Talk:Spain/Archive 4

14-M

Just this sentence: besides possibly affected national elections scheduled for March 14, three days after the attack, which was, arguably, the main goal of the terrorists. is enough compromise to POV to grant the section the tag. There are other subtle phrases in the paragraph that are suspiciously written.--David (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. I added a reference to that excerpt you are mentioning here. As for the other phrases which you find suspiciously written, it would be better point them out, discuss their rephrasing if it was necessary than than simply tagging the section, dont you think? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mountolive. Adding some dubious web references does not eliminate the POV, the wording of the phrases has to be changed as I did. Remember that we must only tell the different points of view, not incorporate them as facts in the body of the article. The goal of the terrorists is not known, even "arguably", and "arguably" itself is not NPOV. David (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I have partially restored a removed excerpt indicating that the effect of the bombings were harmful for the PP expectations. It is self-evident and doesnt need much discussion the fact that no party wants to see hundreds of demonstrators in front of their premises calling this party leaders liars a mere couple days before the elections are to be held, while all is being covered by an intensive media attention. Then, as a rule of thumb, if it affected negatively the PP, then it affected positively the PSOE, so I was originally going to restore this one too. But then I thought maybe it is this part which you dont find neutral, so this latter part, I have finally ommitted it. Note that it is 'the effects' of the bombings (i.e. the popular reaction) which is the subject of the sentence, not the bombings themselves. For the bombings themselves could have had as their effect a popular gathering around the ruling party, but it was the contrary what happened. In other words, the bombings are one thing, and the inference and responsabilities of both PP and PSOE outcomeleaders in the turmoil that followed is another thing (which this article is not the right place to explain in detail). Hope you agree. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Now it looks more neutral. David (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is not an excuse to present conspiracy theories that present the point of view of a minority. WP:Verifiability is not to be interpreted alone (as the policy clearly states) but in conjunction with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Giving a conspiracy theory, while referenced, WP:UNDUE weight by making it an encyclopedical affirmation is not compliant with WP:NPOV. If due weight is to be given, the theory that a political party, the PSOE "backed up" the bombings (or at least the rendering of that sentence seemed to imply that), it should be qualified as such, as the minority—and extremist—opinion of one POV-source not as a fact verified by proofs. I strongly suggest eliminating that qualification which has all the necessary ingredient to become a politically-charged bomb that will trigger unnecessary edit-wars of users that will bring POVs to accuse either party (PP or PSOE) of conspiracy theories. I would be more than happy to request the aid of an administrator or even for mediation, if you guys deem it appropriate. --the Dúnadan 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this removal. Wikipedia gathers all kinds of conspiracy theories and that doesnt mean that wikipedia endorse them, just collect them based on their relevance. Unfortunatelly, it is not so easy to find a reliable source (not biased) supporting that claim, but good faith advises that we shouldnt eliminate an excerpt which rings true (don't know how familiar you are with this, Dúnadan, but maybe David can support me if I say that, yes, some people think that the PSOE "backed" the turmoil in front of PP premises by sending sms -I seem to remember that one was 'caught' doing so from his 'official' phone- or by pledging to and amplifying unconfirmed Cadena SER reports which turned out to be wrong in the end).

If the problem with this removed sentence is the reference (I am not happy with it either) then just restore this removed sentence unreferenced. If the problem is the verb (to back) then just find a better verb to cover the action. But concealing this state of mind (whether we like it or not) it is not the best idea.

As for the edit-wars, I think that line has been there for years and I haven't seen any of those...so far. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think conspiracy theories are encyclopedical (you will not find them in Britannica, Hispanica, Encarta), and unless clearly identified as such, they violate WP:UNDUE.

To say that the PSOE backed up the Madrid bombings (which is different from backing the "turmoil", but even that...), even if sourced with a POV reference, is not compliant with the other policies in Wikipedia. "Good faith" has three unavoidable limitations (CITE, OR and NPOV). Remember that what "rings true" or is a "state of mind" based on reports that turned out to be wrong in the end, and cannot be fully verified, cannot be included in Wikipedia. If at all, all sorts of conspiracy theories could be included (and even there I have my reservations) in a very specific article, say 14-M Bombing attacks at Madrid, but not in the general Spain article.

It would be similar to including a sentence in the History section of United States saying that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks, according to some sources. Or, as you know, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories of "Spain" against Catalonia, of which I could find dozens of "sources", some of which, to many people "ring very true", but they are not included in Wikipedia, and probably should not, as you would probably agree.

But I would be more than happy to ask (an) administrator(s) and other users with good-standing for their opinion and/or mediation, if you like.

--the Dúnadan 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If what you are getting from the removed redaction is that the PSOE backed the bombings, then it is indeed an unfortunate one. I'd say that the idea behind that removed excerpt is that, yes, the PSOE backed the turmoil which followed and some PP members resent that. This hardly falls in any conspiracy theory whatsoever. It could be documented that the PSOE did nothing to stop the turmoil which followed, but actually 'massaged' it somehow (how much it was involved is impossible to determine nor should make us bleed here: for some it would be the main agent behind the demonstrations, for others just supported and joined them).

I would do it myself, but I guess you will feel more comfortable with your own wording, so please feel free to work on a clearer redaction to better express this if you find the removed excerpt misleading the way it was. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This was the original sentence: "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 by the PSOE."... terrorist bombing which was... backed up. I guess it was a very unfortunate "redaction".

But you missed my point when I said "turmoil... even that". Two questions I have in mind:

• Are there any reliable and irrefutable proofs that PSOE backed up the "turmoil" than [naturally] ensues a terrorist attack besides sms messages that turned out to be false or any other "theories" but not "facts"?
• If so, is a purported "backing up" of turmoil a water-shed historical event, on par with, say, the Civil War, that merits the inclusion of this theory in the History Section? Aren't there any other suspicions on the same event, backed up by other politicians/historians, or of other events that would merit their inclusion?

