Talk:Nationalities and regions of Spain

Requested move to Nationalities of Spain

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate wasno consensus for a move to Nationalities of Spain. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Historical regions in Spain → Nationalities of Spain — (1) It is the word used both by the constitution and by reputable academic publications in English; (2) the constitution distinguishes between "nationalities" and "regions", and therefore the current title is confusing; for more details and a list of references --the Dúnadan 00:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested —when the article was renamed back to its current name by User:Asterion on 22 July 2007—that the word "nationality" in English is ambiguous and does not have the same meaning as the word nacionalidad in Spanish, in this particular case referring to a group of people or a region with distinct character thus constituted as an autonomous community in Spain. A similar argument was proposed, if I recall correctly, by users Maurice27, Mountolive and Boynamedsue in the talk pages of the articles of those autonomous communities that have declared themselves "nationalities" of Spain, namely, but not exclusively, Catalonia, the Valencian Community, Galicia and the Basque Country.

I argue that the word "nationality" in English the term "nationality" has been used in English publications when translating the word nacionalidad into "nationality" [1].

• It is the word used by the English translation of the Spanish Constitution, 2nd article [2]
• It is the word used by the Encyclopedia Britannica in the article about Spain, both when citing the 2nd article of the constitution and when describing the "historical nationalities" of Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia [3] (Under "Government and Society", subsection "Regional Government", paragraphs 3 and 4)
• It is the word used by Michael Keating, professor of politics at the University of Aberdeen and the European University Institute, in a paper titled Federalism and the Balance of Power in European States, published by the Support for Improvement in Governance and Management, a joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, in his analysis of the devolution of power in Spain.[4] (p. 22 to 25)
• Used by Phillip Resnick, in his books The European roots of Canadian Identity, in which he refers to the "peripheral nationalities of Spain" [5].
• Used by Micheal T. Newton and Peter J. Donaghy in their book Institutions of Modern Spain: A Political and Economic Guide [6] (p. 18, 117, 118, 119, 120, 191 and 236)
• Used by Monica Threlfall, in her book, Consensus Politics in Spain: Insider Perspectives [7].

...and many others.

Besides being a term used in English, I also request this move to Nationalities of Spain, because the Spanish constitution distinguishes between nationalities and regions, as well as by Britannica that states that "the constitution classifies the possible autonomous communities into two groups...". By redirecting nationalities of Spain to historical regions of Spain, both groups are treated as a single entity.

Alternatively to renaming the article, a new article can be created, say Nationalities and regions of Spain, in which each term can be properly described instead of mixed into a single term.

As a side note, the term "nationality" has also been used in case studies of the United Kingdom (as in Keating's paper) as well as China (in Britannica, in reference to "minority nationalities").

--the Dúnadan 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

"Nationalities" is a latter day term which has gained currency over the last decade.

As such now we have that Valencia, the Canary and Balearic islands plus Aragon are self proclaimed "nationalities" (and the list is only likely to grow) while the "historical regions" is another concept. Those are the ones which got approved an Statute of Autonomy during the Spanish Second Republic (the Basque Country, Catalonia, and, in extremis, Galicia; then Andalusia is typically quoted as an historical region too).

These articles shouldnt be merged, but rather more starkly separated (one for "nationalities" another for "historical regions"). Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, while doing my research, I found some very old documents that used the term "nationalities of Spain", like this one in 1951, this one from 1949, this one from 1937 this one from 1872, and this one also more than a hundred years old! It seems, and of course, I need to read them carefully, so I do not make any "claim" but only a "hypothesis", but it seems that the concept of "nationality" was used and understood prior to the constitution of 1978.

I agree with you: while at first only three communities were dubbed "nationalities" or "historical nationalities", the list has grown to include many others that self-ascribe as nationalities of Spain. And I agree with you, the list is likely to grow...

I also agree with you: two articles can be created, one for "nationalities" and the other for "regions". However, what you call (and I believe that some sources also use this term) "historical regions" (those that approved or were about to approve a Statute of Autonomy during the Second Republic) are what Britannica and Keating call "historical nationalities", so we are back to square one, "historical regions" should be renamed to "historical nationalities" (the original name). Then, after renaming, the problem is about content. This article (historical nationalities) should only talk about the three original ones, plus all those that also identify themselves explicitly as "nationalities" or "historical nationalities"; for example the Statutes of Autonomy of Valencian Community, Aragon, Andalusia, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, use precisely this phrase, "nacionalidad histórica", "historical nationality".

I believe that if we split the article between "nationalities" and "regions", then the latter should include all those communities that do not identify themselves as "nationalities" (the second group of communities according to the constitution and Britannica). Yet, this poses a small technical problem. From those autonomous communities that do not identify themselves as "nationalities", in their Statutes of Autonomy, some call themselves "regions" or talk about "historical regional identity" (Murcia, Extremadura, Castilla la Mancha), or "historical communities" (like Asturias, Cantabria, Castile and León), one talks about "historic identity" (La Rioja), one is a "chartered community" (Navarra), and Madrid didn't self-identify as anything because it was constituted as an autonomous community for the "nation's interest" despite being part of the "historical region of Castile - la Mancha". So, arguably, the non-nationalities can be grouped as "regions" or "regions with historical identity", except for Navarra and Madrid. Should these two be regions, nationalities (probably not) or what? Since this is a complex issue, I don't have a clear answer, so let's discuss possibilities and proposals, and let's hear new ideas.

However, whatever the content of a future article about "regions of Spain", the request is still valid, "historical regions" (in reference to "historical nationalities", should be redirected to "nationalities of Spain".

--the Dúnadan 02:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the current title, Historical regions in Spain, since it is highly misleading (i.e., it implies an article about regions like Castile, León, &c.). The suggested target has similar issues. Nationalities of Spain implies a normative treatment of nations in Spain (if such is possible) and not an article on a bureaucratic term for certain Spanish regions. The suggested target currently redirects to Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. What about merging this article with that one? (And moving it to Nationalities and regions of Spain if that sounds better). If not, what are the arguments against a title like Historical nationalities of Spain? — AjaxSmack 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify some points. First, the article was moved without debate to Historical nationality, which was -to say the least- a very ambiguous choice. Hence my straight revert at the time. The issue has been dormant since then. Secondly, a quick Google search on "nationalities in Spain" would show that almost 99% of the times, this refers to people born outside Spain, not to the Spanish concept of nacionalidades. In the few cases where "nationalities" is used in the sense of nacionalidades, the term is usually printed in inverted commas (ie [8], [9]) or preceded by the wording "so-called" ([10], [11], [12]) to emphasise that the choice of words could be misleading.

A different meaning of nationality in English language, aside its main one that is normally understood as equivalent to citizenship, is the equivalent of the Serbo-Croat concept of Narodnost, which basically means ethnicity or recognised ethnic groups (ie someone could live in Serbia but is recognised as Hungarian, Rusyn, Gorani, etc "by nationality"). This is not the same concept as nacionalidad as for the 1978 Spanish Constitution, which refers to territories not ethnic groups. Regards, Asterion^talk 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Asterion, thanks for participating in the debate. Some points:

• A quick google serach on "nationalities of Spain" (and in quotation marks) or "nationalities in Spain (again with quotation marks) yield a very different result, quite as expected. The use of quotation marks prevents you from getting thousands of articles that merely speak of "nationalities" in the diverse meanings of the word, with and without reference to Spain.
• The use of single quotations (i.e. ' ) in some publications, does not invalidate the use, without single or double quotations, or the "so-called" prefix, in other publications. I do not attribute any intention to the use of these markers (or lack thereof).

