Talk:Galicia (Spain)/archivelist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc.

There should be a *warning* on this section about the trend of some people to think that including commercial websites will increment google their google pagerank. Wikipedia is not a link farm, never should.

Disambig

should the Galicians be separated and disambiguated? If so, how? Galicia (Spain) vs Galicia (Austria)? Somehow I anticipate problems coming up with a name for the one around Lvov... -- Someone else 02:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As for the name for the second Galicia-page: if "Galicia (Eastern-Europe)" is considered problematic (for it could also be Middle-Europe), we could choose "Galicia (Carpathians)". It avoids putting into brackets the name of a country which Galicia does not longer, or not exclusively belong to. Fransvannes 08:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I rather like the Galicia (Carpathians) or Galicia (Eastern Europe) solutions. Will wait a bit till others voice their opinions before making changes, though I think. ---Someone else 08:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why not a disambiguation page like the one for Fatima? Portcult 13:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This page can be improved. The tables on Galicia are conflicting, with one going into the other. The English must be worked on and the information at the bottom about the other Galicia should not be on this page. It comes almost as an afterthought and a reader looking fo the non-Spanish Galicia would have a chore finding it.

The statement that Spanish (Castillian)"is not the socially dominant language, both languages are oficials (sic.) and well-spoken by the majority of the population" has to be modified as information from the official sites about Galicia say the opposite. "In the towns, Galician is only maintained by a minority of culturally motivated families. Research shows that only 4_5% of today's young town-dwellers claim Galician as their mother tongue, although virtually all of them understand it and over 90% can speak it." from Euromosaic The book I have for learning Galego, Galego para vos, also gives statistics on use and they don't show Galego to be the dominant language. Portcult 08:05, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the table showing Spanish autonomous regions, since it was overlapping with the table about Galicia and should be in a separate article. I have also added much more detail to the article and will work on articles for the different cities in Galicia, which, since I live nearby, I know very well. Portcult 22:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Semi-disambiguation" done. Galicia now links to this article, and is presumed to refer to the Spanish region; Galicia (Eastern Europe) links to the article on the Eastern European region. I didn't do a full disambiguation because MOST references are to the Spanish Galicia: if anyone wants to do a full disambiguation it would require moving this article to Galicia (Spain), creating a disambiguation page here and changing the current Galicia links to Galicia (Spain) links. I'm not convinced that's the way to go but leave it to you all to decide. -- Someone else 23:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is very improbable that the name of the Eastern-European Galicia is derived from the Gauls, for this would require evidence for Celtic settlement in this area (is there any?), and one would have to ignore the very place name Halicz (Halich), which is the most obvious source. Fransvannes 21:37, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about Galatia in Anatolia? Is this one of those European sorepoints? There seem to be so many... Wetman 23:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to have the country and its language properly referred to in English as Galiza and Galizan respectively, with the terms Galicia and Galician used to refer back to them? Incidentally, sicne the spelling reform of 2003, both forms are now considered legitimate by the Galizan Royal Academt.

Considered legitimate by the Academy for use in English? That would seem unlikely. Of course, even if they did so, they would have no jurisdiction over the English language. — Gulliver ✉ 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

i don't remember ever saying that the Galizan Royal academy had made pronouncements over English usage nor that they had any authority to do so - that is something you have insinuated for yourself. all that i was saying was that against the oft-cited claims that not even official galizan language authorities recognise the form 'galizan', since the latest language/spelling reform this is no longer the case.

Río grande

"Also, the rio grande, contrary to popular belief, separates Mexico from Texas; not Spain from Portugal."

What? Who on earth thinks the río Grande is in Europe? — Gulliver ✉ 21:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• There's another river called Río Grande in north-east of Lugo --Alyssalover^(talk) 13:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha, interesting. The statement is still wrong though.

You should add the Galician río Grande to Rio Grande (disambiguation). — Gulliver ✉ 14:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Gallegos in Latin America

I'm not sure about the accuracy of "Spaniards of all regions" being referred to as "gallegos" in most Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. I know that is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. It is said in the article that same happens in Brazil. However, I'm positive this is not the case in Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, etc.

