Talk:First Carlist War

Untitled

This article is totaly sided with the Spanish official version that pinpoints it as romantic versions all historical facts that contradicts the arranged official version of those absolutist and fanatic Basques that wanted the Inquisition.

To rewrite it there is going to be needed a lot of work. It is so naif that even deny the importance of the suppression effort of the Basque Foral system. It also forgets the English and French interest in the comercial rutes and the American colonnies.Idiazabal 12:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You forgot there were Castilian, Gallician, Andalusian... Carlists uprisings. Were they fighting for Basque Fueros too? --195.57.95.44 16:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though, the fact that Carlos V did not say a word about "Fueros" (which, when Carlist war began were still on) is quite forgotten. BTW, it should be noticed that most Historians say that the Abrazo de Vegara (Vergara Treaty) did not end the war, but just on the troops which Maroto leaded. That make imposible to keep on fighting the rest of Carlist "Army" in that front (whose troops were quite fed up with the war), so it leaded to the end of hostilities there. As it was noticed, Ramon Cabrera kept on fighting months before Vergara.

Oh, and this "Meanwhile, in Catalonia and Aragón, the people saw the chance of recovering their foral rights, which were lost after the Spanish Succession War when Philip V defeated their armies that fought for Archduke Karl of Austria, the other candidate to the throne after the death of Charles II of Spain. It is quite ironic that the Catalans went to war to defend the Salic Law, promulgated by a King who they still hated." is just an opinion. In fact, I cannot see the need of re-telling Spanish Succession War instead of a Wiki-link. Besides, there was an ultra-catholic uprising during Ferdinand VII rules in Catalonia, so with Carlos they find a reason to rise again for the ideas they have just fought for. --80.103.137.151 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Too centered

This article is too Northern Front-Basque centered. We should talk about the other fronts of the War, Carlist Expeditions, etc. --80.103.128.180 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Politically biased

The chapter referring to the basque provinces and the upraising is politically biased. The writer is clearly influenced by a basque nationalist view.

Clearly, the evolution of the spanish economic pattern was related with the basque participation in the upraising. But it shouldn´t be considered an exclusive or predominant reason, as the upraising was too solidly established in other regions such as Galicia, Castilla, Catalonia or Aragon. In fact, only rurality, extreme catholicism and conservadurism may be seen as common patterns in the main Carlist regions.

The ascension of Santander may be a reason of economic decline in the basque ports. But, incidentally, none of the ports supported the carlist movement. Neither Bilbao nor San Sebastian were ever conquered by the Carlists.

Finally, it is searched an "anti-basque" purpose in the spanish politics of the late XVIIIth century. The Spanish court had no reason to destroy economically any region of the country. The first years of the XIXth century were years of general ruin and destruction after the Independence War. The (limited) ascension of Santander affected mainly to Cadiz, which hold the previous monopoly of american commerce. The main carlist leaders in the Basque Provinces were ex-guerrilleros, all fighting 4 years fiercely for the spanish independence and the Borbon kings.

Finally, as far as I know, the fuero of Biscay never applied in Santander. This assertion should be re-examined.

As a conclusion, the chapter is part of the political discourse of the basque nationalist, whishing to demonstrate the existence of an historical conflict between Spain and the Basque Provinces.

-I think the chapter about "basque reasons for carlist uprising" should be completely deleted, there is no reason for talking about basque reasons and not about catalonian, castilian, aragonese, etc; saying that Biscay was divided to let Castile have a sea port in Santander is not true, since Santander province didn´t belong to Biscay; the reference about convention war is wrong, since it is ridiculous thinking of Godoy siding with the english against the basques (then just a pair of spanish provinces),the writer should read a little more about convention war. And finally it is ridiculous saying that spanish commercial routes and power were mainly sustained by the basque ports, commercial navy and companies, since the main ports, as everybody knows, were Cadiz, Coruña, Seville, Valencia, Barcelona, and also Bilbao and San Sebastian (but not mainly).Layo 10:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Flag is Anachronistic

The cross of Burgundy was marked down as the Carlist flag in the mid-1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"http://flagspot.net/flags/es%5Ecarlw.html" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Desamortización

The English for desamortización is perhaps disengagement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Deleted a large chunk of unreferenced, anti-basque conspiracy-theory prose with no historic value and little relevance to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1833-1839?????????

