Talk:Spain/Archive 1

message: the picture of Franco should be deleted, would be the same as if pictures of Hitler in German Article takes place or Pol Pot in Cambodian article, or is Spain still proud on Franco?
:Who said anything about Spain being proud of Franco?  Franco is an important figure in Spanish history; thus, he should be mentioned here, and mentions of him should not be whitewashed. - jredmond 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Franco 

message: According to some statistics at least 500000 to 600000 work legally or not in Spain, a lot of them have given residency status, they can integrate very well since the romanian language is a latin one like spanish.
There are really a lot of Romanians in Spain, but not only Romanians. Spain has received more than 700.000 immigrants in 2005, having the highest rate of immigration in the European Union. Thanks to this Spain has reached 44 million people in 2005, which is a blessing since Spaniards do not want to have babies anymore. Many of these immigrants come from North Africa and South America, and Also from Eastern and Northern Europe. An interesting case is the British. There are about 225.000 British residents, according to the official census in Spain, but this figure if very far from the real one, because most British immigrants do not register when they live in Spain. According to the British Foreign Service they are close to one million, probably making them the biggest group of immigrants in Spain. Years ago they came to Spain to retire, and many continue to do so, but now most of the newcomers are between 30 and 50 years old. There are also many Germans in a similar situation. Still, if considered together, South-Americans are the biggest group, Morrocans being the second biggest group according to the official Spanish statistics. I am Spanish and they are all welcomed. Immigrants are always ready to work the hardest and they will certainly boost the Spanish economy.
:After the latest statistics there are 1,000,000 romanians that work in Spain. --Bombonel 09:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOW MANY ROMANIANS ARE WORKING IN SPAIN ??? 

message: :::: There were no questions about language because the government transmitted an image of Spain which did not correspond to what people really felt. Franco fall just short of denying that Catalan, Basque and Galician existed: in fact, his government sometimes called Catalan and Galician dialects, which is linguistically absurd: Catalan is mainly related to languages outside Spain (Occitan) and Galician is related to Portuguese. Franco never said Basque was a dialect because it would be just plain stupid, Basque being some millenia older than Spanish. Marco Neves 02:58 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves
:::::It is linguistically wrong to call Catalan and Galician 'dialects', but not absurd.  They are extremely close to Spanish — far closer than the various dialects of Chinese.
:::::: As far as vocabulary is concerned, Catalan is closer to Italian than to Spanish. And Galician is definitely closer to Portuguese than to Spanish. Boraczek 13:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Language issues

message: :::About the validity of "Spain", I think it is like "Italy". Certainly, 16th century Europeans knew that somebody was Italian, even though there wasn't a political unity until  1830?  The same with Spain. I presume that the Portuguese fought against the evil Spaniards, not the Castilians, Galicians, etc. The same about the Americas, though the heavy weight was on Castile (in a late sense), the colonisation was by "Spain" (at least after the early stages). 
::::Not quite as Italy... 16th century Europeans used the word "Spanish" to include all Iberians, not only those in present-day Spain. Camões, the great Portuguese poet, said "Portuguese and Castilians, we are all Spanish", something that would shock any present-day Portuguese. Portuguese do think Spaniards to be their great enemies, but only retrospectively. Until 16th/17th century, Portuguese people distinguised between the various Iberian peoples, being Castilians the enemy and, for certain periods, Catalans the ally (Portugal, England and Catalonia were alies for some time, which is proved by the importance of Saint George for the three people). The term Spain has gone trough more or less three stages: (1st) Spain was a geographic labelling, meaning Iberia and a utopian project of uniting all Iberian peoples under the same king; (2nd) in 1580 all Iberians came under the same authority, in a loose confederation of kingdoms and statelets when Portugal was inherited by Philip II - some years later, the Count-Duque of Olivares started the foundations of a centralist state: that was the moment when Spain began meaning a unified state, acquiring political meaning beyond utopian desires. (3rd) When Portugal recovered independence after 1640, "Spain" kept that political meaning, and only then did the present-day configuration of Spain take shape - more specifically, it was inscribed in law when the Decretos de Nueva Planta abolished the independence of the Catalan-Aragonese part of the Spanish Crown, creating what Olivares had dreamt (and, before him, many Castilian and Portuguese kings), but without Portugal. I don't deny that the term was used by Castilians before 1580 to describe their state, but only sporadically, not following popular use and bearing always in mind the project of unifying Spain (latin Hispania, all Iberia). So, we can say Spain was a political project of Castilian kings which resulted in a truncated version of the first project: Spain never fully achieved its unification, since Portugal managed to remain independent. To speak of Catalans in the 14th/15th century as Spanish and common enemies of Portugal is an anachronism. Marco Neves 14:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves
:::::But I'd say that in 16th century and later the feeling greatly changes. -- Error 02:38, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the validity of "Spain"