My intention was not to argue nor to defend/contend against the subtleties of the word "nationality" in English or Spanish, or to debate what the Spanish parliament actually meant when they chose the term. My petition for renaming, as mentioned before is based simply on three points

(1) it is a valid term in English,

(2) it is backed up by reputable publications —and hence, not ambiguous—and

(3) it is by far, the most neutral term to describe the internal organization of the country, having being consensually agreed upon by the constituent Parliament of Spain (as a middle-ground term between those who proposed the term "nations" and others who proposed merely "regions", as in the Franco era).

We must not forget that the constituent courts, and hence the constitution of Spain made an explicit distinction between the "regions" and the "nationalities" of Spain. Having the article about "nationalities" redirect to "regions" might display a POV approach, in the same way as having it redirect to "historic nations" would also be POV, despite the fact that Keatings (in the source above) made use of this expression in reference to Spain. "Nationalities" is the term selected by the Spanish government itself, backed up by reputable publications in English; I honestly do not understand the opposition against it. --the Dúnadan 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dúnadan, I understand the point you are trying to make. Leaving aside that I still consider the word ambiguous in English (though I agree it is the "official" translation chosen), the problem is that the solution is not straight-forward, as Mountolive has mentioned above. There is a need to distinguish between "historic nationalities" and self-proclaimed "nationalities". We cannot even use the Spanish Constitution as a source as purposedly it never listed them by name. If we stick to the old Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia plus Andalusia and maybe Navarra "fast track" communities, we would be leaving out other autonomous communities that have also taken that denomination in accordance to their more or less historical regional identity (such as the Valencian Community, the Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands, and Aragón). As the article stands, a more neutral approach over Historical nationalities in Spain would be Nationalities in Spain but that already exists as a redirect to that very poor article titled Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain... Asterion^talk 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, like I had commented before on my response to Mountolive, that the issue is not black and white or straightforward. However, the current solution is definitely not appropriate, nor accurate (based on the arguments above). I've made two proposals (renaming, or creating two separate articles, after Mountolives comment) in order to find a better—even if it is not perfect—solution. Either creating two articles (Nationalities of Spain and Regions of Spain, or a single Nationalities and regions of Spain), would be a good idea in accordance with the constitution itself. The articles should only present the historical and legal framework of the terms, and not the "movements of all regions claiming independence or national recognition". (In that sense, Nationalities of Spain, should not redirect to Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain; and I agree with you, that article is indeed poorly titled, and perhaps it should also be renamed).

As to what constitutes a "historical nationality" versus the self-ascribed "nationalities", I believe, based at least on Keatings, Britannica and many others (and to a certain extent the synopsis of the Statutes available at the web page of the Spanish Congress), that there is a consensus: only three "nationalities" were recognized as such prior to the constitution, the three of them acceded to autonomy automatically ("fast-track"), while the rest (even Andalusia, even though it had certain "fast-track" privileges) acceded to autonomy via the 143 and 151 articles of the constitution, some claiming to be nationalities as well (except for Madrid which gained autonomy through the 144th article). I think the article Nationalities and regions of Spain (or the two separate articles, depending on the solution agreed upon), might be able to accurately describe the issue with all its complexities. I think its better to go over the details and complexities than to generalize.

--the Dúnadan 02:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be simpler to keep it as a single article, explaining the historic development of the term (since before 1978). As you said, it is plagued with complexities. In any case, I would rather wait for some other editors to express their views too. Thanks, Asterion^talk 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping it in a single article, I guess the question is, with what name? I think Nationalities and regions of Spain is the best of all possible choices. --the Dúnadan 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dúnadan. In the article Nationalities and regions of Spain it could be explained the history behind nationalities and historical regions: what is fast-trak, the relation with the Statutes from the Republic, the "new" self-proclaimed nationalities... etc.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nationalities and regions of Spain sounds good to me too. — AjaxSmack 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the whole proposal stems, if only partially, from the dislike of some users towards the "R" word (region). In which case I'd rather have a good debate here before taking the next step without having completed this one, otherwise we will definitely stumble at the proposed new article. If we made this move without having discussed what we want, whether we couldnt do it here improving what we have now, and, most important, whether it is within our capabilities as the amateurs we are, then I think I can tell you what it would happen: fruitless looooooong debate about what a 'nationality' is in the 'nacionalidad' sense. Nonsense. An OR fest yet paradoxically filled with faulty sources. Faulty because they will be comparing things not meant to be compared, English sources for Spanish terms and the other way around. I have seen it before how we overstretch and we think we are very capable and stuff, but then I swear it ends up being a very uneasy delivery and, what is more important, the child does not look that good in the end...

Before giving an automatic "yes, we can" reply right after reading this post, please take a minute or two to consider this thought and be honest with yourselves before leaping.Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see where in the text above any user has shown a "dislike" for the "R" word... or the "N" word for that matter. We just want to distinguish, like the constitution, between nationalities and regions; whether it is self-ascription or denomination, we just report it, and those primary sources (Statutes of Autonomy, and the web page of the congress,) are quite specific and clear. I thought the debate about "nationality" vs. "nacionalidad" was closed, based on the reputable sources above.... no overstretching, actually... if at all, we can blame Britannica and all the above sources for "overstretching" a term, some of which are 100 years old ;-) That is what we want to do. Since this article talks about both, it makes sense to rename the article, without any further ado. What else do you want to discuss about before moving the article? --the Dúnadan 02:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"We just want to"..."what we want to do"... We? uhmmm... errrr.. Since when "you" is "we"... "You" are the one who wants, not "we". You are the one disliking the title as it is (the "Rs" are tedious, right?). Asterion, Boynamedsue, Mountolive and myself don't agree.

"without any further ado"... "before moving the article"... Did I miss something? When were you entitled as Supreme Commander? Who gives you the right to ignore other editors opinions? Who you think you are menacing to do the change? As somebody said not so long ago: "you'd better tone down your comments". You should sometimes remember you are only just another editor here in wikipedia. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 23:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey man chill down, please, indeed you should tone down your comments.

• First, I have never said that I dislike the "R" (thanks Mountolive...) that is an assumptions of motivations that goes beyond the purpose of any civilized debate.
• Secondly, Asterion and I have had a mutual understanding of goals, even if we differ in details. Please read the comments above. On the other hand, Boynamedsue hasn't even commented anything here, at least not yet. You just got here, but you brought no arguments, just spurious accusations. Please present your arguments and I'd be happy to discuss.
• Thirdly, I have not ignored the opinions that have not yet been written! (like yours or Boynamedsue's). On the other hand I have heard and replied to all users who have presented their opinions, including Mountolive and Asterion.
• Fourthly, I am not "the one" disliking the title as it is. I have argued that the content is not reflective of a title that ignores the subtleties of the Spanish internal organization. Xtv and AjaxSmak have agreed. Please do not ignore their opinions (and mine, for that matter).

I think we have debated peacefully so far, and have made many proposals. As the debate carried on, we all seemed to realize that we needed more than just a new name; we needed to discuss content. We thought of two articles instead of one. We do not have a final resolution, but several solutions have been suggested so far, and I think we, yes we have all learned from each other comments. However, if you deem it appropriate, I'd be happy to request the aid of an administrator.