Obvious reason is most Spanish migration to Argentina was from Galicia, which does not hold for the other countries. I'm editing out the claim accordingly.

Economy

I think the second sentence in this section would be clearer and less redundant if written as in the following, but I would like someone to double check that this does not change the intended meaning.

While the western coast, with its major population centres, and its fishing and manufacturing industries is prosperous and increasing in population, the rural hinterland—the provinces of Ourense and Lugo—are econonomical dependent on traditional agriculture, based on small landholdings called minifundios.

What do you think? Vivafelis 05:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia says: In 1990, Manuel Fraga won the presidenticial elections by a landslide victory. From then he ruled the autonomous community as a facist dictator. Fraga placed heavy restrictions upon Galician press and television. In 2002, a protest took place outside the Galician Parliament. It ended with the brutal torture of the protestors under the orders of Fraga. However in 2005, the Galician people finally rose up against the facist governemt and Fraga was overthrown. Now for the first time in 15 long years, Galicia enjoys democracy.

All is FALSE.

¿Torture protestors? ¿When?

¿Restrictions upon Galician press and television? ¿When?

¿You are fouls? ¿Its Wikipedia a communist or extreme left politic propaganda?

___________________

I'm a Galician, and definitively no Fraga supporter at all, but I'm ashamed to read what has been writen in this article. It gives que poorest impresion of our country to anybody who decides to read it. "facist tyrant"? What kind of a neutral assesment is that? Have you ever read an encyclopedia? As for the rest of the historical background, better not going into details (never heard in my life about that "last Celtic speaker" in the 15th Century, And I'm a linguist!). The article is fool of esculation, invention and bias. What a shame.

---

Fraga is -as he was- a tyrant indeed, and he used democracy as a mere way of going backwards in time. His success as a "democratic" politician is based more in fear than in actual good management of the country. Galicia is still way behind UE wealth indicators and the gap is widening. The stories about tortures, press censorship, etc are quite an exaggeration, but not 100% false.

---

Fraga is nothing more than a war criminal and a fascist tyrant who used fear to rule over the Galicia region. He held Galicia back behind the rest of Europe and that is why Galicia is the poorest area in Spain! It is Fraga who is to blame! In my view he should be placed on trial like Saddam Hussein for war crimes after his public support for Franco and his dictatorial regime. I thank God that he is out of power in my land, now maybe Galicia can become rich and have a stable economy now that Fraga is gone.

---

Manuel Fraga Iribarne was one of the major actors in the opening of the Franco's regime, and the Transition to Democracy. Althought having served as a minister for the previous regime, was already one of the most open minds of the system, as well as one of the major authors of the 1978 Spanish Constitution. He has proven to be a genuine democrat, being a democratically elected president of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, and today still one of the key actors in daily parlamentary life at the Galician Parliament.

---

Fraga was a former fascist and retrograde with cultural matters, but saying that in the article would be against the objetivity of the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.61.58 (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Politics

I think some reference should be made to Gallegos and their role in Spanish politics, similar to that of the Scots in English politics. 82.69.40.37

Language

I know some Galician nationalists don't like it, but if in some parts of Galicia another language is spoken, I think this must be considered. I come from the small village of Seadur, municipality of Larouco (Ourense), so that I know what I am saying. And there is of course bibliography about the Leonese dialect spoken in the region:

• Soares, Rui (2005): "As falas leonesas em territorio galego-portugues: Valdeorras, Miranda do Douro". Romanistischer Verlag: Bonn.
• Fink, O. (1929): "Studien über die galicisch-leonesischen Mundarten in León und Orense". Hamburg: De Gruyter.
• Holtus, G. (ed.) (1992): Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik. Vol I Aragonesisch/Navarresisch, Spanisch, Asturianisch/Leonesisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
• Geerlings-Diel, Axel (1997): Kulturen und Sprachen von Minderheiten in Europa : Deutschland, Italien, Schweden, Schweiz, Spanien. Rheinfelden: Schäuble.

