Talk:Spain/Archive 5

Moldavian-Spanish relations

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

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

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

Population estimates for January 2008, 46,063,511

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister or President?

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

Regards,

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

Summary

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

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

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

Peñon de Vélez de la Gomera

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

High Speed Rail

don't know if/where its fits but high-speed rail infrastructure seems of interest [1]--Billymac00 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity and limits of Spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a side note, "nationalities" to refer to a group of people (instead of "citizens of a nation") is not only acceptable according to dictionaries [2], but it is actually used in several academic papers and reputable publications in English in reference to Spain [3] [4], [5], [6], [7], and also other countries like the United Kingdom [8] and even China.[9]), and used (in reference to Spain) decades, and even a century, prior to the constitution of 1978 [10], [11]. In other words, I don't think "nationality", being the chosen word by the Spanish Parliament, is that ambiguous... and it has the benefit of being the "consensual" term amongst the diverse political parties of the constituent courts.--the Dúnadan 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Spain

• 
• 

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

(presumably edit conflic)

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

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

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

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

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

Uses: GENERAL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

"Pyrenees" can use a link

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

Who the hell

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