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I only said you'd better chill out yourself and stop menacing of doing the change by your own. Who you think you are? You accuse me of waking sleeping "consensus" in other articles and here you are pretty much doing the same thing. Want to request the aid of an administrator? Fine! But don't you menace about doing anything anymore. Incredible... Just incredible. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maurice no body is "menacing" [threatening] anybody of doing anything (anymore than what you "menace" at other articles). I ask you again, do you have any arguments in favor or against the renaming, or any other consensual proposal that you will like to discuss? If not, let us continue with our debate in regards of which of the two options is better and about content. --the Dúnadan 13:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, "no body is "menacing"?.. "without any further ado"... "before moving the article"... What is this then? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I Oppose. May the explanations already given by Asterion and Mountolive receive my backing. There is little more to add other that was already said. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, since Asterion and I seem to be understanding each other pretty well, and we are discussing possible titles (a single or two articles) as well as the content of those articles. So if you agree with him, we have a good understanding as well. Mountolive has proposed that we discuss the content prior to moving. And so we are. So if you agree with him, then we are in a good place.

BTW, I recommend that you read the dictionary definition of "menacing" (as well as "threatening"). After that, I recommend that you read your own interventions here, here, here and here. Because I think we seem to have a different understanding of what "menacing" (or "threatening") mean. But I might have a wrong perception, and I apologize if I do.

Cheers, since you agree with Asterion and Mountolive, and both of them are in a disposition to discuss, and show no utter antagonism, then we all seem to be in the right track.

--the Dúnadan 00:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"men·ace (mns)" "n. a. A possible danger; a threat: the menace of nuclear war. b. The act of threatening."... ??? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 08:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to close this debate as it is now in the backlog section of the WP:RM. But it is not at all clear where the debate is going. I think that one of the problems that you are having is that traditionally the English language has not needed to distinguish between state, nation, and land. Chiefly because the Crown was the state and it controlled nations and nations lived in lands. Eg the English live in England and the Scots in Scotland. If you lived in Berwick you were either English or Scottish depending on who won the last war. Later developments lead to the ideas of Provinces/States (as in US states) and territories.

This problem of language shows up in other places, Elizabeth I was Queen of England, George III was King of Great Britain, Victoria Empress of India (all places not people) but Napoleon was Emperor of the French not Emperor of France a distinction often missed in English histories.

The problem the article has is this "These regions are: Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia and Andalusia, all of them officially recognized as nationalities." It does not make sense, it would make more sense if it read "These regions are: Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia and Andalusia, all of them officially recognized as constituent countries" or "These regions are: Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia and Andalusia, all of them officially recognized constituent nations", but the point is that if an native English speaker was ever pressed on the issue, nation implies people while country implies the land on which the people of a nation live eg, England, Scotland, Ireland (as in the German word Land).

I hope that this additional information will help you work out the best term to use. But as it is IMHO there is nothing wrong with either Historical regions in Spain or Nationalities and regions of Spain, but I think that "Nationalities of Spain" would be about the people and not the regions -- it depends on where you wish to place the emphasis. BTW the title "Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain" sounds as if it was lifted from a soviet era communist tract. If you come to a decision in the next day or so I'll close this debate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no further comment since my posting, and there is no consensus to move the article to Nationalities of Spain, I am closing this debate. There may be a consensus for Nationalities and regions of Spain, but the debate above is not clear on this, so I suggest that if that name is wanted by some of the editors above, a bold move is made by one of those editors, but if others object then move it back to this name and put in a new WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Phillip, you posted only 3 days ago, I wish you had waited a reasonable amount of time before closing this issue. Some of the users involved usually abandon the debate whenever they don't like the proposed outcome. I would love to be the editor with the "bold move", but that will only cause an unnecessary edit war and further animosity between the parties involved. Please advise.--the Dúnadan 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on users abandoning the debate whenever they dont like the proposed outcome is unfair. In the same fashion, it could be said that you will pay deaf ears to their reasons (as expressed above) when those do not support your proposed outcome. Speaking for myself, I made my comments already and my time is limited over here to insist again and again on the same issues if they are not properly addressed, that is why. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, did I mention your name when i said users abandon the debate? I was referring to Maurice, who explicitly abandoned the debate of the Catalan names in infoboxes. Secondly, I do find your comment of me playing "deaf ears" to other user's reasons very unfair, simply because as more users began debating, new proposals came out. What had originally been intended as a single renaming, turned out to be the possibility of creating "two" separate articles. Your own argument focused on the nuances of the content (i.e. what constitutes a nationality and what doesn't) and not necessarily on the title, and therefore, I suggested to either rename the article or create two articles first (two alternative options of what we call consensus and/or compromise), and then discuss nuances of content, your concerns. So, in summary, I find your comment very unfair. --the Dúnadan 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[intersped comments for conversation flowing, hope you dont mind] Oh, looks like I touched a sensitive spot with my comment above on you being unfair....

Anyway, you didnt get me right or I explained myself not that well. I wasnt taking it personally when I said your comment on people abandoning discussion was unfair. Read again my comment under this light and you'll see it makes sense. The part I was taking personally starts, of course, with the "speaking for myself" (I never thought this could require a clear up...). I thought I was leaving it quite clear, the part "generally speaking" and the one "speaking for myself".

On the other side, I dont understand why you should bring here problems from unrelated pages. I mean, the debate of "Catalan names in infoboxes" between you and Maurice in some other page doesnt apply here. This is another story, isnt it? As a matter of fact, bringing grudges from elsewhere here for sure won't help.

Dont get me wrong, but you sound a bit bossy with your scheme and that is why you get frustrated if the rest of people is not following. For example, as far as I am concerned, what you think are "nuances" from my post, I dont think they are at all. My concerns weren't addressed by you and, actually I think they do relate directly to the title. Try to read again my original post under this light and you'll see it makes sense. Once you do so, you'll notice my reasons to oppose to this move. I think my original post in the beginning of this section is quite clear, isnt it? and I feel like you really didnt address it.

As for my assessment of you fairness, please take it easy. It wasnt that bad, was it? As a matter of fact, I'd recommend being more sportive and flexible if you want to edit topics like this one...Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 03:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The usual time for a WP:RM debate is five days. I think adding the comment I did and waiting a further three days for further comment is long enough as the previous comment was on the 24 August, eight days before the closure. My suggestion will not cause a move war. Worst case is one bold move, one revert, re-apply to WP:RM with a new proposal is not a move war, and it will focus editors interested in the name on just two options. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, per previous discussion and WP:BOLD, I've done this. Now figure out a better title for Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. — AjaxSmack 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Improved article

I believe the article has improved a lot with the recent edits by AjaxSmack, Mountolive and myself. I think the section of "Café para todos" could be improved a little more, though it is a challenge to do it without being redundant with "autonomous communities of Spain" (especially the section on "Devolution of Power"), since I believe this article was meant to be more of an explanation of what "nationalities and regions" are in the context of Spanish politics. Probably a clearer explantion is needed of "chartered" vs "common regime" communities. The asymmetrical devolution of power makes this task challenging, since the attributions granted to "common regime" communities vary as well. Thanks to all for participating. --the Dúnadan 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So what is this effect on Spanish Law? Drawing a line on a map is one thing, is that all this does?98.165.16.149 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Symmetrical or assymetrical disatisfaction

I tried to rephrase that phrase (pardon the redundancy), and I am not quite sure that the paragraph is saying what it is intented to say, or what I intended to say.

