Talk:National and regional identity in Spain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Euskobarometro

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.

I find that the three-thirds split is more representative than the two-halves one. Those who did not answer maybe due to fear. Independence is a sensitive issue and people may refuse to answer even when having an opinion. --Error 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I find really hard to believe that anyone (19%!! That seems to be a lot of people!) would be afraid of saying NO to independence in a private interview by an official institution. It's not like the interviewer was going to shoot him/her...

Fear is not such a common thing in Basque society despite of popular foreign belief. People's Party is always speaking about fear in the Basque Country, and saying that "Spaniard" people will be obliged to leave the Basque Country when independent, while those studies (Euskobarometro) show that only a 6% of the population will leave (by their own will, of course) in fact.

They could be afraid of saying YES to independence. Besides, it's known that election surveys have to be cooked to take into account the fact that voters, especially of some parties in the Basque Country, lie in surveys. --Error 20:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. --Harriherrihorri 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I wrote in parentheses those "actual referendum" percentages, and I think it is more than enough for the reader to get the idea of the great will of the Basque population, and that the only actual condition for obtaining independence is that the Spanish Government will accept the outcome (independently of 2/3 of Basque Parliament or not).

Montenegro got similar outcome in its referendum (but with voter turnout of 86.5%...):

"The 45,659 difference narrowly surpassed the 55% threshold needed to validate the referendum under rules set by the European Union. According to the electoral commission, the 55% threshold was passed by only 2,300 votes. Serbia, the member-states of the European Union, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have all recognized Montenegro's independence".

Elections

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.

I could find accurate percentages for the elections held at regional (autonomous community) level in the Basque Country in 2005 here.

They show a total nationalist percentage of 53,44% (including PNV-EA (38,67) + EHAK (12,44) + Aralar (2,33)).
Elections in Navarre are going to be held next year (2007) and 1st of November in Catalonia.

Municipality elections' percentual votes should be updated next year, when new elections are held.

That's not neutral. If people vote different in local than in the Spanish levels, that means that they are not fanatic supporters of any option and they choose following several criteria. Neither of those is their "true position". --Error 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that many people are actually fanatic supporters of anything, but for practical purposes some people think is stupid to vote to a minoritary party (like some of the nationalist and regionalist ones) that won't get enough votes at Spanish level so that they get representation in the Spanish Parliament. IMHO, That's the main reason of people not voting them at Spanish level. Many of them would never vote PSOE or PP at municipality or regional level thinking that those country-wide parties won't defend properly the local interests, but work cooperating with the State's will.

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.

At some point, Batasuna also did not candiadate to BAC elections since they reject the statute of autonomy and the limits of the territory. But they did not object to the province elections and teh Navarrese elections. --Error 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic Map

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)

What about this one? --Harriherrihorri 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that linguistical map is quite similar to the third map in the article (the cultural-linguistical map). The only differences between these maps are due to cultural influences beyond linguistical frontiers in the Basque, Leonese, Aragonese and Andalusian areas and the establishment of separate Valencian and Murcian cultural areas from the Catalan and Castilian ones respectively. I mean, there is no direct correspondence between linguistic traits and nationalism, for many Spanish speaking people in those areas also support (and frecuently more actively) nationalistic claims. Language is not everything when defining a distinct culture, especially when that language has been acquired through centuries of contact or political belonging to a foreign nation (e.g. Spanish speaking American countries are completely different from Spain). --Harriherrihorri

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)

I don't really know how to do it. Shall I ask the owner's permission by e-mail? But at least I think we can always link the map at the end of the article in External Links. --Harriherrihorri 16:11, 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)

Well... in fact I just realised I don't know if you are Spanish! The Ogre 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article anyone would find difficult to answer such a question! (just joking...) --Harriherrihorri 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The owner of the map rejected to give permission --Harriherrihorri 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a pity... But, still, we have it as external link! Thanks! The Ogre 17:10, 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

Removed

I removed the following as it was too speculative:

Although so many nationalistic claims in different parts of today's Spanish State, there is no such thing as a fear of complete desintegration (as claimed by many radical right wing parties in Spain, and sometimes by PP too) of Spain, for the population in the regions of Leon, Castilla, Aragon and Andalucia still feel Spanish without doubts.