message: :::I think most of the current borders have some of arbitrariness. Had the things gone different in the War of the Hundred Years or Satsuma or..., we could have the Royaume Unie de France, Angleterre, et Ecosse, a Christian Japan  and a Shinto one, or one Great Colombia and several small Brazils. But, those events happened and certainly had some effect on reality. -- Error 04:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::::Yes, all those events had an impact on reality, but in the case of Spain, political unification didn't mean the unification of people's hearts. For instance, France and Italy are unified nations, in spite of beginning as groups of nations; for same reason, Spain didn't achieve such homogeneity, in spite of all the efforts of central governments. But, of course, Spain do exist, a Spanish State is a reality and many people feel Spain to be their nation, with all legitimacy (with the same legitimacy as Portuguese have the right to feel themselves a nation and, for that matter, Catalans). Marco Neves 14:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves 
:::::Some Corsicans, New Caledonians and Padanians wouldn't agree with you. Sicily had  chances for independence after World War II (Mafia-style independence, probably)
::I would also like to add that it's disgusting that some people just can't understand that these questions are to be discussed in forums like this one and go on killing innocents to achieve some kind of ethnic Basque state (and it is also a pity - but not a crime! - that the Spanish government insistently tries to link every independentist in Spain with terrorism...). Marco Neves 02:43 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)ps: sorry for the confusing text...
:::Hug? Nationalists and Independentists can run for free elections in Spain. In fact, there are now nacionalist governments in Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia. Terrorist are others, and spaniards know this...
Is Gibraltar autonomic? Talous 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders

message: I reworked the history section and found a number of problems to discuss/fix:
* The original peoples of Spain (Iberos in Spanish) should probably called Iberians, but this links to a Caucasian region. We need a good disambiguator to fix this. 
** We need to mention Tartessos
** A look at Roman accounts of the conquest of Hispania will provide a partial list of tribes still existing around the 2nd Century BC. This includes at least Lusitania and Numantia.
More later.
Miguel 03:30, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
*** Didn't Spain practice some kind of communism in the past? I will suggest we briefly mention about it under the economy section
Hello, was anything happening in Spain between 300 and 800?  Yes, Germanic rule.  I don't feel qualified to write this, but that's a huge hunk of history to leave out.  The history as it stands here looks like the Muslims took over from the Romans, which, well, it's a little like people hunting great dinasours.  --Zachbe 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zach, You're right. Vandals#Iberia, Visigoth#Visigothic Kingdom in Iberia, Recceswinth, Orosius, Isidore of Seville and Roderick. If you can try to merge some of the contents of these articles with Spain that would be great. I am just being busy for the time being. Cheers -- Svest 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The wikipedian
I fixed the following issues:
-missing info about the gascon language (aranese)
-Spain has four climate zones, not one
-moved the initial paragraphs to a new introduction section
-moved some text from the political issues to territorial claims
-renamed autonomous comuntities to administrative divisions to include provinces.
-Castilian is the offical name for spanish in Spain. It is prefered, therefore Castilian should be used in all article instead of spanish .
:I don't really agree with this, as Spanish is the name of the language in English and Castilian is the name of a particular dialect of Spanish which is not even spoken on all of Spain. The use of castellano versus español is not even clearly delimited in Spanish, and different liguistic and political considerations have to be taken into account in each instance.
:The choice of castellano in the Spanish constitucion is to be able to call the other languages of Spain lenguas españolas. 
:I would therefore advocate using Spanish for the language, Castilian for the dialect of Castilla, and languages of Spain for Spanish, Basque, Catalan and Galician.
:Miguel 23:44, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)
----
Well, I did replace castilian to spanish after a similar discussion in talk:Spanish Language. Though, I still find strange that the english language considers castilian dialect and spanish the language. 
:TheWikipedian
The national language is called 'Spanish' in English, or alternatively 'Castilian' if contrasting with the other languages of Spain, or when talking about the middle ages.  What is the 'Castilian dialect'?  If you mean dialectalisms of Castile such as laísmo, then say so.  If you mean standard Spanish, then say so.  Catalan, Basque etc. are languages of Spain. —Chameleon 13:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More issues fixed and the castilian/spanish language

