![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The 55% and 45% percentages were given to conform a total of 100% of people that answered the question or didn't say they won't vote. From the people interviewed 68% answered YES or NOT, that's the 100%. From 68% 38% YES and 31% NO is the same as from 100% 55% YES and 45% NO. 13% of the people said they won't vote, and 19% didn't answer (obviously that seems to mean they don't care). When voting you are not counting in the percentages the people not voting. That's the way a referendum works.
Montenegro got similar outcome in its referendum (but with voter turnout of 86.5%...):
I wrote the percentages of total votes of the elections at
municipality level because it is known that elections at Spanish level won't show real accurate percentages for regionalist and nationalist parties, since many people think that is better to vote to country-wide parties like PSOE and PP at those elections.
I think that nationalist and regionalist parties probably would be more accurately represented at region level elections, but I haven't got those figures since they are not available at
[1].
If someone could seek for those recent results in the Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Canary Islands, Castile-Leon, Aragon, Andalusia, Asturias, Navarre, Valencia, Balearic Islands, Cantabria, Extremadura and Murcia... that would be helpful.
Municipality elections' percentual votes should be updated next year, when new elections are held.
And even if those voters would like to be independent of Spain, they may think it's reasonable to be practical and while being in Spain support PSOE or PP (I doubt anyone voting PP would vote PNV...but in fact I know one doing exactly that...confusing...)-- Harriherrihorri 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I want to add that it is true that for most of the regionalist and nationalist parties their proposals only affect the regional level, and it is nonsense to vote for them at Spanish level (if they haven't got any plan for the whole country; when they have, it uses to be just to get more self-government for its region, a subject impossible to get by itself in the Spanish Parliament).-- Harriherrihorri 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I may add too that parties like Batasuna, which don't accept the Basque Country being Spain, asks its voters not to vote at Spanish level elections, since they are not Basque elections.
This article needs a good and detailed linguistic map of the whole of the Iberian Peninsula! Does anyone have one? The Ogre 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I wasn't implying a direct connection between linguist realities and national/political ones. I just thought a map could help understand the issue at hand. The question is if the map you linked to (pity it does not include data for Portugal) can be uploaded to the Wikipedia, because of copyright issues. I doubt it! Can you check and see to that? Thanks! The Ogre 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Already added the link. And also to the articles Languages of Spain, Iberian Romance languages and Iberian languages. Maybe an email is the best solution... Gracias por tu trabajo! The Ogre 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The owner of the map rejected to give permission -- Harriherrihorri 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
___The "detailed map of languages" included at the end as an external link ( http://www.proel.org/lenguas2.html) is very inaccurate: the range of catalan in valencia is totally incorrect. the official division was set in 1800 and is accepted by the Generalitat Valenciana, and unvariable in all other maps (for example in the wiki section on catalan language it is correct). to be specific, catalan is spoken in morella, vilafranca, font de la figuera and el carxe. in the map, the line is about 5mm too far to the right! equally, it is not spoken in segorbe, but on the map its is thrown in. change it!
thanks, from valencia
I removed the following as it was too speculative:
I would keep the following paragraph and the section regarding to the "Core of Spain", because after a brief reading of this article the casual reader will have the impression that Spain is going to disintegrate any day now, and that is completely false.
It is true that right wing parties and PP claim that too. Ibero 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that some fringe ultra-nationalist in Portugal defend the union of Portugal and Galicia? The Ogre 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
For Mountolive: I don't know if we can make such a broad statement as "Portuguese do not like Spaniards"... To be sure, historically there has been a lot of animosity between the two nations and that's quite present in Portuguese culture. But I believe today that questions is somewhat non existent. I'm Portuguese and I like Spain!
Error: There is a stub urgently in need of expansion called Iberic Federalism... The Ogre 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have encountered some leftist, who had propaganda saying "Galiza is Northern Portugal". But I could never figure out which organization he represented. -- Soman 06:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
We would like to add to this very illustrative article, the claims of the most righteous and noble city of Alcalá de Henares to declare its independence from the Madrilean imperialism and, indeed, segregate itself from the outrageous concept of a Spanish state, full of despisable races of many blood-types and historically inept. Our goals within the limits of this article are the modification of the maps included, so as to portrait the most sacred and just rights of Alcalá/Complutum to an independent state with its colonies and territories.
Otherwise, our utmost stress shall be placed on the recovery of our ancient and now blemished University, suffered to part from our dominions to those of the loathed aliens (over 30km away) in a brief moment of feebleness in our otherwise spotless History... Also, we would like to assert our right to a sea-port, which shall be located on the eastern coast, according to the former provinces of the Imperium Complutensis. Should anyone doubt our most rightful demands, we are compelled to remind them of Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar's feat of conquering Valencia, after abiding in Alcalá for a short period of time, which forever bound him and his deeds to the fate of our most righteous and noble metropolis.
Furthermore, through the august figures of Emperor Ferdinand of Austria and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, both honourable sons of the pride and prime of our fatherland, we assert our pretensions to the Imperial throne of Austria, and to the Caliphate of the vanquished Turks; the latter rendered possible by Cervantes's feat, whose veins were filled with the proud and valient blood of Alcalá through and through.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned "Imperium Complutensis", in accordance with the spirit of the times and the mainstream of this current of thought, we shall henceforward call the Empire either Països Alcalainos or else Komplutarra Herria.
80.26.123.205 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon if I am not kind enough with certain approaches to a theme that, in the Basque Country, has caused much stupid killing and havoc in the last 30 years. I beg your pardon for not stating clearly, without jokes that may give a laughable connotation to such racist assumptions as made here, that this article is just misleading and disinformative. Ah, but I also have to beg your pardon for not being the only one offended...? Do you think the Talk:Macedonism is where I should post my comments or what?
Navarre as an internationally recognised State existed before Spain did. I can agree you that. However, that situation ended in 1515, as Spain was "formed by accretion of several independent Iberian realms" (article).
Now, to your very humble and kind words: the article is very explanatory and doesn't invent stories nor future states.
On explanation:
If you know Spain you might well know what all this nationality issues are about and this article doesn't contribute anything to, IMHO, gibberish talk used in many different ways to exaltate some people's sentiments and get political power. If you don't: again IMHO, I doubt how this listing of independentist groups and ideas can help you get the gist of why all those tiny little patches of an insignificant country quarrel with each other.
As to inventing things:
Firstly, the article DOES say very innaccurate and misleading things. Here you are, without searching much: "the PNV wins regularly any election at either the town, region or Spanish levels in the Basque Country autonomous community, but the fact that it achieves a mere plurality and that electors of PNV do not unanimously support (full) independence, counterts the belief that independence is a generally accepted idea by Basque population." See the governing parties in the cities of
San Sebastián, and
Vitoria and in the province of
Álava and tell me whether the PNV wins any election or only some of them. Don't you think this gives a false idea as to what the forces in the Basque Country are?
More clamorous is, though, that this wonderful piece of knowledge about Spain doesn't say a word about a terrorist organisation that kills people who favour the views opposite to nationalism. Is that not worth mentioning in an article entitled "Nationalities in Spain"? No, it's better to present only the amiable, kind face of nationalim: electoral percentages and the "will of peoples to gain independence." Or, does it tell how the PNV controls many strings of power in that region? Does it talk about the Kutxa? What about the suppression of the teaching in Castilian to force people that have been living there for dozens of generations learn a language they no longer spoke? Same strategy as the dictator used back in his good days, wasn't it? Of course, this I'm saying is only part of the story; but it corresponds with the same reality and nothing about it is being said in this biased article.
One more thing, witness the last results of the elections in Catalonia after the legislative period with the most extremist nationalism has elapsed to tell me if people aren't fed up with that stuff... I am, too.
Secondly, it does propose new States: (from the footnote to the first Paint-drawn map) "A Spanish State would be composed by the traditional regions or nations of Castile (Burgos, Soria, Palencia, Valladolid, Segovia, Avila, Madrid, La Rioja, Cantabria, Toledo, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Albacete, Guadalajara, Caceres, Badajoz, Murcia), Leon (Leon, Zamora, Salamanca, Asturias), Aragon (Huesca, Zaragoza, Teruel) and Andalusia (Huelva, Jaen, Malaga, Granada, Cadiz, Sevilla, Cordoba, Almeria), while 4 apart independent European states would be the Basque Country (Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa, Alava, Navarre), the Catalan Countries (Barcelona, Lleida, Girona, Tarragona, Castellon, Valencia, Alicante), Galicia (A Coruña, Lugo, Ourense, Pontevedra), and naturally Portugal."
I won't stress again how nonsensical these cabalas are, since you say you're also against that sort of thing.
As the paragraph posted before was totally incomprehensible, I have deleted it.
You're right about the Spanish paragraph I wrote, though, and I have translated it fully.
Don't be so kind, some articles don't deserve it.
MiG-25 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My dear 81.202.96.146, please stop asking me to stop from doing this or that, for it is not your duty to tell me so. Give your opinion and defend it as you may, as I am doing, and put the full stop after it. Now, it seems that we cannot insert anything here that raises the slightest doubt against the legitimacy of "those independentist movements". Sorry, I won't bother creating an article entitled "Terrorist groups linked to X nationalism"; but I do believe that if there's an article that deals with "X nationalism" or "Nationalities in Y", which includes "X nationalism", it is only right to talk about those terrorist groups. To your accusation:
I don't know what your reasons are for defending the accuracy of this article; clearly not the article itself. My own are simply that, if we are to talk about such a delicate subject as "nationalities in Spain" we'd better document ourselves and tell everything that ought to be told.
