Talk:Hispania

G. Pompeus Trogus
I'd have called him Trogus Pompeius. We lack an article, so I guess Wikipedia hasn't made a choice yet; Pompeus seems very unlikely, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alfonso I
"Alfonso I el Batallador (1104-1134)": is this Alphonse I of Toulouse? The dates don't quite match (although they are close, and in this period the dates are often in dispute), but the geography seems about right. If it is the same person, we should link, and we should note this epithet in that article. If these are different people, we should link and/or add an article as appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I searched on the Spanish Wikipedia, and it came up with Alfonso I of Aragon or es:Alfonso I de Aragón &mdash; J3ff 00:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So the birth date in this article must be wrong (or maybe it's just a date of reign). I'm sure you've got the right person. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Florus
The identification of Florus is apparently problematic: see Florus, Publius Annius Florus, Julius Florus. Florus seems to me the most likely here, but it would be very useful if we knew where the quotation came from so we could identify it with the most appropriate name. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Translations from Latin
At the moment, our Latin quotations are all without specific citations (presumably they are from something in the bibliography). It would be great if anyone could track down specific citations; probably we should try to find the original Latin, and look for canonical published translations of that Latin into English, instead of the double translation Latin==>Spanish==>English. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * In particular, I'm not sure if "mal jerarquizado" should be translated as "badly led" or "badly organized". It won't surprise me if the original Latin is clearer, or if a good scholar has already published an English translation of the relevant passage, possibly even long enough ago to be public domain. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel dice: Queda un problema pequeña. El artículo español, dice que Lucio Anneo Floro esribió que "La nación hispana... [era]... mal jerarquizado." No conozco la última palabra. La etimología está bastante clara, pero ¿qué, exactamente, significa" ¿"Mal organizado"? ¿Que faltaban líderes capaces? ¿Que faltaban una jerarquia efectica? o cual?


 * El sentido que da Floro es el de mal organizado, cada pueblo o cada tribu tenía su propia organización, pero como nación no tenían ningún tipo de organización con una jerarquía que les uniera. ¿Me he expresado bien? Gracias.

Saludos, es:Usuario Discusión:Lourdes Cardenal


 * I'll edit accordingly as "lacked hierarchy" and add an explanatory comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how language biased one can get. Hispania > España is the same spoken word writen but with the different grammars of Latin and Castilian. Theres no Modern day "spain" in spanish. It's "España" and its pronounced pretty much as the romans would have said it back in the days. 85.138.120.221 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Lourdes Cardenal on classical sources
Con gusto le doy la información que me ha pedido:

Estrabón (Strabon) . Geographiká. Libro III, Iberia. Escrito entre los años 29 y 7 adC y retocada en el 18 de nuestra era.

La edición más prestigiosa y más en uso:
 * C. Müller, en París. Finales del siglo XIX. Un volumen a 2 columnas, griego y latín.

La traducción al francés (la mejor según se cree):
 * Tardieu, París 1886

La traducción al inglés (la mejor según se cree):
 * H.L.Jones, con texto griego. Londres-Nueva York, 1917-1932

Ptolemaios (astrónomo griego del siglo II). Geographiké Hyphaégesis, tablas geográficas (es un indicatorio geográfico o guía geográfica).

Pacato, retórico galo que dirigió un panegírico sobre Hispania al emperador Teodosio en el año 389 y que éste leyó ante el Senado.

Pablo Orosio (390-418) historiador, discípulo de San Agustín y autor de “Historiae adversus paganus”, la primera Historia Universal cristiana, y de “Hispania Universa”, guía histórica traducida al anglo-sajón por Alfredo el Grande y traducida al árabe por Abderramán III.

Lucio Anneo Floro (entre los siglos I y II). “Compendio de la historia romana” y "Epítome de la Historia de Tito Livio". Los textos de Tito Livio a este respecto se han perdido, pero Floro los llegó a leer.

Trogo Pompeyo. Se cree que fue un galo con ciudadanía romana. “Historia universal” escrita en latín en los tiempos de Augusto.

Tito Livio (59 adC.-17 ddC.). “Ab urbe condita” libri CXLII De sobra conocido este autor.

Saludos, es:Usuario Discusión:Lourdes Cardenal

Translation of the above
The above came from Lourdes Cardenal in answer to a question I asked him on the Spanish Wikipedia. The following is a translation: -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

With pleasure, I am giving you the information you asked me for:

Strabo. Geographiká. Book III, Iberia. written between the years 29 and 7 BC and touched up in AD 18.

The most prestigious and widely used edition:
 * C. Müller, published in Paris at the end of the 19th century. One volume, with 2 columns, Greek and Latin.

