" is a difficult question) and this is not the place to MENTION such issues!!!!Provocateur (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Thus, those "celtic" origins in Iberia are completely controversial and contested by a lot of academic authors. The subject was first restricted in Galicia for politic aims (against Madrid centralization), and since 20 years, almost all the spanish and portuguese people claim Celtic roots, because some villages or inscriptions could have Celtic origins.

Early names for Spain

This article isn't clear about what year the name Spain first appeared, on maps for example. It also doesn't make clear what the region was known as immediately prior to being called Spain, nor the timetables of its previous names. Specifically, was it called Spain in 1492?76.70.118.248 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Spain is english for spanish "España", wich is another graphy of latin "Hispania". So, the Iberian Peninsula is called Hispania since the very first roman sources. Before that, it was called Iberia by greeks (named after the Ebro river), also "Hesperia", etc. It's everything clearly explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinauta (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

Modern Spanish cuisine is very important. I think these paragraphs taken from the main article on the subject should be added:

Today, Spanish cooking is "in fashion", especially thanks in part to Ferran Adrià, who in the summer of 2003 attained international renown after the New York Times declared him the best chef in the world, and postulated the supremacy of Spanish cooking over French cuisine. Four other Spanish chefs hold three stars in the prestigious Michelin Guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.202.144 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.184.118.235, 26 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the History section, "Fall of Muslim rule and unification", the last sentence of the first paragraph reads: 

    by Frankish forces at the Battle of Poitiers, Francia.

Since this article is in English, the text should be changed to: 

    by Frankish forces at the Battle of Poitiers, France.

190.184.118.235 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: the article refers to the Frankish Empire (which is called Francia or Frankia) and not to France. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll change it to Frankia to avoid the confusion with the modern state called France. Thanks Provocateur (talk)

User:George McFinnigan ie's recent edits

Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g [3], [4], [5], also removing the correct name A Coruña form a caption [6], replacing Ourense with Orense [7], there are earlier instances than these in the last 48 hours. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss here and warnined him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Climate

Some edits for today : mediterranean climate is the dominant one, so it is difficult to say that Spanish climate is diversified. Some nuances added for Galicia : according to Köppen classification, the coastal areas are a variety of the mediterranean climate (csb). Maybe the map should be changed a little too.

More to the point, maybe someone should cite some reliable sources for the section, then we can make an informed decision; as it stands it appears that folk are arguing about the merits of their respective original research, which is inadmissable in wiki. The map is a problem because following 90.9.104.11's edit today it no longer aligns with the text, but since it is based on a commons image which cites no source for the info that it conveys other than "own work" this can only be considered as original research as well. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you are wrong... speaking of which, your sources are....???? Maybe it is your edit which is OR??? If you don't know Spain's climate then don't edit. Pure Oceanic Climate (Dublin, Plymouth...) is well stablished in northern Spain, and Continental Mediterranean Climate is a described subtype of Mediterranean. The landscape of northern Spain is completely different from "Mediterranean". Spain is extremelly diverse, true. Instead of plainly editing, it is better to check sources, as I will do immediately. David (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Pure Oceanic Climate (Dublin, Plymouth...) is well stablished in northern Spain"

How funny...for Köppen, the galician coast are a subdivision of the Mediterranean climate (Csb). Nothing to do with Cornwall or Ireland. Do you want a proof : just here : http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mediterranean_climate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.5.250 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

you don't have a clue of what you are talking about, and you obviously don't know Spain. You are constantly confusing Galicia with the North coast (of which Galicia's norther provinces are also a part), which Koppen does not confuse, he diferentiates pure oceanic climate and Csb (dry summer) in Spain. Again, proof of the diverse climate of Spain. 84.79.203.232 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't actually read the article you cited, which lists A Coruña, Spain as having an Oceanic climate![8] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong : the exactly quote is : "Notable Cities with Csb Climates under the Koeppen-Geiger system, but are generally considered Oceanic Climates"

According to the main used academical source (Köppen), Csb climate is a mediterranean one. I don't know who is "generally", but Köppen is more reliable than "generally". --92.161.5.250 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the northern Atlantic coast of Spain has a Mediterranean climate? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, a "diverse climate" does not preclude the existence of a main or dominant climate. I see nothing wrong with a compromise mentioning both that the climate of Spain is diverse and that the main climate type is Mediterranean. Intelligentsium 00:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


"Are you seriously suggesting that the northern Atlantic coast of Spain has a Mediterranean climate?"

Yes, for Köppen, the Galician coasts are in Csb, a variant of the mediterranean climate, because of the dry summers (the Galicia is the regions which is the most exposed to the forest fires). Dry summers are considered as mediterranean in these latitudes. Nothing to do with oceanic climate which is never dry in summer. But the summer is less hot than the real mediterranean one, and the rest of the year remains humid. And this is valuable only for the coastal areas. The hinterland is more humid.

"I see nothing wrong with a compromise mentioning both that the climate of Spain is diverse and that the main climate type is Mediterranean."

First, the term "diverse" is non neutral, so it has to be reverted. Second, it cannot be the both : if the climate is 80 % mediterranean, it is not really diverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.213.151.98 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not follow your logic that "diverse" is non-neutral—would you mind elaborating on that? The Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of "diverse" is "widely varied". While in some contexts it can imply that the elements of the set (for lack of a better word) said to be "diverse" are roughly equal quantitatively, this is not always the case. For example, the population of a city can be said to be "diverse" even if there is a plurality group or race, if the minority groups are many and varied. However, it seems to me that this has become a purely semantic debate, out of which little improvement will come to the article. Perhaps there is a mutually agreeable wording; how do you feel about replacing "Due to Spain's geographical situation and orographic conditions, the climate is extremely diverse[8]" with "Spain's geographical situation and orographic conditions produce a varied, mainly Mediterranean climate". Intelligentsium 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a semantic debate. I won't be more insistant on this point. It just seems to me that a neutral point of view would be to remain purely descriptive (ex : "according to the author, there are three climatic zones..."). For me, using the term "varied" is already a kind of "judgement" (each culture considers its country or region as "varied", even Netherlands or Danemark). But never mind. If you add the fact that the Mediterranean climate is dominant, it could be a solution to put off the confusion.--90.9.88.132 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The anonymous user clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Actually, some regions of northern and northwestern Spain can be rainier than certain places in England. And that's a huge difference when compared to the semi-arid climate found in Almería. --Belchman (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and tropical areas have even more rain in the year than London. Let's go, man, London is tropical ! You are funny with your comparison of the cumulations of the precipitations. Oceanic climates are defined by ponderation of temperatures of the summers and winters, and no dry season, above all the summer. But Galicia has dry summers, which is a fundamental mark of the mediterranean climate (though the rest of the year, there are oceanic influences). In the Köppen classification, it is Csb, so, it is Mediterranean, like it or not.

Melbourne's climate is rated "cfb" in other words, its more temperate and wetter through the year than a true Mediterranean climate, but the surrounding area is rated as one of the highest forest fire risks in the world. Galicia is much wetter and is cooler and more overcast than Melbourne. Galicia's climate is more like Tasmania's. Is Tasmania climatically Mediterranean?

About Minor sport activity

I am interested in one minor sport played by spanich people and in that they climb on each other to make a pyramid. I want to know more about that sport and if any body can help in that, it will be good. To understand me correctly I request you to visit Govinda sport. You may write your message on the talk page of that article for my immediate attention, thanks. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll be looking for Castell, which would be a good model for your artcile which I see has a lot of issues. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regional and officially recognised languages

I reverted the deletion of minor languages from the infobox. Please discuss the reasons here. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks we made last edition at the same time. My reason is avoiding excess of information. The recognised official languages are already stated in the note 2 in the info box, languages section, there is no need of including it again inside the box. I have completed the information of note 2 adding the autonomous communities where those languages are cooficial. --Infinauta (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that my last edition wasn't saved for some reason, maybe because our edition at the same time. If it's ok for the editors here, I want to include in the note 2 (official languages) of the infobox the autonomous communities where those languages are spoken. --Infinauta (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I feel that as there is a parameter in the infobox for other recognised languages, that should be used in this case. The infobox is used in electronic summaries of articles and so it should stay. I have reverted you again. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Languages in Spain

The information in wikipedia is wrong about languages of Spain. In Spain does not speak 11-12 languages (we can see in the paragraph of languages, in the map). In Spain there are four languages: Spanish, Catalán, Basque and Gallego. Some people thinks "Valenciano" is a different language, but it is very similar to Catalán.

In the other side, the map is wrong. The Basque is coofficial in all the Basque Country (in Araba, Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa) and some part of Navarra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.211.65 (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gallego and Catalan are spanish languages too, whatever the propaganda of some nationalists.
The languages are at least: castilian, catalan, basque, gallician, asturian, occitan and aragones.

map of the climates in Spain

The map of the climates should be changed. There isn't any continental climate in Spain, only mediterranean one, a semi-arid one, and an oceanic one in the northern coast. Source : Köppen (http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif). And according to this source, Galicia is mediterranean not only in the coastal regions, but in the hinterland too (Csb).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.11.212 (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2010

The source you provide is a an image summarizing the whole planet, with no detail of Spain or any other country. It doesn't mention continental climate or mediterranean climate. It classifies Galicia as C (warm temperate) s (summer dry) and b (warm summer). Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


The fact are :
  • Köppen has never qualified Madrid as a semi-arid, but as a mediterranean climate (Csa). The map of wikicommons is wrong (and not only about Madrid).
  • There is no continental climate in Spain, and surely not in Madrid. Continental climates (D in Köppen classification) are far colder in winter - mean temperature of the coldest month below -3°C or -5°C (I don't remember exactly).
  • Galicia is in Csb Köppen classification, which is a Mediterranean climate (dry summers), but less hot due to the oceanic influences.