MiG-25 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
By order: 1- Everyone is biased, that´s ok. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to voice your personal concerns about "spanish speakers opressed in Catalonia", that´s fine with me, but please don´t do it in an eclyclopedical article right? When we contribute to a wikipedia article, it´s not enough to go "OK I´m biased because I think this and that, so let the battle begin". No, we try to put aside our differences and be as neutral as possible. I´m not trying to point out my ideas in an article, as if I were hoping to clash with you and eventually "reach a middle ground" in the article´s content. No. I´m trying to be objective in this article, and you´re not, because you´re admiting to be biased AND allowing your bias to affect your output in this article. 2- That´s very respectful of you, and I think it´s the right thing to do. 3- No it doesn´t. I am not trying to push an agenda here. I am just pointing the OBVIOUS LOGICAL fact that articles should talk about the topic they´re about. If I, for example tried to hide the racialist doctrines Sabino Arana had, in an article about Sabino Arana, you could rightfully accuse me of "preventing obnoxious information" from getting into the article. But asking for an article named Nationalities in Spain to talk about those nationalities and not about terrorist gangs that claim to defend some of the ideologies that support independentist claims based on the actual nationalities we´re talking about in this article, is just asking for something entirely reasonable. See the far away link between your proposed "terrorist issue" stuff and the actual content of the article? As I said, create an article about Terrorist gangs linked to nationalist claims in Spain, and everything will be fine. By your same reasoning, anyone could end up talking about the IRA in an article about Catholicism. 4- What did I state that was false? I made only one comment before this one, just to ask you to stop trying to shove terrorist stuff in an article that is not about terrorism. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Bye 81.202.96.146 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
And I wonder... which are the sources for the map with that supposed ensemble of Nations, States, Confederations and Residents Associations? I'm just curious, more than anything, 'cause I would tell them that they've forgotten to include
Olivenza inside of Portugal. Also that they have mistaken a couple of boundaries in those different realms/nations/whatever. Remarkably, those limits they draw correspond to the limits of a provincial map shaped much after the "rising" of those supposed nationalities and it is as though they had been fixed in a political-administrative (sic) map rather than a demographic one (which is what they're meant to use).
Ah, and they've forgotten the poor Canarians, who are also rightfully entitled to indulge in mental masturbation. There will come someone or other, and I'm sure they'll claim some hinterland in the Azores and Villa Cisneros. After all, daydreaming is for free, like Wikipedia; ERGO we must use our daydreams in Wikipeida...! How thin the line is that separates an encyclopaedia from a pamphlet!! By the way, it's interesting to see what Wiki-es says on this subjet. Seems there's some tyrannical, meanie francoist censorship in action there. Gaeddal 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Translated by: MiG-25 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) by virtue of the following statement:
Pd: Escribo en español porque me ha salido d* l*s c*j***s. Si alguien quiere traducirme, se lo agradeceré eternamente.
In my opinion, this article could only make some sense and be of some use in wikipedia if it was about Basque+Catalan+Galician, maybe with some minor mentions to Balearic, Valencian and, maybe (very conditional "maybe" here) to Aragonese and Andalusian, but always making clear that regionalism is not nationalism nor equates to "nationality", it is just a wish to stress the local stuff, but without entering the "nationalities" discussion at all. Then all the the other "nationalities" which probably claim as their greatest accomplishment ruling the 1,000 inhabitants town where the founder of the micro-party is from (and where he has many friends), those are really out of the scope of any serious encyclopaedic article whatsoever.
Myself I am in a similar situation to the one of MiG-25 where I don't dare to edit, nor I will. My reason to refrain from doing so is because the article, as it is, is such a Marx brothers nationalist festival that, well, there's no point in trying to amend it because the whole article starts on a very biased and fundamentally wrong foundation, which is trying to present some sort of Matrix Spain where every 50 to 100 kms or so you hit a "nationality" or a "regional identity" or, at least! some "ambiguous province" whatsoever.
This presents a very biased portrait of the Spanish reality because it is equating say Asturian so called nationality supported by say 1.5% of the votes, to Catalan nationalism, for example, which is a huge methodological bias.
In other words: when it defines territory as a "nationality" or an "ambiguous province", it does so regardless whatever electoral backing its advocates have. I mean, it seems enough to define Extremadura as a separate part in the map because the regionalist (not even nationalist) party gets 1.5%...the remainder 98.5% of the population apparently has to be a "nationality" whether they want it or not.
In other words, this article looks like some kind of self fulfilling prophecy where first there was a map and from there it started the work here, in order to justify the map, instead of doing it the other way, having the facts first and, then, draw a map (if needed...it is fascinating how mesmerized are nationalists by maps, borders, different colours, buffering zones where colours mix, etc: did you notice?).
By the way, what do you think "ambiguous province" means? yes, it does not mean anything at all and it is sad that such a dull vocabulary is desecrating what should be an encyclopaedia (which I guess it meets its limits with articles like this, where some people come to make real their wildest dreams).
Actually, those who thought that they could make real their wildest dreams here are actually debasing the certain importance of nationalism/nationalities in Spain (and I mean the real ones) and they do so by mentioning Murcia, Extremadura, Asturias and so many others mentioned there....in the end, the article is absolutely over the top eventually non sensical and deserving to be erased so that it can be started with something new, fresh and from a totally different, more objective, perspective. Or, at least, that's my opinion. Mountolive 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! This article is a complete nonsense from begining to end! Is clearly a poor attempt from a nationalistic separatist to create an historic "reality" that has never existed! I think that the fact the Wikipedia has signed this article as "disputed" trully honours the Wikipedia organization. Spain dates back to Roman foundation. The Reconquista was about recovering Hispania, rebuilding Hispania. Any other thing is just a poor attempt from separatists to rewrite history reshaping it to their liking and interests.
OliverFA 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! In Land of Valencia there were around of 15% of votes in the last autonomous elections to parties wich demands the right of self-determination for the Land of Valencia (basically, EUPV+ BNV+Valencian Green Parties+ EV). Around of 8% of votes are for nationalist parties, and the most important Valencian nationalist party, BNV (near 5% of votes), wich considers Land of Valencia as a nation, instead of Catalan Countries. This latter is considered by all those mentioned parties as a political concept of several nations in high-collaboration, in a similar way as the Benelux, but not considered as an only one nation. Cheers. -- Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
One recent example is the opposition EUPV has had to the new Valencian "Estatut d´autonomia", which it sees as too light and submissive to centralist rule, supporting historically incorrect symbols (flag, etc) and not promoting valencian enough, as opposed to the PSPV and PPCV´s perspective (among many other issues such as electoral barriers, the Ebro competences, etc). On the other hand, Iniciativa supported the Catalan "Estatut", wich the PSOE thought was right for Catalonia, even when many independentists (ERC included) thought it didn´t allow the degree of autonomy Catalonia deserved. So, Iniciativa has a separate representation in the Spanish parliament, but supports an Estatut with PSOE, which ERC opposes. On the other hand, EUPV (along BNV and ERPV), opposes an Estatut PSOE and PP support, but hasn´t got a separate Spanish parliamentary representation. Which of them can be considered nationalist? To me, both are. You just have to take a look at their ideological stand and political actions. As I said, nationalism DOES NOT mean independentism (although independentism does mean nationalism), and EUPV is perfectly fine considered as a nationalist party, although not an independentist one. 81.202.96.146 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don´t know where are you drawing the conclusion that EU´s main policies aren´t nationalist, because you can clearly see in their ideological statement that they have a nationalist focus. If you care to look at the political issues their militants are involved in, you´ll see that they are not only involved in ecologist, communist, and feminist issues, but nationalist ones as well. So in conclusion, the EU vote is yes, nationalist, without any doubt. Violenciafriki 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1) Socialist (in the sense of non socialdemocrat) 2) vaguely anti capitalist 3) Ecologist 4) Feminist and 5) Vaguely nationalist
I think it's good time to move the 'Cantabria' paragraph to the regionalism section, since it has a regionalist government supported by the socialists (it's quite ambiguous to talk about its regionalist government on one section and the region itself on another, as it happens in the article). By the way, Cantabria and Navarre are the only two regions in Spain to have regionalist governments. If that is not regionalism, I don't know what it is.-- L'irlandés 14:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Regards, -- Asterion talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It is sad that most of the Spaniard people think of nationalities as a political problem waged by some parties that want to achieve power by inventing false nations out of air. But the reality is that those nations have existed for centuries (the Basque People have been there for at least two millenia) but they never had a kingdom or state of their own. Now they are asking for one. Recent population movements from Castile to the Basque Country and Andalusia to Catalonia also add problems to the matter, because these people and their first generation descendants still feel Spaniard and don't want to obtain any other nation. They never had a state, but these nations were there, their languages, traditions, music, way of life. USA is conformed of many states, none of those is a nation though, but there are nations there too, the First Nations (the term used in Canada) or Amerindian Nations, they never had a state of their own.
People opposing to minoritary nationalism in Spain would say that each village is a nation. I would answer: ask them and you'll know.
I don't like politics, I just want an internationally recognized nation and forget about everything else. Nationalism is not a political problem, but a nations' clash.
Well, the Indians had States. The Aztec Empire, Maya, Inca, Cahokia, etc. They also enjoy a fair amount autonamy in there local affairs. There Reservations are heavily subsidized by the Federal Government and they pay little taxation. Some would disagree but that is that.