message: There is no point to include the data from the CIA World Factbook in the religion section. The info from the CIA World Factbook is clearly wrong. It is not true that 94% of Spaniards are catholic. If an official Spanish poll in 2002 (performed when the right-wing and pro-catholic PP party was in power) says that 80% of Spaniards consider herself as catholic, it is clear that this value is closer to reality than 94%.
If you want to say that 94% of Spaniards are baptised, maybe I would accept the deal.
:I went in and added data from the latest CIS poll (someone had already done that, but I rearranged stuff a lot). I think the best readability is achieved by writing running test at the top avoiding statistics as much as possible, and then conclude with detailed statistics. — Miguel 15:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answering to 158.42.184.155, Catholicism is more like a tradition here in Spain than a deep personal belief.  It has nothing to do with what you'd find in other countries.  People only go to Church for the great celebrations, marriages and the like.  It may have something to do with coming from a very repressive religious background, with Franco and so on.  I think that if you wanna see how many real catholics are in Spain, you should see the stats for people who've had their confirmation.  The numbers are stunningly low.  Raystorm 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I would like to make a link to the spain article from wikitravel. How I make this?--Pz-engl 19:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it for you. You just have to add a "" tag, preferably in the External Links section. The link is automatically generated. =] – Kaonashi 01:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to wikitravel 

message: The paragraphs of Culture, Rankings and templates have disappeared. Could anyone repair this? --Waninoco 09:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the article has disappeared!!! 

message: Removed vandalism---68.81.105.166 23:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: There are statistics that are saying that there are 1,000,000 people in Spain.
:We'll be glad to have those statistics. If you have them, share them with us. -- Svest 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense Martin. What doesn't make sense is that 5% of Romanians are living in Spain alone! I am not sure if the IP that introduces this claim is doing that in good faith or just applying vandalism. -- Svest 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,000,000 ROMANIANS in SPAIN

message: It has been noted that there are a few wikipedians from the Spanish version sharing their knowledge here with us. This is a good example. I'd just ask for help at Spanish portal if possible. It's badly maintained and I've been asking for help since a couple of weeks now. I must say the Spanish portal in the Spanish Wikipedia  is awesome and I'd love to see the same here. -- Svest 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-Wikipedians

message: Guys! Please use the talk page to resolve your edit warring. I am afraid this article would get protected as well as other consequences. Cheers -- Svest 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Is there a special reason why this article has its own infobox, which just uses  in turn, anyway? We're currently standardizing all country articles to use the latter, but I want to clarify first whether there's a special reason for the anomaly. Cheers!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since noone said anything to the contrary up to now, I substed the country-specific template. If there is opposition to this for whatever reason, it would be appreciated if you discussed this before simply reverting. Thanks!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: It is not possible to locate the first dataset in the Minorities section, and it is unclear what the data given are. Presumably, they are from municipal registrations -- but these data are definitely overestimates are there is no mechanism to deregister people. if they change municipality or leave Spain. I have added the latest data for residence permits, which clearly are a minimum figure but more reliable. THe author of the section with the larger numbers should provide a working link and explain what the data are, otherwise they need to be removed. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical data link 