I think this is a more political issue, not a hard fact, and users will probably "back up" the parties they support (or they sympathize, even if mildly).

I'll invite a couple of admins and unrelated users (users with good-standing in other issues that are not involved in Spanish or Catalan-related articles) to ask for their opinions, if that is fine with you.

--the Dúnadan 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean much better now that you isolate this sentence and put some focus on it. And you are right, it could be wrongly inferred that the PSOE was behind the bombing somehow, which is indeed extreme, disparated and doesnt merit recognizition in the Spain article.

But, as I said before, I think the point which merits recognition is some PP ranks and numbers being resentful of how the PSOE handled the aftermath of the bombings.

As it is, the PSOE (and other parties) view of the events is reflected in the text. They'll tell you that the interim PP government lied. The PP will tell you that they were just promptly passing the info they were receiving from the CNI, and that this was changing. Since we lack (and will continue to) any Congressional committee to determine who is (more) right on this, then the article would be imbalanced towards the PSOE if only their view is reflected as it (partially) is with the current "redaction" (what's the problem with "redaction" to put it in quotation marks?).

I may try some wording soon. Feel free to work on it if you found it not ok. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I might not be expressing my concerns properly. Wording (what you call redaction) is not the problem, content is. This is still a theory, conspiracy theory, which is based on speculation and it is unproven, whether because of lack of constitutional or congressional resources or not. Like I said, there are dozens of possible "theories" concerning 14-M incriminating both parties (I've heard preposterous claims that seem to ring "true" to some, incriminating PP), and that's all they are, theories. They might seem plausible and "ring true" to you, but they are by no means WP:FACTS. Like I said, I could bring a dozen conspiracy theories regarding Catalonia, that ring true to many Catalan ears and that some users we both know will erase them without thinking twice. PSOE adherents will probably object to that "theory" being presented in an encyclopedia (and no encyclopedia ever presents unproven theories), and would point out to other "proofs" against PP of this or other events. I suggest we stick to facts and leave the interpretations and possible theories, politically oriented, for forums.

--the Dúnadan 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside for one moment the rights or wrongs of the way the issue is described here, it just seems to me fundamentally unbalanced to have this issue dominating the 21st Century section of the article about Spain. For some people in Spain the effect of the train bombings on the elections is clearly the most important event, but I think most people outside of that political argument would regard the bombings themselves as being the key event that requires attention. In any case, I think the correct place for examination of the issue in any detail is inside the article about the bombings or one of its associated articles - despite the lamentable state of those articles.

On the issue itself, it is really a very partisan viewpoint that the demonstrations outside PP headquarters are what changed the outcome of the elections. There were only a few thousand people protesting, it wasn't shown on most TV channels and the idea that this is what brought about the change of government is frankly very far fetched. Most respectable analysis of the elections will focus on the fact that voters sympathetic to the left were mobilised in greater numbers than on previous occasions, it would be extremely simplistic and distorted to suggest that happened just because of a few sms messages. The suggestion in any case that the elections were "stolen" should never appear - I don't know of any respectable source suggesting anything other than that the results are a reflection of the number of votes cast. Southofwatford (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dúnadan, I think you are wrong this time. If the only acquaintance I had from you was the above post, I'd say that you consider wikipedia like revelated Truth. But I know you know (we know) this is not wikipedia's function, to spread truth, just to (try to) spread knowledge.

The text you are removing is clearly stating that some sectors of the PP believe that the PSOE fueled turmoil, in the same fashion as the text as it is now quotes PSOE as accusing PP of not telling the truth. You know very well there is quite some difference in saying that someone thinks something than then endorsing those reflections.

You also know very well that, in the end, in politically charged articles, wikipedia has to be presenting all notable point of views. And that is what the excerpt removed tries to.

Sure, there are lots of conspiracy theories, some completely disparated (even to the point of laughter) others which may "ring true" to some and may ring as utter crap to others.

But, in the end, there are only two versions of the aftermath which are relevant enough. One is that of the PSOE, which accuses the interim PP government of not telling the truth. This one is present in the text already.

The other one is that of the PP, which accuses the PSOE of fueling the incidents. This one is the one you removed, despite being notable and properly referenced. Dunno how much familiar you are with the topic, but, for users who are not, Alfredo Urdaci is a quite notable (conservative) journalist. He even came to head the news service at the public Spanish TV (TVE) appointed by the PP. You may agree with him or not, but one thing is clear: he is not a crazy man or something, nor he is a common guy unrelated to this either professionally or politically (like some of the conspiracy theorists). Therefore I would appreciate it if you didnt just didnt remove the (few) valid referenced pieces I could possibly bring.

Yes, looks like you havent expressed your concerns properly so far. In the beginning it looked like you wanted to bar the PP version of the story. Then I thought that you were only concerned about the neutrality of the "redaction" and, because your concern, I think the new wording is both much more exact and NPOV than before's, besides, the new reference is also much better. Thanks for the inspiration.

But now it looks once again like you wanted to block this point of view by removing again the new wording along with the new reference. You did so first by saying that it could be misleading. I agreed it was and has been changed. Now you are erasing the new phrasing once again and that's when I think you are wrong. The new phrasing you just erased -and I am restoring- is not misleading, it is actually very clear. As for its trustworthiness, it is the reader to decide which one political account from the aftermath s/he prefers, if s/he wants to swallow one, that is to say. But for that we need both sides to be represented in the text.

On the face of your repeated reversions, I guess you were right with one thing from the beginning: yes, better call an administrator. I thought the matter was clear enough without bothering anybody nor engaging in protracted discussion, but looks like I was wrong and you are right, so, yes, please get the attention of some administrator to this case and let it be soon: at least this time (for a change) looks like the matter could be speedily solved.