So in an hypotetical scenario of many answering YES to independence referendums in the Basque Country, Catalunya and Galicia, there will still be an Spanish State (as it is no problem Portugal being fully independent from Spain for at least 5 centuries now).

Well... actually, Portugal was never, de jure, dependent of Spain! Portugal was formed as a political entity in the 9th century, declared independence in 1128, wich was recognized by León-Castile in 1143 and the Papacy in 1179. Between 1580 and 1640 there was a personal union of the crows under the Habsburgs, but Portugal remained de jure independent, even if not exactly de facto... Just giving some historical accuracy to the discussions! The Ogre 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good clarification. I just wanted to stress that independently on how much esteem I have for all "nationalities" in the Spanish State I find the attempt of comparison with Portugal rather weak and usually only used for political reasons (in a way, diminuishing the completely different status of Portugal makes lack of indepence easier for those within the Spanish State which are not happy with the status quo). It's not even closely the same thing, Portugal exists before Spain and - if you don't mind me saying - would exist after Spain dissolved itself. It has a differet genesis, different internal coherency and different history. If anything, one can say that there are two countries in Iberia: Portugal and Spain. The rest is still pretty much up to discussion in the merits or not of autodetermination even by their own inhabitants. This is an important point, and the one that expalins the absence of Portugal from this page, since the "Nationalities of Spain" are a problem that doesn't concern Portugal but our Spanish neighbours, *which I hold in my greatest esteem as sharing an Iberian civilization*.--89.26.151.8 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There would be striking parallel resemblances between the United Kingdom and a hypotetical United Iberian Federation, with the "Core" being represented in Spain by the old Spaniard Kingdoms of Castilla, Leon and Aragon (plus the once Arab realm of Andalusia), as England was forged uniting the old Anglosaxon Kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria. The other countries in the United Kingdom that do not belong to the English core of it are Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which would find their Iberian parallels in Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque Country.

==To all readers==

Please, complete this article the way you consider necessary to reach higher levels of quality and objectivity. I know that many of the Spaniards will be offended by the content of the article, but it is a reality that cannot be hidden or avoided any more.

Error 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"a reality that cannot be hidden or avoided anymore"???? Dude, it's been for some 25 years already that this "reality" is not hidden anymore, probably other "realities" have become hidden ever since, like the one of virtually no one making a point or caring for these apparently extremely aboundant "nationalities" or "ambiguous identities" outside of Catalonia, Basque Country and, to some extent, Galicia. However, some people seems very keen in listing some regions as "ambiguous" and with its own distinctive place in the map maybe because there is regional party which gets say 2% of the votes...Mountolive 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

Despite of so many nationalistic claims in different parts of today's Spanish State, there is no such thing as a fear of complete disintegration (as claimed by many radical right wing parties in Spain, and sometimes by PP too) of Spain, for the population in the regions of Leon, Castilla, Aragon and Andalucia still feel Spanish without doubts.

It is true that right wing parties and PP claim that too. Ibero 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Portugal and Galicia

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)

Recently a Potuguese newspaper has published that 30% of the Portuguese would like to be Spanish (that is, Portugal being a part of Spain) and that a majority thinks that Portugal would be better developed if belonging to Spain. This is called "iberism". --Harriherrihorri 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. But I suspect that most Portuguese who replied that they like to be Spanish are just saying that because of the economical developpment of Spain when compared to Portugal. It is not a political statement. The Ogre 14:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

TheOgre is right: Portuguese do not like Spaniards, and it can be felt around here too...Mountolive 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we should have an article on Iberism or Pan-Iberism. --Error 01:05, 26 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!