Is it with the "generalization" of the autonomic model that the Catalan parties are disatisfied with is it with the "asymmetrical" extension of the autonomic model? I do not think that what they seek is a "more asymmetrical" devolution of power, but rather having their fiscal regime standardized to that of the chartered communities.

In other words, the disatisfaction comes from the fact that fiscal autonomy was devolved asymmetrically, and they want to be granted the same privileges that the Basque Country enjoys. (In fact, the 2006 Statute of Autonomy, did not go that far as to equate the issue with the Basques, but it was still contested for its purported anti-solidarity). But with the recent edits that changed it back, I believe this issue is open for discussion.--the Dúnadan 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point now. Well, I'd say that most Catalan parties are happy with asymmetric federalism, but...they just regret it ended with Navarre and the Basque Country.

As far as I know, those parties would be delighted to have that asymmetric system extended to Catalonia and period. That way they'd see two goals fulfilled: more money and more recognition as something unique within Spain (exactly the two things that Catalan politicians love the most ;)

I hope I made my point clearer; if you agree with it, please feel free to improve the wording to reflect what I mean Mountolive _{and the complications} 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your recent reversion. You are trying to say that "Catalan parties are dissatisfied with the generalization of autonomy, especially in the financial chapter". But there was no generalization in the financial chapter, but rather an asymmetrical devolution. How can they be disatisfied with the assymetrical devolution of something that was especially generalized (homogenized, standardized)? It doesn't make sense to me. I agree with you, Catalan politicans do seek an asymmetrical devolution that recognizes the "uniqueness" of the region (and so they are disatisfied with the homogeneization), but they are also disatisfied with the "asymmetrical" (non-homogeneous) way that financial autonomy was granted. Does that make sense?

PS I also believe that, in the midst of political extremes, even if it is only because of political correcteness, but the parties in power seem to demand a "fair" fiscal regime, in that not only them- but all communiites are granted "more fiscal autonomy" (they haven't ventured to say that they want the concierto económico). So, we need to be careful on how we phrase the aspirations of the Catalan politicans.the Dúnadan 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a general regime (Catalonia included) and an exceptional regime (which only applies to two communities, based on historical charters). Most Catalan parties would love to be included in the second.

All in all, they are all for this kind of asymmetric financial system, the only problem being, not the asymmetric system itself, but the fact that they would just die to switch sides in this game. Makes sense? That is what I tried to express. Mountolive _{and the complications} 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Map and its relevance

The early nineteenth century map showing the different regions of traditional consuetudinary law in Spain ("fueros" or "furs") based on the ancient kingdoms should not be removed on the basis of sweeping statements, like "better having no map" (better for whom?) or that it "did not have legal currency" (did consuetudinary laws or traditional bailiwicks have no legal currency in traditional Spain?), or that it is "preconstitutional" (this article has no business defending the present contitution). The map is important to illustrate that in the present-day pattern of divisions or present-day "comunidades", most are not rooted on historical ancient kingdoms. The present constitution based "comunidades" have been cut down to geographically roughly equal sizes, sometimes, but not always based of traditional regions. Also one important aspect of the "café para todos" concept is that the comunidades are not allowed to interact officially with each other in order to reestablish mutual historical links. The "café para todos" division is not a radical equalising fragmentation of the country like the French "départements" but it neither reflects the traditional historical kingdoms of Spain. It is a hybrid compromise, roughly half way between both. If anyone wants to remove the map he should come up with a sound rationale and expound it here. Xufanc (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"the comunidades are not allowed to interact officially with each other in order to reestablish mutual historical links"? mmmmhh, ok, now I know which are your views (by the way, that is not a correct statement anyway).

This article, indeed, has no business in defending the current constitution, but it is about the current legal order which, surprise-surprise, is determined by the current constitution. What this article is certainly not is on the 19th territorial division of Spain, for not to mention that the map discussed is not reflecting even that one.

A map of the current comunidades autónomas belongs here instead. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mountolive, you are right, a map of the current comunidades is needed at the head of the article. The map I included and the comment about the present scenario of the comunidades not being allowed to interact officially with each other in order to reestablish the links of the ancient kingdoms, is necessary to explain the concept of "coffee for everyone". The Carline Wars were fought to keep the original consuetudinary laws, against a centralized pattern of the state. The present divisions are meant to correct the historical asymmetry (which the map illustrates) and are only half-way traditional and half-way progressive. A clear break with the traditional divisions similar to the French depts., named after rivers and mountains, would have ensured a totally modern scenario. My family originates from the Rioja/Ribera zone, an area much devastated by Carline Wars at a certain point in the 19th century. I am not aware that my ancestors fought in them and my views are that the history has a bearing on the expression "cafe para todos", for if some of the historical regions were allowed to reestablish mutual historical links, like Navarra, then there would be "different orders at the bar", like some asking for "coffee" and others for "carajillo". Therefore the map helps to illustrate that expression. I am sorry for the tone I used above, but I thought you just removed the map for the sake of removing it. If you think that the map doesn't belong to this article, perhaps there should be a separate article for the expression "cafe para todos", which I am sure intrigues some people, like it did intrigue me when I heard it for the first time, for I am living in the Far East, removed from much of Spanish recent politics, and have spent only 4 of the last 30 years in Spain. Xufanc (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm against a merge of this page with Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain, as the subject of both pages is distinctly different: this page deals with the political status of the nationalities, while the other page deals with the ideologies behind those nationalities. --Jotamar (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, it is not the same thing :) 178.109.128.110 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Daniele Conversi

I've noticed that some paragraphs in this page are heavily based on a single source (Daniele Conversi) which I find not too neutral. What should we do about it? Jotamar (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anybody there? Jotamar (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you specify which paragraphs are you referring to?

Conversi is used as a reference 21 times throughout the article. Seven times it is used in conjunction with another source that makes the same or a similar assertion. For the remaining 14 times, only once it is used as the single source for an entire paragraph, and it is a small paragraph that cites a historical fact that nationalist parties won significant positions in the 1977 elections representing the voice of the nationalities.

The remaining 13 instances are as follows:

1. "The term [nationalities] came about as a consensus between the strong centralist position inherited from Franco's regime and the nationalist position mainly from the Basques, Galicians and Catalans"
2. "On 11 September 1977, more than one million people marched in the streets of Barcelona (Catalonia) demanding "llibertat, amnistia i estatut d'autonomia", "liberty, amnesty and [a] Statute of Autonomy", the biggest demonstration in post-war Europe."
3. "After the war, centralism was most forcefully enforced during Franco's regime (1939-1975) as a way to preserve the unity of the Spanish nation"
4. "Its acceptance [2nd article of the constitution] was not smooth: the right vigorously opposed it, while the nationalists and the left firmly objected leaving it out."
5. "In the end, the second article was passed along with the term "nationalities" but firmly stressing the indivisible unity of the Spanish nation"
6. "in the words of one of the seven fathers of the Constitution, Jordi Solé Tura it was "[...] an authentic point of encounter between different concepts of the Spanish nation [...] In it, two great notions of Spain merge.""
7. "Furthermore, the nation became openly multilingual"
8. "Though highly decentralized, this system is not a federation, in that there was still ambiguity with regards to the power attributed to the regions, even though they can still negotiate them with the central government"
9. "... some autonomous communities are entirely new creations" [i.e. they were not historical regions, like Madrid]
10. "For example, autonomy was granted to Cantabria and La Rioja, both of which were culturally and historically part of Castile"
11. "Some peripheral nationalists still complain that the creation of many communities was an attempt to break down their "national unity" [...] by gerrymandering, thus softening the impact of the distinctiveness of their own nationalities."
12. "Nonetheless, the new framework of "autonomies" has served in legitimizing the Spanish state even within the "nationalities"
13. "there are still aspirations for further recognition of [the nationalities'] distinctiveness or for the expansion of their self-government"

Of the 13 assertions above, for which only Conversi was used as a source, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are mostly facts, and another source can easily be found to replace it, if necessary. Moreover, none of these are controversial.