'leonese' language does not exist. It's simply a dialect of Spanish like Andalusian or Argentinian. It's not considered a 'language' in Spain but a dialect. The languages of the Iberian Peninsula have all oficial status. Galician-Portuguese, Spanish, Basque and Catalan. How do leonese regionalist can compare their dialect with a language like galician-portuguese spoken all around the world? The language of Galicia (obviously) is spoken in the western shires of Asturias and Castile. 'Leonese country' and 'leonese region' does not exist in Spain. The province of Leon depends on the goverment of Castile. Please, be careful with this people from Asturias and León. They only try to manipulate information for their fascist interest against Catalans, Basques and specially Galicians. They are activists of the Spanish neo-nazism. They hate Galicians.

I DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PHRASE IS ALLOWED IN WIKIPEDIA: "Please, be careful with this people from Asturias and León. They only try to manipulate information for their fascist interest against Catalans, Basques and specially Galicians. They are activists of the Spanish neo-nazism. They hate Galicians." THERE IS NOT BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION TO PROVE IT AND I THINK IT IS NOT FAIR TO CALLED NEOFASCIST THE PEOPLE FROM ASTURIAS AND LEON. I AM FROM ASTURIAS AND THAT PHRASE IS AN OFFENSE TO MY REGION. I HOPE YOU DELETE IT FROM THE TEXT BECAUSE IT IS A LACK OF RESPECT. THANKS

This user has erased bibliografical information about the Leonese dialect spoken in the region of Valdeorras in Ourense. We can discuss everything if you can articulate your speech without hate and providing valid sources of information, Wikipedia is an open proyect. I restored the information provided before this user erased it. We are not talking of politics, we are talking of linguistics, so please don't mixed things. Every human group speaking a language has a right to be considered in Wikipedia, even if you don't like it.

As it seems, someone has drawn a map with the language borders of Galician. It is a beautiful one, I reckon, but let me remind you that every one could draw a map in which even Madrid would speak Galician. Please, don't take us for foolish and if you have read in language related books/articles written by specialists that Leonese is not spoken in Valdeorras, give us the name and the author of the material. I have given you reliable bibliography, do the same, and then we could write somewhat like "for some linguists Valdeorras speaks Leonese, whereas for other ones Galician is spoken there". As long as you can't provide us with such information (as I deed) the map does not prove anything. Thank you and obrigado.

Leonese language (it's a language and it has even its own wikipedia) is spoken in Galicia (or Galiza), in the municipalities mentioned before: Valdeorras, Miranda do Douro. In Miranda do Douro, in the northeastern tip of Portugal, Leonese has even been promoted to the status of Oficial Language (with the name of Mirandese). And "Historic Nation" is not the proper legal denomination. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 says that Galicia is a "Historic Nationality" (The word "Nationality" is an invention of some politicians to avoid the denomination "Nation"). Er Komandante 12:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

After performing a small research, I am sorry to inform you that none of the aforementioned titles by Soares et al. has survived a Google Search. The same happens when you search, for example, "Rui Soares". The only results found are discussion forums like this page. Sadly, I have to conclude that the sources you are citing are either false, mistyped or intentionally modified by another user. Please provide valid sources in order for other users to stop reverting changes about Lionese language. Charles Dexter Ward 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Language again

I would like to state that if someone changes the contents of an article, it would be helpful if he/she can provide us with bibliographical information. As for the map, I wasn't able to find the issogloses (the geographical boundary of a linguistic feature, in this case main issoglosses which are important for the distinction of Galician/Portuguese and Leonese) that are implicitely drawn on the map: wheather in Fink (1929), neither in Holtus (1992) nor Soares (2005, I cannot speak very well Portugues, but it reaches for the purpose). These and other authors describe the dialect spoken in Vadeorras as "Leonese", not Galician. Please take these studies into account, since they were written by internationally recognized philologists.