I have put this map, because it comes from an official weather german service, in the contrary of the wikicommons map which has a lot of big mistakes (cf Central Europe or Eastern Scotland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.11.212 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be very interested in the climate of Spain. Or very interested in your own vision of the climate of Spain, as far as I can see. Please, take a look at Continental Mediterranean climate. You can't compare the climate of Valencia with the climate of Burgos, the map shows this difference correctly. David (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion

editor please stay on it. In my country,Spain,there is no official religion.Thats true but its not the whole truth.Left out is the fact that in all public schools in my country of Spain,parents must choose either religion or ethics for theiur children.The only religion officially taught is catholic.Even in Madrid in schools with many muslims together ,those kids have to coose ethics because their religion is not invited.Theyd love to invite their religious teacher and let the state pay it but the state says only catholic.Its possible in todays world to be both a laico state and have a preferred state religion.The european community is at this moment against this practice.They say it works against teaching strong family values to all children.Im catholic and my children go to church AFTER school.The school must prepare them for after they graduate,not for after they pass to the next world.Heaven might not care if they know math science and history but here on earth we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? I find the sentences above confusing and unclear. If you have information which can be verified by reliable sources please post it here. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And my point is that everyone in spain knows that we are both a secular country by law with a preferred religion by law too(the law grants money to the catholic church but to no other religious group that has requested money and others have requested)Nobody says we are laico or with no religion or separation of church and state.Spain is not the USA.Nor are we like Egypt where one religion is official.We are both secular by law but also by law,the church gets special treatment.No wellknown source on spain says spain is secular.The fact that public schools must teach religion is worth stating.Thats BIG news.And the fact that only the church gets money from the state to teach those classes is worth stating.Im proud to be spanish and not afraid to say my country is NOT secular.Maybe we need a term to define ourselves.Maybe theres not yet a word for us.secular light? catolic light? Your position here is very foggy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is discuss improvements to the artcile Spain. All I see above is a disorganised rambling about your point of view. Sorry, can't help your. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

verified? its the law in spain that the curch gets state money a percentage every year from all of us. no other religion gets it.i need to verify democracy freedom? i need to verify that murcia has a huerta? why must i verify a common fact everone knows.? i find your comment to be self promoting in that you for some reason need to see my country as another open democracy when in fact its almost there Be proud of spain but dont deny we are by law a democracy with a favorite son;the church.lets leave it at this my friend! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1479383 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_3_46/ai_n29124601/ http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session8/ES/IRPP_UPR_ESP_2010_TheInstituteonReligionandPublicPolicy.pdf Here are 3 links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Spanish climate

Is it possible to revert the edits of Satesclop (13 september 16:37), and Deibid (13 september 13:53) ? These ones are not sourced. Thus, the first user is known for his frequent vandalism. The subject has been already discussed on the talk page.--Earth owner (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Stop it yourself, who do you think you are ?

  1. The Köppen classification is not an original research, but an academic source, the most used in the wiki
  2. The "continental mediterranean climate" that you cite above does not exist. It is a stupid invention of some wiki users, probably Spanish ones to make Madrid more "nordic" than it is. For Köppen, Madrid is simply Mediterranean (Csa).
  3. Burgos and Valencia have the same typical mediterranean feature: the dry summer. This last is enough to qualify a climate as mediterranean.
  4. Galicia has a variant of the Mediterranean climate, Csb in the Köppen classification. Because of the dry summer, like it or not, and whatever the Galician propaganda.

Next time, open some books about climatology before posting arrogant comments, Nordic wannabe...--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

    • Please refrain from such offensive comments, in fact I can se in them a clear agenda. I'm not a "nordic wannabe". In fact many parts of the world with real Continental Climate are further south than Spain. I come from a city that is 43º North, that is the same latitude as Hokkaido and Vermont... clear CONTINENTAL climate places as you see.
    • If you read so many books, then you should know that the climate of Valencia diverges greatly from the climate of Burgos. Koppen is not the only source, you know, it is great as a big scale reference... for the local climate is another thing. Mediterranean Continental IS Mediterranean, nobody denies that... but a different kind of Mediterranean. SOUTHERN Galicia has a Mediterranean Climate (Csb) , the same as Seattle... then compare that again with Valencia.
    • And you continue to ignore the Northern facade of the country... which Koppen acknowledges that has a pure OCEANIC (British) climate... see the maps. P.S Just in case, multinicks are not allowed in Wikipedia. David (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Milkcrawler, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The climate section should be changed. I see no source about the current classification. The changes that I propose are simply based on the Köppen climate classification :

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif

The map that I propose is this (I can't technically insert a legend) : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Climates_of_Spain.JPG&oldid=44590161

The text which should replace the current one is :


There are three main climatic zones:

  • The Mediterranean climate, characterized by dry and warm summers. According to the classification of Köppen, it is dominant in the peninsula, with two varieties : the typical Mediterranean climate (Csa climate), present in most of the country, and the Galician variant (Galicia and Northern Portugal), with summers less hot due to the proximity of the ocean (climate Csb).
  • The semi-arid climate (Bsk), located in south-eastern quarter of the country (including in the region of Murcia). In contrary to the Mediterranean climate, the dry season extends beyond the summer.
  • The Ocean Climate: Winter and summer temperatures ponderated by the ocean, and no seasonal drought. The typical oceanic climate is virtually absent from Spain. In some Galician hinterland, Basque and Asturian countries, it is essentially the "Aquitanian" nuance which appears, which differs from the typical type by hotter summers, and much stormy than in north-west Europe - Average July temperature of 21 ° in Santander, vs 16 °in Brest or Liverpool.
    • OCEAN climate? you mean OCEANIC climate of course. Where is your source for that? Koppen does not help in this case! 21ºC in July is between the normal boundaries of Oceanic Climate. Precipitation in the places you mention is about 2 to 3 times as much as in London, BTW. David (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from some wetter mountain areas, rainfall is low and water scarcity is a problem in much of Spain. Forest fires are a problem for all forests of the peninsula (with a link to Iberia nature :

http://www.iberianature.com/material/fire.html

    • Again inaccurate... the North is not just "wetter mountain areas". Bilbao (north coast): 1,200 mm per year. Madrid 500 mm.

Milkcrawler (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, David in the section above seemed to oppose this change. --Stickee (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I oppose this change and the current section is clearly referenced. Citing Koppen does not help, and citing Wikipedia as a source makes it worse... and above all despising other wikipedian's work as an invention doesn't help at all. David (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


"Please refrain from such offensive comments"

"You finally registered, welcome... and stop it!"...Please begin yourself by abstaining from giving orders to anyone...
Ordering to stop edit-warring is a normal thing here, get over it. David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Correcting false assertions is not an edit war, just an edit.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"in fact I can se in them a clear agenda"

Your personal intuition does not interest anyone.
Maybe you are wrong, you'd be surprised David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


"In fact many parts of the world with real Continental Climate are further south than Spain."

Wrong. Continental climates are essentially located in Russia and Canada. Both are northerner than Spain. But we are off-topic...
This shows your lack of knowledge about the world and the climate, but all this discussion shows that. You should be ashamed. Think USA, Climate of Colorado? 40ºN. You contradicy Koppen in this. David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's becoming boring. The average latitude of the continental climate is about 55°N. Nothing to do with Spain. And Colorado is rather Bsk (semi-arid).--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"43º North, that is the same latitude as Hokkaido and Vermont... clear CONTINENTAL climate places as you see."

Those places are the most southern continental ones in the half-northern hemisphere. Good faith, please...
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif
THEY ARE NOT!!! this is nonsense! see above please! VLADIVOSTOCK ANYONE??? BEIJING? NY? CHICAGO???? you self-destroy your arguments OMG David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Pff...See a map, and you will see that Hokaido is about the same latitude as Vladivostock, idem between Vermont and Chicago...--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"the climate of Valencia diverges greatly from the climate of Burgos."

Wrong. There is a little influence of altitude for the second, but fundamentally, they remain both Mediterranean because of their summer drought (monthly rainfall cumulation less than the double of the mean temperature in july and august).
http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=2331&k=cle
http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=8416&k=val
True but false, as I try to explain again and again. Where do I say that Continental Mediterranean is NOT Mediterranean? David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no "continental mediterranean climate. It's a Spanish invention.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"Koppen is not the only source, you know, it is great as a big scale reference... for the local climate is another thing."

