This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Although the Popular Party (Partido Popular in Spanish) is undoubtedly a nationalist party, no comment has been written about it. Most of its leaders are proud Spanish nationalists, although they call themselves as "Spanish patriots" or "Constitutionalists" (that is, Spanish Constitution defenders). The difference between patriotism and nationalism is almost invisible, so I propose to include them in a kind of "21st century Spanish nationalists" section. Besides, this political party is widely known as a Spanish nationalist party in important Spanish nations as Catalonia and the Basque Country. --Mreq (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the two requests of references are necessary. 1- that Nor has this been a centripetal nationalism is explained just after: to have been aimed at unifying communities of Spaniards under the yoke of other sovereignties. The centripetal nationalisms was the german and the italian. 2- other autonomous communities have less obvious nationalisms (often described as regionalisms), based on linguistic or historical differential facts no less marked than the previous ones; it's just obvious: in Valencia and Balearic Islands there is another language talked along with castilian; every other spanish region, with no exception, can find a "glorious past" with independent kingdoms and his own institutions, local law, culture and custom.--Ángel Luis Alfaro (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Last paragraph is pure bullshit. It's full of bias and should make you feel ashamed:
"From a more majoritary point of view, in social, territorial and electoral terms,[11] the identification with Spain, its symbols and institutions has become more characteristic of constitutional patriotism or civic nationalism,[12] which seeks to respect the different visions of Spain fits in a pluralistic framework, inclusive and no exclusive, concepts in which often coincide the majoritary political parties (PSOE and PP) or minoritary (IU, UPyD, other regional parties or nationalist sometimes called moderated), despite maintaining deep political differences sometimes expressed in a very crisped way.[13]"
It begins stating that Spanish nationalism is, from a majoritary point of view (i.e social, territorial and electoral terms), just "constitutional patriotism & civic nationalism".
With regard to the "social majoritary point of view", I suppose you mean most of Spanish population. Indeed, most of Spanish population (i.e. Spaniards living outside Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia) are known at once as "Constitutionalists" (the term they prefer to use when referring to themsleves) and as Spanish nationalists (the term used by the so-called peripheral Spain). On the other hand, it's obvious that both the so-called constitutionalist Spain and the peripheral Spain are nationalists, or at least both of them vote nationalist political parties such as PP, UP&D, PNV, ERC, some PSOE branches and so on. I am not going to spend time demonstrating why these parties are nationalist, since it's quite obvious all of them fit very well the nationalist standards. But what really matters is all these parties have a common feature: none of them wants to be considered as nationalist (excepting PNV). Then, why should we consider more valid the opinion of most part of Spanish population, if on the hole they are nationalists as well? Hence the reason why the social argument (i.e. the numerical argument) is not valid.
Regarding the "territorial terms", the explanation is exactly the same: most of Spanish territories are controlled by nationalist parties such as PP, ERC, PNV, UP&D and so on; these parties don't like to be considered as nationalists; but on the hole all of them are so. Non-valid argument again.
And regarding the "political terms", the same: most of Spanish political parties are nationalist, they don't like it, but on the hole they are so. Why should we consider as valid the opinion of the bigger Spanish nationalist party (i.e. PP) with respect to who is and who isn't nationalist in here? All of them are nationalist. Non-valid argument once again.
Then the article goes on stating the so-called Constitutionalist Spain respect a pluralistic vision of the country and so on, and finally the article points out some political parties which are supposed to respect this plurality. And guess what, PP and UP&D are mentioned among these parties! Pure bullshit! There are clear evidences demonstrating the ideology and the programs of these two parties with regard to the so-called peripheral Spain are totally depicable, and that's the actual reason why they are minorities in such regions: nobody votes them since they're, guess what, Spanish nationalists!
In conclusion, this article has to be deeply modified. Otherwise, as I've demonstrated it will be totally biased and full of nonsense. --Mreq (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This infamous edit by Mreq should be erased Fireinthegol (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This text is no realistic. I'm Spanish and i know what reality I live, and that self called "encyclopedic" text don't fixed with the social thought in Spain. The society it's so divided with the Nationalism, and United Left don't support a Nationalist policy. I think that this kind of declarations are partial, and used by politics groups to show a false view of the Spanish people and Culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.31.228 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Will all my respect @Asqueladd, I think you mistake. To clean the nation (by eugenics) is extreme nationalism. Beside, it is very clear the nationalism on the republican side, as described with clear examples, and even a ultranationalist quote from Negrin. Of course, it could be expressed better or in an another way, but I truly do not understand your criteria. Maldull (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"All of this can be illustrated with",
"of which three can be chosen"
"Since it does not seem to have had consequences, not much has been investigated, but..."(this is not exhaustive) which are signs of heavy original research, WP:OPINION and WP:SOAPBOXing.... And going to the meat. You have added a bit about Cánovas del Castillo. But currently there is not enough context (which needs to be framed by the source in the scope of the topic rather than manufactured by any editor) to justify its presence in the section (it reads offtopic). I suspect that you are trying "to make a point" but you should bear in mind that 1) this is not a platform for advocacy nor for novel ways to present ideas 2) you are doing it in a very clumsy fashion.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
That's really all I have to say, it's so unfluently written that I can't even tell if its violating NPOV or not. Orchastrattor (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)