Talk:Spain/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Muslim Iberia

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

I put that in. Zaragoza, in the heart of the Ebro river valley, was under Muslim rule from the early eighth century to the early twelth century - 4 centuries! - plenty of time for a large Moorish population to grow. Indeed, so important a Muslim centre did it become that it broke off to be the capital of its own independent Muslim (taifa) kingdom, centred in the rich valley - surviving long after other northern Muslim controlled areas had fallen to the Christians.
That means nothing. Most Muslims in Iberia were local converts! The Ogre 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

- Eventually.

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

Spain and the 21st Century

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


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

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


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


11M

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

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

This part of de article is not neutral.

84.123.205.143 00:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Murcianese?

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

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

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


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


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

borders

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

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

PLEASE!

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

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


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

Spanish Translation of Spain/Kingdom of Spain

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

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

Religion in Spain v. Netherlands

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

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

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

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

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

anarchists in the civil war

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

Official languages

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

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

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


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

Spains History

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

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

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


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

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

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

Spain Close Up template

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

Spain Close Up
Language
Grammar · Phonology
Instituto Cervantes
Real Academia Española
History
History of Spain · Spanish Kings
Crown of Aragon · Crown of Castile
Nueva Planta decrees · Spanish Empire
Geography
Spain · Communities · Provinces
Government and Politics
Spanish Government
Spanish Constitution
Politics of Spain
Traditions
San Fermín · Holy Week · Falles · Flamenco · 
Moros y Cristianos · Bullfighting
Myths and legends · Cuisine · Culture
Arts
Literature · Cervantes · Lope de Vega
Generation of '98 · Generation of '27
Salvador Dalí · Pablo Picasso · Francisco Goya
Architecture · Cinema · Music
This box: view • talk • edit

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

Maurice27 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting - are other countries getting this template as well? EspanaViva 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the template intended to leave aside any pre-1492 history? I reckon there should be links for Al-Andalus and Hispania at the least in the history section. Your thoughts? Asteriontalk 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's my initial reaction - I like the concept a lot, but I'm concerned about clutter. Are there going to be so many boxes on the tops of these pages, that no one is going to find the content!
Here's a thought - take a look at the U.S. State's similar boxes (say, New York) - they're horizontal in format, and sit at the bottom of the page. Also, are other countries going to get these? How are they handling the format/clutter question? EspanaViva
This template is just an idea I had. I just included what I thought would be most representative. It is true that Hispania and Al-Andalus SHOULD be included as they are 1/2 of our Era. But I thought that would make this template too big. If there is a concensus or ideas which people would like, there is no problem for me to add them. Anyone can if they wish. I will also give a try to the horizontal one which I will post later. Regards, Maurice27 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Template:Spain Close UP 2

Any ideas? Regards, Maurice27 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I like it, and I think that you're getting closer! I have some "tweaking" ideas, but I'd like to wait to see what others think. If you don't mind, I think that this discussion should also be taking place on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spain page, where there are a number of other active editors who might want to say something. I'm going to post a summary of this discussion (and include your sample) there. EspanaViva 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree,its great,,by what I see it lacks nothing'!You should do it more, you are a great artist at Wikipedia!Oh by the way, I put up both templates. Trampton 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia

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

I agree with your proposal, and it would seem to make sense, but I reckon that there should be some kind of signpost link to redirect so that if anyone looking for archeological finds in prehistoric Spain, for instance, doesn't draw a blank and come away thinking what a washout the whole thing is. I'm sure Wikipedia already contemplates these things, but have no idea as to how to go about it. Be interested in more feedback on the proposal to merge. Regards,--Technopat 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't already done so, may I suggest that you also post a Rfc on the WikiProject Spain and WikiProject Portugal pages. I think that you will also find some useful opinions there. EspanaViva 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Sleepy time

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

That was true, even though is getting less common. Still, one thing has not changed and are the crazy operation hours, usually from 9 to 13:30 and again from 16 to 20hrs. However, these may be based as much in the siesta (the short nap time) as in the bad economic situation after the civil war, which made people have to strive for two part time underpaid jobs for which the break in between was necessary in order to commute etc.
I agree it may be interesting, but I just don't see this info fitting in the Spain main article. At least I don't know how to fit that myself. Mountolive | Talk 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there's nowhere in the current article where this phenomenon really fits. It may be an interesting tidbit, even as the practice is waning as Spain further integrates into the European economy, and is affected by globalization generally. I also would be concerned about perpetuating any stereotypes of the time-oblivous Spaniard (like the equally offensive image of the sombrero-wearing Mexican sleeping with a zarape next to a cactus). I guess I don't think it's really that important for the article, but wouldn't be opposed to a reference to the unique working hours traditionally kept in Spain if it is done appropriately. --Anietor 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree too. I'm not sure how unique the horario is, but it's certainly noteworthy. Considering this and other 'quirks' of Spanish life, wouldn't a short section on Culture be a good idea? Works nicely over in France.--mikaul 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

North America as a region of America (continent)

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

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

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

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

Is there a reason you put this comment on the Talk Page for Spain? A talk page is to discuss improvements to its associated article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please justify, or it should be removed. --Anietor 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is also important that voters from the parts of the world where the America as a single continent is taught, express their free opinion and vote. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a good initiative from your part Alex. However, and according to Talk page guidelines we must Keep on topic. Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)