I happen to find the subject of Regional Nationalism or Seperatism in Europe to be rather fascinating. Especially Pan-Celticism, and various Movements in Spain and Eastern Europe. Not really caring about, just interested.
Anyways, it would be good for this article to simply be written in the form of, say. List the various Nationalities along with Linguistic and Historicaly relevant facts. Than you can list the political parties, and movements for each.
Why jump from thing to thing making an article barely readible and even less informative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be worked in. Rhode Islander 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That totally innacurate. England !=Spain What has Euskadi to do with Ulster?? There has been no invasion. No war. No expropriation of lands. Catalonia belonged to the Aragonese Crown Where is Navarra's Kingdom None of the resemblances has any basis - signed by an anon IP
Spain was under the Moors whom are Muslim Arabs from North Africa from the invasion of Spain's southern tip in 711 AD to later pushed Christian Spanish kingdoms to the North towards the Pyrennes and the Atlantic, to the last expulsion of Spanish Muslims from Granada between 1490 and 1500. You may say the Moors acted like the Danes in England the same way the Goths in Castille are similar to Normans refounded England in the battle of Hastings in 1066.
Most ironically, Spain remains agitated over the British presence in Gibraltar since the treaty of 1707 gave the small colony to British hands but Spain still claimed them. Great Britain offically "integrated" Gibraltar to the kingdom in 1965 being in mainland Europe, while the Franco regime threatened to take over Gibraltar in the late 1960s and early 1970s without success nor any military invasion was made. The majority of Gibraltar wants to remain British, but has cultural ties with Spain and the two countries must share them. + 71.102.53.48 ( talk) 10:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this article doesn't express the real situation of the 21st century's Spanish state. The only nations within the State are the following ones: the Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia. That's all. The rest are just Spanish regions. My proposal is to list the three Spanish nations I told before and then list the other territories which are just simple regions. We can't compare the Basque Country with the Murcian region, and we can neither compare Catalonia with the artificial 25-year-old Madrid community as well. -- Mreq ( talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1- The reign of Castilla was originally an eastern county of the kingdom of León, in the 11th century Castilla became an INDEPENDENT realm with its capital at Burgos and later Valladolid.
2- The suposed union and creation of Spain by the Catholic Kings was nonsense, as in the dead of Isabel I Queen of Castilla and León her daugther came to reing in Castilla, altough Fernando II was still king of Aragon (1479–1516), Sicily (1468–1516), Naples (1504–1516), Valencia, Sardinia and Navarre, Count of Barcelona, de jure uxoris King of Castile (1474-1504) and then Regent (and true ruler) of that country also from 1508 to his death, in the name of his mentally challenged daughter Joanna the Mad.
3- The current Spanish constitution refers to the monarchy as "the Crown of Spain" and the constitutional title of the monarch is simply Rey/Reina de España: that is, "king/queen of Spain". However, the constitution allows for the use of other historic titles pertaining to the Spanish monarchy, without specifying them. A decree promulgated 6 November 1987 at the Council of Ministers regulates the titles further, and on that basis the monarch of Spain has a right to use ("may use") those other titles appertaining to the Crown. Contrary to some belief, the long titulary that contains the list of over 20 kingdoms, etc., is not in state use, nor is it used in Spanish diplomacy. In fact, it has never been in use in that form, as "Spain" was never a part of the list in pre-1837 era when the long list was officially used. This feudal style was last used officially in 1836, in the titulary of Isabella II of Spain before she became constitutional Queen.
Juan Carlos's titles include that of King of Jerusalem, as successor to the royal family of Naples.
Titles in official use
King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens, and of Neopatra (New Patras); Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Rousillon and of Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina
All these titles doesn't make, for example, Milan part of Spain. So the conclusion is that if king/Queen held or hold a title of two countries doesn't mean that they become a united kingdom, not to mention a single nation.
To sum up, the title of Spain has not even 175 years, and others, that are official, such as the Kingdom of León has more than 1.000 years. Consider that León has no nationality and Spain does sounds odd.
Finally I would like to say to many people, better study and know things and facts by yourself, like your own origins, and do not do consider that things are as you were told they where. Remember that history is always and everywhere written by the ones who had victory, and wrote what they intended not what happened.
All references are from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.246.114 ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1. The article says: Traditionally it was an independent kingdom that forged Spain in its fusion with the Kingdom of Castile. It looks like Castile and Aragon joined peacefully and merrily, forming Spain. False. Between the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 18th century, Spain was still seen as a union of crowns, not really a single country. It's in the beginning of the 18th century when Castilians conquer Aragon (=Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia and Majorca) that a single Spain begins to exists. That's why laws are the Castilian ones, Aragonese liberties being abolished. That's why Castilian becomes the single 'official' language. Words like "union", "fusion" and so on are just biased euphemisms. 2. The article says: But by no means they wish an independent state, but to be fully recognized as a distinct and important region in Spain with its own (not yet officially) recognized Aragonese language. What's that "by no means"? An encyclopaedic article shouldn't show personal opinions so clearly, should it? It is true that probably most Aragonese people don't want Aragon to become an independent state, but there is a small percentage of Aragonese who do, as well as a party, Estado Aragonés, who claims for independence. I don't think Chunta Aragonesista should be considered pro-independence, but rather supporter of a strong federalism. Anyway to state such things I suggest linking those opinions to a poll, at least. As for the Aragonese language, a language nowadays unknown to most Aragonese, its defenders want it to be official alongside Spanish in some municipalities of the northern province of Huesca, but not in the whole of Aragon. And finally 3. the article says Its Statute of Autonomy defines this region as a nationality. If Aragon was an independent nation in the past, if the Aragonese know they're heirs of that past and consider themselves Aragonese even if they feel Spanish at the same time, if Aragon shows so many elements characteristically said to be typical of an ethnic group or nation, and if it is politically and officially stated that they're one of the so-called nationalities of Spain, why on earth is Aragon considered in the regions section? -- Purplefire 00:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Where do I even go with this first map.......
Catalan countries as one nationality. If there is one thing that I am sure about, it is the fact that if Valencians HATE being lumped in with Catalans as one entity. It is viewed as imperialistic and not a desire to unite territories that speak the same language but more of another territory for Barcelona to dominate. If "Aragón", which speaks Spanish, gets to be thought of separate as Castilla as it was its own kingdom, then Valencia which unlike Catalonia was its own kingdom, ought not to be lumped in with Catalonia.
Euskal Herria as one nationality? There is a reason why Navarre opted out of being put in with the rest of the Spanish Basque country in the division into autonomous communities. As it is, even parts of the Basque country are not nationalistic (Alava), so what good is it putting Navarre which has made very clear that it does not want to go with the rest of the Basque country, as part of one monolithic Basque nationality.
I understand that the second map tries to redress this, but I do not think that this mitigates the fantasy of the first map. It pigeonholes every non-nationalist region as being this schizophrenic chimera that is either the result of nationalistic imperialism or centralist brainwashing.
In short, this map showing a potential ethnic breakdown is fantasy at best, and the result of the internet's ability to attract radicals that seek to imprint their own leaning in an unbiased article. This article is in need of MAJOR revision and its neutrality is very much in question.
Eboracum 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually this whole article is about the issue of clashes of national identity within spain so it seems reasonable to call them fantasies, dreams or simply divergent notions from the officialist position, which in my opinion is a laissez-faire atitude based on the philosophy that the victors get to write the history, that is, since the castillian nation has written the rules of what can and cannot be considered spanish, everyone must agree with it and except, where borders and concepts clash, castillian nationalism's superiority and correctness. ps. we are from valencia and we also don't hate the catalans, in fact most people seem to envy the catalans because we have the slightly false idea they defend our common culture better than we do. Most people freely recognise the common culture and most of the problems focus on the lack of a shared defense of it, on the whole weight of the culture and its recognition falling on barcelona. the language is the key factor in catalan and valencian nationalism and due to the fact that the language is the same, this tends to lead to more or less overt acceptance of a catalan supra-nationality amongst most speakers of the language, called "the catalan countries". I think it is mostly a cultural idea when used positively; and a political one, when used despectively.
It is neccesary to have an article explaining the different national feelings in Spain, no doubt about that. But this article is full of unreferenced data, POV, needed citations and just good writing. I didn't read it all but I found these examples in just 10 minutes: "Present-day "comunidades" are not allowed to interact officially with each other in order to reestablish mutual historical links." POV "Since the reign of the Catholic Monarchs, there has been a process of uniformization by the central authorities." innacurate "few Spanish citizens identify only as Spanish" True in the Catalonia or the Basque Country but not in the rest of the Estate. "in Alava Basque language is used only by a minority, being Spanish the most common language." This happends also in most of the Basque Country not just in Alava.
Also it is confusing to divide spanish regions into Nationalists, Regionalist and Ambigous. These 3 ways of thinking acctually live together in all spain. A part of the Basque PNV could be considered Regionalist, even the PP from Galicia, or the PSOE from Catalonia. There are parties who support self-determination but are not nationalists (like IU in the Basque Country). And regionalist movements in Extremadura, Murcia or Castilla la Mancha are virtually non-existent. In the case of Extremadura the author writes some random historical facts about Extremadura and ends with "Regionalist movements also exist here."