Per previous exchanges we have had, I'd say that you are more familiar than myself with the fantastic (petty side of) wikipedia, that is why I'd appreciate it if you took the necessary steps to report this (petty) incident. In this regard I would appreciate it if you confirmed whether my belief is correct or not that removing validly referenced statements is regarded as vandalism.

Vandalism or not, and despite my ignorance of wikirules beyond good faith, I'd say I am not asking too much if I asked you to please bear with the restored excerpt -if my explanations here aren't satisfactory enough- until at least one administrator has expressed his/her opinion, because it is a referenced statement per NPOV concerns, and that has a value by itself Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely unfair to suggest that the removal of the Urdaci interview clip (which is neither properly attributed or placed in any sort of context - where does it come from?) is vandalism. To imply that any removal of sourced information is vandalism would probably mean that many of the best editors in Wikipedia are vandals! The issue of the controversy surrounding the elections is already included in other articles where it has greater relevance and can be given the depth it requires - to duplicate such coverage here is content forking and leaves the section on an important event completely unbalanced. Southofwatford (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the disputed paragraph with something along these lines:

Although initial suspicions of responsibility for the bombings focused on the Basque group ETA, evidence soon emerged indicating possible Islamist involvement. Because of the proximity of the election, the issue of responsibility quickly became a source of political controversy. The opposition accused the government of attempting to conceal the truth about those responsible, whilst the governing PP accused opposition parties of being behind street protests outside of their headquarters.

It's a rough version which can be improved, but it attempts to summarise the controversy without introducing insinuations about the legitimacy of the electoral process that took place. It also leaves more in-depth discussion for other articles, thus allowing the bombings themselves to be portrayed as the significant event here.

Southofwatford (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I absolutely approve this new paragraph you propose. Mountolive's view of the whole thing is too biased, that's why I instantly put a NPOV tag as soon as I read it. I've trying to "swallow" it as it is now, with all the recent patches... but it still reads awfully and "smells" like certain something. You are right, let's put the stress on the importan event, that is the killing of 191 innocent people. Leave the controversies to other articles, don't put THIS in Spain. David (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We should not use conspiracy theories in this article re 14-M, it may well be appropriate on wi9kipedia, we have lots of conspiracy theory articles, but this is the article on Spain. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, I am not really opposed to the paragraph suggested by Southofwatford...but I can't help noting it is saying basically the same thing than before, but just in a more vague way, isn't it? It just shies away from the concrete description of it. Do you guys realize about that? Are you aware that your point of view sounds like "we will only tolerate a mild account of it, but what they say is just too heavy to appear here" (that was before SqueakBox eliminated any unconvenient remnant, of course)....sounds like self-imposed censorship, doesnt it? Is it hardcore porn for you to quote PP sectors accusing the PSOE of being behind a massive sms sending? If that was the case, please excuse my gross taste here.

In contrast, I'd like to think that readers here have a high enough IQ to make their own appreciations as long as the partisan character of from both sides is clear. I'd like to think that they could be spared a mix of good faith&bias censorship like the one that has been instated.

It looks like you guys are just too uncomfortable with the massive sms theory, and the fact that you don't like it is enough grounds for you to remove it despite it being properly referenced (in the words a very prominent journalist which was a part of the story). The fact that you won't let a referenced text to appear and illustrate how a significant tract of people sees it, but you prefer to substitute it by a more general P.C. account, it actually speaks of your own bias and insecurities. And then SqueakBox came to finish the job and ease any remaining insecurity.

So let's make a summary of the story before I run away from here: some sectors in the PP have their own views of what happened in the aftermath of the attack, a number of PP ranks have stated so along with the media related to the PP; I was lucky enough to find a proper reference to cover it (it's not so easy sometimes). Then the next thing we know is that you guys remove it both text and reference on the grounds of this being biased, like if the text didnt make very clear that this is a claim from the PP. In contrast, the PSOE version of it (that the government lied) is not a conspiracy theory in your view, you assume it as true, am I wrong? Next question would be on which grounds do you base your claims of the PSOE account of the story being the good one. But dont worry, I think it's clear enough to spare everybody some confusing blabla about how neutral you are.

But what I find really astonishing is that, still, you (David, in this case) have the dazzling chutzpah to call me biased ¿?¿?

I thought expressing all views and support them by a proper quote was one of the main parts of the 'business' here in wikipedia. And I still think it despite your latter-day mix of P.C.&bias, but I definitely forgot of the power of mob rule, though.

Because no one seems interested anymore in calling an administrator to shed some light here, right? Apparently you have decided that it's much better to have two or three editors with the same ideas to settle what fits and what doesnt fit in here...because there is always the risk of an administrator would see it differently.

By the way, SqueakBox, very nice work of suppressing any additional "inconvenient" text remaining (inconvenient for your POV, that is to say). Now you have completed the circle and readers are finally deprived of the PP account of the story. Only the PSOE one is in the text now...just the way a-ha, a-ha you liked it.

You are right if you thought that the rest of editors here wouldnt have any problem with your further unilateral removal (no one has said anything, looks like they won't). You were a bit more drastic than them and went straight to a good old-fashioned deletion of content. They were a bit more diplomatic and just changed the wording for it to appear more palatable for left-wing editors. But, don't worry, SqueakBox, I actually salute bold editors like you in imposing their POVs over more sneaky ones which drag you dawn to too much blabla and wasted time in talk pages only to impose a similar result in the end.