The article is about the climates of Spain, not about the micro-climate of the southern slope of your garden…And the other sources say the same thing about Madrid : completely Mediterranean. It seems to annoy you.
Which other sources? not the ones I use...and again, Continental Mediterranean IS Mediterranean, this is pointless. You try to disregard a well stablished concept. David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Other sources ? Trewartha and Thornthwaite, for example. And the continental mediterranean climate is "well established" only in some Spanish blogs or amateur pages.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"Mediterranean Continental IS Mediterranean, nobody denies that... but a different kind of Mediterranean"

Wrong. Mediterranean “continental” climate is a pure invention which does not exist in any source. Madrid is Mediterranean, that’s all.
I give you sources, you discredit them... go on! this can go forever.David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Amateur sources are not receivable. A proof : Madrid has about the same temperatures and precipitations pattern as Orange, Marseille or Nîmes...which are typically Mediterranean cities.

http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=3195&k=mad

http://climat.meteofrance.com/chgt_climat2/climat_france?68377.path=climatstationn%252F84087001

http://climat.meteofrance.com/chgt_climat2/climat_france?68377.path=climatstationn%252F30189001

http://climat.meteofrance.com/chgt_climat2/climat_france?68377.path=climatstationn%252F13054001 --Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"SOUTHERN Galicia has a Mediterranean Climate (Csb) , the same as Seattle... then compare that again with Valencia."

Csb climate is Mediterranean like Valencia, because of the dry summer, the fundamental Mediterranean feature. And almost all Galicia (not only the southern part) is in Csb, excepted maybe in altitude regions. See the summer drought in the diagram of A Coruna.
That is not summer drought, you don't even know basic diagram interpretation. Criteria is less than 30mm in the driest month, but other variables are needed: sunshine hours, evapotranspiration, vegetation type... READ MORE!! David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You should give a source for the 30mm. From my side, I invite you to look at an example of a real academic source for the definition of the drought : the Bagnouls-Gaussen's index of aridity. A dry month is defined when the precipitations in mm are inferior to the double of the mean temperature. You will see that the most of Galicia has dry summers. There are other definitions, but the Gaussen's law has been adopted by Köppen for his classification.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"And you continue to ignore the Northern facade of the country"

You did not read me : “In some Galician hinterland, Basque and Asturian countries, it is essentially the “Aquitanian” nuance which appears.”
Yes, I read you... David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"which Koppen acknowledges that has a pure OCEANIC (British) climate... see the maps"

As I know, the word “pure” has never been used by Köppen. And since you want to refer to British isles, you should know that the south-western part of the oceanic domain is not “pure”, because of hotter summers : the mean temperature of july in Santander or Bilbao is the same as the south-western French coasts, about 20°C. Nothing to do with Britanny, Normandy or Northern England (about 16°C). So, the term “pure” is completely inaccurate for Asturias or Basque Country.
http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=1109&k=can
http://climat.meteofrance.com/chgt_climat2/climat_france?68377.path=climatstationn%252F29075001
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/blackpool.html
You just said that "pure" does not exist... so in Koppen's maps Plymouth is in the very same area as Bilbao is, that's what I meant. Nuff said. David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
They are both in oceanic climates, but not "very same". Since you have used the term "pure", you must admit that a city which is near the limit of the oceanic domain like Bilbao can't be qualified as "pure" like you have done (recall : the oceanic domain ends at the 22°C isotherm in july, Bilbao is more than 20°C, NW Europe is about 16-17°C).--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"P.S Just in case, multinicks are not allowed in Wikipedia."

My user name is Milkcrawler. Do with it.
As I said, welcome. It was just in case you know! David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"OCEAN climate? you mean OCEANIC climate of course. Where is your source for that? Koppen does not help in this case!"

?? Cfb in Köppen classification !
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif
you don't understand... it is OCEANIC climate, but Koppen does not help because he does not reference climates by name... Cfb is Cfb. Oceanic is not mentioned...OMG!! may be... only may be.. there are...other...climate...clasifications?? what a dismay! oh dear! David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Cfb and oceanic climate are the same.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oceanic_climate Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"21ºC in July is between the normal boundaries of Oceanic Climate."

I have never said the contrary. Santander is in the oceanic domain, but at the limit (humid subtropical climate begins with the 22°C isotherm of july), so it can't be considered as "pure" oceanic.
didn't you say that "Pure" does not exist? are we speaking about the same things?? David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
See above.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"Precipitation in the places you mention is about 2 to 3 times as much as in London, BTW. "

The amount of precipitation is not a criterion to distinguish the first-level climatic zones : in equatorial, tropical or humid subtropical areas, this amount is often as much high.
OK, never said other thing. AAAAND??? David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
...and the fact that the amount of precipitations in Galicia is higher than in London does not help in classification like you seem to suggest.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"the North is not just "wetter mountain areas". Bilbao (north coast): 1,200 mm per year."

You can struggle on details if you want. The fact is that oceanic zone like Basque Country is not concerned by the risk-zones of forest fires in Spain. In the contrary, the north-western forests of Spain, especially Galicia, suffer of fire forests as much as the other Mediterranean regions. Because of the summer drought, which is a typical Mediterranean feature.
Say wathever you want, that is true for the provinces of Pontevedra and Ourense, not for A Coruña and Lugo. That is not just "mountains" but coastal and inland areas.David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong for A Coruna, Lugo and Ourense (right for Pontevedra, but very limit due probably to local conditions). According to the Gaussen's law and the Köppen classification, almost all your examples have dry summers. It explains the regular forest fires in Galicia and the Spanish classification in the risk zones.

http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=1387&k=gal

http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=1505&k=gal

http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=1690A&k=gal

--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"Yes, I oppose this change and the current section is clearly referenced"

Neither "Iberia nature", nor "Meteored" are academic sources. They are just newspapers or amateur websites. Iberia nature can be a help to illustrate a point, but not a source to write an entire section. BTW, the edits which had been made by Satesclop and Deibid were nothing else than vandalism (no explanation of edit).
Meteored is not just an amateur site. Many of their members are workers from AEMET. And my edits are ALWAYS explained, as I have my accuount configured to be so. David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Meteored is not an academical source for the climate classification, that's all. And you did not explain your edit (the expression "more precisely" is not an explaination).

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Spain&diff=384583290&oldid=384575777

--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"Citing Koppen does not help"

He is just one of the most recognized sources in the world, more academic than your amateur links. Some other scientists could have differed of Köppen about the limits of some domains in other regions of the world, but not really about Spain.
Because you say so, nuff said. AMEN David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have academical sources, and not blogs or amateur websites, I will be pleased to read them.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


"Absolutely ORIGINAL RESEARCH and inaccurate, that is not based in Koppen"

Wrong.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif
http://www.tlchu.idv.tw/Teaching/%E6%B0%A3%E5%80%99%E5%AD%B8/%E6%B0%A3%E5%80%99%E5%AD%B8Demo/classification.files/koppen.gif
None of these maps are accurate, just because their global scale. Show me a big scale map where Spain is clearly detailed. Your map is a very rough and amateur interpretation where there are so enormous mistakes that anyone with knowledge about Spain would laugh in your face. Logroño is Oceanic? COME ON! Zaragoza????? The Ebro basin??? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHERE THESE PLACES ARE MAN? David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The Ebro basin is in Bsk in the map (I admit, with a too small circle, and should be circled with an orange zone). For the rest, yes, it is a simplified map, you won't find the climate of your village. But according to Köppen, this map is valid. Nothing to do with your map which contains an enormous mistake by using the single term "continental" for the Central Spain. And according to Köppen, Galicia has a variant of the Mediterranean climate due to the dry summers.--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


And if you have comments, please do not insert them in multi-paragraphs for the readability. --Milkcrawler (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy? David (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You're losing nerve, nordic wannabe. Wikipedia is not a white page for your desires.

--Milkcrawler (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

I have reverted wholesale additions of images, without edit summaries or prior discussion, by User:Venerock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Let us discuss these changes first. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i added that images [9] [10] , you right, i think too that first we need discuss before of making changes in an important article.

i think that should adding a festival image in spain article cuz is an important part in the culture of spain and its lifestyle, cuz that the tomatina picture is a festival famous in spain. The theatre roman picture cuz is more panoramic than the last, i think that is a better image cuz its see more the complex. And tapas picture cuz is too famous eating in all regions and mostly bars in all Spain. Cheers--Venerock (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
But you removed a picture of a football stadium from the sport section, you removed many other images. No edit summaries were provided, please discuss, one by one. And let other editors respond before going any further. Images are added to articles to provide encyclopaedic value, not just because they look good. Please read and understand WP:Image use policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
And for the fourth time of asking, please provide edit summaries when making edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Lets begin with tapas

Tapas is a type of gastronomy consumed around all coutry, in each town and city, with varieties in the regions, so i think that is more important in the spaniard society than some pictures of buildings or other pictures about arquitecture, that btw have too much of those pictures.

And ok, all images should dont deletes without discussing. I agree, but in just articles like this, in where has normally much contributors discussing in talk page, and no each long times--Venerock (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to rush, please await comments from other editors. It may take weeks or months. In the mean time, please provide a rationale for each image replacement, one by one. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Further I note that your addition of a picture of tapas removed an image of Camp Nou, the largest football stadium in Europe which is directly referenced in the article. As I have already mentioned images are not placed in articles merely for decoration. The policy is that they support materila in the text showing aspects that perhaps are not easily conveying prose. I see that Venerock failed to grasp this eseestial point judging by notices about wholesale image chnaging in many articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ould

Missing section

I think a section on the fauna and flora of Spain is missing. For example, Spain is one of the few countries in Western Europe having a sizeable population of wolves in Sierra de la Culebra, but where do you fit that in the article?Xufanc (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Eolic" Megawatt

How is an eolic megawatt different from a real megawatt? The text should either explain the difference or dispense with the extra word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Eolic means derived from the wind. I have added a wikilink. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Locked?!