message: What is the population of Muslims and Jews in Spain today? Islam was once Spain's predominant religion, and Judaism was also popular, but now all I know is that most all Spaniards are Roman Catholics. Can anyone help? Stallions2010 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually 14,000 Jews in Spain, they were only allowed back in the country in 1868, see History of the Jews in Spain. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and Judaism 

message: EDITORS SUCH AS MARCO NEVES AND MO0 CHANGED MY ARTICLE BECAUSE TO THEM I changed it to much... This article needs to be shorter it is to long i know because I added most of the pics on this article. I also downsized France with no problem yet these editors keep on putting it back to the long abnormal 65 kilobyete size while my short, neat article was only 31 kilobyetes long(the normal or average for a wikipedia article) I am not a vandal I improved the article and made it shorter, it does not need to be that long. If anyone has a brain out there please help me restore what I put I am 24.49.248.115. I made the article readable and organized it I mean who wants to read an article that is that long I mean you get bored right? Take articles like Denmark its short, sweet and perfect. This article is more like the article of France, in which I fixed and made it better. Now the article of France is organized and NORMAL so please help me anyone and tell hgafak.
:First of all people will be more inclined to take you seriously if you have a username and sign your posts on talk pages. Secondly, if the article needs to be shorter then standard practice is to split sections off into sub articles (e.g. History of Spain) and leave a summary of it on the main article with a link to the more detailed article. Thryduulf 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARTICLE POLICY PLEASE SOMEONE HELP 

message: It is mentioned in article that 
Islam restricted the ability of Muslim rulers to tax other Muslims, making it financially advantageous for a ruler to have non-Muslim subjects.
I think it is negating the tolerance of ISLAM against other religions. 
There are two systems in Islam for taxing.
Zakat -- for muslims 
The payment of zakât is obligatory on all Muslims. In current usage it is interpreted as a 2.5% levy on most valuables and savings held for a full year if their total value is more than a basic minimum known as nisab (the value of 3 ounces of gold). At present, nisab is roughly US $1,300 or an equivalent amount of any other currency.
Jizya -- for non muslim subjects
The technical meaning, is a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. 
In return the non-muslims were exempted from the military service. Their protection becomes the responsibiliy of Muslim state and soldiers at front.
The amount of Jizya in spain were set at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.2 Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt from it. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy.
Calculations
Please note following
1. All the muslims have to pay 2.5% tax on savings, if they are by todays standard is over 1300$ per year. In current days only homeless people have less than this amount of money saved in one year for Americans/Europeans. Spain in those days by all means an attractive place for working.
2. Only Male Non-muslims with reasonable income were supposed to pay Jizya. Current day average Arabian curreny costs about 0.4 - 0.6 US Dollar. 
3. Over a saving of 1300$ (minimum taxable amount) a muslim is paying 32.5 $. 
   And in spain days richest pays 48 units of Arbaian currency. 
   It makes it 48*0.6=28.8 US $ for richest non-muslim.
Conclusion
From here one can compare the output of taxes if the people were forced to accept Islam. By no means a Muslim government can generate more taxes from the same number of non-muslims. 
So,
Conversion of non-muslims to muslims was never been a subject of financial issues. It is a matter of propagating the oneness of God and creating the societies in accordance with the purpose of creation of humans. 
MOreover, Forcefull conversion of subjects is prohibited in Islam and they never did it'''
Muslim Spain sounds alot like Modern Israel... Spanish Christians were treated in the same way as muslims are treated now over there! Anyone else sees the similarity?
I'm editing to point that Iberian Peninsula consists of Spain, Portugal AND Andorra. So, Spain is the largest of the THREE countries that make up the Iberian Peninsula.
I hope I'm not doing anything wrong.
--Danielmachin 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coversion to Islam -- Wealth issues -- Correction requested 

message: Not a single line on massmedia, television, newspapers?!?!?! I know nothing about the matter but I wanted to read about it. Mackan 16:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media?` 