I will try to write the Basque Country section (i am basque) and I will post it just to show how I think this article should be orientated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.118.109 ( talk) 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It should be erased. It's full of intencionate mistakes, misdirections, unproved claims and just straight lies (realm of catalonia?? please, we're not at high school anymore...) -- Infinauta ( talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So now the Kingdom of Navarra never existed and something that first occured in any text or mind whatsoever 100 years ago and that was never a State/Kingdom/principality or anything of its own, is going to take its place and form a "European State"... What the heck!?!?!
Pero, a ver, machote... ¿No te das cuenta de que los que vivimos en España (la que sale en el mapa que está en, p.ej., Trafalgar Square, no la que te has inventado tú con el Paint) ya sabemos de qué vas y vamos a ignorar tus ridículas propuestas de "Estados europeos del futuro"? Porque está claro que intentas vender algo... Si no, a qué viene un catalán a escribir un artículo a la Wikipedia inglesa antes que en la catalana... ¿De qué vas, Barrabás? No te engañes a ti mismo diciendo que estás dando a conocer al mundo estas enormes verdades que nadie dice menos Carod,Ibarretxe y algún iluminado más... A los que revientan en Irak no se les da un ardite por España, pues no te quiero ni contar por 'Catalonia', 'Euskal Herria', etc. Pero tú a lo tuyo, muchacho; por Catalunya!, a seguir salvando a la Humanidad de la ignorancia... Te estamos agradecidos.
(English: Now, look, man... Haven't you realized that those living in Spain (the Spain that appears in the map of e.g. Trafalgar Square, not the one you just made up using Paint) know very well what you're out to get and are going to ignore your ridiculous proposals of "Future European States"? Because it's obvious that you're trying to sell something... Why else would a Catalan speaker write an article in the English Wikipedia before doing it in the Catalan one... Whazzup, mate? Don't fool yourself saying that you're letting the world know all these Gospel truths no one says apart from Carod, Ibarretxe and some other illuminated ones... Those who blow up in Iraq don't give a damn about Spain, not to talk about 'Catalonia', 'Euskal Herria', etc. But, you go on, fellow; for Catalonia!! To save Humanity from ignorance... We are all very grateful.)
MiG-25 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You surely mean edited by just a single person... One, and only one, can create it. Sure, it's been edited by many... This is Wikipedia!
Anyway, the point is that someone, and I'm sure it was the one I'm addressing, came up with the idea. Then, the freaks in each region run to say that their own little village also had a history of independence and had always defied the malignant, mean Spanish State of whom no-one actually ever wanted to hear of... Yeah.. And Franco and his dictatorship died fighting those irreverent mini-states, didn't he?
-- 150.244.131.30 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I shall say that the Kingdom of Navarre was a state and not a nation (for it was always multicultural, multilinguistical and multiethnical: Navarrese-Basques, French, Aragonese, Gascons, etc.), but the Navarrese people were said to be the same as the Basque People by many contemporary authors through its history (and I'm not talking about nationalism influenced writers), see 'Annales de Navarra', by Joseph Moret. But progressively Navarrese people that didn't speak Basque became identified with Spanish people after its union with that Kingdom. But Navarre existed before and after Spain did.
Other: Is there a state that is not a nation? Could you, please, mention a nation, country or state that wasn´t the other two? Could you also mention a non multiethnical nation? Are England or French or Germany nations, where Roman empire a State? or was it a Nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.169.164 ( talk) 22:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
All the other statements on your comment do not deserve any response, because you are just getting your own conclusions out of your imagination, but none of the above is said anywhere on the text (nothing is said about future states, first map only reflects popular nationalistic claims, that everyone in Spain knows, even if one doesn't agree with them, as most people do, and as I personally do; nothing is said about the dictatorship ending because of peripherial nationalisms, etc.).
IMHO, the article explains everything perfectly well without ambiguities, and does not invent stories about the 'evil Spanish State', as you called it. But as long as there are a lot of Spanish People that won't agree with it, it should be labelled as "not neutral", or so it seems.
You are not the only one offended by 'invented' nations, see Talk:Macedonism, so please be respectful and don't think you own the truth.
Last thing, it's unpolite to write in anything other than English in English Wikipedia, be kind. Greetings. -- 213.96.157.218 07:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The regionalism in Navarre is bigger than the 33%!is more or less the 35%(UPN) and 40%(UPN+CDN),and the Basque nationalism is bigger than the 13%!Is more or less the 19%(Aralar+EA+PNV+Batzarre) and 25%(Batasuna+Aralar+EA+Batzarre+PNV).Can you correct it? Nafarroa , Nafarroa 12:21 5 january 2007
And what about a "Navarrese people" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.131.204 ( talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In this subject everyone is a little bit biased. But I think there are factual concepts that fail. For example, "Historically, the modern country of Spain was formed by the accretion of several independent Iberian realms". Well, I dont think "accretion" is the word, Hispania had been a christian country until the moors came. The independent christian realms considered themselves "hispaniards". For example, Jaume I of Aragon, sent his troops to help Castille in the conquest of Murcia, receiving nothing in exchange. When he was asked, he answered "I did this for spain". Indeed, no one in Aragon doubted they were spanish, until 1900, with the loss of spanish empire. And still today, in Catalunya, the spanish sentiment is very predominant. I think it should appoint the fact that is from 1900, with the loss of spanish empire, when the nationalism begins to appear, not before. It is not neutral to obviate this facts. And about the "accretion" word: who accreted who? Sancho of Navarre was the first one who tried to unify spain, failing in such matter. The union of Castille and Aragon cannot be considered an accretion. Both mantained their idioms, their monetary system, but they began to work in a common proyect. It is not the same as "accretion", which is completely biased. Note: I've cleaned up the introduction, with a very short introduction to the formation of spain, and the appearance of nationalism as a significant movement. I've only put the correct facts, not opinions, I hope that everyone can find this introduction neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
well I've finished with the introduction, I think we could focus the article on the regions that have more nationalistic claims, and leave for example, murcia or extremadura. Also, the controversy about nation and nationality I think it has no point. And yes, the removal of the map was an error, thanks. Ill add sources when I finish with the structure, if I have your permission to erase those things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to me a whole mess, but the matter also is. But, it would be better for the prestige of Wikipedia to finish with this continuously-repeated lie that Spain is "like" a federal state. It is not. The Spanish constitution clearly states so, and it is obvious from the fact the only two regions with federal-like authority in fiscal and tax issues are Basque Country and Navarre, a political exception earlier by far Spain itself. The Autonomous Communities have not any authority as themselves in the state organization (as federated states have in true federal countries, e.g. in courts, Justice is still full centralized in Spain, nor AC are present in Bank of Spain -as länder are, for instance), and the Constitution even does not mention at all the constituent AC.It is an ignorant joke to say Spain is a quasifederal state, above all when a part of the UK is directly bordering with Spain issuing its own banknotes and having more autonomy than any one of the AC of Spain. This arrangement is a pure botched job, like modern Spain, mixing surviving francoism with purely centralist structures and parcial decentralization, but absolutely not a federal state. Spain is as federal as republican. It is not serious to spread such points of view, at least without contrasting them. 91.117.9.231 ( talk) 02:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth this article still exists? It has to be one of the most unsourced, POV ridden pieces of crap ever to apear on the wiki, not to mention the sheer amount of semantic atrocities and historical fantasies.
Identity ambiguous regions? Jesus Christ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.252.86 ( talk) 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with that? Some regions such as Navarre do have ambiguous and/or conflicting identities. Are you not aware of this? -- Burgas00 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure we do, but it still undocumented, ridden with no correct research, biased for regional nationalism, historically incorrect, and so on. This article isnot serious and should be completely reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.140.99 ( talk) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Could someone incorporate this? More useful than current map. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalismo_y_nacionalismo_en_Espa%C3%B1a#/media/File:Elecciones_regionalistas_y_nacionalistas.svg Asilah1981 ( talk) 12:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A recent AfD discussion resulted in a decision to merge History of the regional distinctions of Spain into this article.
I am currently undertaking this and using as a working document Draft:National and regional identity in Spain. Besides carrying out the merger I am aiming to improve the combined article as follows:
Anyone is welcome to look at the draft and offer comments or edit it themselves provided of course they stick to verifiability & neutrality. I expect to be finished by some time in January.
Lastly I would like to take up a suggestion made further up this page and change the title to National and regional identity in Spain. Any views? : Noyster (talk), 14:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This article makes zero sense. It talks about "nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain" yet it forgets the most powerful and achieved nationalism in Spain, which is Spanish nationalism. The one that gave birth to a fascist dictatorship, which among other feats, managed to overthrow a democratic regime and start a brutal post-war repression, cultural genocide against the Basque, Galician and Catalan, and collaboration with the Nazi regime. The one nationalism that today rules Spain, that changed the colors of the democratic Spanish flag (republican) to the current, put the current royal dynasty in place, and that gave birth to the current ruling party, which is blatantly corrupt, and the oligarchy that reigns Spain with an iron fist, after a blanket pardon set the current democracy to turn a blind eye to the horrors of the recent past.
How this article can make this blatant omission should make any Wikipedia editor not only aware of a huge bias but also of a hidden agenda by the authors of this piece of garbage.
This article discredits Wikipedia as a whole and can only enrage a non-nationalist reader that is well aware of this stuff. And frankly all Spaniards are well aware of this stuff. Those who deny it are simply attempting to rewrite history.