Why the Dickens is this article locked?! This means we plebs can't contribute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.173.75 (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The page has been semi protected to reduce vandalism and inappropriate edits. I have posted further information about how to get a user account at your IP address talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Spain"?

While Spain is obviously a kingdom insofar as it has a monarch as head of state, the claim made in this article that Spain is "officially the Kingdom of Spain" does not appear to be the case in any legal sense, any more than Canada is the "Kingdom of Canada". The Spanish Constitution of 1978 (link) and subsequent laws refer to Spain as the "Spanish State", but never as the "Kingdom of Spain". The only source calling Spain the "Kingdom of Spain" I can find is the CIA World Factbook. Unless there are more reliable sources, I suggest we correct the article. The Celestial City (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This has already been previously discussed. Yes, the Constitution doesn't call Spain the "Kingdom of Spain", however, it doens't states any specifical official name neither (it doesn't have any entry, section nor article to define the official name of Spain, as it has,for example, for describing the official flag Art. 4.2). The term "Kingdom of Spain" (Reino de España) is widely used by the Spanish Government for national and international affairs of all kind, for example: Acuerdo entre el Reino de de España y Nueva Zelanda, Acuerdo entre el reino de España y el reino de Marruecos. It's a term also used by the press, as you can see in the most sold spanish newspaper El País. Also, it's a term used in all driving licenses and permissions. Additionally he Government always uses the name "Kingdom of Spain" when signing documents, treaties and pacts within the European Union: Tratado de la Unión Europea. Finally, it's a widely used term by the population in general, a quick search in google gives 1.180.000 results to "Reino de España". Therefore, "Kingdom of Spain" (Reino de España) it's a term not only accepeted by the population, but also used by the press, by the government in national and international affairs and in official documents.--Infinauta (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
So please, don't change anything. --Infinauta (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, ok. I would suggest that this information should be included in the article, to briefly indicate that "Kingdom of Spain" (Reino de España) has widespread de facto use, if not de jure. The Celestial City (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. I've included a reference.--Infinauta (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Still, this does not make the name official, as stated in the first line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.20.81 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, someone has already changed it and added some more references. I think it's rather clear now.--Infinauta (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Established

In 1516, Charles I is the king for two kingdoms. The union is now in a federal system (in current words). En 1715, Philip V and his centralism made in France reinforce the union around the monarchical power and a single administration. In 1812, the Constitution of Cádiz, liberal, introduces the concept of the "nation" modern in a liberal Nation State. And sorry, my english is bad.--Lopedevega111 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Arms versions

I agree, Piority for the official design for the Coat of arms, Check it at the sources. It's more important show the official arms, the quality of the image is also fine, SVG Format. User:Heralder Author of:

  • Coat of Arms of Spain (Acording Official Description but Unofficial Design)
    Coat of Arms of Spain (Acording Official Description but Unofficial Design)
  • Coat of Arms of Spain (Right Heraldic Design)
    Coat of Arms of Spain (Right Heraldic Design)

--Heralder (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Possible Origins of Celtic Culture

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO PUSH NEW HYPOTHESIS OF POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF CELTIC CULTURE!!! IF YOU HAVE A PERSONAL AXE TO GRIND, DO IT ELSEWHERE.

"Terrorist group ETA"

radical nationalist movement led by the terrorist group ETA.

The term "terrorist" is a contentious label, and most certainly does not adhere to neutral POV (see WP:LABEL). Advise rewording or striking the "terrorist" label altogether. Any objection? 184.56.233.7 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ETA uses bombs and guns to terrorise and ideologically defends its right to do so. Zapatero thought that being a nice chappie would change things. He has had to learn the hard way. In Franco's time, ETA had a plausible defence for such tactics but who can say that since then? It is a "terrorist group" because terror is one of its methods. Therefore, the "terrorist" adjective is quite objective in ETA's case. But perhaps I'm too simple minded for our sophisticated times.Provocateur (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree on this point. Most sources describe ETA as a terrorist group, see ETA and its sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The manual of style does make a good point about when Wikipedia should use the word "terrorist". I feel like a simple inline citation next to the word (pointing to an article such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559677/Eta-terrorists-demand-protection-money.html) would be sufficient, concise, and adhere to official policy neatly. What do you think? Technician Fry (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea.Provocateur (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


Archiving

I have added auto-archiving, 28 days minimum of 7 threads to remain on page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to Spanish Civil War article

It might be nice to include a link to the main article for the Spanish Civil War under the Spanish Civil War portion of the History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.90.190 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I have added a main article link. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Governance

Unless I have missed something I feel there should be a 'Governance' section with an arborescence of government from national government down through the autonomous regions, provinces,sub-divisions, municipalities, and civil parishes (lowest tier of local government), with a list of provinces. --Kudpung (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The climatic zones are completely wrong!

Someone should revisit the Climate zone information. Tha map attached as image is completely wrong. As reference get this http://portales.educared.net/wikiEducared/images/4/47/Zonas_climaticas_de_Espana.jpg or some other (the most part you find in literature is an average of this last map). As a second reason, I live in north Spain and it's the first time I hear the north-west corner (Galicia) has a mediterranen climate! You should put then England and Ireland as an example of mediterranean climate. This contradiction is present also in the fact that the rest of the north of Spain is known in the map of Wikipedia as an atlantic zone, which in fact has exactly the same conditions as Galicia, where oceanic influence is even greater. This is an aberration. It's also funny to see how the drawing of the Atlantic zone reaches Zaragoza, a semi-dessertic zone, or how Finisterre has the same zone than Salamanca. Funny, very funny information. Last, one photo of typical forest of Galicia http://www.nikonistas.com/digital/foro/uploads/monthly_10_2007/post-983-1191784933.jpg of course, pure Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.60.173.46 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The native forests of Galicia were, until a few decades ago, elm, oak, etc. The eucalypts were introduced for timber, from Australia, because they grow fast. They are an ecological disaster in Galicia, but the land owners don't care, they just want the timber. (By the way - eucalypts can live in cool and wet conditions.) Compare Coruna's climate with Melbourne's - the latter (where I live) has much hotter days than anything Galicia ever gets in summer, is much drier through the year and is surrounded by forests with probably the worst bushfire risk in the world, and yet it is rated as a mild "oceanic climate". I've personally seen bushfires in both Galicia and Australia, and the intensity of the Galician fires doesn't compare. If Melbourne is a mild "oceanic climate" (Cfb), then Galicia, bashed by Atlantic storms and prone to fogs, mists and drizzle, certainly is:
Climate data for A Coruña
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 13.1
(55.6) 		13.7
(56.7) 		14.9
(58.8) 		15.5
(59.9) 		17.4
(63.3) 		19.8
(67.6) 		21.8
(71.2) 		22.5
(72.5) 		21.5
(70.7) 		18.7
(65.7) 		15.8
(60.4) 		14.0
(57.2) 		17.4
(63.3)
Daily mean °C (°F) 10.4
(50.7) 		10.9
(51.6) 		11.8
(53.2) 		12.5
(54.5) 		14.4
(57.9) 		16.8
(62.2) 		18.7
(65.7) 		19.3
(66.7) 		18.2
(64.8) 		15.7
(60.3) 		13.1
(55.6) 		11.5
(52.7) 		14.4
(57.9)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 7.6
(45.7) 		8.0
(46.4) 		8.6
(47.5) 		9.4
(48.9) 		11.4
(52.5) 		13.7
(56.7) 		15.6
(60.1) 		16.0
(60.8) 		14.8
(58.6) 		12.6
(54.7) 		10.3
(50.5) 		8.9
(48.0) 		11.4
(52.5)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 128
(5.0) 		102
(4.0) 		79
(3.1) 		85
(3.3) 		80
(3.1) 		42
(1.7) 		30
(1.2) 		35
(1.4) 		68
(2.7) 		110
(4.3) 		114
(4.5) 		135
(5.3) 		1,008
(39.7)
Average precipitation days 17 17 15 17 16 10 8 9 11 16 17 18 171
Mean monthly sunshine hours 108 112 155 167 191 220 240 240 179 150 107 93 1,966
Source: World Meteorological Organization (UN),[1] Agencia Estatal de Meteorología[2]


Climate data for Melbourne
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C (°F) 45.6
(114.1) 		46.4
(115.5) 		41.7
(107.1) 		34.9
(94.8) 		28.7
(83.7) 		22.4
(72.3) 		23.1
(73.6) 		26.5
(79.7) 		31.4
(88.5) 		36.9
(98.4) 		40.9
(105.6) 		43.7
(110.7) 		46.4
(115.5)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 25.9
(78.6) 		25.8
(78.4) 		23.9
(75.0) 		20.3
(68.5) 		16.7
(62.1) 		14.0
(57.2) 		13.4
(56.1) 		14.9
(58.8) 		17.2
(63.0) 		19.6
(67.3) 		21.9
(71.4) 		24.2
(75.6) 		19.8
(67.6)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 14.3
(57.7) 		14.6
(58.3) 		13.2
(55.8) 		10.7
(51.3) 		8.6
(47.5) 		6.9
(44.4) 		6.0
(42.8) 		6.7
(44.1) 		7.9
(46.2) 		9.5
(49.1) 		11.1
(52.0) 		12.9
(55.2) 		10.2
(50.4)
Record low °C (°F) 5.5
(41.9) 		4.5
(40.1) 		2.8
(37.0) 		1.5
(34.7) 		−1.1
(30.0) 		−2.2
(28.0) 		−2.8
(27.0) 		−2.1
(28.2) 		−0.5
(31.1) 		0.1
(32.2) 		2.5
(36.5) 		4.4
(39.9) 		−2.8
(27.0)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 47.6
(1.87) 		47.3
(1.86) 		50.2
(1.98) 		57.3
(2.26) 		56.2
(2.21) 		49.2
(1.94) 		47.7
(1.88) 		50.2
(1.98) 		57.9
(2.28) 		66.2
(2.61) 		59.5
(2.34) 		59.2
(2.33) 		648.5
(25.53)
Average precipitation days 8.3 7.4 9.3 11.4 13.9 14.1 15.1 15.6 14.7 14.1 11.7 10.4 146
Mean monthly sunshine hours 279 228.8 210.8 168 120.9 108 114.7 145.7 171 195.3 210 232.5 2,184.7
Source: Bureau of Meteorology."[3]