French translation (believed to be the best):
 * Tardieu, París 1886

English translation (believed to be the best):
 * H.L. Jones, with Greek text. London-New York, 1917–1932

Ptolemy (Greek astronomer of the 2nd century). Geographiké Hyphaégesis, geographic tables (it is a geographic indicatorio [I don't know this word -- Jmabel | Talk] or geographic guide).

Pacatus, Gallic rhetorician who directed a panegyric on Hispania to the emperor Theodosius in 389, which he read to the Senate.

Paulus Orosius (390–418) historian, disciple/student of Saint Augustine and author of Historiae adversus paganus, the first Christian Universal History, and of Hispania Universa, an historical guide translated into Anglo-Saxon by Alfred the Great and into Arabic by Abd-ar-Rahman III.

Lucius Anneus Florus (between 1st and 2nd century). Compendium of Roman History and Epitome of the History of Titus Livius (Livy). The relevant texts of Livy have been lost, but we can read them via Florus.

Trogus Pompeius. Believed to be a Gaul with Roman citizenship. Historia universal written in Latin in the times of Augustus Caesar.

Titus Livius (Livy) (59 BC–17 BC). Ab urbe condita, Book CXLII of the known sobra [remaining work?] of this author.

Salutations, es:Usuario Discusión:Lourdes Cardenal

Article Merger
After a favorable discussion in Talk:Roman Spain, I took the liberty yesterday of merging the information from the Roman Spain article into Hispania, getting rid of the merge icon, and putting a redirect in the Roman Spain article. When I made the merger, however, I also brought the Roman Spain References along into Hispania. It was one item, as follows:



Then there was an item in the Hispania article:


 * This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of February 27, 2005.

But today Jmabel took those references out, stating:


 * 05:14, 24 August 2005 Jmabel (→References - indicate what LOC study is referenced)

All I'd done, however, was merely transfer what had been with the Roman Spain material already. The Library of Congress reference is simply a standard one provided by Wikipedia. I have no idea what LOC study is referenced and I can't easily change the content of the notice.

As for creating a link to the Spanish language version, why not do so? If the wording of that notice needs adjustment in some way, that's easy enough to take care of.

The point is, both references together indicate that some of the material in the combined article isn't original with English Wikipedia, that's all. And I think we still need to say that.

Therefore, I'm thinking that the above deleted references should be restored, perhaps with corrections. But I'll leave it to others editing this article to do this if they agree. I think I've done enough just handling the merger.

-- Fred Edwords, August 24, 2005

My bad. I was trying to add the specific web page of the Library of Congress country study in question. I must have glitched somehow. I'll restore. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the history. No, not my bad. I did exactly what I meant to. User:TheOgre then killed both your references and the additional information I added. Again, I will restore. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Provincia Hispania Nova
I did my best to clean up a confusing anonymous edit adding information about Provincia Hispania Nova. I gather this was on the African side of the strait. I don't have a lot of time to follow up right now; I'm sure I left this in a better state than I found it, but the passage could certainly stand improvement from someone who knows this period. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Spain Template
The Ogre removed the History of Spain template I added to this article for the valid reason that the article covers more than the area that is now modern Spain. However, Hispania is the article covering the Roman era for the History of Spain series. I tried making a unique Roman Spain article for the series, but that was merged into Hispania. Basically, I see three different options: First, restore the template to this article; second, create another Roman Spain article for the series; third, preserve the status quo and have the template link here but not have a copy here. I'm in favor of the second option. The third seems problematic since the series essentially is incomplete.--Bkwillwm 17:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the template should be added to this article. If we have a History of Portugal template, that, too should be added. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a History of Portugal template. The Ogre 16:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added both to the article. If someone has a good image to use here with History of Portugal, please add it to the template invocation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added an image to History of Portugal, it's not perfect, but was the best I could find. I'm also reordering the location of the templates in the article (to the See Also section, as has been done in the Visigoths article) - In the present version, precedence is being given to the Spanish one - that is kind of POV... The Ogre 15:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * However... I believe the following comment, made in Talk:Visigoth about the templates, has some bearing here:"Missing the History of France and History of Italy templates, probably POV to not include them. Of course, we could also have a History of Europe and Germanic Tribes templates. Oh, and a new History of Visigoth template, which can be added it to the History of Spain article. The possibilities are endless. Stbalbach 21:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)". To which I replied "I agree! Probably the best thing is not to have the templates at all, just the links to the "History of (whatever)", where you can find the respectives templates. I was just tired of having to delete the History of Spain template people keep adding to this type of articles that are about historical periods well before the existence of the modern country of Spain and are also connected with the history of many other modern countries (namely Portugal, when we are talking about the Iberian peninsula)! The Ogre 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)". So... I really believe we should not have the templates at all. But if we do, then, in this article, we need both the Spanish and the Portuguese one in relatively equal positions. The Ogre 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That looks really good where you put it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sentence fragment cut
I cut the following sentence fragment from the end of the lead paragraph: "Since 80 b.C. Mauritania Tingitana". It didn't make sense, and looking at Mauritania Tingitana did not indicate anything notable about that date. If someone can sort out what was meant here, feel free to restore it more clearly. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cut again, this time worded as "Later too Mauretania Tingitana." Please explain what you art trying to say, this makes no sense the way you are saying this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * At that spot it is unclear- the idea obviously is the point the Roman name even was applied beyond the peninsula, as stated in the section on the two Hispaniae: "In A.D. 69 the province of Mauretania Tingititana or Hispania Nova was incorporated into Hispania. " Fastifex 12:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks fine the way it is in now. (I haven't independently verified, but at least what is there now is comprehensible). - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If we see ,the Diocleciano division ,we can see Mauritania Tingitana was part of Hispania.