I have to appreciate the straightness of your removal of the last "uncomfortable" content, which you "based" (that's a manner of speaking) on the fact that "it is not referenced", acting like if {{Fact}} tags weren't there handy to avoid unilateral removals like yours or like if all similar statements (and quite bolder) throughout this article were referenced unlike that one. You have understood well the 'rationale' (?) behind the previous editions: validly referenced text was frowned upon, changed and de-referenced. And now you finish the job by removing whatever remains on the grounds that is not referenced....chapeau! hats off!

All of a sudden, it's like you shifted (when you saw it fit) from a vague anti-conspiracy sentiment (which is contradictory with wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE policies) back to the zealous wikipedian, which won't do without a referenced text...if the now unreferenced text (from which the anti-conspiracy guys removed the reference in the first place) is contrary to your beliefs, that is to say. In the meantime, the former anti-conspiracy lot are looking the other way already. Heck....it's in between a masterpiece of POV pushing and predictable behaviour!.

I am not familiar with what happened there, but after SqueakBox's additional whitewashing here I'm starting to make my own ideas about why he was blocked for an entire year at José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero...you don't like other users casting shadows on your man, do you?

Anyway, guys, it looks like, after all has been said and done, you won't let wording you dont like in, whether referenced and notable or unreferenced, all on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory. And you are not interested anymore in an administrator paying a look in here either. In turn, PSOE's (and others's) conspiracy theory (that the government knew it, but lied) is ok for you.

So, it all comes down to you knowing better about what is a gross conspiracy theory (PP's, which is not worth it even mention here, referenced or not) and what is a true and good account of the aftermath (PSOE's).

Interesting.

Enjoy your time here.

Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My dispute at Zapatero was political, with a young PP supporter. Actually I like Aznar too, what I do not really like is us blackwashing either side and I think Dunadan's latest edit really helps balance things out here. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

100% agree with you Mountolive - a key part of the article has been intentionally reduced to only the PSOE's version and now the article is clearly biased.

'Although initial suspicions of responsibility for the bombings focused on the Basque group ETA, evidence soon emerged indicating possible Islamist involvement. Because of the proximity of the election, the issue of responsibility quickly became a source of political controversy. The opposition accused the government of attempting to conceal the truth about those responsible'

I certainly agree that we need an admin here to shed some light and to balance this article as the editors are only giving 1 version of what happened (the version they like) and omitting key facts that ultimately had a direct impact on the outcome of the election (and because of its relevance it has to appear here). I am familiar with what happened that night, am a spaniard who lives abroad, didn't vote in 2004 and isn't into politics but I can certainly confirm that the PSOE played a very active role in those 3 days from the 11-14 and that there were SMS been sent to everyone (just as Mountolive detailed). So SqueakBox and David, this is not 1 of the 14 conspiracy theories, it really happened just as Mountolive described and your text needs to be re-written. Having a biased article in the main page of my country isn't acceptable. I urge you to do it. Charlygc (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will keep this post short, while trying to answer some of the concerns expressed by some editors above:

• WP:Verifiability requires the source to be reliable and non-questionable. An interview in which a person speaks of unproven speculations is a questionable source. Therefore removing it is compliant with Wikipedia's standards. Let's not debase verifiability; even sources that "deny" the Holocaust can be "verified" (in the sense that they can be accessed online), but that does not mean they are Reliable.
• Needless to say, personal opinions ("it really just happened just as ... described"), are obviously non-compliant with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. That opinion (not based on facts but on speculation) would be shared by like-minded users with similar political preferences, and will be opposed by others.
• Please avoid ad hominem arguments and personal direct or indirect attacks towards other users (i.e. "sneaky", "biased", "insecure"). Let's keep a high polite standard in our discussions.
• My proposal is to end the sentence at "...quickly became a source of political controversy". There is no need to recount the details of the controversy, and much less to state or cite unproven speculations and conspiracy theories. No need to say that PSOE accused the PP of lying, and no need to say that PP speculates on the content of the purported million messages sent. I think that would satisfy all parties.
• Charlygc, welcome to Wikipedia. Some of your proposals cannot be included in the article. As a new user, I invite you to read the three main guidelines of our community: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research. These three policies are the foundation and the standard for everything that gets posted in the articles. There are more policies that are also important, but these three are non-negotiable. I would recommend that you read them thoroughly, as they will shed light on what can be included in an article and what cannot. Abiding by these three policies will assure you a pleasant time in our community.

--the Dúnadan 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I won't comment anything about the personal attacks, all I will say is that the text is now closer to perfection, that is our community's ultimate goal. The reason why I started the changes, as I said, is that the previous text was clearly biased and not NPOV, it showed only the right wing's POV. The author of that text has shown here his thoughts on this, that seem to be very strong. David (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the comments addressed to me above, please bear with me with the 'sneaky' reference, for it was probably out of a general frustration with some past outcomes in other articles than with this one or with either Dúnadan, David or Southofwatford. So, if you found this comment out of hand, my apologies: it wasn't really addressed to you guys after all.

As for the bias and insecurities comments, I state my claim, though. Everyone has a bias (me too) and no one should feel offended here in wikipedia if they are reminded of their own bias (unless they feel 'insecure' about having it and showing it ;).

Also agree with keeping a high polite standard here. And that should also include not showing such a thin skin that would twist other user's comments (my own, in this case) to turn them into "personal attacks" just because, for example, I say someone is biased (I have been called "too much biased" and I dont regard it as a "personal attack"). If someone felt any of my comments like a "personal attack", then it's probably himself who should read them again and decide whether that was falls into the category of personal attack or whether they actually overreacted for a moment out of the heated discussion. I apologized for the sneaky reference, for that wasnt fair but a product of the very same heated discussion. Anyone, please feel free to amend yourself if you think that calling my comments "personal attacks" was a bit out of hand, too.

The solution proposed is ok. It would be best to have both sides of the story, but if the choice is having one or none, the latter is best.