I hope this kills off this stupid argument.Provocateur (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK.Learning now about Köppen climate classification I've read in some other discussion that this system develops "rare" clasifications in some zones, one of which is Galicia. In fact, although "ad verecundiam" is frequently used to deny any argumented attack to this system, the point is that Köppen calls a mediterranean climate one in which in the most drier month only rains less than 1/3 of the average rain in the wet seassons. Then, informed by some climate specialist from north Galicia, it happens that the data used by Köppen is taken at the capital city of each region of Spain, in this case Coruna. Near the Atlantic Ocean, these cities exhibit many fluctuations as a function of microtopography, which near the sea have more influence on the precipitations of a small region. So it's actually a problem of data, nowadays people say that if average data of each region is used Galicia-Asturias should have a clear "Cfb" tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.60.173.46 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is very inaccurate, this climatic map about Spain is wrong. Who did change it?!
Why La Coruña and Vigo have not oceanic climate, but Bilbao and San Sebastian have, this is nonsense! There is not that much difference between Vigo, Ferrol (Galician coast) with the Asturian and Basque coast. Even rain is a bit more constant in Galicia, fires are due to extensives eucalyptus plantations in Galicia, since these trees grow quicker than many others (this might be useful to produce wood). It is nonsense to cite Galicia (coastal Galicia, not inland Galicia) has another climate due to fires, since fires can be due to negligence. This map does not include Canarian climate, which is one more climate of Spain. So we have more than 3 climates!
Can anyone have a look at Cuenca, it is CsB. Is it much different from Burgos or Teruel? I don't think so. Also, this map does not include Cuenca area, which is pretty cold in winter, particularly at night, and the area around Teruel (CsB) as well. Anyone know Albacete has also a different climate, since temperatures can drop, they have low records close to -20ºC, same as Teruel. Could also be CsB, instead of CsA.
Whoever changed the map, did some mistakes!
Cannot mountain be called alpine climate, since it is the most popular term, aside mountain or highland climate.178.101.164.107 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnia and languages

I think you should check the ethnic groups, there is no "spanish" ethnia (basques, galicians, castillians etc. might be better) such as there is no unitedkingdomish or greatbritish ethnia. We should not confuse States (UK, Spain, France, USA) with ethnic groups (Basques, amerindians, celts). Also about languages, where you typed down recognized languages (catalan,basque,aranese,galician). They are all official, not just recognized, but castillian is official in the whole state. Aragonese and Asturian are also recognized but have no officiality or protection (Sabadelhe (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).

Protestant Christians as a percentage

Is there a reason why they aren't shown in the bar graph at the side in the religion section ? the section says they number over a million (which would be 2.5-3%) but they aren't shown. Also, who is represented by non religious ?Grmike (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)grmike

Edit Request Ethnicity information

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Renaming section Ethnicity in information box to Nationality or removal of this section. The sourced percentages provided are for citizenship and not ethnicity. Spain doesn't keep track of ethnicity nor does it define what it means to be an ethnic Spaniard. The information provided is false and misleading. See this talk page for more details:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Grondolf

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Ethnicity.2C_percentages_and_numbers_across_Wikipedia_articles

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Spanish_people#Number_of_Spanish_people_in_Spain --Grondolf (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Done by user. -Atmoz (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Population

Population is more than 46 milions, is 46.951.532 [4]

The link "Canarias" in the Urbanization section links to a class of battle cruisers. I believe that it should rather link to "Canary_islands". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.47.125 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Spain climate map is totally wrong according to Köppen climate classification because its more tropical

Köppen climate classification Climatic areas of Spain according to the Köppen climate classification

Spain has 5 climates, with Mediterranean contrasting 2 versions. Climates of Spain from the most common to the least common:

  • Mediterranean climate (most of Spain):
    • Hot summer Mediterranean Csa
    • Warm summer Mediterranean Csb (IMO Cuenca and Teruel surroundings are more like Csb, see climographs)
  • Oceanic climate Cfb (Most of Coastal Galicia, except a part in Northern Galicia -see Köppen map-, Northern Spain, and valleys of the Pyrenees)
  • Semi-arid climate:
    • Hot/Mild Semi-arid climate BSk (Southern Alicante, Murcia -excepting Segura basin???-, Albacete, Almería, Zaragoza, West Canary Islands)
  • Alpine climate ET/H (there are some mountain ranges missing, you could add altitudes above 2,000~2,500m in Spain=alpine climate. The 400m (southern plateau)~800m (northern plateau) of the Spanish Meseta slightly modifies the inland Mediterranean climate, but this is not alpine/mountain/continental but full Mediterranean climate (Csa or Csb) with some highlands influence (extremer thermic variations day/night and slightly cooler in winter than coastal mediterranean, whereas coastal areas exhibit milder contrasts/variations)
  • Arid climate:
    • Mild desert climate BWn (East Canary Islands, some concrete areas in Almería, as Tabernas Desert)

Can anyone see there are many mistakes on the map shown: Of course, Spain has 3 main climates -Mediterranean:Csa/Csb, oceanic:Cfb and semi-arid:BSk, in less proportion there are also alpine/highland and mild desert (like in Lima, Peru). Most of Galicia has oceanic climate (Cfb), precipitations are more constant than in León (Csb), so it is a mistake to classify it as Mediterranean when it is not, also Asturias, Cantabria, it doesn't make sense the Basque Country is oceanic and Asturias and Galicia are not. I suggest to remove the current climate map of Spain according to Köppen classification displayed on this article until you provide with a verified and veridic climate map of Spain.

One more thing, do you have any sources for this stamente:

"For some authors, Galicia presents an oceanic climate too, because of lower temperatures in summer than in the typical Mediterranean climate. Nevertheless, North-west Spain is often concerned by forest fires due to the summer drought, and has more shunshine duration than the typical oceanic regions."

Where are the references? If there are not references that prove this, this should be considered for deletion. 178.103.25.7 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


The source is here (german-austrian searchers) : http://www.schweizerbart.de/resources/downloads/paper_free/55034.pdf (see p.3). You can also find it directly here :

http://www.geographyalltheway.com/ib_geography/ib-extreme-environments/imagesetc/kottek_et_al_2006.gif

In fact, there have been several updates of the köppen-geiger classifications. The world Köppen's map that you are talking about is one update among others, but this last one has denatured the Köppen's work at least in the D domain (continental) by taking the average isotherm 0°C in the coldest month instead of -3°C, so its accuracy is questionable.
The difference between the plateau and the coastal areas is a nuance which exist in the Spanish litterature, but does not appear in the climates classifications (it remains Csa in the southern and eastern part of the plateau, Csb in the Northwestern part).
"Most of Galicia has oceanic climate"
Not according to sources, excepted maybe for some localized mountainous areas, due to the summer drough.
it doesn't make sense the Basque Country is oceanic and Asturias and Galicia are not."
Galicia has a dry season (in summer), hence Cs classification, while it is not the case for Basque Country (Cantambria is included in Cfb).
About the forest fires, you can find this (Spanish ZAR and other informations) :
http://www.iberianature.com/material/fire.html
This map is not perfect (mountains areas seem to be overrated), but it is probably the most academic and accurate that we can find. --Milkrawler (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
And what about Asturias? Why is it Csb? IMO there are not huge differences among the climates of Asturias, Cantabria and Basque Country (and also most of coastal Galicia). Compare climographs of A Coruña, Oviedo, Santander and Bilbao (West-to-East), what are the differences? (all have a drier season in summer). 178.111.189.136 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Technically, you are right about Asturias. But don't forget that those maps are simplified maps, and Asturias remains a small region compared to the other communities. You can send a message to the author of the map to prolonge the Cfb area to Asturias, but his map is according to official sources, so I don't know if it would be a good thing. You will never find a map with perfect areas, there will always be micro-climates.
About Galicia, once again, the dummer drought (especially in A Coruna) makes the fundamental difference with the rest of the northern coast.
"all have a drier season in summer"

"dry" and "drier" are too different notions. "Dry" is a technical and scientifical term which is defined by scientifical features (rate between temperature and precipitations, cumulation of Precipitations...), while "drier" indicates only a trend : in a lot of non mediterranean-climates,you can find drier trends. This is the case for the Cfb areas in summer, but also many continental regions in winter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkrawler (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tropical? That's a laugh. Obviously people who make such statements have never been in the centre of the country when half of it has been blanketed in snow. Spain is generally dry, but the whole northern Atlantic coast gets rain and drizzle for most of the year, and yes they do get three warm, humid, but low rainfall months in summer but the rest of the year is over cast and in winter it is normally miserably wet and cold. Most of the rest of the country could be classed as having a "Mediterranean" climate but that is such a broad definition, except for tourist propaganda (is that what's happening here?). Anyway, it is laughable that anybody could class any area along the northern Atlantic coast as having a "Mediterranean climate" just because it gets two or three months of very warm, dryish weather. Sometimes commonsense should over-ride systems, in this case, Koppen's.
PS- Have been talking to folks in Galicia and they're adament the climate has changed drastically over the last 30 years. Back then, if it didn't rain for two weeks it was big news, now they even get regular breaks of sunny weather in winter - which was almost unheard back then.