Well, you know what I mean, don't you..once this is said, it is true that the statement is too broad and it's good to hear that you don't fit in the cliché..Mountolive 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Error: There is a stub urgently in need of expansion called Iberic Federalism... The Ogre 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Error 18:23, 30 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)

Funny that, I've heard people from Galicia saying the opposite, that Portugal is Southern Galiza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Alcalá de Henares

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 salute your proposal to be included in this, one of the most enlightened articles of wikipedia: once the León Commonwealth ¿?, Albacete ¿?¿?, Murcia¿?¿?¿?, Extremadura ¿?¿?¿?¿? et al. have obtained their well deserved space and reference in the map, then the most noble metropolis of Alcalá -which quite exceeds those in nobility- should receive its own reference, if only an "ambiguous province" tag! As for the port, I heard they are building something like that in Madrid-proper so you should start lobbying in this regard...By the way, I heard of some guys in Teruel struggling to remember the Muslim taifa: I believe a new "ambiguous" entry should be made there, comprising a promising Teruel/Soria federation. Mountolive 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking forward to someone deleting this article for the clearly unacceptable facts stated in it. C'mon, who's doing it? --80.35.108.29 12:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

On Respect

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)

The article talks about nationalities in Spain. If you want to talk about linguistic issues in the Spanish State, or about terrorist bands linked to nationalism, do so at their right articles. The way you try to shove those topics in an article about "Nationalities in Spain"" looks like you´re trying to inject your personal, unfavourable to those independentist movements POV in this article. Please stop doing that. 81.202.96.146 19:48, 19 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:

1. I already assumed above that I was biased, as anyone else (my quote: "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.").
2. I haven't edited the article yet, because I think the subject is worthy of a discussion, no matter how ridiculous the article itself seems to me.
3. Due to 1's " as anyone else", your accusation can bounce back at you with a very slight variation: you are trying to prevent obnoxious information about nationalism from entering the article, thus unveiling your point of view... So, what's wrong about it?
4. The problem with your POV is that you already stated something false about the article to defend your position and I refuted it. Your only answer now is to say that my views should belong to another article.

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)

Why can´t I ask you to stop doing something I find incorrect? You are in fact, doing the same, by asking me not to do it. See the irony? I wasn´t issuing orders, just asking kindly for you to stop doing that. If you don´t want to, it´s ok.

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.

I think the Olivenza "horn" you're looking for is on the third map.--Harriherrihorri 18:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very poor article

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)

A poor attempt from separatists to build a false history and shape it to their insterests

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)

About Land of Valencia.

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)

So would they consider a State (Catalan Countries) conformed by three nations (Catalonia, Valencia, Balearic Islands)? Well, or at least a Federation of States, wouldn't they?

In BNV there's no mention about "Catalan Countries" in their manifesto. Instead of it, a a high political collaboration with all those countries wich the same culture and language is included in the manifesto. About the political frame to achieve, they're telling only about Land of Valencia. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 06:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How come "around 8% of votes are for nationalist parties" and there's no nationalist party represented in the Autonomous Parliament which has a threshold of 5%? So you are listing Entesa as a nationalist party, aren't you? interesting..

Same for those "15% votes in the last autonomous elections to parties which demand the right of self-determination", are you suggesting that this is any real issue whatsoever in the Land of Valencia nowadays?

Hellooooo, someone is trying to mislead someone here.... Mountolive 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, around 8% vote for nationalist parties. They don´t form a coalition so BNV and EUPV don´t get parlamentary representation in the Corts (the autonomical parlamentary chamber). It´s not that hard to understand. The one party that gets representation is Esquerra Unida, which has got a strong nationalist bloc in it, Esquerra ane País (the other main bloc inside the party being the communists). No one is misleading, friend. 84.123.92.18 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (This last comment was mine) Violenciafriki 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? so for you a Valencian party which is a part of a Spanish party is a nationalist party?? Because, as you know, EUPV does not have a separate representation in the Spanish Parliament as, for example, Iniciative does in the Catalan level even though they are still federated with IU...and as you may know, Esquerra and País submitted a candidate to head the party during their last internal elections and he lost to the other candidate -the communist, supported by some others- so...do you still think that EUPV is a nationalist party even if they are a part of a Spanish party and even if the nationalists within it do not succeed to win their internal elections??