message: I understand the pluri-linguistic realities of Spain.  However, this does not change the fact that the name of the country is officially only the "Reino de España," not "Regne d'Espanya" or any variant thereof.  In addition, the language table must be altered, as Spanish is the sole official language nationwide, with (and rightfully so) the local languages being co-official.  As it reads now, it makes is seem like Galician, Catalan, and Basque are equally co-official throughout the territory.
Eboracum 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the country 

message: The current version of the article claims 1492 as the date of Dynastic Union of Spanish kingdoms, but... What happen in 1492 (apart of Columbus voyages)? I mean, the future Catholic Monarchs got married in 1468; Isabella was crowned Queen of Castile in 1474 and she winned the Castilian Civil War against her nephew Joan in 1479; Ferdinand was crown King of Aragon also in 1479 and was proclaimed regent of Castile in 1506; finally, he also took the title of King of Navarre (last independent state in modern Peninsular Spain territory) in 1513. So, why 1492?--Menah the Great 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynastic union 

message: Why somebody has changed my addition about intelligence? Is widely agreed that Spanish people have subaverage intelligence and are brute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.127.135.211 (talk • contribs) .
:Please cite verifiable sources. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What possible evidence could there be.  The insinuation is not only racist, but for lack of a better word, retarded. Eboracum 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTELLIGENCE: My modification has been reverted w/o expalantion 

message: There's a discussion going on at Talk:United States about what to call residents of the United States in English.  Being American, I think you should call them "Americans".  Yes, I know there are good reasons to use the phrase "Estados-unidenses" in Spanish but there isn't a good translation of that phrase into English.  Thoughts?  If you don't think this is a good topic to be discussed on this Talk page, feel free to reply on my Talk page.
--Richard 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know this isn't directly related to the Spain article but I'm curious... 

message: It is suggested on this page that there are as many as 80,000 Jews in Spain. I think this is extremely high as an estimate. Anecdotal evidence experienced by myself and www.adherents.com suggests no more than 14,000 Jews in Spain. The article should be changed.Disevitt 10:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Religion in Spain starts off with, "Today, a few thousand Jews live in Spain", then goes to say "Jews in Spain was estimated at about 13,000". It appears to be quoting the Library of Congress, but I cannot find a verifiable source. Unless this statement can be amended with a reference it should be removed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Jews in Spain 

message: In a semi-presidential system, you got the President and then you have the Prime minister as in the case of France. You may also have the monarch and than the Prime minister as in the case of the UK/Britain and Spain. True that spaniards call it President but that is politically innacurate. Spain has a prime minister (not a president) and a monarch. Spaniards mean by that the President of the gov't (as a head of state) and not the president of the country. -- Szvest 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: President / Prime minister

message: Someone whose name I don't remember has recently asked for source citations in the figures about religion. While I support his petition, I don't think those figures are, as he stated in the edit summary, contradictory: they just need capitalizing. 40% of people believe in God (that's the Christian God), while 16% of people do not believe in any god (that's any kind of religion). The other 44% of people could believe in Allah (which, by the way, is Arab for "God"), Zeus, Odin or whatever. So the figures are not contradictory. Habbit 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory figures?

message: to what im lead to believe is that the name of Australia actually originated with the spanish. is this what is taught in Europe? I believe that Quiros came with the name of Austrialia del Espiritu Santo for an island he landed on which he thought was the great southern continent (present day Australia) in 1606.
Though it is thought that his chief pilot Luis Vaez de Torres sighted Australia when he travelled through the Torres straight - the torres straight is named after him - also in 1606.
see
http://www.namingaustralia.org.au/Docs/Quirostriptico.pdf
also, Although i do not know how to speak latin but i believe that Great southern land in latin is said like "valde inferus terra". So im not sure how the theory that Australia is latin for great southern land, could someone explain that to me, or as the article says Australis means south, though the online translators say otherwise :S
:Not sure about the Australia del Espíritu Santo: sounds likely but I really don't know. I can confirm, though, that in Latin Australis means Southern and -ia is a common ending naming nations like Hispania, Gallia, Italia. Therefore, yes, Australia can be translated from Latin like Southern Land or Southern NationMountolive 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spain and Australia 

message: Can I add an dismabig note at the top? Because I made an article about España Boulevard, and since España redirects here, I think it'll be valid if a disambig note is added. --Howard the Duck 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig note at the top. 