Assertion 3, may need to be changed. It is a fact, that centralism was forcefully enforced during Franco's regime, but he did it because he wanted to preserve what he considered was "the unity of the Spanish nation". For many Spaniards, the unity of the country was not being threatened by decentralization.

I don't think assertion 7 is controversial, but it is an interpretation of the constitution, but IMHO is it a logical conclusion that in recognizing all other "Spanish" languages as co-official and part of Spain's "patrimony", the State became openly multilingual.

The 8th statement is also an interpretation. It is a fact, recognized by jurists and Academics, that though highly decentralized, Spain is not a federation; but Conversi does make a judgment when saying that there is ambiguity with regards to the power[s] attributed to the autonomous communities. It is a fact, though that communities can still negotiate them.

Maybe the 11th statement is controversial in that Conversi says that peripheral nationalists complain that the creation of many communities was a sort of "gerrymandering"? I can look to see if the author has a source for this, and perhaps some nationalists have used this or similar terms.

Finally, I think the sentence that is causing trouble, especially with an anonymous editor, and this is perhaps the sentence that you don't particularly like, is number 12, where Conversi states that the framework of the "autonomies" has legitimized the Spanish State with the nationalities. The statement that follows, that "the majority of the population, including nationalists are satisfied with the status quo" was particularly disliked by the anonymous user, but this statement is not unique to Converi's paper; Fernando Villar also makes the same assertion, so I did not include it in the 13 assertions for which only Conversi is used. And to clarify, the status quo refers to the "framework of the autonomies", not to the amount of devolved competences. In other words, most Spaniards feel that after the restoration of democracy, the process whereby autonomy is transferred to the communities is viewed as acceptable, "even if there are still aspirations for more self-government".

Now, in light of yesterday's Diada, I believe something can be said about the recent surge in the separatism feeling among Catalans. IMHO, we should wait to see how it plays out. I am pretty sure that many editorials will be written about it in the following days or weeks, from all political points of view. In the same way, the results of the coming elections in the Basque Country may produce a significant shift of power, and something will have to be said about it as well. But let's wait until that happens, so that we can write after the facts.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 05:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all I must say that I'm a bit overwhelmed by your extremely detailed post, and I must thank you for your effort.

After reviewing the page again, I find that most of the problems deal with the Current state of affairs section. In general, Conversi's paper is rife with the sweeping generalisations typical of a journalist, mixed with the superficial knowledge of an outsider. Anyway, I'll focus on these points:

• Cantabria and Rioja are historically part of Castile. Of course. Galicia, Andalusia, Mexico and the Philippines are part of it too. It's an irrelevant point.
• Cantabria and Rioja are culturally part of Castile. I'm eager to know, for the first time in my life, what on earth is the Castilian culture and how to spot it when you see one.
• Madrid was severed from Castile. The kingdom of Castile existed at most until the 18th century, so I don't know what that could mean.
• The subsequent mention of gerrymandering just misses the meaning of that word. Jotamar (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, in reality, I didn't think those statements were in any way controversial, and many other sources can be found to substantiate them. But, I must clarify, to set a basis for the discussion, that of course Conversi is not referring to the kingdom of Castile, but to the historical region of Castile. Cantabria and La Rioja, until the creation of the state of the Autonomies were considered to be part of Old Castile. And Madrid was part of New Castile.These regions - in fact, all historical "regions" - were recognized, albeit unofficially, even after the provincial division of 1833. I even remember finding an encyclopedia of the early 1970s, before Franco died, that split Spain into these regions.

In any case, this source, by the Congress of Deputies, explains how Madrid was excluded during the preautonomic process from the soon-to-be Castile-La Mancha (the successor of New Castile, without Madrid). This other link - same source - explains how the province of Santander, did not want to be part of the soon-to-be Castile and León (Old Castile plus León), and requested to be constituted as a "uniprovincial" community, which became Cantabria. The case of the province of Logroño was similar to that of Santander, but trickier since part of its territory had belonged to the Kingdom of Navarre, so the option of incorporating it to the community of Navarre was discussed, but in the end the province opted to be an autonomous community.

There is this other Spanish source that explains the same thing on p. 121: [13]

• "Castilla la Mancha (antigua region geográfica de Castilla la Nueva con la sustracción de Madrid y la adición de la provincia de Albacete de la anterior región geográfica de Murcia" - Castile-La Mancha (old geographic region of New Castile less Madrid and the addition of the province of Albacete from the former geographic region of Murcia.
• " ... Cantabria (antigua provincia de Santander), integrada en la región geográfica hasta entonces denominada Castilla-La Vieja). La Rioja (antigua provincia de Logroño, integrada también en Castilla la Vieja)" - Cantabria (old province of Santander) integrated to [i.e. part of] the geographic region until then known as Old Castile. La Rioja (old province of Logroño, integrated to the Old Castile as well).
• " .... y Madrid (parte de la antigua región geográfica anterior denominada Castilla- La Nueva, segregada por razón de capitalidad)." - ... and Madrid (part of the old and former geographic region called New Castile, severed by virtue of its [status as capital].

The author concludes the section saying: "The previous classification [of the autonomous communities] lets us see the complexity of the different ways to access autonomy, as well as the important change [lit. alteration] of the map or the Spanish historical regions with the disappearance of León and the creation [lit. appearance] of new autonomous regions at the expense of the famous and secular Old Castile and New Castile".

Many other sources abound, and I'll be happy to present more.

Now, with respect to the term "gerrymandering", it is an interesting application of the term into Spanish politics. The broadest definition of the word is simply "to divide unfairly to one's advantage". In the US, it is mostly used when the states, every 10 years, redraw their electoral maps, and certain regions get "split" in a way that benefits a certain party. For example, a suburb that would naturally vote democrat, gets split and joined to other cities or suburbs, so that the votes get "diluted" into a district that is predominantly republican. In the case of Spain, I believe the author was saying that the "nationalities" complain that the creation of new communities by splitting regions that had always been considered part of the same cultural [or even national?] region would break their "national unity" thus softening the distinctiveness of the "nationalities". It has nothing to do with voting, of course, but with an purported "unfair" division to the disadvantage of the nationalities, which become one of many many other communities with no "cultural" or "national" identity, if you will, but with the same powers and constituted equally as "autonomous communities". By the way, this is not Conversi's opinion; she is trying to present the different views of the autonomic process.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 02:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't need to go to such lengths to prove the existence of Old Castile and New Castile. I was perfectly aware of that, and I am also aware, as you should be too, that these regions had little more use than coloring the maps. The current text is exaggerating the importance of those territorial units to the point that it makes the page non-neutral, and it could even be described as favoring the pan-castellanista ideology, a political stance that is openly rejected by the majority in both Cantabria and Rioja, and that has in fact very little support in any part of Spain or of whatever Castile could be meant to be.