Please think it over and, in the meantime, I will still think that someone is trying to mislead someone here, mate. Mountolive 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The qualifying factor for a political party to be considered nationalist is not that they have separate representation in the Spanish Parliament. EUPV is not independentist, and they probably don´t stress valencian nationalism as much as ERPV would probably do if they had the chance to voice their concerns in the Corts Valencianes, yes. But still, just take a look at the policies EUPV has done in the past, not just with the support of Esquerra i Pais, but with the PCPV (communists) too. Just because Esquerra i Pais is the more nationalist oriented of both blocs in EUPV, doesn´t mean that the PCPV hasn´t got it´s nationalist orientation. Nationalism is not independentism, and as such I see EUPV´s position as perfectly llegitimate and coherent with me qualifying them as nationalist.. Their official stance is the need for Spain to be organized as a federal state, something that many nationalists defend. On the other hand, some nationalists are independentists, which means that they would like to see their nations organized into separate states.

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 have no problem in admitting that EUPV shares traits with the nationalists. This is obvious and, well, they would not be studying a coalition if they didn't feel close one to the other. I may agree also, if only to some extent, that nationalism doesn't automatically equate to independentism (even though this is a very tricky question because I don't think any real nationalist doesn't dream of their "nation" getting independent, right?).

Once this is said, you might be confusing similarities or mere tactical common goals with what is the very essence of the party. If we do mix those things, then what we get is a cul de sac party which is communist, progressive, leftist, new-leftist, ecologist, republican, feminist, federalist, nationalist...and so on. But we have to focus on their main policies and those are not nationalist as we understand the term.

If you don't think that the fact that they are a fraction of a Spanish party does not invalid its so called nationalism, then, let's just have a look at EUPV's funding principles. Amongst those, EUPV does not mention nationalism like that, even though it doesn't refrain from making a wide, vague, reference on the matter, obviously in order to make itself more attractive to a an as wider audience as possible.

Then, if we like to think they are or they are not nationalist is another story, but EUPV does not calls itself a nationalist party and, if there was any doubts, well, again, its nationalist fraction did submit a candidate to head the party and failed to win. I think this is evidence enough on how nationalist the party is.

In other words, I guess the PSPV has also a trend within which is close to nationalism/federalism/call-it-X. But does this make the PSPV a nationalist party? of course not. Same with EUPV.

So who are nationalists? obviously those who don't have a problem in call themselves so, which, in the Valencian context are Bloc and ERPV. All the rest enters the realm of interpretation. Mountolive 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "entering the realm of interpretation" is your definition of EU and it´s ideological basis. I´d like to know what "funding principles" you´re talking about, I´d be thankful if you included a quotation. Unlike you, I can easily quote their "estatuts" which make an ideological statement claiming that "L'objectiu d'Esquerra Unida del País Valencià és la transformació de les pautes econòmiques, socials, culturals i polítiques que regeixen el vigent sistema capitalista en un sistema socialista democràtic, on siga possible la plena realització de la llibertat, de la igualtat i dels Drets Fonamentals individuals, polítics, socials, nacionals i culturals, així com l'equilibri amb el medi ambient, la consecució real de la igualtat entre dones i homes, i la construcció d'un País Valencià sobirà i solidari." Which translates as: "Esquerra Unida of the Valencian Country´s target is the transformation of the economical, social, CULTURAL and political patterns that govern the capitalist system into a democratic socialist system, where it will be possible the full achievement of freedom, equality and individual, political, social, NATIONAL and CULTURAL Fundamental Rights, as well as harmony with the enviroment, the actual achievement of equality between women and men, and the construction of a SOVEREIGN and solidarian Valencian Country". The emphasis is mine.

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)

After the good quote of the Estatuts you bring we get the idea that EU is

1) Socialist (in the sense of non socialdemocrat) 2) vaguely anti capitalist 3) Ecologist 4) Feminist and 5) Vaguely nationalist

which means that there are militants fitting in based in any of the above categories (and some others, because "Republican" is not in that part of the Estatuts).