message: In the last week or so I have reviewed all of the European country articles for Version 0.5, and the history section in this article (12 screens) stands out as being much longer than most. I don't deny Spain has a lot of history, but compare with France (2 screens, a bit short IMHO) and Germany (7 screens, about the limit IMHO).  The reader is first directed to a main article on History of Spain, but the "summary" history section that follows runs to 12 screens.  Could someone please try making this history overview more concise?  Perhaps some of the material might even be usefully integrated into the main history article (which is around 16 screens). Thanks! Walkerma 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long 

message: i got conflicting accounts on the population of Spain. 
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html
it says there the population of spain is 40 million, not 44 million
hell i have left this up for weeks and no one has responded
Thant's an obselete figure, chec it in the national institute of statitistics from Spain
www.ine.es
--Pedrojfg 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting accounts 

message: No tiene ningún sentido ni ninguna justificación desde el punto de vista de una enciclopedia (seria) poner "Reino de España" en idiomas no oficiales en España e incluso en idiomas no oficiales ni hablados prácticamente en los sus lugares de origen (como el asturiano!!!!!! o el occitano!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).
There is no reason to write "Reino de España" in all that languages which are not official in all Spain and some of them even nor in their respective areas of origin.
Why is absurd to put it in languages simply because some of those languages are official only in parts of the Spanish state?  They are still official languages.
Also, please learn to sign your messages.  
--Bcnviajero 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS absurd because some of those languages are not official. For the same reason "Reino de España" shouldn't be there in Swahili, Swedish or Cantonese, it shouldn't be in Asturianu or Occità. This is not a language related article Gololo 11:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Es absurdo poner "Reino de España" en tantos idiomas 

message: :There's also a very reduced number of guanche people, the original natives of the Canary Islands (a Spaniard insular region located off the northwestern African coast).
Are there people who are acknowleged generally as Guanches or is this simply people who identify themselves as such? --Error 15:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guanches

message: I have erased the highly hypothetical etimology for the name Spain taking it back to the Phoenicians, leaving the obvious and uncontested Latin etimology instead: I just don't think these bizzarre hypothetical etimologies really add anything to whatever the matter is.
I have erased the line saying that there is a very reduced number of guanche people since that is simply not true for the last 500 years.
Thanks
Mountolive 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etimology and guanches

message: Research before editing, see List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Spain_by_population, Zaragoza is NOT the 7th metropolitan area of Spain by far. David 17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaragoza 

message: Am I the only person who thinks it strange that a history of Spain does not explicitly mention the Armada?
Nortino 16:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armada? 

message: This page is vandalized every day, several times a day. Is there a way to protect it from the anonymous IP's which come over and over again with the same "penis" "homosexual" "aids" things? If so,~someone PLEASE proceed! Mountolive 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it myself. If you don't agree, feel free to revert. Mountolive 03:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: dude have you seen the vandalism recently 69.236.161.228 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  we gotta protect this article from vandalism 

message: Despite my edits above, I think this is a pretty nice article and 'cuz of recent vandalism it ought to be protected from anon useredits. --Walter Humala |wanna Talk? 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice article 

message: The article as it stands now simply states the Spain adopted the Euro in 1999.  While this is true, it is incomplete, since the date of its adoption is not the same date as when it began circulating.  According to this article in the New York Times, the Euro went into circulation in various European countries, including Spain, on January 1, 2002 ( http://travel2.nytimes.com/fodors/top/features/travel/destinations/europe/italy/florence/fdrs_feat_63_11.html?n=Top%2FFeatures%2FTravel%2FDestinations%2FEurope%2FItaly%2FFlorence ).  According to the same article, "the 'dual circulation' period ended for member countries on February 28, 2002."  
Other sources:  
http://spanish.about.com/library/weekly/aa010102a.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1514799.stm
Callmenewanda 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain and the Euro