Then again, here's the climate of a city from southern Galicia:

Climate data for Vigo (Vigo Airport)
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 11.6
(52.9) 		12.9
(55.2) 		15.1
(59.2) 		16.1
(61.0) 		18.2
(64.8) 		22.0
(71.6) 		24.3
(75.7) 		24.2
(75.6) 		22.4
(72.3) 		18.5
(65.3) 		14.7
(58.5) 		12.3
(54.1) 		17.7
(63.9)
Daily mean °C (°F) 8.3
(46.9) 		9.3
(48.7) 		10.9
(51.6) 		11.9
(53.4) 		14.0
(57.2) 		17.3
(63.1) 		19.4
(66.9) 		19.4
(66.9) 		18.0
(64.4) 		14.6
(58.3) 		11.3
(52.3) 		9.2
(48.6) 		13.6
(56.5)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 5.0
(41.0) 		5.8
(42.4) 		6.6
(43.9) 		7.7
(45.9) 		9.9
(49.8) 		12.6
(54.7) 		14.6
(58.3) 		14.6
(58.3) 		13.6
(56.5) 		10.8
(51.4) 		7.9
(46.2) 		6.2
(43.2) 		9.6
(49.3)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 255
(10.0) 		219
(8.6) 		145
(5.7) 		148
(5.8) 		141
(5.6) 		73
(2.9) 		43
(1.7) 		40
(1.6) 		113
(4.4) 		215
(8.5) 		228
(9.0) 		298
(11.7) 		1,909
(75.2)
Average precipitation days (≥ 1 mm) 15 13 11 13 13 7 5 5 8 13 13 15 130
Mean monthly sunshine hours 113 116 176 184 217 269 296 281 205 154 109 90 2,212
Source: Agencia Estatal de Meteorología[5]

and one from a city in northern Galicia:

Climate data for A Coruña
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 13.1
(55.6) 		13.7
(56.7) 		14.9
(58.8) 		15.5
(59.9) 		17.4
(63.3) 		19.8
(67.6) 		21.8
(71.2) 		22.5
(72.5) 		21.5
(70.7) 		18.7
(65.7) 		15.8
(60.4) 		14.0
(57.2) 		17.4
(63.3)
Daily mean °C (°F) 10.4
(50.7) 		10.9
(51.6) 		11.8
(53.2) 		12.5
(54.5) 		14.4
(57.9) 		16.8
(62.2) 		18.7
(65.7) 		19.3
(66.7) 		18.2
(64.8) 		15.7
(60.3) 		13.1
(55.6) 		11.5
(52.7) 		14.4
(57.9)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 7.6
(45.7) 		8.0
(46.4) 		8.6
(47.5) 		9.4
(48.9) 		11.4
(52.5) 		13.7
(56.7) 		15.6
(60.1) 		16.0
(60.8) 		14.8
(58.6) 		12.6
(54.7) 		10.3
(50.5) 		8.9
(48.0) 		11.4
(52.5)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 128
(5.0) 		102
(4.0) 		79
(3.1) 		85
(3.3) 		80
(3.1) 		42
(1.7) 		30
(1.2) 		35
(1.4) 		68
(2.7) 		110
(4.3) 		114
(4.5) 		135
(5.3) 		1,008
(39.7)
Average precipitation days 17 17 15 17 16 10 8 9 11 16 17 18 171
Mean monthly sunshine hours 108 112 155 167 191 220 240 240 179 150 107 93 1,966
Source: World Meteorological Organization (UN),[6] Agencia Estatal de Meteorología[7]

You can see that for 9 months of the year the climate is very wet and for most of the year is relatively cool. This region is also prone to Atlantic gales in winter. It is stretching credibility to almost snapping point to call this a "Mediterranean climate"; the old description of a "mild maritime" is a better description. Climate classifications are far from perfect and the Koppen system has its share of faults. Describing the northwest of Iberia here as a "Mediterranean climate" may be what the tourist interest groups want but in a encyclopaedic article like this which is meant ot inform your average reader, who is not interested in the idiosyncresies of climate classificatory systems, is downright misleading. Best we choose a system that more accurately fits the local situation, probably the newer Trewartha climate classification system, which was developed to deal with some of the weaknesses of the ancient Koppen system.Provocateur (talk)

Your personal opinion of the quality of the scientific sources (especially the Köppen-Geiger one) does not interest the wiki, and is not a source. According to the sources, Spain is essentially Mediterranean, like it or not. The Csb area, due to the summer drough is Mediterranean too in the Köppen-Geiger updates (with a warm summer). Most of Spain, even in the meseta, is simply mediterranean, even for Trewartha.--92.161.15.22 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
MOST of Spain is "essentially" (in a broad manner of speaking) "climatically Mediterranean" (even when plenty have died of exposure on the Mesta in its normally dry (hence "med") winters). But the north coast, including Galicia is certainly not - and it isn't my opinion - that's what the Trewatha map itself shows, because in such circumstances the original nineteenth century Koppen system and its upgraded 20th century versions fail - that was the whole reason why the Trewatha was invented. Try Melbourne by way of comparison - much drier weather over the year and hot summers and yet its not. classified "Med".
Melbourne, Australia - allegedly 'cfb' under Koppen:
Climate data for Melbourne
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C (°F) 45.6
(114.1) 		46.4
(115.5) 		41.7
(107.1) 		34.9
(94.8) 		28.7
(83.7) 		22.4
(72.3) 		23.1
(73.6) 		26.5
(79.7) 		31.4
(88.5) 		36.9
(98.4) 		40.9
(105.6) 		43.7
(110.7) 		46.4
(115.5)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 25.9
(78.6) 		25.8
(78.4) 		23.9
(75.0) 		20.3
(68.5) 		16.7
(62.1) 		14.0
(57.2) 		13.4
(56.1) 		15.0
(59.0) 		17.2
(63.0) 		19.7
(67.5) 		21.9
(71.4) 		24.2
(75.6) 		19.8
(67.6)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 14.3
(57.7) 		14.6
(58.3) 		13.2
(55.8) 		10.8
(51.4) 		8.6
(47.5) 		6.9
(44.4) 		6.0
(42.8) 		6.7
(44.1) 		8.0
(46.4) 		9.5
(49.1) 		11.2
(52.2) 		12.9
(55.2) 		10.2
(50.4)
Record low °C (°F) 5.5
(41.9) 		4.5
(40.1) 		2.8
(37.0) 		1.5
(34.7) 		−1.1
(30.0) 		−2.2
(28.0) 		−2.8
(27.0) 		−2.1
(28.2) 		−0.5
(31.1) 		0.1
(32.2) 		2.5
(36.5) 		4.4
(39.9) 		−2.8
(27.0)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 47.6
(1.87) 		47.3
(1.86) 		50.2
(1.98) 		57.3
(2.26) 		56.2
(2.21) 		49.2
(1.94) 		47.7
(1.88) 		50.2
(1.98) 		57.9
(2.28) 		66.2
(2.61) 		59.5
(2.34) 		59.2
(2.33) 		648.5
(25.53)
Average precipitation days 8.3 7.4 9.3 11.4 13.9 14.1 15.1 15.6 14.7 14.1 11.7 10.4 146
Mean monthly sunshine hours 310 328.8 270.8 228 214.9 168 144.7 185.7 191 210.3 250 282.5 2,784.7
Source: Bureau of Meteorology."[3]

Vandalism

Spain is listed in Category:African countries. Please, remove Spain from this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippol (talk • contribs) 10:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That is because Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands, which are all part of metropolitan Spain are geographically part of Africa. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok.

Two little outposts on the North African coast make Spain an African country? Yet another case of commonsense missing in action. Do they now have Egypt listed as an Asian country because it controls the Sinai? Oh my gosh!!Italic text'Bold text

Actually, yes. Egypt is listed in Category:Western Asia, and Turkey is listed as both European and Asian - so at least WP seems to be consistent on this... Gabhala (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least the Sinai is a substantial, if rather empty, piece of desert land; though even then it seems a bit much to list Egypt as an "Asian" country. On the other hand the tiny colonial relics of Ceuta and Melilla on the coast of Africa can hardly be used to characterise Spain as an African country. Maybe we should list the US as a Cuban country because of Guantanamo.
Ceuta and Melilla are not relics from the colonial period. They are spanish cities since xv century, like, for example, Granada.
I know, I know, just trying to get a rise out of people because I think this mania for listing things like this in the wikipedia has gone way over the top. Could the USA be listed as a "Pacific Island country" because some of its territories are islands in the Pacific? Well, of course it could but honestly, is it really worth listing such a thing when we already mention details like this in the introduction of a country's article?Provocateur (talk)
I think all this listing should just be left to the categorizers, who seem to have their own good albeit arcane reasons for the things they do. The rest of us can just ignore it. AdeMiami (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.161.15.22, 10 June 2011

Is it possible to revert the Satesclop's edits about the climate of Spain ? The current map is not sourced, this user has been tagged as a sock of Diplomatiko, and has been already blocked several times for his disturbing edits (in this particular case, scientific references have been removed).--92.161.15.22 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

92.161.15.22 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} The history section incorrectly states that the "first known peoples of present-day Spain were the Celts and the Iberians." The first known peoples were the Basques. They are thought to have evolved from the Cro-Magnons who inhabited the area some 40,000 years ago. In contrast, the Iberians and Celts are thought to have inhabited Spain no earlier than about 800BC.