Now if you think that this means that the party is nationalist, well, how do you explain yourself that the EiP candidate failed to win the internal election? has it ever crossed your mind the fact that, maybe, he didn't win because the weight of nationalism is not enough within EUPV? and, if nationalism is not majoritary within EUPV...why should we call it a nationalist party?

Hey, but don't get me wrong: this article is a mess anyway, the fact that EUPV is listed as a nationalist party is just a small gaffe compared to the larger ones which make up the nationalist wet dream this article is based on. In other words: if it makes you happy to think that EUPV is a nationalist party, go for it, that is fine with me. Just don't tell so to the guys in the PCPV and the guys in the Bloc or you will be mocked and you won't like that. Mountolive 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO your confusions stems from the fact that you seem unable or unwilling to accept the fact that EU represents a plurality of political options, incorporating various leftist stances on a variety of issues, but still, all of them heavily grounded on a common basis. And that basis is leftist, NATIONALIST, ecologist, feminist and socialist. Wether one EU member is a libertarian communist (anarchist) and another is a leftist ecologist is up to them, because they share a commond ground in EU (there ARE anarchists that cannot stand being associated with communists, for example, and thus they won´t form part of EU). Esquerra i Pais is one of the main currents in EU, with a stronger emphasis on nationalism, but that DOES NOT mean that the rest of currents or members in EU don´t share a minimal common denominator on nationalist issues, which is in itself, although less nationalist than their Esquerra i Pais associates or the political party ERPV, quite stronger than what is understood as non-nationalist in the Valencian Country.

This nationalist component, that is present even in the currents within EU that don´t stress nationalist issues, is what qualifies EU as a nationalist party. It is written on their Estatuts, as an ideological statement, so I see it is quite objective and quotable. On the other hand, you take a votation from two candidates in EU (which are both nationalist to valencian standards, even one of them, the Esquerra i Pais one stresses nationalism even more than the other one) and then DEDUCE from that that EU is not nationalis. What gives?

In short, while I am judging a party by it´s ideological statement and political actions (take a look at the resumé of the Corts Valencianes to see a small number of EU´s proposals and see if they are not in some ways related to the promotion of valencian culture, attaining a greater degree of autonomy and so on), you judge them by YOUR deduction based on a candidate votation. Phew, such an unbiased way to judge their political stance right?

So, EUPV IS counted as a nationalist vote, wether you like it or not. Even the PSPV WAS a nationalist party in the spanish transition (evidence: [[2]]), and still some members keep true to that. So your attempt at trying to cut short the nationalist presence in the Valencian Country based on their historical allegiance to leftist issues WHILE at the same time being nationalist strikes me as biased and false. Do not take this as an offense, though.

So EUPV should be kept as a nationalist party in this article, and not because I say so based on my deductions from votations, but just because that´s what they are. Violenciafriki 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Capital Letters: TAKE IT EASY. As I said, if you want to consider EUPV as a nationalist party, that's perfectly fine with me, but just don't say it too loud to someone in the Bloc or the PCPV (the main fraction within EUPV) or they will LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. Mountolive 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, one of my friends works with Enric Morera´s brother (BNV) and when he talked with him about your ideas he just laughed and dismissed them as nonesense. No surprise since you base them on suppositions and not on actual facts and observation of EU´s policies. 81.202.96.146 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Independentism does not necessarily include Nationalism, for nationalism has been traditionally regarded as a political doctrine that believes that its nation is better than the other ones. Independentism only wants to achieve a different status for the nation, equating it with other states, not putting it higher or lower than any other nation. In fact, leaders of Batasuna have declared many times not to be nationalists but independentists and patriots (the meaning of "abertzale"). "Ezker Abertzale" or "Izquierda Abertzale" is mean to be "Leftist Patriot". Nations exist without need for nationalists, but states can only be conformed but a political and conscious effort.--Harriherrihorri 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cantabria

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)

Serious doubts about this article

1. The overtone is unencyclopedic.
2. It is unreferenced.
3. It is full of what cannot be considered but Original Research.
4. It is in serious need of a clean-up and copyediting if it is to remain.
5. It gives undue weight to minority views, which are of course also unreferenced.
6. Most of its salvageable content is already represented in Historical regions in Spain

Regards, --Asterion^talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious doubts indeed, to say the least. I agree completely with your reasoning above.