After all, there is a main article for further elaboration and, actually, the goal in this Spain article should be better compressing it than expanding existing info. I guess this is what they mean by "less is more". Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No longer "Colony"

This article states that spain shares a land border with the "Colony of Gibraltar". Gibraltar is no longer a "Colony", and should more accurately be described as the "British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.229.189 (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disagree. Gibraltar is a colony. "British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar" (exhausting to say) is just a circumlocution. Word "Gibraltar" comes from arabian ""Jeb-el-Tarik"...British? I don´t think so...

Gibraltar is not a colony because its inhabitants have decided many times via referendum to be inside the United Kingdom. --147.83.137.103 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007 not only is Gibraltar being considered a colony but also a "Non-self-governing territory" by United Nations UN SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION even if it has conducted an internal referendum. The status of Gibraltar as an English colony comes from the Utretch Treaty of 1713. I think UN is a respectable source of the current state of affairs. Gallando 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored British overseas territory. The term "colony" was dropped in 1981 under the British Nationality Act 1981. And Gibraltar also has full internal self-government under its constituion. — Chris.B | talk 15:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

a) Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Europe, in a statement to Parliament: It has also been the UK's longstanding view that none of its remaining Overseas Territories, including Gibraltar, should remain on the UN list of non self-governing territories.

b) Emyr Jones Parry, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations: The new constitution provides for a modern relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I do not think that this description would apply to any relationship based on colonialism.

The term 'colony' is sufficiently outdated that the UN no longer use the word except in a historical context, and neither should we. --Gibnews (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This's a burocratic and politic dissimulation similar to the miraculous conversion of the Spanish colonies of the Sahara, Ifni and Equatorial Guinea (then Fernando Poo and Rio Muni) into provinces. I, like Spanish that I am, respect British sovereignty of Gibraltar only and only because that this is the political situation that Gibraltarians want, but not because the UK had historical or political rights. LasMatas01 13:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Owners of Spain?

"the two owners of spain are emma bruce and jessica tomkinson."

Somebody can explain the first sentence of the article? Thnx. Carlos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.55.245 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Spain/Archive 4! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

HIspanic demonym

Using Hispanic to refer to the demonym is inaccurate! The term is used in so many ways, and it almost never refers to just people from spain, but more to a culture related to the spanish language (and one could claim to a lesser extent, portuguese). Why has the article been modified in this respect? The demonym Spaniard and Spanish should be the only ones there! Nahuelmarisi (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Demonym is incorrect.

The demonym should only be Spanish or Spaniard. "Hispanic" is a generalized and incorrect "ethnic" term used only in the United States to identify Spanish language speakers. Moreover, there are many different nationalities/ethnicities within Spain itself, which would not be represented by this incorrect term. Spanish or Spandiard is the overall correct and collective term to identify the different people/nationalities within the Kingdom of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.70.230 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in the English language the correct word is Spanish or Spaniard, not Hispanic. --the Dúnadan 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Spain public health system

23.01.2008 Hello, There is nothing in the Spain article on how is organized the public health system. I have heard that it is managed regionaly, but don't know more on the subject. Could someone give me more information? Thanks! Guilounette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.202.5 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain position by size

Spain is the fourth country by size in Europe, not the second. The order is Russia, Ukraine, France, Spain.

Can someone actualize this information.--147.72.234.5 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain economy

I think Spain economy is understimated in the article. It has been called latrely a success story.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5461495_ITM

It has already surpass Italy in per capita income and France and Germany are next in line. Chloe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree - The whole economy article is obsolete and needs to be fully updated. It does not mention anything about big Spanish companies and it should. Here's a hint - Santander is the 8th biggest bank in the world, Telefonica the 2nd biggest telecomunication company in the world, Iberdrola is the leading clean (renewal) energy company in the world, Inditex is a world-class fashion company, Spain is home to the biggest construction conglomerates in Europe, etc The list goes on. Someone familiarized with the Spanish economy should update this. Thanks, Charlygc (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, now Spain is growing slightly faster, but:

1. Spanish GDP per capita is still only 90% than Italian one.
2. There are more big companies in Italy itself (or even in South Korea!) than in Spain. --Chargin' Chuck (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No point arguing something that is obvious - when was the last time that you check Eurostat, the IMF, World Bank and CIA figures ranking countries per capita using PPP ? In fact, according to the CIA Spain's GDP per capita in 2007 was 33 600 $ and Italy's GDP per capita stood at 30 900 $.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita). So you do the maths...

As for your second comment ... According to the 2008 ranking by country (Fortune Global 500) Spain has 11 companies listed there against 10 for Italy. Here let me help you find the link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500 Charlygc (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Official name

Traditionally, and in reference to its form of government, Spain is called "Reino de España" both in an outside Spain. However, I cannot find any legal document that specifies this denomination as official. "Reino de España" does not appear anywhere in the constitution [1] (the term Estado español appears numerous times, whereas the term Nación española only occasionally). Not even, as it is usual in passports, does the name appear as such in the Spanish passport [2]. I have found some international agreement that use the term "Reino de España" [3] (Usage is one thing, official declaration of the toponymy is another thing). The question, open to discussion is, what constitutes an official denomination? If the denomination is not used in the constitution of the country, is it "official"? --the Dúnadan 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly official! [4].

One is the conventional short form (name of the country), the other one is the conventional long form (Form of government of the country). "La denominación correspondiente a la forma o modelo de gobierno suele incluso incorporarse al nombre o denominación oficial del estado, por ejemplo: República Argentina, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Reino de España, Federación Rusa o Gran Jamahiriya Árabe Libia Popular y Socialista. Sólo hay dieciocho países que no lo hacen así, por ejemplo: Jamaica, mientras que once sólo indican que son "estados". La forma más común es "república", con 132 casos de muy distinto tipo. Las monarquías son 33 (18 de ellas "reinos")(es-wiki)".