In fact 1833-1840. Dont't forget Ramón Cabrera. Eastern Carlist forces kept on fighting after the Treaty of Vergara. Northern Carlists gave up in 1839.

Jewish Financiers????

Sorry, but has Wikipedia become Stormfront now? What relevance is there in mentioning the religious affiliation (not one, but twice) of the Rothschilds? In the Greek Debt Crisis article is it mentioned that "Protestant financiers" in Frankfurt bailed the bankrupt Greek state out? Keep this Nazi-esque crap out of Wikipedia! DojoIrl (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, charged adjectives like the one used by you above are stronlgy discouraged by WP, so calm down and mind your words. Secondly, the term is used in the reference. Not only that, it is widely used in today historiographic analysis as a distinct group in Germany, Spain, France and just about everywhere, frequently with strong ties to banking and money lending. It provides information that adds to the understanding on the matter. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, hi. If you were to Google "Jewish Financiers" you'd see how utterly unacceptable a term it is. Neo-Nazi groups in the US and Europe use the term as a prerogative. Hitler frequently used the term "Jewish bankers/financiers" in the 1920's/30's. And I'm perfectly calm, my comment was entirely appropriate. The religious affiliation of the Rothchilds is of no relevance in this article, just as the religion of other London based bankers who provided loans to the Spanish government in the 19th century is of no relevance here. Bottom line, if the wholly unacceptable term "Jewish financiers" is used in the article then I will insist that "Protestant financiers" is also used to describe other British bankers. DojoIrl (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)our

You have done few edits, so take this as a strong advice, do not use such hyperbolic tone that alters a smooth, constructive development of a discussion by WP:LABEL and WP:CIVILITY, this is a collaborative project. The fact that such groups used that term in the same way that 'communist' was used in some countries as a synonym of someone liable to persecution, does not proscribe the term for description of the person's identity, background, or affiliation. Also please do add edit summaries to explain your edits. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

All references to "Jewish financiers" will be removed from this article from now on. There is no discussion to be had. Other contributors have also noted that the term is wildly inflammatory and a term widely used by neo-Nazi's. I will escalate this with site admins if necessary. DojoIrl (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That is your POV. Well, inflammatory is your tone, totally unnecessary and uncooperative. Still for the sake of smooth editing in WP, I will let it go. Have a good night Iñaki LL (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Carlist War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003623/http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1833/chronology1833.htm to http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1833/chronology1833.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Other articles to model from?

Hey y'all! I was reading this article and while I found it fascinating and really nice, I noticed it is marked as a "Start-class" article in the Level 5 History subsection. Full disclosure: I'm of Spanish descent and was raised in the Basque country (whose region I feel is over-emphasized to an extent in this article). Anyways, as I want to help improve this but I'm only a beginner editor I was wondering if there were any recommendations of other articles I should base my work off. The American Civil War feels a bit to complex but it is one of my favorite articles. Any other suggestions?

--A. C. Santacruz (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources missing on important point.