I have deleted the old section Spanish nationalism, due to being previously introduced here [4], which can be extended in the Spanish nationalism article. For this reason, I think this section is redundant and does not help to add any different or relevant information to the one that we already have. Laocon ( talk) 12:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The 55% and 45% percentages were given to conform a total of 100% of people that answered the question or didn't say they won't vote. From the people interviewed 68% answered YES or NOT, that's the 100%. From 68% 38% YES and 31% NO is the same as from 100% 55% YES and 45% NO. 13% of the people said they won't vote, and 19% didn't answer (obviously that seems to mean they don't care). When voting you are not counting in the percentages the people not voting. That's the way a referendum works.
Montenegro got similar outcome in its referendum (but with voter turnout of 86.5%...):
I wrote the percentages of total votes of the elections at
municipality level because it is known that elections at Spanish level won't show real accurate percentages for regionalist and nationalist parties, since many people think that is better to vote to country-wide parties like PSOE and PP at those elections.
I think that nationalist and regionalist parties probably would be more accurately represented at region level elections, but I haven't got those figures since they are not available at
[1].
If someone could seek for those recent results in the Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Canary Islands, Castile-Leon, Aragon, Andalusia, Asturias, Navarre, Valencia, Balearic Islands, Cantabria, Extremadura and Murcia... that would be helpful.
Municipality elections' percentual votes should be updated next year, when new elections are held.
And even if those voters would like to be independent of Spain, they may think it's reasonable to be practical and while being in Spain support PSOE or PP (I doubt anyone voting PP would vote PNV...but in fact I know one doing exactly that...confusing...)-- Harriherrihorri 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I want to add that it is true that for most of the regionalist and nationalist parties their proposals only affect the regional level, and it is nonsense to vote for them at Spanish level (if they haven't got any plan for the whole country; when they have, it uses to be just to get more self-government for its region, a subject impossible to get by itself in the Spanish Parliament).-- Harriherrihorri 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I may add too that parties like Batasuna, which don't accept the Basque Country being Spain, asks its voters not to vote at Spanish level elections, since they are not Basque elections.
This article needs a good and detailed linguistic map of the whole of the Iberian Peninsula! Does anyone have one? The Ogre 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I wasn't implying a direct connection between linguist realities and national/political ones. I just thought a map could help understand the issue at hand. The question is if the map you linked to (pity it does not include data for Portugal) can be uploaded to the Wikipedia, because of copyright issues. I doubt it! Can you check and see to that? Thanks! The Ogre 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Already added the link. And also to the articles Languages of Spain, Iberian Romance languages and Iberian languages. Maybe an email is the best solution... Gracias por tu trabajo! The Ogre 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The owner of the map rejected to give permission -- Harriherrihorri 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
___The "detailed map of languages" included at the end as an external link ( http://www.proel.org/lenguas2.html) is very inaccurate: the range of catalan in valencia is totally incorrect. the official division was set in 1800 and is accepted by the Generalitat Valenciana, and unvariable in all other maps (for example in the wiki section on catalan language it is correct). to be specific, catalan is spoken in morella, vilafranca, font de la figuera and el carxe. in the map, the line is about 5mm too far to the right! equally, it is not spoken in segorbe, but on the map its is thrown in. change it!
thanks, from valencia
I removed the following as it was too speculative:
I would keep the following paragraph and the section regarding to the "Core of Spain", because after a brief reading of this article the casual reader will have the impression that Spain is going to disintegrate any day now, and that is completely false.
It is true that right wing parties and PP claim that too. Ibero 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that some fringe ultra-nationalist in Portugal defend the union of Portugal and Galicia? The Ogre 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
For Mountolive: I don't know if we can make such a broad statement as "Portuguese do not like Spaniards"... To be sure, historically there has been a lot of animosity between the two nations and that's quite present in Portuguese culture. But I believe today that questions is somewhat non existent. I'm Portuguese and I like Spain!
Error: There is a stub urgently in need of expansion called Iberic Federalism... The Ogre 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have encountered some leftist, who had propaganda saying "Galiza is Northern Portugal". But I could never figure out which organization he represented. -- Soman 06:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
We would like to add to this very illustrative article, the claims of the most righteous and noble city of Alcalá de Henares to declare its independence from the Madrilean imperialism and, indeed, segregate itself from the outrageous concept of a Spanish state, full of despisable races of many blood-types and historically inept. Our goals within the limits of this article are the modification of the maps included, so as to portrait the most sacred and just rights of Alcalá/Complutum to an independent state with its colonies and territories.
Otherwise, our utmost stress shall be placed on the recovery of our ancient and now blemished University, suffered to part from our dominions to those of the loathed aliens (over 30km away) in a brief moment of feebleness in our otherwise spotless History... Also, we would like to assert our right to a sea-port, which shall be located on the eastern coast, according to the former provinces of the Imperium Complutensis. Should anyone doubt our most rightful demands, we are compelled to remind them of Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar's feat of conquering Valencia, after abiding in Alcalá for a short period of time, which forever bound him and his deeds to the fate of our most righteous and noble metropolis.
Furthermore, through the august figures of Emperor Ferdinand of Austria and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, both honourable sons of the pride and prime of our fatherland, we assert our pretensions to the Imperial throne of Austria, and to the Caliphate of the vanquished Turks; the latter rendered possible by Cervantes's feat, whose veins were filled with the proud and valient blood of Alcalá through and through.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned "Imperium Complutensis", in accordance with the spirit of the times and the mainstream of this current of thought, we shall henceforward call the Empire either Països Alcalainos or else Komplutarra Herria.
80.26.123.205 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon if I am not kind enough with certain approaches to a theme that, in the Basque Country, has caused much stupid killing and havoc in the last 30 years. I beg your pardon for not stating clearly, without jokes that may give a laughable connotation to such racist assumptions as made here, that this article is just misleading and disinformative. Ah, but I also have to beg your pardon for not being the only one offended...? Do you think the Talk:Macedonism is where I should post my comments or what?
Navarre as an internationally recognised State existed before Spain did. I can agree you that. However, that situation ended in 1515, as Spain was "formed by accretion of several independent Iberian realms" (article).
Now, to your very humble and kind words: the article is very explanatory and doesn't invent stories nor future states.
On explanation:
If you know Spain you might well know what all this nationality issues are about and this article doesn't contribute anything to, IMHO, gibberish talk used in many different ways to exaltate some people's sentiments and get political power. If you don't: again IMHO, I doubt how this listing of independentist groups and ideas can help you get the gist of why all those tiny little patches of an insignificant country quarrel with each other.
As to inventing things:
Firstly, the article DOES say very innaccurate and misleading things. Here you are, without searching much: "the PNV wins regularly any election at either the town, region or Spanish levels in the Basque Country autonomous community, but the fact that it achieves a mere plurality and that electors of PNV do not unanimously support (full) independence, counterts the belief that independence is a generally accepted idea by Basque population." See the governing parties in the cities of
San Sebastián, and
Vitoria and in the province of
Álava and tell me whether the PNV wins any election or only some of them. Don't you think this gives a false idea as to what the forces in the Basque Country are?
More clamorous is, though, that this wonderful piece of knowledge about Spain doesn't say a word about a terrorist organisation that kills people who favour the views opposite to nationalism. Is that not worth mentioning in an article entitled "Nationalities in Spain"? No, it's better to present only the amiable, kind face of nationalim: electoral percentages and the "will of peoples to gain independence." Or, does it tell how the PNV controls many strings of power in that region? Does it talk about the Kutxa? What about the suppression of the teaching in Castilian to force people that have been living there for dozens of generations learn a language they no longer spoke? Same strategy as the dictator used back in his good days, wasn't it? Of course, this I'm saying is only part of the story; but it corresponds with the same reality and nothing about it is being said in this biased article.
One more thing, witness the last results of the elections in Catalonia after the legislative period with the most extremist nationalism has elapsed to tell me if people aren't fed up with that stuff... I am, too.
Secondly, it does propose new States: (from the footnote to the first Paint-drawn map) "A Spanish State would be composed by the traditional regions or nations of Castile (Burgos, Soria, Palencia, Valladolid, Segovia, Avila, Madrid, La Rioja, Cantabria, Toledo, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Albacete, Guadalajara, Caceres, Badajoz, Murcia), Leon (Leon, Zamora, Salamanca, Asturias), Aragon (Huesca, Zaragoza, Teruel) and Andalusia (Huelva, Jaen, Malaga, Granada, Cadiz, Sevilla, Cordoba, Almeria), while 4 apart independent European states would be the Basque Country (Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa, Alava, Navarre), the Catalan Countries (Barcelona, Lleida, Girona, Tarragona, Castellon, Valencia, Alicante), Galicia (A Coruña, Lugo, Ourense, Pontevedra), and naturally Portugal."
I won't stress again how nonsensical these cabalas are, since you say you're also against that sort of thing.
As the paragraph posted before was totally incomprehensible, I have deleted it.
You're right about the Spanish paragraph I wrote, though, and I have translated it fully.
Don't be so kind, some articles don't deserve it.
MiG-25 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My dear 81.202.96.146, please stop asking me to stop from doing this or that, for it is not your duty to tell me so. Give your opinion and defend it as you may, as I am doing, and put the full stop after it. Now, it seems that we cannot insert anything here that raises the slightest doubt against the legitimacy of "those independentist movements". Sorry, I won't bother creating an article entitled "Terrorist groups linked to X nationalism"; but I do believe that if there's an article that deals with "X nationalism" or "Nationalities in Y", which includes "X nationalism", it is only right to talk about those terrorist groups. To your accusation:
I don't know what your reasons are for defending the accuracy of this article; clearly not the article itself. My own are simply that, if we are to talk about such a delicate subject as "nationalities in Spain" we'd better document ourselves and tell everything that ought to be told.