The Basque territory straddled the border of Spain and France, but some of their territory was (and still is) in Spain and the article should reflect that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.247.158 (talk)

 Not done - there's no mention of the Basque people during early Spain anywhere in the History of Spain article either, the earliest mention there being that the language was spoken during the 13th century. However, both articles are poorly-sourced in this regard - if you have a reliable online source to verify your claim, please post it here and re-add the {{edit semi-protected}} template, and I (or another editor) will change that entry. (Also, please add your signature on talk pages using "~~~~" in future - thanks a lot.) -- gtdp (T)/(C) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
well, first known people in current Spain were Atapuerca's ones, actually, not basques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocheneguer (talk • contribs) 11:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why there is no mention of the Queen of Spain in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelc101 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical mistakes

LITERATURE "The term Spanish literature refers to literature written in the Spanish language". This is not correct and shows up a political view which wikipedia should ignore. The term "Spanish literature" refers to the Spanish literature produced in Spain in any of languages of Spain (euzkera, gallician, catalan, castillian) . While "literature in Spanish" refers to all production in Spanish whatsoever the country of origin.

The word "people" is in itself plural. However, we can find a number of occurrences of the word "peoples" which is incorrect and misguiding.

Birupakhya.dash (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Biru

Well, actually you are wrong. Try reading this, this and this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. But as it is mentioned in the above references, the word "peoples" is used to signify the similar people of more than one country. In that aspect, the word "peoples" seems misplaced in a few places where the word is meant to denote only the nation of Spain. Birupakhya.dash (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Biru

Update

Please update Politics section, Rubalcaba is not the current interior minister, has been dismissed --Elmoro (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SyntaxStickler, 16 September 2011

please add missing parenthesis at the end of "Spain (Listeni/ˈspeɪn/ spayn; Spanish: España, pronounced [esˈpaɲa] ( listen)"

SyntaxStickler (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Marek.69 talk 01:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This statement in the economic section is, in my opinion, misleading:

However, the GDP per capita of Spain was still lower than the European Union average at US$29,875 in 2010, making it the second lowest in the Western Europe after Portugal.[86

1. Who defines Western Europe? 2. FOR 2010, PPP, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: GERMANY 36,081, UK 35,059 DOLLARS, FRANCE 33,910, SPAIN 29,830, ITALY 29,480, GREECE 28,496, PORTURAL 23,262.

SO, SPAINS IN TERMS OF PER CAPITA INCOME AT PPP (THE ONE PREFERRED BY THE UE AND MAJOR ORGNIZATIONS TO REFLECT THE ECONOMIC PURCHASE POWER OF CITIZENS)HAS NOT THE LOWEST OF WESTERN EUROPE AFTER PORTUGAL. STILL, SPAIN´S PER CAPITA IS CLOSER TO FRANCE´S OR THE UK THAN TO PORTUAL.

SOMEBODY SHOULD EITHER CORRECT IT OR PRESENT MORE INFORMATION FOR THE READING NOT TO OBTAIN A WRONG PERSPECTIVE.

CATTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ECONOMIC SECTION

This statement in the economic section is, in my opinion, misleading:

However, the GDP per capita of Spain was still lower than the European Union average at US$29,875 in 2010, making it the second lowest in the Western Europe after Portugal.[86

1. Who defines Western Europe? 2. FOR 2010, PPP, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: GERMANY 36,081, UK 35,059 DOLLARS, FRANCE 33,910, SPAIN 29,830, ITALY 29,480, GREECE 28,496, PORTURAL 23,262.

SO, SPAINS IN TERMS OF PER CAPITA INCOME AT PPP (THE ONE PREFERRED BY THE UE AND MAJOR ORGNIZATIONS TO REFLECT THE ECONOMIC PURCHASE POWER OF CITIZENS)HAS NOT THE LOWEST OF WESTERN EUROPE AFTER PORTUGAL. STILL, SPAIN´S PER CAPITA IS CLOSER TO FRANCE´S OR THE UK THAN TO PORTUAL.

SOMEBODY SHOULD EITHER CORRECT IT OR PRESENT MORE INFORMATION FOR THE READING NOT TO OBTAIN A WRONG PERSPECTIVE.

CATTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Second lowest" seems to be as an exageration. Portugal, Czechia, Slovakia, Greece...are probably lower.--Newuser0077 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that czechia and slobakia count as western europe. But where did you get that information CATTO? If its a reliable source it should be changed.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spain is neither a nation nor a country

To say that Spain is a nation or a country is absolutely incorrect, it is obvious that it is much better to say that it is a kingdom or a state. Could you correct this mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.51.27 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish constitution of 1978 says in the preamble: La Nación española (The Nation of Spain) http://www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/enlaces/documentos/ConstitucionCASTELLANO.pdf

Shaft96 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Overpopulation in Spain

The article does not have a section on overpopulation in Spain. The propagation of Obamamutants has caused the population of Spain to become even larger than Holland, without a corresponding increase in auto impounding services. Soon the population of Spain will be the equivalent of Africa however with more mutations/cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.251.157 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Democracy

In the section "Formation" say: "Constitutional Democracy 1878", Spain already had a constitutional democracy in 1873 and in 1931-1939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.158.16 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you referred to the 1978 Constitutional Democracy. It's true, but this section referred to the post Franco democracy approved by referendum in 1978. Shaft96 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we change the huge list of related article navboxes under one big "Articles related to topic"

using Template:Navboxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham naik (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC) --Shubham naik (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

the article is really helpful but is providing a false aspest of the religion;islam. the article quotes;

"Under Islamic law, Christians and Jews were given the subordinate status of dhimmi. This status permitted Christians and Jews to practice their religions as people of the book but they were required to pay a special tax and to be subject to certain discriminations."

the jews and christians could not be subjected to criticism and discrimination because it is highly permitted in islam and muslims are also permitted to stop any indivisual practicing any religion they like,muslims can preach them but not stop them. i request you to change the article as it provides misleading aspect of the religion, 94.5.239.185 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please detail the change you would like (the new text). Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Spanish - a language ? (In Spain)

In Spain the use of the word "espanol" (with a wave above the "n" for "nj" sound) is rarelly used term. El Castellano" is the most common way to describe the language whithin it's linguistical borders. Or just "Castellano" in areas with other language on the Iberian peninsula. Worlde wide spanish in not the same language. F.i. "a car" - in el castellano "un coche" but in (american) spanish "un carro". To and between tourists "espanol" (or "spanish") may be used, but not elsewise Boeing720 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What it's called in Spain is by the bye. In English it's almost universally known as Spanish. AdeMiami (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The unification of the crowns of Aragon and Castile

The article seems to be missing this information and establish a exact date to the de facto creation of emergence of Spain. 79.168.11.181 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs improvement

This article is quite poor and short, if we take into account it describes one of the most influential countries in the world, especially regarding its History. I suggest that it should be improved and further written, especially the section about History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.212.139 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Spain currently has an extensive article on its history at: History of Spain. This article is good as it is now. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Life expectancy and quality of life.

Spain is one of the countries with the longest life expectancy in the world. Life expectancy is a primary indicator of quality of life. I can see how these articles like to contain figures like per capita income and so on and tend to neglect this important indicator. I think it is more important than per capita income and other indicators and should be included in this article and other countries' articles. Actually according to Eurostats statistics Spain has the longest life expectancy in europe. I do not have the data from Eurostat, but you can consult other data banks.