Iñaki LL recently reverted an edit by Raderich diff claiming what would seem as a prominent and popular cause for revolt, but failed to cite any source at all. This is especially wrong because academic sources do not agree with the content re-introduced, as can be seen in the text I wrote in my sandbox, where I am working on a reworking of this article. See User:A._C._Santacruz/sandbox#The_contenders on the reasons for Carlist support in the Maestrazgo and Catalonia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi A._C._Santacruz, there is indeed a relationship to it and the subject was dealt with by the pretender and his close milieu, a latent subject that Carlos refused to take into account these demands. However, I cannot find the source/info right now. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Until you find the source I think it must be left out of the article, Iñaki LL. I don't doubt it might have been discussed in correspondence with Carlos but it being a significant cause for his support in the mentioned regions is not supported by the sources I have read on the subject and so as an OR claim until it can be backed by a reputable source such a claim cannot be verified. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that is why I am not pushing it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your long-standing contributions to this important article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Raderich: I reverted your edit as No improvement really, on WP:Preserve grounds. No verifiability was added and you added a misleading Spanish nominal administrative category instead, Basque Provinces, not accounting for the Basque territorial reality on the ground, as you know. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You know very well that Navarre was never included as a "Basque province". That's why always "Vascongadas y Navarra" or "vasco-navarro" was used. You're doing politics here. There's no such thing as "western Basque provinces". Please take a closer look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there's a source which uses that terminology, it's you who must prove it, not me. I'm just pointing out that none of the sources included in this article uses that made-up and anachronistic terminology.--Raderich (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Navarre has always been considered part of the greater Basque region, so perhaps wording it as region rather than province would be more accurate? The basqueness of Navarre however, should not be easily disputed due to both historical reasons (the Kingdom of Navarre and etymological place names such as Iruña and other towns/cities (see this section in Navarre's page for a full list). Another possibility would be to refer to "Basque-populated provinces", as arguing that Navarre is not populated by culturally Basque people is quite impossible, if both editors (Raderich, Iñaki LL) in this dispute feel that is the best alternative. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, that's simply not true. Navarre was never considered a part of a "greater Basque region" before the appearance of Basque nationalism in the 1890s. Northern Navarre is ethnically Basque, but southern Navarre isn't. The logical "possibility" is to stick to what sources say, that is, "Basque provinces" and "Navarre". There's no reason to write something else.--Raderich (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The "greater Basque Country" is just for disambiguation purposes in Wikipedia, it just the Basque Country, but it has also been called the Basque-Navarrese Country in Spanish. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, this has nothing to do with the topic but Pamplona was founded by the Romans as "Pompaelo". The Basque name "Iruña" came almost a thousand years later. Romance (first Latin, then Navarrese romance and later on Castilian) has always been spoken in Navarre. It has never been a 100% Basque region.--Raderich (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Off topic this too. That is subject to discussion. Like Irun, the Latin name is probably built on Illun (medieval evolution > Irun), Pompayilun, but that is not certain either. Basques have not made up names out of the blue; if there was a prestigious Latin/Romance name, they used it with their own pronunciation unless they had another previous tradition. The borough Saint Nicolas in Iruña/Pamplona was first cited in Latin text to be established in Iruyna (circa 1114). Iñaki LL (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

My mention of Pamplona as etymological was wrong, but it still serves to show the difference with other cities in Spain. The basque language doesn't have an alternate for Madrid but has for Bilbao, doesn't have an alternate for Barcelona but does for San Sebastian, etc. I do agree in most situations Navarre should be mentioned as is, but when discussing more cultural and social reasons for the Carlist support identifying north Navarre as part of the Spanish Basque regions is not of great harm (e.g. the influence of local priesthood on Basque culture encouraging Carlist support against the highly anti-clerical Cristinos). Also, considering Navarre as not part of the greater basque country until the modern day seems to contradict both it being the location of the Vascones who gave the name to the Basques or the basque Kingdom of Navarre. I bet there are more examples. In any case, I do agree that just calling it Navarre is best except for cultural mentions when referring to Basque cultural and social context. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so let's leave the "cultural debate" for somewhere else. An alternative to weird and anachronistic "western Basque provinces" without implying Navarre isn't Basque at all (although I don't think it would imply that) would be using "Vascongadas provinces" (which is used by scholars). How about that? Also, in order not to wrongly imply that Carlists from Tudela were "Basque fighters" I suggest adding some mentions of "Navarrese fighters" too.--Raderich (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Raderich, I was arguing about implying Navarre does not have some Basque roots, but I most definitely agree with using Navarre when referring to Navarrese troops. I strongly believe that we should avoid giving a Basque character to the conflict, which it certainly did not have across the board. In the case of the edit that is disputed, I agree with you that until strong sources are provided to support the characterization of whole of Navarre as grouped with the Basque country in the sentences edited, it should be left stand-alone as "Basque [something] and Navarre". I would suggest "the modern Basque Country (autonomous region) and Navarre" or just explicitly listing the actual provinces as "the Basque provinces of Alava, Gipuzkoa, and Biscay, as well as the province of Navarre of mixed Basque-Spanish culture." A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Basque issue was definitely a major component of the First Carlist War as much as it was in other like events during the 19th century in Europe, complex processes, but they lost. Vascongadas is a Spanish administrative naming and it is misleading, it does not account even for how the Basques, including the Basque-language Navarrese, saw themselves (the term does not exist in Basque usage, who historically have referred to Navarre, Gipuzkoa, Álava, etc.). Attempts at politization of the term Basque has made in Navarre since 30-40 years ago, evidently in step with receding Basque language and the political goals at stake.