In general, I think it's a bad idea to write a page following slavishly any source, but it's even a worse idea when the source uses a journalistic style like Conversi and lacks a lot of precission and nuances. By the way, I didn't know that Conversi was a she.

The paragraphs affected by all this stuff about Castile and gerrymandering must be reworded. Now I want to know what would be your attitude about such rewording. Jotamar (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Attitude? I beg your pardon? I wrote a lengthy explanation for the benefit of the discussion and all those users who may not be aware of Spanish history, culture or politics and who can at any time decide to participate in the debate. I tend to support my arguments with sources, which I take the time to quote and explain. In any case, you missed the point. By providing two additional sources, one of which happens to be written by jurists in a website operated by the Congress of Deputies (which, incidentally, has been operated, but with minor changes, by three administrations: Aznar's, Zapatero's and Rajoy's) you cannot say that I am slavishly [submissively? unoriginally?] following a single source. Secondly, Conversi does not, by any means, use a journalistic style; in fact, his was an Academic paper! Thirdly, the importance of those historical regions is not exaggerated, and while they did not have any administrative power, they were more than simple "coloring of the maps". The mere identity of Catalonia, Galicia, Andalusia, Valencia, and, yes, Castile, were not loosely or ambiguous and changing ideas of adjacent provinces, but were for the most part, very well understood and defined, and many books were written about these regions in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even before the creation of Catalonia, as an autonomous community, people understood what Catalonia was. (And please, change "Catalonia" for "Galicia", "Asturias", etc. in that sentence). The creation of most autonomous communities - with those three exceptions - was natural, as were the failed "states" of the First Spanish Republic. Fourthly, I insist, neither Conversi nor the article affirm by any means that gerrymandering took place. Conversi, and this article state that [peripheral] nationalists view the creation of additional provinces as gerrymandering. If anything, and to bring balance to the section something could be said about the regional identity of Cantabrians and La Riojans, but if we take the time to look for sources, I sincerely doubt that the majority of their respective populations openly reject a sense of belonging to a broader Castilian identity. For this matter, the burden of proof is yours. And this bring me to my last point - pardon my lengthy palaver - you have not provided a single source to substantiate your claims or your requests for modification. So, without any more comments about my "attitude", I'll be happy to collaborate with you in bringing a more neutral tone to the article, should need be, and to present all possible points of view, if fully referenced and substantiated.

P.S. To remove any appearance of using a single source, I will add the references that I quoted above. -- dúnadan : let's talk 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going south, including some misquoting on your side, namely:

• I never said you were slavishly following anything, I said the text was doing that.
• I never said Catalonia, Galicia, etc. were artificial units with little historical base, but I do specifically say that Old Castile, New Castile or any other mapped versions of Castile designed after the Nueva Planta decrees are for the most part subjective interpretations of a territory that has no historical, cultural, or geographical limits other than subtracting whatever has a different name (very obvious example: Extremadura). And it's not by chance that Old Castile and New Castile have completely disappeared from the modern autonomies map, it's because they were artificial units from the very beginning.

Furthermore:

• The fact that you invoke the burden of proof when I have not yet changed a single comma in the page speaks volumes. You do have an attitude. A defensive one.
• Even if Conversi's paper is intended as an academic one, its style is still journalistic, as seen by simply reading it.
• As for gerrymandering, it's really not possible that anybody in Spain has anything to say about it, because neither the word nor the concept do exist in Spanish, Catalan or probably any language other than English.

To be continued. Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on whatever you want to interpret as "speaking volumes" and my purported "attitude", are out of line. I have not made any comment regarding your attitude nor have I tried to interpret anything. You've questioned a source, I provided two additional sources to support the first one. You have asked for information to be reworded, based on a specific argument, but you provided no sources to support it. It really doesn't "speak volumes" that I follow WP:V in saying that the burden of proof lies on you, when in fact, that is exactly what the policy indicates that should be done!

Secondly, let me quote you: "I think it's a bad idea to write a page following slavishly any source, but it's even a worse idea when the source uses a journalistic style like Conversi and lacks a lot of precission and nuances." It is a bad idea to write... well, I wrote that text. I believe the reference of whatever you understand as "slavishly" following a source refers to whomever wrote it. You question the text, which by the way does not use a single source, but several, and then you question one of such sources, by saying it is "rife with the sweeping generalisations typical of a journalist, mixed with the superficial knowledge of an outsider". That source happens to be a paper submitted to an Academic journal by a Dr. in Sociology who received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and one of whose areas of expertise is precisely ethnonationalism and who has researched and published about the Spanish case. May I add that, though Italian, he is a professor at the University of the Basque Country and an Academic visitor to the London School of Economics?

New Castile and Old Castile were not created with the Nueva Planta Decrees. The reference to those territories existed even before that, and both made reference to the larger region of Castile. This has nothing to do with any purported "pan-castellanismo". The constitution of 1978 required that provinces that wanted to accede to autonomy by themselves (the autonomías uniprovinciales) had to had "a historical regional identity". Cantabria and La Rioja were both included in the Royal Decree Law 20/1978 that created the "pre-autonomy" of Castile and León; both failed to be constituted as "pre-autonomies", and both had to go great lengths to appeal to a separate "historical regional identity" to that of Castile (or in the case of La Rioja, even to that of Navarre due to historical reasons). Madrid was an exceptional case, in that, first, it could not appeal to a separate "historical regional identity"; it was explicitly created, as it is stated even in its own Statute of Autonomy, based on a special provision of the 144 article of the constitution, whereby only the Cortes Generales can create an autonomous community that did not have a "historical regional identity", if it was "in the nation's interest". All of this is explained in the sources I provided above.

And as for the case of gerrymandering, let me quote Conversi: "Present-day peripheral nationalists still complain that the creation of many regions was an attempt to break down their own ‘national unity’ by gerrymandering. Yet, the process has succeeded in ‘softening’ the overall impact of maximalist nationalism". You may claim that it is impossible that any Spaniard could have said that, yet we have a reputable source that claims otherwise. Conversi uses whichever English word he found appropriate to translate whatever he claims peripheral nationalists said. Per WP:V, then, to remove such a claim requires at least an equally reputable source claiming otherwise.

By the way, have you taken the time to read the sources that I have provided? The discussion may be going south, but it may go north, if you read them. And the discussion may go even further north if you provide other sources that support your arguments - and I wouldn't be opposed to rewording, changing or deleting anything, if such a constructive discussion reaches that point.

Cheers, -- dúnadan : let's talk 00:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes in the section, including some important (and sourced) points of view not yet explained in the text, plus some minor changes in wording. I've respected all the previously included references. Jotamar (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the new references are fine. However, I do think the quote regarding Cantabria, is somewhat unnecessary, especially being in Spanish in an encyclopedia in English. I think a statement can be written that the "rejection" of a Castilian integration dates back to the 19th century, and the quote can be added as the reference, or a note at the end of page. (Otherwise anyone could write quotes by Leonese, Murcians, Extremadurans, and why not, Galicians, Basques, etc., which would make the article quite illegible).

Now, I removed the changes on the "gerrymandering" paragraph. Frist, because the source does not say that nationalist complain that the many communities "weaken them". Their complaint is very specific (whether true or not), and it is that the many communities "break their [purported] 'national unity'", and the breakage occurs through gerrymandering. If your concern is the phrase "national unity", then, my argument would be to uphold the source and quote it directly, under quotations, and verbatim. Now, if your concern is the word "gerrymandering", then, while the source doesn't say it, I would agree to changing the phrase to "a sort of gerrymandering" (as you had it) or "a type of gerrymandering" (which sounds better, IMHO). I will go ahead and change it to "a type of", but I wouldn't oppose "sort of", or a similar, but more "Academic" phrase, if you will.