MiG-25 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
By order: 1- Everyone is biased, that´s ok. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to voice your personal concerns about "spanish speakers opressed in Catalonia", that´s fine with me, but please don´t do it in an eclyclopedical article right? When we contribute to a wikipedia article, it´s not enough to go "OK I´m biased because I think this and that, so let the battle begin". No, we try to put aside our differences and be as neutral as possible. I´m not trying to point out my ideas in an article, as if I were hoping to clash with you and eventually "reach a middle ground" in the article´s content. No. I´m trying to be objective in this article, and you´re not, because you´re admiting to be biased AND allowing your bias to affect your output in this article. 2- That´s very respectful of you, and I think it´s the right thing to do. 3- No it doesn´t. I am not trying to push an agenda here. I am just pointing the OBVIOUS LOGICAL fact that articles should talk about the topic they´re about. If I, for example tried to hide the racialist doctrines Sabino Arana had, in an article about Sabino Arana, you could rightfully accuse me of "preventing obnoxious information" from getting into the article. But asking for an article named Nationalities in Spain to talk about those nationalities and not about terrorist gangs that claim to defend some of the ideologies that support independentist claims based on the actual nationalities we´re talking about in this article, is just asking for something entirely reasonable. See the far away link between your proposed "terrorist issue" stuff and the actual content of the article? As I said, create an article about Terrorist gangs linked to nationalist claims in Spain, and everything will be fine. By your same reasoning, anyone could end up talking about the IRA in an article about Catholicism. 4- What did I state that was false? I made only one comment before this one, just to ask you to stop trying to shove terrorist stuff in an article that is not about terrorism. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Bye 81.202.96.146 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
And I wonder... which are the sources for the map with that supposed ensemble of Nations, States, Confederations and Residents Associations? I'm just curious, more than anything, 'cause I would tell them that they've forgotten to include
Olivenza inside of Portugal. Also that they have mistaken a couple of boundaries in those different realms/nations/whatever. Remarkably, those limits they draw correspond to the limits of a provincial map shaped much after the "rising" of those supposed nationalities and it is as though they had been fixed in a political-administrative (sic) map rather than a demographic one (which is what they're meant to use).
Ah, and they've forgotten the poor Canarians, who are also rightfully entitled to indulge in mental masturbation. There will come someone or other, and I'm sure they'll claim some hinterland in the Azores and Villa Cisneros. After all, daydreaming is for free, like Wikipedia; ERGO we must use our daydreams in Wikipeida...! How thin the line is that separates an encyclopaedia from a pamphlet!! By the way, it's interesting to see what Wiki-es says on this subjet. Seems there's some tyrannical, meanie francoist censorship in action there. Gaeddal 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Translated by: MiG-25 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) by virtue of the following statement:
Pd: Escribo en español porque me ha salido d* l*s c*j***s. Si alguien quiere traducirme, se lo agradeceré eternamente.
In my opinion, this article could only make some sense and be of some use in wikipedia if it was about Basque+Catalan+Galician, maybe with some minor mentions to Balearic, Valencian and, maybe (very conditional "maybe" here) to Aragonese and Andalusian, but always making clear that regionalism is not nationalism nor equates to "nationality", it is just a wish to stress the local stuff, but without entering the "nationalities" discussion at all. Then all the the other "nationalities" which probably claim as their greatest accomplishment ruling the 1,000 inhabitants town where the founder of the micro-party is from (and where he has many friends), those are really out of the scope of any serious encyclopaedic article whatsoever.
Myself I am in a similar situation to the one of MiG-25 where I don't dare to edit, nor I will. My reason to refrain from doing so is because the article, as it is, is such a Marx brothers nationalist festival that, well, there's no point in trying to amend it because the whole article starts on a very biased and fundamentally wrong foundation, which is trying to present some sort of Matrix Spain where every 50 to 100 kms or so you hit a "nationality" or a "regional identity" or, at least! some "ambiguous province" whatsoever.
This presents a very biased portrait of the Spanish reality because it is equating say Asturian so called nationality supported by say 1.5% of the votes, to Catalan nationalism, for example, which is a huge methodological bias.
In other words: when it defines territory as a "nationality" or an "ambiguous province", it does so regardless whatever electoral backing its advocates have. I mean, it seems enough to define Extremadura as a separate part in the map because the regionalist (not even nationalist) party gets 1.5%...the remainder 98.5% of the population apparently has to be a "nationality" whether they want it or not.
In other words, this article looks like some kind of self fulfilling prophecy where first there was a map and from there it started the work here, in order to justify the map, instead of doing it the other way, having the facts first and, then, draw a map (if needed...it is fascinating how mesmerized are nationalists by maps, borders, different colours, buffering zones where colours mix, etc: did you notice?).
By the way, what do you think "ambiguous province" means? yes, it does not mean anything at all and it is sad that such a dull vocabulary is desecrating what should be an encyclopaedia (which I guess it meets its limits with articles like this, where some people come to make real their wildest dreams).
Actually, those who thought that they could make real their wildest dreams here are actually debasing the certain importance of nationalism/nationalities in Spain (and I mean the real ones) and they do so by mentioning Murcia, Extremadura, Asturias and so many others mentioned there....in the end, the article is absolutely over the top eventually non sensical and deserving to be erased so that it can be started with something new, fresh and from a totally different, more objective, perspective. Or, at least, that's my opinion. Mountolive 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! This article is a complete nonsense from begining to end! Is clearly a poor attempt from a nationalistic separatist to create an historic "reality" that has never existed! I think that the fact the Wikipedia has signed this article as "disputed" trully honours the Wikipedia organization. Spain dates back to Roman foundation. The Reconquista was about recovering Hispania, rebuilding Hispania. Any other thing is just a poor attempt from separatists to rewrite history reshaping it to their liking and interests.
OliverFA 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! In Land of Valencia there were around of 15% of votes in the last autonomous elections to parties wich demands the right of self-determination for the Land of Valencia (basically, EUPV+ BNV+Valencian Green Parties+ EV). Around of 8% of votes are for nationalist parties, and the most important Valencian nationalist party, BNV (near 5% of votes), wich considers Land of Valencia as a nation, instead of Catalan Countries. This latter is considered by all those mentioned parties as a political concept of several nations in high-collaboration, in a similar way as the Benelux, but not considered as an only one nation. Cheers. -- Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
One recent example is the opposition EUPV has had to the new Valencian "Estatut d´autonomia", which it sees as too light and submissive to centralist rule, supporting historically incorrect symbols (flag, etc) and not promoting valencian enough, as opposed to the PSPV and PPCV´s perspective (among many other issues such as electoral barriers, the Ebro competences, etc). On the other hand, Iniciativa supported the Catalan "Estatut", wich the PSOE thought was right for Catalonia, even when many independentists (ERC included) thought it didn´t allow the degree of autonomy Catalonia deserved. So, Iniciativa has a separate representation in the Spanish parliament, but supports an Estatut with PSOE, which ERC opposes. On the other hand, EUPV (along BNV and ERPV), opposes an Estatut PSOE and PP support, but hasn´t got a separate Spanish parliamentary representation. Which of them can be considered nationalist? To me, both are. You just have to take a look at their ideological stand and political actions. As I said, nationalism DOES NOT mean independentism (although independentism does mean nationalism), and EUPV is perfectly fine considered as a nationalist party, although not an independentist one. 81.202.96.146 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don´t know where are you drawing the conclusion that EU´s main policies aren´t nationalist, because you can clearly see in their ideological statement that they have a nationalist focus. If you care to look at the political issues their militants are involved in, you´ll see that they are not only involved in ecologist, communist, and feminist issues, but nationalist ones as well. So in conclusion, the EU vote is yes, nationalist, without any doubt. Violenciafriki 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1) Socialist (in the sense of non socialdemocrat) 2) vaguely anti capitalist 3) Ecologist 4) Feminist and 5) Vaguely nationalist
I think it's good time to move the 'Cantabria' paragraph to the regionalism section, since it has a regionalist government supported by the socialists (it's quite ambiguous to talk about its regionalist government on one section and the region itself on another, as it happens in the article). By the way, Cantabria and Navarre are the only two regions in Spain to have regionalist governments. If that is not regionalism, I don't know what it is.-- L'irlandés 14:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Regards, -- Asterion talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It is sad that most of the Spaniard people think of nationalities as a political problem waged by some parties that want to achieve power by inventing false nations out of air. But the reality is that those nations have existed for centuries (the Basque People have been there for at least two millenia) but they never had a kingdom or state of their own. Now they are asking for one. Recent population movements from Castile to the Basque Country and Andalusia to Catalonia also add problems to the matter, because these people and their first generation descendants still feel Spaniard and don't want to obtain any other nation. They never had a state, but these nations were there, their languages, traditions, music, way of life. USA is conformed of many states, none of those is a nation though, but there are nations there too, the First Nations (the term used in Canada) or Amerindian Nations, they never had a state of their own.
People opposing to minoritary nationalism in Spain would say that each village is a nation. I would answer: ask them and you'll know.
I don't like politics, I just want an internationally recognized nation and forget about everything else. Nationalism is not a political problem, but a nations' clash.
Well, the Indians had States. The Aztec Empire, Maya, Inca, Cahokia, etc. They also enjoy a fair amount autonamy in there local affairs. There Reservations are heavily subsidized by the Federal Government and they pay little taxation. Some would disagree but that is that.