CarthagInIensis?
No mention is made in the article of the province of Carthagenensis (split from southern Tarraconnensis?), although it is depicted as such on one of the maps... Abou 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note the correct Latin adjective, referring to Carthago Nova (present Cartagena), is Carthaginiensis. A province thus named, indeed split from Tarraconensis, is the only newcomer (in most parts of the empire there were far more) in the new diocese of the 'Spains' resulting from Diocletian's 284AD Tetrarchy. (clear on consecutive maps in Westermann) Fastifex 11:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was searching for the wrong spelling, then. In that case, the maps in the article are missing an "i" ("Carthaginensis"). Abou 16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2 incomprehensible sentences
In the list after "The emperor Augustus in that same year returned to make a new division leaving the provinces as follows": "Provincia Hispania Nova, whose capital was Tingis (Tánger). In A.D. 69 the province of Mauretania Tingitana was incorporated into Hispania." The relation between Hispania Nova and Mauretania Tingitana is still absolutely unclear here.

Also, "In the third century, under the Soldier Emperors, Hispania Nova (the northwestern corner of Spain) was split off from Tarraconensis, small but the home of the only permanent legion is Hispania, Legio VII Gemina." After "Tarraconensis", this becomes incomprehensible; I suspect there is a typo somewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Campaignbox Roman conquest of Spain
User Neddyseagoon just added a Template:Campaignbox Roman conquest of Spain (Talk page here). This is not acceptable and is clearly POV. Not the use of a campaignbox, but saying it is of the Roman conquest of Spain. It was not the modern country of Spain that the Romans invaded and conquered, it was the whole of the Iberian Peninsula. Iberia or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples), and they called it Al-Andalus. This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, the Template Campaignbox Roman conquest of Spain should be renamed Campaignbox Roman conquest of Hispania. I'm doing just that. The Ogre 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You needn't so many lines to explain that Hispania was't Spain. But I must remember you that since Visigoths Hispania existed as a political country (not only administration). Of course, it's not the same a country in those centuries that a country or a nation today. I mean, you have a nationalist point of view, where the concept either "Hispania" or "Spain" is the oppresor of other small true countries. And that is only a part of reallity. The other part is that a political union, partial or completely exited and exists for centuries, since Visigoths rule, with a serie of dependences and independence figths.--161.111.24.30 09:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with The Ogre. Until 1776 (The "Guerra de Sucesion"), the Crown of Aragon was a different political entity from the Crown of Castilla, united under the same king (until Carlos II died without any heirs), but with it´s own political organization, laws (which the "Decreto de Nueva Planta abolished here in the Land of Valencia), culture etc. Speaking about a "united Spain" in the Middle Ages or even until that year (1776) is inaccurate, and should be corrected. Of course there were common cultural bonds between the Crown of Castilla and the Crown of Aragon, but just the same as with any neighbour cultures. Violenciafriki 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The people of Hispania
Shouldn't we have some information about the people that lived in Hispania? How were called the people that lived in Hispania? Hispanensis, Hispanicus, Hispaniensis? What were their main activities  and some important people born in Roman Hispania.

How was the Romanization made:

http://descargas.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/12371840888016073087624/019920_2.pdf

http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~lcurchin/Spain/tour.html

What jobs people had:

http://www.uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/curchin.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.152.94.107 (talk • contribs) 31 October 2006.

