Talk:Galicia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] From WP:RfD:
- Galicia (disambiguation) is not needed because Galicia is already the disambiguation page. --Hottentot 04:42, 8 July 2005
- Keep, it has existed for over a year and there is no pressing reason to remove it. - SimonP 16:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Cleduc 06:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to switch the two (with the actual disambig at Galicia (disambiguation), for the reasons given here. Noel (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any reason to swtich the two. Just delete Galicia (disambiguation)!!! --Hottentot
- Delete useless IMO. No one is going to type "Galicia (diasmbiguation)" into the go box... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - there are a huge number of examples like these and they do no harm. I regularly type "... (diasmbiguation)" into go boxes --Henrygb 21:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Is this discussion about deleting this page, or the other? I don't see either listed at WP:RfD. —Michael Z. 2005-07-26 16:02 Z
[edit] Galicia Name
Concerning the name Galicia from Ukrainian / Polish Galicia (Galitzia, Galicja...) I have confirmed through prof. dr. Hab. Marek Waldenberg from Jagiellonian University, Krakow, that it comes from the name of Halicz. This seems to be the most logical and accepted origin. In Galicia (Spain) the name comes from the roman province of Gallaecia, from the same root as "Gaul" or "Gauloises": it is a name given by the roman historians in several places where "gaelic" tribes were found. It also served to mark large areas difficult to keep under control, because of the resistance of tribes such as the "Galli" in modern france, who shared with the Galician / Britons / Celts large parts of their culture and social organization.
Pablo Dopico. MA in Political Science and Researcher at the University Complutense of Madrid.
[edit] Galicia, Spain vs. disambiguation page issue (1)
In my honest opinion this page should be the article for Galicia (Spain). Galicia (disambiguation) should be where the disambiguation page is. --Revolución (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
should the Galicias be separated and disambiguated? If so, how? Galicia (Spain) vs Galicia (Austria)? Somehow I anticipate problems coming up with a name for the one around Lvov... -- Someone else 02:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- As for the name for the second Galicia-page: if "Galicia (Eastern-Europe)" is considered problematic (for it could also be Middle-Europe), we could choose "Galicia (Carpathians)". It avoids putting into brackets the name of a country which Galicia does not longer, or not exclusively belong to. Fransvannes 08:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- I rather like the Galicia (Carpathians) or Galicia (Eastern Europe) solutions. Will wait a bit till others voice their opinions before making changes, though I think. ---Someone else 08:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why not a disambiguation page like the one for Fatima? Portcult 13:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This page can be improved. The tables on Galicia are conflicting, with one going into the other. The English must be worked on and the information at the bottom about the other Galicia should not be on this page. It comes almost as an afterthought and a reader looking fo the non-Spanish Galicia would have a chore finding it.
The statement that Spanish (Castillian)"is not the socially dominant language, both languages are oficials (sic.) and well-spoken by the majority of the population" has to be modified as information from the official sites about Galicia say the opposite. "In the towns, Galician is only maintained by a minority of culturally motivated families. Research shows that only 4_5% of today's young town-dwellers claim Galician as their mother tongue, although virtually all of them understand it and over 90% can speak it." from Euromosaic The book I have for learning Galego, Galego para vos, also gives statistics on use and they don't show Galego to be the dominant language. Portcult 08:05, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have removed the table showing Spanish autonomous regions, since it was overlapping with the table about Galicia and should be in a separate article. I have also added much more detail to the article and will work on articles for the different cities in Galicia, which, since I live nearby, I know very well. Portcult 22:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- "Semi-disambiguation" done. Galicia now links to this article, and is presumed to refer to the Spanish region; Galicia (Eastern Europe) links to the article on the Eastern European region. I didn't do a full disambiguation because MOST references are to the Spanish Galicia: if anyone wants to do a full disambiguation it would require moving this article to Galicia (Spain), creating a disambiguation page here and changing the current Galicia links to Galicia (Spain) links. I'm not convinced that's the way to go but leave it to you all to decide. -- Someone else 23:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It is very improbable that the name of the Eastern-European Galicia is derived from the Gauls, for this would require evidence for Celtic settlement in this area (is there any?), and one would have to ignore the very place name Halicz (Halich), which is the most obvious source. Fransvannes 21:37, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What about Galatia in Anatolia? Is this one of those European sorepoints? There seem to be so many... Wetman 23:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to have the country and its language properly referred to in English as Galiza and Galizan respectively, with the terms Galicia and Galician used to refer back to them? Incidentally, sicne the spelling reform of 2003, both forms are now considered legitimate by the Galizan Royal Academt.