I happen to find the subject of Regional Nationalism or Seperatism in Europe to be rather fascinating. Especially Pan-Celticism, and various Movements in Spain and Eastern Europe. Not really caring about, just interested.
Anyways, it would be good for this article to simply be written in the form of, say. List the various Nationalities along with Linguistic and Historicaly relevant facts. Than you can list the political parties, and movements for each.
Why jump from thing to thing making an article barely readible and even less informative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be worked in. Rhode Islander 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That totally innacurate. England !=Spain What has Euskadi to do with Ulster?? There has been no invasion. No war. No expropriation of lands. Catalonia belonged to the Aragonese Crown Where is Navarra's Kingdom None of the resemblances has any basis - signed by an anon IP
Spain was under the Moors whom are Muslim Arabs from North Africa from the invasion of Spain's southern tip in 711 AD to later pushed Christian Spanish kingdoms to the North towards the Pyrennes and the Atlantic, to the last expulsion of Spanish Muslims from Granada between 1490 and 1500. You may say the Moors acted like the Danes in England the same way the Goths in Castille are similar to Normans refounded England in the battle of Hastings in 1066.
Most ironically, Spain remains agitated over the British presence in Gibraltar since the treaty of 1707 gave the small colony to British hands but Spain still claimed them. Great Britain offically "integrated" Gibraltar to the kingdom in 1965 being in mainland Europe, while the Franco regime threatened to take over Gibraltar in the late 1960s and early 1970s without success nor any military invasion was made. The majority of Gibraltar wants to remain British, but has cultural ties with Spain and the two countries must share them. + 71.102.53.48 ( talk) 10:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this article doesn't express the real situation of the 21st century's Spanish state. The only nations within the State are the following ones: the Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia. That's all. The rest are just Spanish regions. My proposal is to list the three Spanish nations I told before and then list the other territories which are just simple regions. We can't compare the Basque Country with the Murcian region, and we can neither compare Catalonia with the artificial 25-year-old Madrid community as well. -- Mreq ( talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1- The reign of Castilla was originally an eastern county of the kingdom of León, in the 11th century Castilla became an INDEPENDENT realm with its capital at Burgos and later Valladolid.
2- The suposed union and creation of Spain by the Catholic Kings was nonsense, as in the dead of Isabel I Queen of Castilla and León her daugther came to reing in Castilla, altough Fernando II was still king of Aragon (1479–1516), Sicily (1468–1516), Naples (1504–1516), Valencia, Sardinia and Navarre, Count of Barcelona, de jure uxoris King of Castile (1474-1504) and then Regent (and true ruler) of that country also from 1508 to his death, in the name of his mentally challenged daughter Joanna the Mad.
3- The current Spanish constitution refers to the monarchy as "the Crown of Spain" and the constitutional title of the monarch is simply Rey/Reina de España: that is, "king/queen of Spain". However, the constitution allows for the use of other historic titles pertaining to the Spanish monarchy, without specifying them. A decree promulgated 6 November 1987 at the Council of Ministers regulates the titles further, and on that basis the monarch of Spain has a right to use ("may use") those other titles appertaining to the Crown. Contrary to some belief, the long titulary that contains the list of over 20 kingdoms, etc., is not in state use, nor is it used in Spanish diplomacy. In fact, it has never been in use in that form, as "Spain" was never a part of the list in pre-1837 era when the long list was officially used. This feudal style was last used officially in 1836, in the titulary of Isabella II of Spain before she became constitutional Queen.
Juan Carlos's titles include that of King of Jerusalem, as successor to the royal family of Naples.
Titles in official use
King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens, and of Neopatra (New Patras); Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Rousillon and of Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina
All these titles doesn't make, for example, Milan part of Spain. So the conclusion is that if king/Queen held or hold a title of two countries doesn't mean that they become a united kingdom, not to mention a single nation.
To sum up, the title of Spain has not even 175 years, and others, that are official, such as the Kingdom of León has more than 1.000 years. Consider that León has no nationality and Spain does sounds odd.
Finally I would like to say to many people, better study and know things and facts by yourself, like your own origins, and do not do consider that things are as you were told they where. Remember that history is always and everywhere written by the ones who had victory, and wrote what they intended not what happened.
All references are from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.246.114 ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1. The article says: Traditionally it was an independent kingdom that forged Spain in its fusion with the Kingdom of Castile. It looks like Castile and Aragon joined peacefully and merrily, forming Spain. False. Between the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 18th century, Spain was still seen as a union of crowns, not really a single country. It's in the beginning of the 18th century when Castilians conquer Aragon (=Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia and Majorca) that a single Spain begins to exists. That's why laws are the Castilian ones, Aragonese liberties being abolished. That's why Castilian becomes the single 'official' language. Words like "union", "fusion" and so on are just biased euphemisms. 2. The article says: But by no means they wish an independent state, but to be fully recognized as a distinct and important region in Spain with its own (not yet officially) recognized Aragonese language. What's that "by no means"? An encyclopaedic article shouldn't show personal opinions so clearly, should it? It is true that probably most Aragonese people don't want Aragon to become an independent state, but there is a small percentage of Aragonese who do, as well as a party, Estado Aragonés, who claims for independence. I don't think Chunta Aragonesista should be considered pro-independence, but rather supporter of a strong federalism. Anyway to state such things I suggest linking those opinions to a poll, at least. As for the Aragonese language, a language nowadays unknown to most Aragonese, its defenders want it to be official alongside Spanish in some municipalities of the northern province of Huesca, but not in the whole of Aragon. And finally 3. the article says Its Statute of Autonomy defines this region as a nationality. If Aragon was an independent nation in the past, if the Aragonese know they're heirs of that past and consider themselves Aragonese even if they feel Spanish at the same time, if Aragon shows so many elements characteristically said to be typical of an ethnic group or nation, and if it is politically and officially stated that they're one of the so-called nationalities of Spain, why on earth is Aragon considered in the regions section? -- Purplefire 00:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Where do I even go with this first map.......
Catalan countries as one nationality. If there is one thing that I am sure about, it is the fact that if Valencians HATE being lumped in with Catalans as one entity. It is viewed as imperialistic and not a desire to unite territories that speak the same language but more of another territory for Barcelona to dominate. If "Aragón", which speaks Spanish, gets to be thought of separate as Castilla as it was its own kingdom, then Valencia which unlike Catalonia was its own kingdom, ought not to be lumped in with Catalonia.
Euskal Herria as one nationality? There is a reason why Navarre opted out of being put in with the rest of the Spanish Basque country in the division into autonomous communities. As it is, even parts of the Basque country are not nationalistic (Alava), so what good is it putting Navarre which has made very clear that it does not want to go with the rest of the Basque country, as part of one monolithic Basque nationality.
I understand that the second map tries to redress this, but I do not think that this mitigates the fantasy of the first map. It pigeonholes every non-nationalist region as being this schizophrenic chimera that is either the result of nationalistic imperialism or centralist brainwashing.
In short, this map showing a potential ethnic breakdown is fantasy at best, and the result of the internet's ability to attract radicals that seek to imprint their own leaning in an unbiased article. This article is in need of MAJOR revision and its neutrality is very much in question.
Eboracum 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually this whole article is about the issue of clashes of national identity within spain so it seems reasonable to call them fantasies, dreams or simply divergent notions from the officialist position, which in my opinion is a laissez-faire atitude based on the philosophy that the victors get to write the history, that is, since the castillian nation has written the rules of what can and cannot be considered spanish, everyone must agree with it and except, where borders and concepts clash, castillian nationalism's superiority and correctness. ps. we are from valencia and we also don't hate the catalans, in fact most people seem to envy the catalans because we have the slightly false idea they defend our common culture better than we do. Most people freely recognise the common culture and most of the problems focus on the lack of a shared defense of it, on the whole weight of the culture and its recognition falling on barcelona. the language is the key factor in catalan and valencian nationalism and due to the fact that the language is the same, this tends to lead to more or less overt acceptance of a catalan supra-nationality amongst most speakers of the language, called "the catalan countries". I think it is mostly a cultural idea when used positively; and a political one, when used despectively.
It is neccesary to have an article explaining the different national feelings in Spain, no doubt about that. But this article is full of unreferenced data, POV, needed citations and just good writing. I didn't read it all but I found these examples in just 10 minutes: "Present-day "comunidades" are not allowed to interact officially with each other in order to reestablish mutual historical links." POV "Since the reign of the Catholic Monarchs, there has been a process of uniformization by the central authorities." innacurate "few Spanish citizens identify only as Spanish" True in the Catalonia or the Basque Country but not in the rest of the Estate. "in Alava Basque language is used only by a minority, being Spanish the most common language." This happends also in most of the Basque Country not just in Alava.
Also it is confusing to divide spanish regions into Nationalists, Regionalist and Ambigous. These 3 ways of thinking acctually live together in all spain. A part of the Basque PNV could be considered Regionalist, even the PP from Galicia, or the PSOE from Catalonia. There are parties who support self-determination but are not nationalists (like IU in the Basque Country). And regionalist movements in Extremadura, Murcia or Castilla la Mancha are virtually non-existent. In the case of Extremadura the author writes some random historical facts about Extremadura and ends with "Regionalist movements also exist here."