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia
Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge into Iberian Peninsula

 * (retrived from Talk:Iberian Peninsula)

Hello, "Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula", "The term Hispania is Latin and the term Iberia is Greek". Apropos of the merger discussions above, I think the two articles Hispania and Iberian Peninsula would benefit from better integration, or possibly merging or refactoring. Hispania could become a disambiguation page pointing to Iberian Peninsula, History of the Iberian Peninsula during Roman times, etc., for example. For a related example, see Formosa -- the island of Taiwan used to be known as Formosa, but we don't have a separate article called "Formosa" about the same geographic location and the history during the time it was called Formosa. What do you think? —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-13 09:19Z 
 * Hello Quarl. I tend to disagree with you, even if both articles could benefit from some better integration. But, for me, Iberian Peninsula is essencually an article about a geographical location, while Hispania is an article about the Iberian Peninsula in Roman and Visigothic times. I believe these two should not be merged and also because either Iberian Peninsula and Hispania are words people are used to search for with different connotations, they should not be confused. The Ogre 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Ogre. = Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose a merger. The Iberian Peninsula is a geographical feature, while Hispania was a Roman and medieval political entity. I'm aware that this is an oversimplification; "Hispania" has often been used as a geographical term. Nevertheless, there are two different concepts here which should be distinguished. FilipeS 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad idea to merge. Mary*wu (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the names "Hispania", "Iberia", and "Iberian Peninsula"
I think this paragraph would be more suitable for Iberian Peninsula. Does anyone oppose that it be moved there? FilipeS 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about the name Hispania not Iberia. It should stay, but with more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.170.70 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Name
It is a nonsense write on some theories without the smallest documentary support or accredited references, and nevertheless not take into account others with bibliographical references. Consequently, I think best not to disseminate any of the former.--Maitravaruna (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it in but tag it as disputed, as sources are cited and without the first paragraph the rest of the section lacks context. snigbrook (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the cited theories are marginal, obsolete, and in general without a documentary support. Her only reference is a book of 1850 (¿¿¿???). Subsequently, García y Bellido, Cunchillos and Zamora, or Matesanz Gascón, between others, have formulated another theories. This section, without a quote of the later mentioned theories, is misleading and unhelpful. No doubt, the issue is debatable, but it is treacherous spread and disseminate in an encyclopaedia questionable theories (some of them, directly, aberrant or impossible), without considering other hypothesis more modern and/or documented. It's like explaining the European Bronze Age with a manual published in 1850. Simply unacceptable. Moreover, these later hypothesis are deleted when they are introduced in the section. Simply, this section of the article, in his present form, is worse than bad. Therefore, I consider that it is better deleted it, since it is biased and obsolete. --Maitravaruna (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sertorius
I wonder whether some mention should be made of the shadow government of Sertorius in Hispania during the late 80s and 70s BC. Mithradates of Pontus, for instance, recognized Sertorius as Roman head of state. Sertorius formed his own senate, and T.R.S. Broughton recognizes Sertorian appointments to magistracies and commands in Magistrates of the Roman Republic. It gives a picture of the importance Hispania had, and would've had even more so if things had gone a bit differently. Views of Sertorius vary wildly, but to me he was offering a more capacious alternative to Sulla. One of Sulla's main goals was to reassert the dominance of a small elite; Sertorius seems to have had rather radical notions of building schools in Hispania, for instance, instead of just warring all the time, and making alliances (with Mithradates) rather than just indulging in rampant expansionism; in other words, of opening up Roman society. Not that he isn't accused of an atrocity or two, too. This is a very well-developed article, and I don't have any desire to meddle with it. Just wanted to introduce the question in case someone already involved was interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Go ahead and do it. Be bold! The Ogre (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hispania a Roman Province?
"(...) the borders of modern Spain do not coincide with those of the Roman province of Hispania (...)" Hispania was never a Roman province, it was a territory in which several Roman provinces could be found,as estated later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.126.202 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hispania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006160601/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hispania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714102251/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/McCormick_RomanClimate2012.pdf to http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/McCormick_RomanClimate2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hispania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030001728/http://www.barcelona-tourist-information.info/roman-buildings-in-barcelona.html to http://www.barcelona-tourist-information.info/roman-buildings-in-barcelona.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Spanish IPA
I’m pretty sure the Spanish IPA should be [isˈpanja], unless the pronunciation is irregular which would be very odd for Spanish; the comment about the other languages all being nearly identical is weird too.

I’m going to add Classical Latin IPA since that’s the obvious one that should be included. Caywinter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Spanish transcription changed to [isˈpanja]. --Jotamar (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)