The Basque area should be cited explicitly in order to bridge a clear gap in information for the reader, since the Carlist movement relied completely on the fueros of the Sister Provinces or Laurak Bat, e.g. the Basque territory within Spain. "Basque provinces" for present-day Basque Autonomous Community is definitely not an option, that is just a knowledge fraud (Basques existed in many provinces). Juan Álvarez Mendizabal referred to the Basque territory as "el país enemigo", sometimes referred as Provincias Vascongadas in Spanish to refer to the area where the Basque people inhabited, not the Biscay (Gipuzkoa, Álava and Biscay, the lordship), as it came to be named as an administrative cluster. The monument to the charters of Navarre in Pamplona (1903) makes it clear in its message: "We, the Basques of today, in memory of our eternal ancestors, have gathered here to show that we are determined to keep our laws".

I would not like to be far-fetched, but it may help illustrate this case. You can cite "Kurdistan" as the Kurdistan in Iraq, the administrative unit, i.e. a nominal approach, or you can cite the whole Kurdistan as what it is, the area encompassing the country of the Kurds. The Basque area is a must if the reader is going to have a understanding of what was going on. The Basque Country as a whole, as it was also referred sometimes in English sources. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Such thing as the "basque issue" seems like the wrong naming for it. I suspect you mean the preservation of the fueros. From my own research it seems that the fueros were not a major concern to Carlos nor the only reason why the Basques supported him. . Claiming the fueros were the exclusive reason for Basque Carlism is a fallacy of the single cause. The fall of trade with the new world and the loss of migration channels meant that an overpopulated region which had been decimated economically had a much larger number of men who had nothing to lose by supporting Carlos. The violent anticlericalism of the Cristinos also would have aided in encouraging Basque clergy to in turn encourage their believers to support the Carlist side . Von Rahden and other high ranked Carlists even mentioned the Basque Carlists seeing the fueros as second to the issue of succession. In addition, major trading cities like Bilbao or San Sebastian "welcomed their Cristino garrisons". I am writing in mobile so I can't add refs for my statements easily and will do later. Finally, associating Carlism as a direct precursor to modern Basque Nationalism or Basque politics seems like a post hoc fallacy, especially when people like Sabino Arana were against Carlism. I have added refs to my claims and encourage you to do the same if you are going to directly quote people and accuse me of fraud (an accusation completely unwarranted and unnecessary for a discussion like this). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, saying that Carlism completely relied on the Basque and Navarrese side of the conflict diminishes the importance logistically and strategically that the Carlists of the Maestrazgo (and to a lesser extent Catalonia) had on the war. The First Carlist War was not a war for the fueros, it was a war between sides with competing dynastic claims set in a century with almost endless revolutions and pronunciamientos. The fueros are extremely important as context to the conflict but are certainly not the casus belli nor focus for either side during the conflict. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, A.C. Santacruz, please I am not saying "fueros were the exclusive reason for Basque Carlism"; as I noted above, the Carlist wars were like other similar national issues in Europe a complex process, even Jose Maria Iparragirre, the author of the Basque anthem Gernikako Arbola popularized in the Third Carlist War (Second in the Basque Country), also in the Gamazada, did not favour a Basque Country independent from Spain, but based on its own laws and institutions. Also, please bear in mind that the 1778 Reglamento_de_libre_comercio_(1778) made the "Exempt Provinces", the Basque Country, alien for trade in Spain, punishing them for not taking customs from the Ebro over to the coast, or putting it simply, choking them.