The European Union states [5]:

• Official title or short name?

The long form (official title) is used when the State is targeted as a legal entity:

"This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "The French Republic is authorised to ..."

NB:If the recurrence of the name of a State in the text leads to a preference for using the short form, it can be introduced with the phrase ‘hereinafter referred to as ...’.

• The short form (short name) is used when the State is referred to geographically or economically:

"Workers residing in France". "Exports from Greece ..."

So, may I end up saying that it is all about good and old protocol. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Maurice, neither the CIA, nor the European Union, nor the Spanish Wikipedia are primary sources. You are citing tertiary sources who do not have any juridical authority in Spain. I repeat, that denomination does not appear anywhere in the constitution. I ask again, does anyone know of a law (i.e. de jure) that stipulates that the official name of Spain is "Reino de España" or is it more a de facto stipulation based, of course, on its form of government. (Please do not cite encyclopedias, Wikipedias or international organizations). --the Dúnadan 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note, let me translate one of your sources:

"Denomination of the Spanish State in international agreements...

"The convenience of unifying criteria on the correct form of referring to our country in the text of international treaties that Spain subscribes has motivated a consultation from this Department to the State Council [...] answering the following:

"That the denominations "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain" are equally admissible to refer to the Spanish State in all international treaties it be part of, even though, the second has a more individualizing entity [sic] [...] in consequence in international treaties or other agreements negotiated as of this date, there cannot be any other denomination but "Spain" or "Kingdom of Spain" avoiding formulas such as "Government of Spain" or "Government of the Kingdom of Spain" and other incorrect [formulas]." (end of quote, bold mine).

What do you guys think of this law? As far as I can tell, and only in international treaties, both "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain" are "admissible" (official?). Should we change the introduction of the article to say that "Spain" (officially in international treaties either as Spain or Kingdom of Spain)?

--the Dúnadan 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely Dunadan, if you are getting bored, try to find something else to entertain you! But quit trying to add such useless proposals. The constitution of Spain does not have EVERYTHING in it. Thank God you are not interested in UK's politics... Why don't you also propose the same thing for France? It's constitution does not mention anywhere "French Republic" neither [6]. The conventional long form of a country's name is the official name recognised by the United Nations when it becomes a member. You also have a reference from the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs... What more do you want? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maurice, why do you have to resort to insults? Whatever the Constitution of France says or does not say, is a matter that must be discussed in France. However, the Spanish constitution does not declare any "official name", and the source you provided, which you must have read, states, very, very, clearly, and without the shadow of a doubt that in international treaties the terms "Spain" and "Spanish Kingdom" are equally valid. I am using the same reference, the Spanish ministry of foreign affairs (I don't know why you put it in bold letters, but since you did, I did too =P). Does any other user want to offer his/her opinion on this matter? --the Dúnadan 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's incredible... "resort to insults?"... For God's Sake, Where did I insult you? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read for yourself, what you yourself write. I insist also that you read the constitution and the source you provided. Any other user has any opinion on this matter, or should I proceed? --the Dúnadan 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2 things

a) Under the summary of Spain's history, the link on 'Muslim rulers' leads to a disambiguation page. In any case, a link for 'Muslim rulers' is a bit vague and random considering that there have been thousands of Muslim rulers. So maybe the link should be removed or replaced with something a more relevant; for example, the Abbasids. or whatever!

b) is this page locked, because it doesn't have an 'edit this page' or a lock in the corner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shj95 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GDP figures

The following sentence 'As of 2006, absolute GDP was valued at $1.084 trillion according to the CIA Factbook' is taking out of context and gives an outsider the idea that Spain is a poor or small country. Just because CIA do not update their data (they still maintain that Spanish' GDP per capita is 80% of the 4 largest European nations when according to Eurostat it has already surpassed Italy's GDP per capita in 2006) does not mean wiki shouldn't. Spain's GDP for 2006 was confirmed by the IMF, Eurostat and the Spanish authorities to be 980 BILLIONS OF EUROS. With a Euro at about 1.45 dollars over the last number months in 2007 it is clear that this section needs to be updated. Please do so. Charlygc (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA has just updated their data with the 2007 figures - gives Spain an absolute GDP of $1.365 trillion and a per capita of $33.700. According to them France has 33.800 per capita (just like Japan) and Italy $31.000. So I suggest someone updates the whole economy section which hasn't been changed for years and it is clearly out-of-date. Thanks. Charlygc (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The damn page is locked but it lists a gpd off by a factor of 1000. The , should be changed to a . Spain has a gdp less than two trillion, not greater than one thousand trillion. For comparison, the USA page lists USA's GDP as $14.334 trillion. Spain is listed as $1,365 trillion Perhaps we have a problem with , vs . for marking decimals? I don't know but I think it should be changed immediately. Thisdude415 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Get your mathematics right at the third attempt or stand condemned as a bunch of wasters. 46 million population times PPP of EUR 30 thousand gives a GDP of around 1 million million, as an order of magnitude. You currently state that it is a thousand times that in the sidebar, and a million times that in the text, in other words something like 26 times the entire world economy, or roughly the entire production of the whole world since the start of human civilisation. In one year. And there's eight larger still. Gawd help us all, either you took the decimal point the wrong way or it's no wonder the environment's muldered. The figure in both instances should be 1.4 trillion, plus or minus as styatistics are updated. In addition, it's a breach of NPOV to state that Spain's the third-largest investor overseas on such a weak study as this, by a relatively unknown Spanish lawyer. It may be on the basis on one year when everyone else was headed into recession, it's not representative of the whole. He's not got a Doctorate, let alone a Professorship, he's only been an occasional lecturer in one university, and the last organisation he ran, Mullerat, was wound up on his watch. Rahere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.210.2 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Economy: include wine and tourism?