In previous posts above can be found a number of editors asking for this article to be deleted, for it is such a mess as it is now that it should be worked from scratch rather than simply amended. Reversely, there is no one really standing by the article: even nationalist-prone editors seem to realize that the article as it is now won't help their cause.

Asterion, being yourself a well established administrator, familiar with the topic and not suspected of being partial, I think you could be the right person to proceed with this or, at least, start the process contacting whoever are the right people in these cases.

Mountolive | Talk 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can any Spaniard be not suspected of being partial on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.241.40 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can, just don't rule out so quickly the possibility of people being honest. The fact that everyone (Spaniards too, both nationalist and not) has a POV, doesnt mean that this article, as it is now, is not a complete mess. Mountolive | Talk 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Political or nations conflict

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)

Comparison with British Isles union

Perhaps it should be worked in. Rhode Islander 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It will always be just speculative, and it does not fit at all on this article, in any case, it will deserve a new one, "Paralelism between United Kingdom's and Spain's subentities" or the like.

Anglosaxon Kingdoms - Spanish Kingdoms:

Mercia = Aragon, Northumbria = Leon, Wessex = Castile

England = Spain

Wales = Galicia

Scotland = Catalonia

Northern Ireland = Basque Country --193.0.241.41 16:02, 31 January 2007 (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

What's even stranger is right now, Britain and Spain has increased Muslim fundamentalism and separatism of Muslim immigrant population, some of them are seeking to establish "Sharia" or radical Islamic law in their communities where they form the majority, and critics point out the refusal of assimilation might produce an officially racially separate entity, similar to an apartheid-era Bantustan in South Africa, a Nazi-era Jewish ghetto or an Indian reservation in the U.S.

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)

Nations vs. simple regions

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)

Not to get too much into semantics, but doesn't the Spanish consitution allow for nationalities and not actual nations within Spain? So Catalonians and Basques can claim that as their nationality but not Catalonia or Basque Country as nations. I agree though that each region/autonomous community has a different level of nationalism/regionalism, but I'm not sure what the criteria were to differentiation between the autonomous communities listed first and then the ones under Regionalism.Kman543210 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to mention a few things that would make everything clearer

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)

Aragon

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)

Good remarks, let's see what the spain-is-one-nation users say about this. --193.0.241.40 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Spain was officially stated as one Nation-State within the Spanish Constitution of 1812 for the first time (which abolished Navarre's status as a kingdom). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.0.241.40 (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The sentence is not correct. Aragon did not willfully join Castille, was invaded by Castille. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession. Furthermore, even if corrected, the sentence could be copypasted into the entries for Catalonia, Valencia, Balearic islands, and be as correct as in here. It is not descriptive of Aragon at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Fantasy (as opposed to reality) Conception of Spain

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.

Some Valencians, not all, hate to be considered together with Catalonia. I assume you are talking about the organization of the Aragonese Crown, then it is incorrect to say that Valencia was a kindom and Catalonia was not, since they both had there own government (as Aragon). This nonsense is often repeated, based only in that the title of the King within Catalonia was a different one, because of tradition. You are misrepresenting the facts. Spanish (castilian) is spoken in Aragon now, but this was not the case at the time of the annexion by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am Valencian and I don´t "hate" to recognize I have a common culture with the Catalans. I wouldn´t mind if the Catalan Countries were an independent state. I do not, however, think I can speak for my whole people. Please stop trying to think you can, when you are not even Valencian. Thanks. 84.123.92.18 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (This last comment was mine) Violenciafriki 19:33, 20 October 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.