- Considered legitimate by the Academy for use in English? That would seem unlikely. Of course, even if they did so, they would have no jurisdiction over the English language. — Gulliver ✉ 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- i don't remember ever saying that the Galizan Royal academy had made pronouncements over English usage nor that they had any authority to do so - that is something you have insinuated for yourself. all that i was saying was that against the oft-cited claims that not even official galizan language authorities recognise the form 'galizan', since the latest language/spelling reform this is no longer the case.
[edit] Río grande
"Also, the rio grande, contrary to popular belief, separates Mexico from Texas; not Spain from Portugal."
- There's another river called Río Grande in north-east of Lugo --Alyssalover(talk) 13:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Aha, interesting. The statement is still wrong though.
- You should add the Galician río Grande to Rio Grande (disambiguation). — Gulliver ✉ 14:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gallegos in Latin America
I'm not sure about the accuracy of "Spaniards of all regions" being referred to as "gallegos" in most Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. I know that is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. It is said in the article that same happens in Brazil. However, I'm positive this is not the case in Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, etc.
Obvious resaon is most Spanish migration to Argentina was from Galicia, which does not hold for the other countries. I'm editing out the claim accordingly.
[edit] Economy
I think the second sentence in this section would be clearer and less redundant if written as in the following, but I would like someone to double check that this does not cange the intended meaning.
While the western coast, with its major population centres, and its fishing and manufacturing industries is prosperous and increasing in population, the rural hinterland—the provinces of Ourense and Lugo—are econonomical dependent on traditional agriculture, based on small landholdings called minifundios.
What do you think? Vivafelis 05:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia says: In 1990, Manuel Fraga won the presidenticial elections by a landslide victory. From then he ruled the autonomous community as a facist dictator. Fraga placed heavy restrictions upon Galician press and television. In 2002, a protest took place outside the Galician Parliament. It ended with the brutal torture of the protestors under the orders of Fraga. However in 2005, the Galician people finally rose up against the facist governemt and Fraga was overthrown. Now for the first time in 15 long years, Galicia enjoys democracy.
All is FALSE.
¿Torture protestors? ¿When?
¿Restrictions upon Galician press and television? ¿When?
¿You are fouls? ¿Its Wikipedia a communist or extreme left politic propaganda?
___________________
I'm a Galician, and definitively no Fraga supporter at all, but I'm ashamed to read what has been writen in this article. It gives que poorest impresion of our country to anybody who decides to read it. "facist tyrant"? What kind of a neutral assesment is that? Have you ever read an encyclopedia? As for the rest of the historical background, better not going into details (never heard in my life about that "last Celtic speaker" in the 15th Century, And I'm a linguist!). The article is fool of esculation, invention and bias. What a same.
Fraga is -as he was- a tyrant indeed, and he used democracy as a mere way of going backwards in time. His success as a "democratic" politician is based more in fear than in actual good management of the country. Galicia is still way behind UE wealth indicators and the gap is widening. The stories about tortures, press censorship, etc are quite an exaggeration, but not 100% false.
Fraga is nothing more than a war criminal and a fascist tyrant who used fear to rule over the Galicia region. He held Galicia back behind the rest of Europe and that is why Galicia is the poorest area in Spain! It is Fraga who is to blame! In my view he should be placed on trial like Saddam Huessien for war crimes after his public support for Franco and his dictatorial regime. I thank God that he is out of power in my land, now maybe Galicia can become rich and have a stable economy now that Fraga is gone.
[edit] Galicia, Spain vs. disambiguation page issue (2)
In my honest opinion this page should be the article for Galicia (Spain). Galicia (disambiguation) should be where the disambiguation page is. --Revolución (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- In my honest opinion, I strongly disagree. It may seem from the Spanish perspective that one Galicia is way more notable than the other one and is much more likely to be meant by someone who enters "Galicia" in the search string, but from the Eastern European perspective it is exactly the opposite way. As such, the solution that was used until now for a long time was neutral and suited everyone. Such moves should not be done without probeing proposed first and giving other sides some time to have a say. --Irpen 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)