The turism figures for 2007 have just been released - Spain received 60 M visitors that spent 46 Billion Euros. That places 2nd in the world only behind France in number of visitors and in terms of revenue (only behind the States). Please include this there. Charlygc (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The .cat domain

The .cat domain is also used in the Autonomous Comunity of Balearic Islands, because it is a language domain (not means "catalonia" but "catalan").--83.33.229.55 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't appear as Spanish domain, because is not a "territorial" domain, but a "cultural" domain, so it also belongs to Andorra and all the calatan speakers around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.86.77 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nation Master's list by economic importance

In the article "International rankings" of Spain says that "Nation Master's list by economic importance: Rank 9 of 25 countries, only surpassed by G-8 members". Actually Spain is the 8th in this ranking, over Canada. The G-8 doesn't exist, they are the G-7 plus Russia, that it is in the eleventh position in the ranking and only go to the G-7 like observer for their global importance. LasMatas01 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Population

POPULATION & RELIGION

It is mathematically impossible for all three of these statements from the article on Spain to be true simultaneously:

In 2007 Spain officially reached 45.2 million people

About 76% of Spaniards identify themselves as Catholics, about 2% identify with another religious faith,

The recent waves of immigration have led to an increasing number of Muslims, who have about 1 million members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.169.240 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And 22% don't declare religious belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.202.61 (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION Andalucía 8.039.399 Cataluña 7.197.174 Comunidad de Madrid 6.061.680 Comunidad Valenciana 4.874.811 Galicia 2.771.341 Castilla y León 2.525.157 P.Vasco 2.141.116 Islas Canarias 2.020.947 Castilla La Mancha 1.975.179 Región de Murcia 1.391.147 Aragón 1.295.215 Extremadura 1.088.728 Principado de Asturias 1.074.632 Islas Baleares 1.029.139 Comunidad Foral de Navarra 605.022 Cantabria 572.503 La Rioja 308.566 Ceuta 76.343 Melilla 68.795 TOTAL: 45.116.894

Population

According to the article in Spanish Wikipedia, the population of Spain is nearly 45 millions based in Spanish Government's 2006 census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.1.172 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

International rankings

It states in the article; Reporters Without Borders world-wide press freedom index 2002: Rank 40 out of 139 countries.[79]

That might be correct, but in the 2007 survey Spain is ranked 33 out of 169 countries. link: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

I cant edit the article, so if some of you would be so kind to make an update I would greatly appreciate it! Pereli (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

jews in spain

Firstly jews have always been a part of Spain as said our spanish king [7] Jews are not nostalgia in spain . Additional Jewish emigration to Spain in more recent times is primarily the result of four events: after the 19th century, some Jews established themselves in Spain as a result of migration from what was formerly Spanish Morocco, the flight of Jews escaping from Nazi repression, immigration from Argentina. Spanish law allows Sephardi Jews to claim Spanish citizenship.Finally Spain is seen by northern european community members as a retirement place and as a warm place to raise young families. Many thousands of families have immigrated from the north to southern spain(murcia) and among these thousands have been hundreds of jewish families ..to retire and or to raise children. This is a modern phenomenon and is seen in murcia spain in both polaris world and trampolin hills.[8] you accept expelling jews converting jews but not killing the jews while in fact almost 100000 jews were killed in those days. raquel samper comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.17.233 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Education system

Under economy " ... an education system which OECD reports place among the poorest for developed countries, together with the United States and UK.[54]" I wonder if the comparisons are very sensible. The UK page reports the UK's education system as being the 14th best in the world, well above the average for the OECD. My knowledge of international comparisons (the PISA studies for example) tends to show the UK as doing rather well - at least as well as the average of the obvious comparison countries, Germany, France, Italy. The source cited here does not support the claim either. It would be inclined to scrap the comparison, unless someone knows of information that I don't. 89.49.213.51 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish communities

The Jewish Community, madrid toledo barcelona murcia accounts for less than 1 percent of total population.however it is the third fastest growing after africans and british. Spain is the retirement capitol of the EC nowadays and many jews from the north are moving here to retire or raise kids. synagoges centers even schools are opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.4.98 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jews never part of nostalgia in Spain have always been in Spain and are as Spanish as catholics. The Jewish population is around 35,000.Your article talks about jews as different ,not normal spain people ,immigrants who entered long ago to mix-in with regular real spanish blood.This is a common thread mistake in most wikipedia articles. The Federation of Israelite Communities of Spain currently consists of thirteen traditional and Orthodox communities, the largest of which are located in Madrid, Barcelona and on the Costa del Sol (Málaga) and in Murcia. There are also groups of Conservative Jews and associations of secular Jews. In Barcelona, a Reform community, the Progressive Jewish Community Atid (Future) of Catalonia, is active.Today many jews move to Spain to retire from the colder northern community countries or come to spain to raise children.Polaris World and Tramplin Hills in Murcia are examples of such communities with growing Jewish population. raquel samper directora comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewish spain (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spain Jews Monorities not to be confused with immigrants