This article needs to be rewritten

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)

I agree that this should be cleaned up. Good luck with the Basque entry. The main problem with this article is that it tries to "pigeonhole" a variety of feelings in a variety of communities into special little pseudo-categories. Feelings about nationalism/autonomy/identity change radically, not just from community to community, but from person to person. We should be able rely on scholarly analysis of sentiments in the region, the political movements, historical event, and the cultural implication of such feelings. This is quite diverse to condense but it can be done. To be honest I think that National and regional identity in Spain would be a better title.

The lead's statement for the article "to describe the nationalist and regionalist parties' claims in Spain" has all but failed and it is wildly off topic. It should be brought back on track with a political emphasis, excluding irrelevancies which would belong in the aforementioned parent article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Strangely, I think en.wiki is still doing a better job of addressing this issue than es.wiki. Very odd that something that is deemed so pertinent to Spain is not very well covered by Spaniards, or vascos, or aragoneses or leoneses...... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Very bad article

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)

Where's Navarra? Where's your mind, dude?

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)

I don't sinceresly think that this article has been created by just a single person. --213.96.157.218 06:35, 24 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

Before everyone felt free to make a complete mess with those vote percentages all the percentages were taken from the information refered to the last elections held at municipality level, as stated above in the article. The page where the data came from is stated there too. --80.35.108.29 20:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And what about a "Navarrese people" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.131.204 (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

how to achieve neutrality

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)

I agree your new wording is an improvement, although much more be needed (especially, addition of sources) to turn the article into something decent. I guess there was no reason to erase the map, and it was just a mistake, so I have restored it. Cheers. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:10, 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)

Spain federal state?

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)

What is exactly wrong with this article? --Jotamar (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake...

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924102600/http://www.parlamentodegalicia.es:80/sites/ParlamentoGalicia/ContenidoGal/pargal_ReformaEstatutoGalicia.aspx to http://www.parlamentodegalicia.es/sites/ParlamentoGalicia/ContenidoGal/pargal_ReformaEstatutoGalicia.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tierracomunera.org/ideologia/wbases.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091205171542/http://www.andaluciaoriental.es:80/quienes-somos/ideario/ to http://www.andaluciaoriental.es/quienes-somos/ideario/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Map from Spanish Wiki

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)

Merger

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:

1. Referencing unsourced content and removing what appear to be unsourceable opinion statements.
2. Including something on Spanish nationalism as suggested above.
3. Tackling each region to emphasise geographical, historical, demographic, economic and political aspects of regional and national identity, bringing in material from other sources as necessary.
4. Reworking the lead (miles too long at present) and general background sections.
5. Drastically trimming the See also section which consists mostly of duplicated links.

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)

 Done Merger and move carried out. The separation into "nationalism" and "regionalism" could not be maintained, so the article is now organised geographically along the lines of the former "history of the regional distinctions" one: Noyster (talk), 22:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Pure idiocy

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've found the revision of the article from the time you wrote your post [3]. Within:

"Following the Spanish Civil War, the Francoist imposition of Spanish as the only official language, and the persecution of all remaining historical languages and identities, had the effect of putting the constituent nations' survival in danger, leading to many powerful expressions of nationalism.[4]".

Now I don't know about you but that sounds a lot to me like "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". If you wanted to find information about the overthrow of the republic, Nazi collaboration, the law of historical memory, modern corruption and changing one stripe on the flag (horror!) there are many other places to do so than on this article. The edition of the page that you saw was not biased in any way: there was no mention of ETA or any other violent group for which you could rightfully argue that Spanish nationalist violence should be included for the full picture. "Frankly" all Spaniards and most people around the world know the name ETA but this article is not "attempting to rewrite history" by not mentioning them, as there's a time and a place. This article is not a WP:COATRACK for you to list everything bad Spain has done in the last 85 years Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Spanish Nationalism

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)

The section is certainly not very good, as most of the page for that matter, but the other section you mention doesn't really describe Spanish nationalism, so deleting the entire section is out of the question. And your manners make things worse. I'll try to save the relevant parts. --Jotamar (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Which manners are you talking about, @Jotamar:? Thank you for being constructive and for WP:AGF. Laocon (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)