Talk:Nationalities in Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Nonsense 2 Removed 3 Euskobarometro 4 Maps 5 Zamora 6 "Regionalism" 7 Elections 8 Linguistic Map 9 Political or nations conflict 10 About Land of Valencia. 11 Another Fantasy (as opposed to reality) Conception of Spain 12 Portugal and Galicia 13 Alcalá de Henares 14 Where's Navarra? Where's your mind, dude? 15 On Respect 16 Very poor article

[edit] Nonsense

This article has no sense! How can you include Murcia into Andalucia, or talk about ambiguos provinces? Whoever has entered this article has no idea about Spain, or wants to give a false image of it. Please erase this confusing article asap! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.217.103.246 (talk • contribs).

I agree that at least the first map should be removed, but maybe we should make a poll.

Regarding that map it is stated: "Identity ambiguous regions and provinces (written in italics) have been quite randomly assigned." Those identities are explained below, and since all of them have similarities in their cultures to adjacent regions' well-established cultures...

Here we've got the first offended Spaniard

The maps are incorrect

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

[edit] Maps

I think that maybe that map can be improved, because it absolutely ignores Murcia, Valencia and Extremadura, regions where there are important regional identitary sentiments.

Yes, you're right, but as long as Valencian, Murcian an Extremaduran people consider themselves primarily Spanish, they belong to Spain thanks to their relation with the historical Kingdom of Castile, not by themselves.

I also find conflictive to set a Valencian nation apart from Catalonia, since their language it's the same.

I think that the third map is more accurate, but clearly unacceptable.

The second map is probably the only one acceptable (except the fourth one that is an actual fact), but in that one the status of Asturias inside Leon can be debatable too.

In the first map Castile has exactly the wedge shape of the spread over the peninsula of the Castilian language.

[edit] Zamora

Zamora should be included too in the identity ambiguous provinces, since most of the people there think of themselves as Castilians and not Leonese.

[edit] "Regionalism"

I'm not sure if I should include Party of La Rioja (it got 7,31% of votes in May 2003, municipality elections) as a regionalist movement, since the controversial "regionalism" movement (often underlings of PP) does not actually represent a regionalist movement further than having an autonomous community.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)