Jews never part of nostalgia in Spain have always been in Spain and are as Spanish as catholics.Jews are a minority but not immigrants,as indians are a minority in the usa but not immigrants. The Jewish population is around 35,000.Your article talks about jews as different ,not regular spain people ,immigrants who entered so long ago to mix-in with regular real spanish blood.This is a common thread mistake . The Federation of Israelite Communities of Spain currently consists of thirteen traditional and Orthodox communities, the largest of which are located in Madrid, Barcelona and on the Costa del Sol (Málaga) and in Murcia. There are also groups of Conservative Jews and associations of secular Jews. In Barcelona, a Reform community, the Progressive Jewish Community Atid (Future) of Catalonia, is active.Today many jews move to Spain to retire from the colder northern community countries or come to spain to raise children.Polaris World and Tramplin Hills in Murcia are examples of such communities with growing Jewish population. raquel samper directora comunidadjudia murcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewish spain (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Spanish is the only official language of the country according to the 1978 constitution. The other languages are only co-official in their respective communities. Why has the article been changed? there was a reference to this before (reference is still on main page as number 2 actually) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.128.6 (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=422 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.63.194 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is mentioned before, the article 2.1 of the 1978 Constitution states that "Castilian is the official Spanish language in the State". Then, the article 2.2 states that "The rest of Spanish languages will be official in their Constituent Communities as it will be stated in their Regional Constitutions" (Regional constitution is a free translation for Estatuto). That is later explained in <8.2. Languages>. I've noticed other entries in wikipedia include other languages as "regional languages" (i.e. India or Pakistan). That could be a solution to substitute that footnote nr 2 and it would leave the Country Summary like: Official languages: Spanish; Regional languages: Aranese, Basque, Catalan/Valentian, Galician.Suzusan (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

President or Prime Minister?

Under the Politics heading, the article says "President of the Government: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, elected 14 March 2004." Under the picture of (what I assume is) him, caption says "José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain." So what is he? Is he a president or is he a prime minister? I'd really like to know, and I'm sure others would, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDCAce (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Prime Minister is an anglo-centric term. It's used here for letting know the real meaning of the term "Presidente del Gobierno" as it's not a President of a Republic, and, therefore, head of state. There is not a prime minister in spain, as there's no government president (afaik) in the UK.

--Repking (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish economy

The article mentions the 9th potision in the economy section for the Spanish economy.In fact, according to the International Monetary Fundand and the CIA Fact Book, it is the 8th in 2007, over Canada. Only the World Bank places it 9th below Canada in 2006, so the 8th position shoudl be stated, rather than the 9th. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

9th or 8th economy in the world?

Hi evreybody. I would to know what is really the position to spain in the global economic world, because, in the top of the article, says that spain is the eight economy in the world, but, in the section named economy of spain says that the position is 9th... then... Wich is the correct sentence? thanks and sorry by my poor english lol, ciao! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.17.46 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the section above. It is the 8th according to 2007 estimates at Current Exchange Rates. It should corrected to 8th in all cases. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change to the part that still stated ninth. In future, anyone can correct these if they're obvious errors without having to discuss them on the talk page. Kman543210 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aranese as Recognised regional languages

I know Aranese has the status of being co-official in Catalonia... But does it have the same status status of recognized language nationwide? I've never heard of the spanish parliament giving it to this language. If so, Aranese should be erased from this section in "Spain"'s article.

As far as I'm concerned, in the eyes of the Spanish government, Aranese is not (much) different from, let's say, Asturian, which also has some kind of protection under the Asturian Autonomous Statute legislation.

Anyone has a clue? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to "in the eyes of the Spanish government", but I believe this part of the info box was added to recognize the languages that were given official status in each region. The difference between Aranese and Asturian is that the Catalonian government has given Aranese co-official status, but the Asturian government has not given Asturian co-official status. Neither is as widely spoken as Catalan or Basque in their respective regions. I think in this case we should add what has been made co-official rather than deciding what languages are more important. Kman543210 (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what can be the difference "in the eyes of Spanish government". As far as I know, all the languages mentioned in the box have the same status: languages which are co-official in some autonomous community. Right? --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

locator map; orange or green

• 
• File:Location Spain EU Europe.png

I am an editor busy on the Germany article. There, we recently had the discussion on whether to use the orange or the green map. Most contributors simply like the style of the orange version more and so it will (for the time being) remain our type of locator map. However, to me it was very surprising to find out that more EU countries (the ratio is 2:1) actually use the green version. So, I was wondering whether this is done on purpose, because you prefer the green version? Or would you like to change? Tomeasy_talk 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments at all? What if I propose to change it...Tomeasy_talk 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference between the two. The orange looks a little more colorful and less drab. The green and grey looks a little drab to me. Kman543210 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange version looks better as all counry boundaries are black and visible in every scale (locator map is used in small scale). White boundaries are looking as empty spaces, not lines. So boundaries network is not clear.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Europe eastern edge is more correct at the orange map Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

None of them!... the orange one is not proportional, because it is done in an Mercator projection, while the green one looks correct in its proportions because it is done in ortogonal projection. I agree that the orange one looks better in its colours, borders and so on. The problem is that if you look at it, the northern countries look much bigger than they are in reality, because the cylindrical Mercator projection magnifies sizes, the further north a country is projected, the bigger it looks. The best would be the orange one with the green one proportions, but... such is life! :( David (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Green mp is not in ortogonal projection, but possibly in a conical projection. Mercator projections are widely used in WP as it is possible marks automatic placing (position map stubs). The most enlarged Arctic territories were cut at orange map. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Any projection of a sphere on a plane has its inherent problems. While Mercator gets very wrong with surface areas close to poles, conical maps do not map direction correctly. In the green map for example the northern border of Spain is almost parallel to the eastern border of Europe in the Ural. The angle between those orientations is merely 30°. This is quite wrong. The Mercator projection is true in this respect, so one can clearly see in the orange map that the angle difference is almost exactly 90°. That is, the orange map shows correctly that the northern border of Spain is east-west oriented and the border of Europe in the Ural is north-south oriented.

I do not want to tell you guys what should be more important for you when deciding for one map or the other. I just wanted to show that no map projection is perfect and you either loose this property or that. However, I find the explained projection related limitations (both) minor. From my point of view, there is one main reason to install the orange map: It simply makes the article look more professional as it is more esthetic, more detailed, and better contrasted. Tomeasy_talk 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)