--00:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "a sort of". -- dúnadan : let's talk 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If your concern about the Menéndez Pelayo quote is just being in Spanish, I'll translate it, but I need to be sure that it won't get deleted later. Jotamar (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, my concern is not only its translation, but as I said before, I think it is unnecessary. And in a way, it may not be compliant with WP:UNDUE. Just over the weekend I found, if I recall correctly, 4 additional sources commenting about Cantabria and La Rioja being "cut-off" (or similar wording) from Castile and León; plus I read the "Acuerdos autonómicos" of 1982, where a special provision is made for both regions to be "incorporated" into Castile and León, which by itself constitutes an unusual special treatment waiving the express prohibition in the constitution for two or more communities to "federate" once created. (The only other exception being Navarre, and through a transitory disposition).

What the quote in Spanish is proving is that there was someone who rejected the Castilian identity, and preferred to be joined to Asturias, a region to which, I presume, he felt Cantabrians to be "better" identified with. What it does not prove is whether this conception of "identity" is culturally and historically sustained-which would be the work of an Academician- or whether it was held by the majority of Cantabrians at that time. On the other hand, the vast majority of Cantabrian municipalities-after all the Statute of Autonomy of Cantabria was not required to be subject to a referendum-supported the creation of a separate "autonomy". This is also true. But what it doesn't prove is that Cantabrians supported a separate community because they did not feel in any way Castilian. (In other words, causality cannot be directly assumed).

Also, like I said before, why not write quotations about any province where there is a minority that feels different? Or let's go the other way, should we add a quotation about national castilianism that advocates for the existence of a distinct Castilian nation, and the union of all Castilian territories, which they define as both Castiles, León, Cantabria, La Rioja and Madrid? Quotes for castilianism can be easily found; there is even an active regional political party that supports this point of view. Why not rather, stick to what Academic papers and published books have written about the subject? All other details can be included in the sister article: nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain.

So, I go back to my original proposal: a statement that properly captures the idea, giving it due weight; but the quote is unnecessary.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets see:

• The special provision for Castile and León just proves that Spaniards themselves are typically clueless about the meaning of Castile, and of course they transmit their ignorance to unsuspecting foreigners like Conversi. Castile has never been anything but an ever-growing kingdom that eventually absorbed the crown of Aragón and Navarre and became Spain. It has never been a cultural unit or otherwise. For example, I just learnt that Cantabria was not depicted as part of Old Castile until 1790; prior to that, it was divided between Asturias and Vizcaya. The politicians from Castile and León who wrote the special provision were just echoing the colored maps that every single Spaniard remembered from their school years, nothing else. Or maybe they followed instructions from Madrid.
• About whether Cantabrians consider themselves Castilian or not, I suspect it's impossible to find a source for it. Meanwhile, the Menéndez Pelayo quote is very relevant, in my opinion. And in any case, Cantabrians did know the colored maps too, and can be influenced by them. I mean that to feel Castilian or not can be a rather superficial thing, based on external propaganda, because there is no such thing as a Castilian trait of any kind really; there are just maps.
• About why not writing quotations about any province: that's what I say, why not. If the article is well organised, it needn't become cumberrsome for that reason. Better that than sticking to what superficial Academic papers have written about the subject. Jotamar (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I am repeating myself, but I am not sure if some of the points I was trying to make were properly conveyed.

• "[...] unsuspecting foreigners like Conversi". Conversi, is a Dr. in Sociology who received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and one of whose areas of expertise is precisely ethnonationalism and who has researched and published about the Spanish case. May I add that, though Italian, he is a professor at the University of the Basque Country and an Academic visitor to the London School of Economics? He is all but an "unsuspecting foreigner" that rights "superficial" papers with "sweeping generalisations typical of a journalist". I think we can settle this point, unless you can prove, through criticism from his peers, that he is indeed superficial. Conversi's paper, I will repeat myself, is consistent with many of the other sources quoted in the article. (And many more that I can provide if needed), which complies with WP:V. Do you want to prove him wrong? Find Academic papers and books from equally reputable sources that contradict him.
• Quotations about every province (all 50?) will make the article cumbersome. (This article is not about nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain, after all). Not only that, I can find a contradicting quote for the one you wrote about Cantabria, coming from the Castilian nationalist party. But the point I wanted to make is that finding a comment from the 19th century does not prove that all or the majority of Cantabrians didn't fell this or that way in the 20th century. In fact, it most likely violates WP:UNDUE and it borders on WP:OR. The solution is not to write as many quotes (50 in favor, 50 against for each province) from whomever said something about a province, but write an appropriate summary from reputable sources of researchers who have studied nationalisms and regionalisms in Spain. So, I disagree with you: an Academic paper - or perhaps I should say - several Academic papers from reputable researches such as Conversi are indeed better for an encyclopedia than 50 randomly selected quotations neatly organized but violating WP:UNDUE, and if an original synthesis is made or implied, possibly WP:OR as well.
• IMHO, and with all due respect, the comment about Spaniards being clueless about what "Castile" means does not make sense at all (are you saying that by implication, politicians did not have a clue, and therefore, while not understanding Castile they wrote an oxymoronic provision for two provinces to be integrated into Castile and León?). If Spaniards are typically clueless about Castile, including their politicians, then who is not? Academicians? No, because according to you they are unsuspecting individuals who adopt the ignorance of Spaniards. Then, who? A few enlightened individuals? If so where can we find their publications so that we can use them as sources? First, I don't think that Spaniards are typically clueless about this matters, and secondly, those enlightened individuals are precisely researchers be it Spaniards or foreigners. Perhaps we can discuss the language, the words, how to properly convey the meaning, how we can find other sources from researchers to understand the nuances and improve the article. But to outright dismiss a serious research as superficial, IMHO, will not do the job.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Any further comments? -- dúnadan : let's talk 00:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll come back to the question when I find new sources. Jotamar (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this source might be useful for the discussion, as shown in Talk:Autonomous communities of Spain (besides the three other sources provided).

In a very informative work on the history of Cantabria, José Alfonso Moure Romanillo, professor of the University of Cantabria, Manuel Suárez Cortina, professor of Contemporary History at the University of Cantabria, and Antonio Bar Cendón, professor of Constitutional Law of the University of Valencia, write about the formation of the regional identity of Cantabria: "For decades, al least until the [economic] crisis of the 70s, the political discourse established in the region was made in a Castilian tone. Economic emergence was due to Castile; it was with [Castile] that the project on the construction of Spain was realized, which started with the Reconquista, in which members of the Cantabrian nobility participated. La Montaña [alternate name for Cantabria] sacrificed to Castile its best resources. "Cantabria, origin of Castile" and "Cantabria, root of Spain" were, until almost our days, the most expressive manifestations of a regional identity clearly dislocated [sic] towards a Castilian projection. It has been, in consequence, from this Castilian periphery that the contemporary evolution of today's Cantabria was developed". [14]

They continue: "It should be no surprise therefore than in 1972 Sánchez Albornoz would see the separation of Cantabria from its Castilian root as an aberration, and it is not surprising either that only by the end of the 70s a specifically regionalist movement emerged for the first time. Cantabria presents itself as a dual reality, with an autonomous present and future, and with a past and a tradition distinctly Castilian [...] With a Castilianized culture [...] the birth of regionalism wasn't easy [it was] a particular way of affirmation that, without a rupture without its secular tradition, recovered its specific way of being; an affirmation of Cantabridad [sic] which was coherent with the strength of the regional sentiment [...] in response to the abusive centralization of the State, and at the same time did not break with the tradition of Old Castile that impregnated the region's past".