I will try to write the Basque Country section (i am basque) and I will post it just to show how I think this article should be orientated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.118.109 ( talk) 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It should be erased. It's full of intencionate mistakes, misdirections, unproved claims and just straight lies (realm of catalonia?? please, we're not at high school anymore...) -- Infinauta ( talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So now the Kingdom of Navarra never existed and something that first occured in any text or mind whatsoever 100 years ago and that was never a State/Kingdom/principality or anything of its own, is going to take its place and form a "European State"... What the heck!?!?!
Pero, a ver, machote... ¿No te das cuenta de que los que vivimos en España (la que sale en el mapa que está en, p.ej., Trafalgar Square, no la que te has inventado tú con el Paint) ya sabemos de qué vas y vamos a ignorar tus ridículas propuestas de "Estados europeos del futuro"? Porque está claro que intentas vender algo... Si no, a qué viene un catalán a escribir un artículo a la Wikipedia inglesa antes que en la catalana... ¿De qué vas, Barrabás? No te engañes a ti mismo diciendo que estás dando a conocer al mundo estas enormes verdades que nadie dice menos Carod,Ibarretxe y algún iluminado más... A los que revientan en Irak no se les da un ardite por España, pues no te quiero ni contar por 'Catalonia', 'Euskal Herria', etc. Pero tú a lo tuyo, muchacho; por Catalunya!, a seguir salvando a la Humanidad de la ignorancia... Te estamos agradecidos.
(English: Now, look, man... Haven't you realized that those living in Spain (the Spain that appears in the map of e.g. Trafalgar Square, not the one you just made up using Paint) know very well what you're out to get and are going to ignore your ridiculous proposals of "Future European States"? Because it's obvious that you're trying to sell something... Why else would a Catalan speaker write an article in the English Wikipedia before doing it in the Catalan one... Whazzup, mate? Don't fool yourself saying that you're letting the world know all these Gospel truths no one says apart from Carod, Ibarretxe and some other illuminated ones... Those who blow up in Iraq don't give a damn about Spain, not to talk about 'Catalonia', 'Euskal Herria', etc. But, you go on, fellow; for Catalonia!! To save Humanity from ignorance... We are all very grateful.)
MiG-25 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You surely mean edited by just a single person... One, and only one, can create it. Sure, it's been edited by many... This is Wikipedia!
Anyway, the point is that someone, and I'm sure it was the one I'm addressing, came up with the idea. Then, the freaks in each region run to say that their own little village also had a history of independence and had always defied the malignant, mean Spanish State of whom no-one actually ever wanted to hear of... Yeah.. And Franco and his dictatorship died fighting those irreverent mini-states, didn't he?
-- 150.244.131.30 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I shall say that the Kingdom of Navarre was a state and not a nation (for it was always multicultural, multilinguistical and multiethnical: Navarrese-Basques, French, Aragonese, Gascons, etc.), but the Navarrese people were said to be the same as the Basque People by many contemporary authors through its history (and I'm not talking about nationalism influenced writers), see 'Annales de Navarra', by Joseph Moret. But progressively Navarrese people that didn't speak Basque became identified with Spanish people after its union with that Kingdom. But Navarre existed before and after Spain did.
Other: Is there a state that is not a nation? Could you, please, mention a nation, country or state that wasn´t the other two? Could you also mention a non multiethnical nation? Are England or French or Germany nations, where Roman empire a State? or was it a Nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.169.164 ( talk) 22:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
All the other statements on your comment do not deserve any response, because you are just getting your own conclusions out of your imagination, but none of the above is said anywhere on the text (nothing is said about future states, first map only reflects popular nationalistic claims, that everyone in Spain knows, even if one doesn't agree with them, as most people do, and as I personally do; nothing is said about the dictatorship ending because of peripherial nationalisms, etc.).
IMHO, the article explains everything perfectly well without ambiguities, and does not invent stories about the 'evil Spanish State', as you called it. But as long as there are a lot of Spanish People that won't agree with it, it should be labelled as "not neutral", or so it seems.
You are not the only one offended by 'invented' nations, see Talk:Macedonism, so please be respectful and don't think you own the truth.
Last thing, it's unpolite to write in anything other than English in English Wikipedia, be kind. Greetings. -- 213.96.157.218 07:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The regionalism in Navarre is bigger than the 33%!is more or less the 35%(UPN) and 40%(UPN+CDN),and the Basque nationalism is bigger than the 13%!Is more or less the 19%(Aralar+EA+PNV+Batzarre) and 25%(Batasuna+Aralar+EA+Batzarre+PNV).Can you correct it? Nafarroa , Nafarroa 12:21 5 january 2007
And what about a "Navarrese people" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.131.204 ( talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In this subject everyone is a little bit biased. But I think there are factual concepts that fail. For example, "Historically, the modern country of Spain was formed by the accretion of several independent Iberian realms". Well, I dont think "accretion" is the word, Hispania had been a christian country until the moors came. The independent christian realms considered themselves "hispaniards". For example, Jaume I of Aragon, sent his troops to help Castille in the conquest of Murcia, receiving nothing in exchange. When he was asked, he answered "I did this for spain". Indeed, no one in Aragon doubted they were spanish, until 1900, with the loss of spanish empire. And still today, in Catalunya, the spanish sentiment is very predominant. I think it should appoint the fact that is from 1900, with the loss of spanish empire, when the nationalism begins to appear, not before. It is not neutral to obviate this facts. And about the "accretion" word: who accreted who? Sancho of Navarre was the first one who tried to unify spain, failing in such matter. The union of Castille and Aragon cannot be considered an accretion. Both mantained their idioms, their monetary system, but they began to work in a common proyect. It is not the same as "accretion", which is completely biased. Note: I've cleaned up the introduction, with a very short introduction to the formation of spain, and the appearance of nationalism as a significant movement. I've only put the correct facts, not opinions, I hope that everyone can find this introduction neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
well I've finished with the introduction, I think we could focus the article on the regions that have more nationalistic claims, and leave for example, murcia or extremadura. Also, the controversy about nation and nationality I think it has no point. And yes, the removal of the map was an error, thanks. Ill add sources when I finish with the structure, if I have your permission to erase those things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to me a whole mess, but the matter also is. But, it would be better for the prestige of Wikipedia to finish with this continuously-repeated lie that Spain is "like" a federal state. It is not. The Spanish constitution clearly states so, and it is obvious from the fact the only two regions with federal-like authority in fiscal and tax issues are Basque Country and Navarre, a political exception earlier by far Spain itself. The Autonomous Communities have not any authority as themselves in the state organization (as federated states have in true federal countries, e.g. in courts, Justice is still full centralized in Spain, nor AC are present in Bank of Spain -as länder are, for instance), and the Constitution even does not mention at all the constituent AC.It is an ignorant joke to say Spain is a quasifederal state, above all when a part of the UK is directly bordering with Spain issuing its own banknotes and having more autonomy than any one of the AC of Spain. This arrangement is a pure botched job, like modern Spain, mixing surviving francoism with purely centralist structures and parcial decentralization, but absolutely not a federal state. Spain is as federal as republican. It is not serious to spread such points of view, at least without contrasting them. 91.117.9.231 ( talk) 02:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth this article still exists? It has to be one of the most unsourced, POV ridden pieces of crap ever to apear on the wiki, not to mention the sheer amount of semantic atrocities and historical fantasies.
Identity ambiguous regions? Jesus Christ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.252.86 ( talk) 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with that? Some regions such as Navarre do have ambiguous and/or conflicting identities. Are you not aware of this? -- Burgas00 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure we do, but it still undocumented, ridden with no correct research, biased for regional nationalism, historically incorrect, and so on. This article isnot serious and should be completely reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.140.99 ( talk) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Could someone incorporate this? More useful than current map. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalismo_y_nacionalismo_en_Espa%C3%B1a#/media/File:Elecciones_regionalistas_y_nacionalistas.svg Asilah1981 ( talk) 12:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A recent AfD discussion resulted in a decision to merge History of the regional distinctions of Spain into this article.
I am currently undertaking this and using as a working document Draft:National and regional identity in Spain. Besides carrying out the merger I am aiming to improve the combined article as follows:
Anyone is welcome to look at the draft and offer comments or edit it themselves provided of course they stick to verifiability & neutrality. I expect to be finished by some time in January.
Lastly I would like to take up a suggestion made further up this page and change the title to National and regional identity in Spain. Any views? : Noyster (talk), 14:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This article makes zero sense. It talks about "nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain" yet it forgets the most powerful and achieved nationalism in Spain, which is Spanish nationalism. The one that gave birth to a fascist dictatorship, which among other feats, managed to overthrow a democratic regime and start a brutal post-war repression, cultural genocide against the Basque, Galician and Catalan, and collaboration with the Nazi regime. The one nationalism that today rules Spain, that changed the colors of the democratic Spanish flag (republican) to the current, put the current royal dynasty in place, and that gave birth to the current ruling party, which is blatantly corrupt, and the oligarchy that reigns Spain with an iron fist, after a blanket pardon set the current democracy to turn a blind eye to the horrors of the recent past.
How this article can make this blatant omission should make any Wikipedia editor not only aware of a huge bias but also of a hidden agenda by the authors of this piece of garbage.
This article discredits Wikipedia as a whole and can only enrage a non-nationalist reader that is well aware of this stuff. And frankly all Spaniards are well aware of this stuff. Those who deny it are simply attempting to rewrite history.
I have deleted the old section Spanish nationalism, due to being previously introduced here [4], which can be extended in the Spanish nationalism article. For this reason, I think this section is redundant and does not help to add any different or relevant information to the one that we already have. Laocon ( talk) 12:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)