Not my intention to accuse you of anything, hell no. What I said is that "Basque provinces" would be a fraud, contradictory in its own term, but Raderich himself has put forward Vascongadas. "Basque Provinces" is cited elsewhere as an administrative proper name in the article, which is misleading, but it does exist in English and also in French. My point is that there in no improvement in the edit and does not help understand the underlying national context. Among others, Pierre Bonnet, French traveller, Honorary Doctor at the University of Oxford, referred in his book En Pays Basque Espagnol et en Vielle Castille (1952?) to the four Basque provinces "il comprend quatre provinces: la Navarre, l'Álava, le Guipuzcoa, La Biscaye".

The Revues de Deux Mondes, a third party with no direct involvement, also used de ambiguous and misleading term, following probably the Spanish administrative naming. The journal goes as follows, "S’il est une fois reconnu que la Navarre et les provinces basques ne combattent que pour leur indépendance, et non pour la cause carliste, la question se simplifie. Pour en trouver la solution, cherchons encore dans l’histoire". The journal sees the relation of the Basques with Carlos as an alliance for their own purposes in order to win the war. Actually, the stakes were different in Spain overall and the Basque Country, and the Basque liberals ended up joining the pro-fueros movement in the face of the political consequences following the end of war. Bilbao and the other capital cities were Spanish military strongholds, a faction of the population joined the Carlists, but were subdued by the stronger burgeoisie, like the Jose Antonio Ybarra in Bilbao (eu and es). Karl Marx saw Carlism as a popular movement facing up to financiers and capitalists. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Iñaki LL I know you didn't intend to make any accusations :), just pointed out that those words can have a heavy meaning sometimes. I certainly assumed GF on your side, as I understand this is quite an important topic/distinction for you (I myself was raised in EH so I know how widespread the removal of Basque characteristics to history has been). Again, you should add refs when you cite people like Marx or websites. In any case, I think that the topic of naming is quite contentious. I think that a compromise could be reached here, leaving this discussion in the Talk page for future reference. The solution I suggest, seeing how you feel that "western Basque" should remain while Raderich feels it must be removed, is instead to make reference to the modern autonomous regions, while explicitly mentioning the large Basque populations in Navarre and similarity in social/economic/political structure to the other Basque regions. The current link saying "western Basque provinces" already goes to the page for the Basque Country (autonomous community), so something like:

Perhaps the largest source of support for Carlos were the regions equivalent to the modern-day Basque and Navarrese autonomous community. Both of them historically enjoyed special rights that maintained their Basque institutions, social structure, and laws — which were being threatened by the Liberal reforms of the past few decades in Spain. The traditionalism of Carlos thus appealed to these regions, but other reasons have also been identified for his larger popular support in these regions. Firstly, the Basque region had been affected economically and socially by ... . Secondly, the social structure of the Basque populations in these regions heavily depended on Catholic parishes, which in the face of the anti-clericalism of the Liberal reformers ... . Thirdly, the geography of the region meant it was much easier than in the rest of Spain for farmers to take up arms temporarily, return to tend their crops, and repeat that cycle when profitable or possible ... . Thus, the Basque populations in these two regions had many reasons to support the insurgency.

could be a nice way of both acknowledging the Basque heritage of Navarre while also not defining Navarre as homogenously Basque. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I know it has been done something similar, Basque Country (autonomous community), in Commons categorization, but that is a present-day administrative term, not a descriptive naming of the territory where a people inhabits. For all you good will, A. C. Santacruz, I consider it epistemologically wrong, clearly anachronistic. At this point and with no fresh contributions, Basque Provinces (capital letters) or Vascongadas should work in the phrase for consensus as far as I am concerned.