Please note that I am not taking a quote from a "regionalist" (nor a quote from an integrationist, i.e. a Castilian nationalist) and making my own conclusions. I am actually citing a historical and cultural analysis from three Academicians (whose CVs can be readily found on the Internet). In fact, I would not need to interpret what they are saying, simply citing them verbatim would suffice.

If I am misreading these sources, or if additional sources need to be added to offer a balanced view, then by all means, let's discuss.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 02:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What I understand from the text you have copied here is this:

• There was no political regionalist tradition in Cantabria before Franco's death. Of course. In a country without a democratic tradition, virtually everything in politics had to be invented or reinvented in the 1970s.
• The discourse of the ruling elites in Cantabria was pro-Castilian. Of course. Being Castilian was their compulsory way of being Spanish. Castile is a key concept in the Spanish nationalist discourse, something that apparently you fail to see; it's the glue that unites all of Spain. Someone rejecting a Castilian identity for Cantabria could have had problems with the official ideology in pre-democratic Spain.
• Common people in Cantabria had their own non-Castilian identity, though it wasn't a very explicit or theoretical one, but rather a diffuse thing. Even so, people like Menéndez y Pelayo or Pereda made explicit those feelings.

What is your conclusion from all this?

And finally, you seem to be ready to repeat this very discussion in another page, Autonomous communities of Spain. I wonder why. Jotamar (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. To answer your questions:

• Yes, according to the Academicians cited, there was no strong regionalist tradition in Cantabria before the 70s. Whether everything had to be reinvented or not, that is not what the text says.
• The second point is a good opinion, but beyond the point. Yes 'Castilian', and to a large extent 'Andalusian' culture were key to the Spanish political discourse and what Spain embraced and portrayed internationally as "Spanish". Moreover, many a politician of the 19th century expounded on the superiority of the Castilian culture within Spain. Yet this didn't preclude the development of peripheral nationalisms in Catalonia and the Basque Country, regions that never identified themselves as 'Castilian'. This did not occur in Cantabria. Regionalism flourished only after the 70s and not without many Cantabrians espousing a Castilian identity. That is the point that all sources are making. Cantabria, a region historically and culturally part of Castile ("root of Castile", as they said) became an autonomous region by embracing a rediscovered, if you will, regional identity. Do you agree with that point? Or are you arguing that Cantabria had always had a separate identity, like Catalonia or the Basque Country?
• The sources above actually say that most common people in Cantabria identified as Castilian. A small Renaixença (to use their words) took place, but never on the scale of Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia, or Andalusia for that matter. Please go ahead an read the entire book; to me, it was very informative.
• Meléndez y Pelayo made a philosophical or emotional argument. The Academicians cited above make an analysis on the historical, cultural and political strengths of such arguments. I can cite a Castilian nationalist and integrationist politician, but doing that will not 'prove' that Cantabria should be culturally part of Castile. Yet, the Academicians, with extensive and reputable research on the topic can make those assessments, and in Wikiepedia, we should use such sources.
• I don't understand what you are trying to say with my 'readiness to repeat this very discussion'. Does it bother you? I only did it because the issue arose in both pages, and if any other user decides to participate in either one, s/he may not know that the issue is being discussed in another talk page. I had no ulterior motive. Let's try to work together by not expecting each other to have ulterior motives (or speaking of 'attitudes'). Let's look for sources, discuss, analyze, setting aside all pre-conceived opinions that we both may have, and let's follow Wikipedia guidelines to write a properly referenced article. I am willing to do my part.

Cheers,-- dúnadan : let's talk 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sources are inaccurate.

For example the reference 12 is only a powerpoint made by a professor and I would like to know when and where he was thought that idea of the spanish reunification made by a union of a lot of entities (some of which he duplicates: the kingdom of Leon is the kingdom of Asturias with only a different Capital.Galicia, Leon and Castille were the same entity but they were often splitted and reunificated due to dinasties intrigue).Thenn we should talk about the survey and that concept of "dual identity" since most spanish people knows nothing about it's own history reaching ridicolous limits like believe that the spanish lenguage was imposed when it has been widely proved that most people adopted it. Another fatalist error is call the bable or the aragonese a lenguage both are spanish dialects caused mostly by vulgarisms aislationism of that regions and lack of education in that region. I have to point that catalan and galician were Latin dialects not spanish dialects but they were dialects too since a language derived of other by vulgarism and etc is not a language until it gets its own regulations "normativization". The fact is that the historical reality of Spain is widely missunderstood since most nationalism gained strength during the francoism because they oppossed the dictatorship not because of people convictions and due to political corruption a lot of lies have been spreading faster than the truth reaching a point where my galician books say things like spain was a kind of monarchy federation and the castilian books not talking nothing about it.Also the lies of the independent institutions is reaching too far only navarre and Aragon had it's own institutions and laws nominated as "fueros". If you want to know more about "catalanism" you should contact with Javier Barraycoa a sociology professor from Barcelona he knows that Catalonia has it's own particularities but it has never been and shouldn't be a nation.

And before everyone starts atacking my position I must warn: I am internationalist so I not believe in the national concept so I am not an spanish nationalist neither someone with hide interests in attack the nationalists. I'm only someone who lives in a random zone of this beauty planet and because of living here I've learn a lot about it's history but it's full of lies thanks to political interests wich is really sad since I think history should universally be based on the truth. I apologize if my english has some mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforev IV (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain

I added the link to Nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain that has been removed. I don't find that article any redundant in relation to this one: this page deals with the political facts, while the other one deals with the ideologies behind those facts. Because both questions are closely related, a number of apparently redundant statements in both pages is almost inevitable, but still the subjects are different. Because it is vey likely that one reader that ends up in this page is really interested in the other page, or vice versa, I think that a See Also link is not enough, and that the link should appear in the lead, or even better, as a hatnote. Opinions? Jotamar (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in that the articles are not redundant. (I expressed my self poorly; what I meant to say is that the sentence was redundant with the article. I had found the first paragraph to be too convoluted, with the words nationalism, regionalism, contrasting regions, nationalities and regions, indissoluble nation, all appearing just in the first four lines. After all, the uninitiated in Spanish politics will not understand the subtleties of all these terms, which can be-hopefully-properly explained throughout the article).

I wouldn't reinsert it in the lead, but I think that the idea of the hatnote is a good one.

(As a side note, I think that the other article may need a little revamp. Many of the nationalisms and regionalisms are quite new and/or opinions held up by small minorities. On first sight, it appears that Spain is equally divided into a plethora of competing nationalisms, when historically, peripheral nationalisms arose primarily, if not almost exclusively during the 19th century, in three regions. Regionalisms did appear at the same time, but they were small and in nature, not in conflict with Spanish nationalism, unlike peripheral nationalisms. And many of the new nationalisms originated during Franco and the transition to democracy. The article seems more like a list of all possible national identities to be included. But that is another subject to be discussed...)

-- dúnadan : let's talk 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)