See:


http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

VERDI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Calm down; turn off the capslock. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of fixing this. AdeMiami (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The most accurate balance in the world

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Yoktogram (YG) is septilium (10 at the 42nd power) grams. Scientist Adrian Bachold and his colleagues at the Catalan Institute of Nanotechnology, Barcelona, Spain were able to construct the most accurate balance in the world. She first weighed xenon atom, which weighs 1.7 yoktogram.78.2.93.78 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

History -Post Franco / Euro

It is stated that Spain shares the Euro with 15 other countries. The correct number is 16 though since the Eurozone has 17 members:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eurozone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.108.18 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Galleon Image

A 17th century galleon

1. There is nothing "vague" about an image of a galleon being used here. For 250 years it was the great galleons that held the global empire together; without them, that would not have been possible (see quote below) It also emphasis the important point that it was a seaborne empire. 2. This is NOT a history page, so the images are chosen as much for aesthetics as for information -

"The galleon evolved in response to Spain's need for an ocean-crossing cargo ship that could beat off corsairs. Pedro de Menéndez, along with Álvaro de Bazán (hero of Lepanto), is credited with developing the protypes which had the long hull - and sometimes the oars - of a galley married to the poop and prow of a nao or merchantman. Galeones were classed as 1-, 2- or 3-deckers, and stepped two or more masts rigged with square sails and topsails (except for a lateen sail on the mizzenmast). Capacity ranged up to 900 tons or more. Menéndez' San Pelayo of 1565 was a 900 ton galleon which was also called a nao and galeaza. She carried 77 crewmen, 18 gunners, transported 317 soldiers and 26 families, as well as provisions and cargo. Her armament was iron."p.100 Menéndez: Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Captain General of the Ocean Sea Albert C. Manucy, published 1992 by Pineapple Press, Inc Provocateur (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The information is paramount, and the image of a King of the significance of Charles I or a conquistador like Hernán Cortés or Bartolomé de las Casas or the battle of Lepanto or Philip II, etc. are more relevant than the drawing of a Spanish galleon.
This is not just a page of history, also has a quick introduction to the events and the most significant in the history of a country like Spain.--Alex320000 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
What part of this is DON'T you understand:1. There is nothing "vague" about an image of a galleon being used here. For 250 years it was the great galleons that held the global empire together; without them, that would not have been possible (see quote below) It also emphasis the important point that it was a seaborne empire.

To put it bluntly - the galleon was in its day the BACKBONE of the Spanish Empire. How unimportant is that! And ever since it has been a symbol of the Spanish empire in its "glory" days. It just also happens to be a very aesthetically pleasing. But aside from aesthetics, the image reminds the reader of a central fact about the Spanish empire - IT WAS A SEABORNE EMPIRE and it was by the galleons that it was sustained. One final point - this image has been here for several years now and nobody has taken offence and suddenly two people are now trying to remove it. WHY? And why don't you have the decency to have your own page?Provocateur (talk)

Calm yourself. Oh my goodness. No one is denying the fact that galleons were important about the Spanish Empire, but this page is merely a summery on Spain. Not its empire or history. The galleon image is not of a specific galleon of some great importance to Spain. It is a picture of an average galleon, The images present right now are of important figures specifically important to spain. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I virtually re-wrote or re-organised the whole history section myself! Notice that it lacks information on individuals and specific incidents? That was deliberate - I pushed that approach because it is the only way to get people to grasp a long and complex history in such a short space without drowning them in the events and personalities of that history. Before I re-worked it (over several years) it was pure confusion and downright ignorance. Of course I had to make many compromises with many others but I simply will not relent on this image. It is far more imformative about the nature of the Spanish empire than any mug shot of any king or soldier and it just happens to be beautiful as well. Provocateur (talk) in Spain there is a place called Madrid!
Article before making changes pictures yesterday it was simply deplorable and utterly superficial approach. Today it is still very bad, the worst among the major countries.
But reading you in the terms you discussed does not surprise me at all. It happens on wikipedia all time, stubborn and obtuse people ruin the work and good intentions of others more reasonable and wise.
Enjoy that ridiculous and insignificant image of the galleon, for ever and ever, mr. provocateur, your nickname is perfect for that nonsense picture and your small ideas. --Alex320000 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The image has been here a long time and suddenly you come along and think you can change everything as you like. You've already made a large number of changes, what's the problem with this image? Insulting somebody is not at all acceptable. Neither is sock puppetry. Provocateur (talk)

The galleon picture seems to me to be highly relevant. I have been aware of Provocateur's work on this article for a long time, and I've seen nothing I disagree with.AdeMiami (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from Kings

This quote En mis dominios nunca se pone el sol. In my Kingdom the sun never sets attributed to Philip II - may be a fine way to introduce a chapter in a history book on the Habsburg era or may be used in the article on that expression but is inappropriate here where it jars with this very brief (and necessarily shallow) introduction to Spain's history and is contrary to the encylcopaedic style we should aim at. It also comes across as straight out bragging which is not something we want to encourage. All empires are the result of certain conditions of their time, they come and they go thus; this is something to understand, not to brag about. Lrt's not set a bad precedent here. Keep the tone encyclopaedic, as intended by the wikipedia's founders. Cheers. Provocateur (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Recognised regional languages

Shouldn't Aranese and Valencian be added to that section of the infobox? --Cymru123 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Aranese and Valencian are dialects, not languages​​.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your views on whether or not they are 'languages', they are official in autonomous communities and should be included in the infobox. If you're using the dialect excuse, why is Galician listed, and not Portuguese, seeing as there's not a consensus on its status as a language? Wikipedia is meant to report fact, not point of view as to what constitutes a language.Valencian is an official language in the Valencian Community, and Aranese is official in Catalonia and this should be recognised. --Cymru123 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing is a dialect, and quite another a language. And Galician (Galego) is recognized as a language, not a dialect. The Valencian is a dialect, a way of speaking Catalan, which itself is a language.

This is an article about Spain, not about the Autonomous Community of Catalonia or any other, and the label says: Recognised regional languages​​ (by Spain); Languages, not dialects, no discussion possible. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The recognised regional languages in Spain are those recognised as co-official languages in autonomous communities. These are: Aranese, Basque, Catalan, Galician and Valencian. How have you determined that only Basque, Catalan and Galician are recognised languages? The Valencian Statute of Autonomy explicitly classes Valencian as a language:
  • Article 6 Section 1 states: "Valencian is the Valencian Community's own language"
  • Article 6 Section 8 states: "The Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua shall be the normative institution of the Valencian language"

Numerous articles also refer to Aranese as a language. See El Pais article here. If you do believe that Aranese is a dialect, why not put Occitan as a recognised regional language. By omitting Valencian and Aranese, you're essentially presenting a view point rather than the legal reality.--Cymru123 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The RAE (Royal Spanish Academy) does not recognize the Valencian like another language, but only as the way that Valencian people refered to Catalan language.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What has the opinion of the regulator of the Spanish language have to do with the legal position of Valencian, which is recognised in the Valencian Community as a language. It's a viewpoint rather than a legal reality. I don't want this to turn into a Catalan vs. Valencian debate. I'm purely stating that the 'recognised regional language' section should document what Spanish law dictates. Could you also take into account that I mentioned Aranese/Occitan too. --Cymru123 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The purported status of Valencian as an independent language is not accepted by linguists. Even the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua (the "Valencian Language Academy") clearly stated that Valencian and Catalan are one and the same language, even if both denominations are equally valid to designate that same language. [11]
Aranese is the Occitan dialect spoken in the Val d'Aran. One could argue then that Spain's recognized regional languages are: Basque, Galician, Catalan (also officially called Valencian) and Occitan. Yet, legislation is tricky in this sense. The constitution states that "all the other Spanish languages" (i.e. languages of Spain, aside of Spanish - or Castilian- itself), and please note that the adjective "regional" is not used, are co-official in the "autonomous communities where they are [languages] proper [to the community]. (or "own language", even though this translation of the term lengua propia is less Academic). Whether Occitan, in its Aranese variety, is a language proper to Catalonia, or rather proper to Occitania - which includes Val d'Aran - is a matter of interpretation. IMHO, though, Occitan (or Aranese) should be cited as a recognized regional language along with the other three.
-- dúnadan : let's talk 16:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The link you provided doesn't work by the way. I agree with Occitan/Aranese, it should be included. --Cymru123 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So which should be added, Aranese or Occitan? --Cymru123 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Bashevis6920 - I wish you'd discuss topics rather than changing my edits without discussion. I asked three days ago which should be added, no one replied, so I added Aranese (since that's what the Generalitat's website calls the language), then you changed it to Occitan. --Cymru123 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Aranese is a dialect. The language is Occitan. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You sound like a broken record and bring little to the debate. --Cymru123 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That's because I'm tired of seeing stubborn and ignorant people who think that Wikipedia is a leaflet for their political ideals.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, first of all, and if the template code allows it, the languages should not be called "recognized regional languages". "Recognized" is too vague. In essence, Asturias and Castile and León "recognize" the Asturian language, but it is not an official language in Spain. Same thing applies to the Aragonese language. This "recognition" is merely symbolic. The template should actually say "Co-official languages" which is the appropriate term used in legislation. Secondly, IMHO, the list should be shown as: "Co-official languages: Basque, Catalan (also known as Valencian), Galician and Occitan", albeit the latter linking to the Aranese dialect article. -- dúnadan : let's talk 16:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Independence of Americas and war of 1898

  • It is not the same.

--Santos30 (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Spain

The unification of the crowns of Aragon and Castile by the marriage of their sovereigns laid the basis for modern Spain and the Spanish Empire, although each kingdoms of Spain remain as separate countries, in social, political, laws, currency and language. --Santos30 (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • "Imperial Spain". University of Calgary.
  • Handbook of European History

The text says "the kingdoms of Navarre, Aragón and Catalonia", but in fact Catalonia was not a kingdom. It was (and still is named) a principality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.179.66 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a Kingdom, Catalonia is a part of the kingdom of Aragon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.57.203 (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Weather Information for Coruna".
  2. ^ "Valores Climatológicos Normales. A Coruña".
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bureau was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ http://www.ine.es/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |título= ignored (|title= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Valores Climatológicos Normales. Pontevedra - Vigo / Aeropuerto".
  6. ^ "Weather Information for Coruna".
  7. ^ "Valores Climatológicos Normales. A Coruña".
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spain/Archive_6&oldid=1169126750"