I do not know where you intend to add the excerpt above. It looks good, but could be finetuned. Some important points may be missing. The so-called liberalization attempted to suppress their native autonomous institutions and laws, many commons would be privatized. The Exempt Provinces were the last area in Spain to have this kind of status; actually the Kingdom of Navarre still existed. The Spanish officials also attempted drafting (a kind of kidnapping for a number of years) and further tax exactions; on the other hand, the Basques saw them saw as corrupt politicians. Granted, ultimately all this comes down to sources, as you well point out. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Santacruz on the Fueros issue. Let's be honest, this article is terrible. To make it decent, we'd have to delete a lot of stuff and add missing and more balanced information about this war. Iñaki would probably fight for every single word, so I'm not going to waste my time to improve it. Good luck.--Raderich (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... I do not have any problem with adding your thing. My outlook is incremental, as relevant, and I respect any substantial contributions anyone add. Now I may not agree with sb coming to change a word or a phrase. There is plenty of evidence on the underlying Basque component and the latent issue of detachment or different status of the territory(es), at least since 1794. Check this for further info (it now needs signing up), available also in the main text. Evidently there are epistemological issues derived from Spanish administrative usage (Basque Provinces) and the scant Basque-language written sources, the native language (about 100% in Gipuzkoa, much less in Navarre, but still spoken, eroded, in Tafalla or Estella-Lizarra). Many in central and southern Navarre were losing Basque, but their Spanish was plagued with Basque words and placenames and they recognized themselves in that tradition, despite their loss of language. Biscay, Álava and Gipuzkoa did not have a common body up to this moment, except for the Napoleonic period. but they shared the political meetings called Conferencias. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Raderich I am currently going through a re-write on my sandbox, but it will take me a few months to get it up to par to then move the text to the mainspace. I believe my Background, Fueros, and Contenders sections there show how the article in mainspace could evolve positively to be more encompassing of the whole of Spain during the war and remove a lot of the Basque focus the current article has. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, the focus on the Basque area is no surprise, since that was the actual theatre of operations for the Spanish military, as depicted in their maps and, sometimes, in the very contemporary name, "Guerra del Norte" ("el país enemigo", as stated by Mendizabal), and the only area, apart from a small focus in the north of Catalonia and the Maestrazgo, at some moments, where actual Carlist territorial control existed. Also, the Basques had their own political status (constitution or make-up) at risk, something did not happen in the other areas. "The Southern Front" section, besides showing an inaccurate title, is now almost inexistent, so it would be good to complete it. As I stated above, my outlook on Wikipedia editing is incremental, which does not lie very far from your inclusive approach, so anything enriching the text and bridging gaps will be welcomed as fas I am concerned. Of course, anything added according to verifiability. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead

I think it is appropiate to stress (I mean, to include in some way) a government/rebel dichotomy as Carlists barely hanged on rural areas in the North and the North East. They did not even hold control of big cities in their core territories (not to say they were quite far from the centre of political power). Failing to do that, the lead gives a misleading outline of the topic. Amateur, so to speak. And last but not least, defenders of the Ancien régime are better described in this context as reactionaries rather than as "Conservatives", which is a broad category arguably shared by many on the opposing side.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I will say that your assessment of Carlist control in the North and North East is correct based on what I've researched, as well as your characterization of the Carlists. I think the characterization of the Cristino side is quite correct currently, however. You also recently made some edits to the infobox which replace pipes with general wikilinks that are less specific to the article, which is why I reverted your edit. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It might also be important to note that reactionary is a more appropriate term in my opinion for history articles as we do not want readers to read the word "conservative" as representing modern conservativism (say, Reaganism or alt-right perspectives) rather than the 19th century positions they are highly likely not to be aware of and would be terribly difficult to describe concisely to the types of readers we must keep in mind when writing Wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

On the same note, I should oppose "reactionary", since it might as well be assimilated to present-day extremist political dynamics. The Basque fueros, a major driving force behind the war effort of the Carlist volunteers in the Basque territories, were a model the progressives in Spain saw with interest between the two major Carlist wars. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Undue basque nationalism weight

The section gives way too much prominence to a sense of Basque identity that is not commensurate to what I have found in sources. Additionally it kind of glorifies the fueros in a way that's completely unencyclopedic (see John F. Bacon (Six years in Biscay..., 1838) considers the Basques living to the north of the Ebro river as free citizens, as compared to the Spanish whom he sees as "a mere flock" liable to be mistreated by their masters). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll be updating the article based on the work I did some years ago on my sandbox. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)