I would like you to write the complete bibliographical reference of this atlas of Galician language, who is reponsible for the editions and which institution supports it. There is something very annoying about the map: the "bloque oriental". Does it belong to the Galician language? If so, were are the language boundaries of Galician for it (and for you)? The map suggests Galician is spoken even in most parts of the districts of Asturias, Leon and Zamora, which is -I´ll say in Portuguese- filologicamente uma barbaridade. These facts let me think, the map is politically motivated. Therefore I have reverted the changes. --Heidelberger 08:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Language map is a crap. Galician is spoken outside Galicia, in the Western zone of Asturias (there are a lot of political problems about this), in some zones of the Leonese county of "El Bierzo" and maybe in some zones of Zamora (in this last case, I don't know), but the borders drawed in that map are not correct. Please delete the language map. Er Komandante 13:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read a little more about the article, and this article is no exact in some terms. Maybe you should use the no-NPOV template for this article. It has no sense saying that "Orally, these differences (between Galician and Portuguese) are comparable in scope to those between Flemish — a form of Dutch spoken in Belgium — and standard Dutch." Er Komandante 13:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But they are - as are the differences between the Spanish spoken in Colombia and the Spanish spoken in the Little Empire. Anyway there's an article called Galician Language for these things. Alkaine 13:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange example this one you show, comparing Dutch and Vlamingen (Flemish). The degree of difference only between flemish dialects is sometimes so high that some linguistics don't consider flemish as a single language. But I Understand and respect your opinion, and I'll look for information, I'm not an expert in languages. Er Komandante 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a few linguists, in their ignorance (or high degree of political contamination) consider "Galician" and "Portuguese" , or even "Catalá" and "Valenciano" as different languages. Sadly, they're the ones in charge of the "official" (self-recognizedly pro-spanish) language rules. Thus, I must apologize, for I completely ignore the Dutch and Flemish languages-dialects-whatever they might be, as I should know the languages before making any statement. Alkaine 11:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Don't worry. I know the "political pollution" that involves some languages. The Catalan-Valencian question is very sad. I know that there are problems in the Western strip of Asturias, too, where a galician dialect is spoken (galician with a strong asturian influence, but galician filologically), but Asturian government says that the language spoken there is asturian with galician influence. I know that this is not true. And I suspect that the language spoken in some zones of Valdeorras is leonese (a proof: Asturian language map of "Promotora Española de Lingüística"), but I want to be sure and I will contact these group (www.proel.org) when possible. And I want to have information about the Galician-Portuguese question from some linguists: I know nothing about this languages, but it is easy to realize that some people (not all) that claims that portuguese and galician is the same language are not "politically clean", too. Cee u!. Er Komandante 06:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Bloque Oriental" is one of the dialectal divisions of the Galician language. Among other things, the Galician spoken on the Bloque Oriental makes the plural forms of the -on/-om words in -ois, rather than in -ons. For example: the plural form of Camión/Camiom [Truck] is -> Camións (In both written Galician norms and in Bloque Occidental speech), Camiós ( as pronounced in Bloque Central - not written) or Camiois (In Bloque Oriental speech). This is officially learned at high school, but I am unable at the moment to quote the researcher. And, of course, the only accepted written form is Camións.

As for the Galician spoken in Asturias, León and Zamora, yes , Galician is spoken in the border zones of these areas for historical reasons. Alkaine 13:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

• I have changed the expression "Historic Nation" for "Historic Nationality". It is possible to find that definition at the Galician Statute of Autonomy at the Galician Regional Government page (it's in Spanish, I'm sorry, I couldn't find it in English). The first three words of the Statute, in Spanish, are: Galicia, nacionalidad histórica (Galicia, Historic Nationality).
• Speaking about the name of the region is not maybe the best introduction to the article. I have moved the paragraph to a new section: Galicia or Galiza. A best idea for the introduction should be speaking about some well known aspects of the zone: fishermans land, galician language, etc...

Cee U. Er Komandante 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Someone must change this information

"The spoken languages are Galician (Galician: Galego or Gallego), the local national language derived from Latin and Spanish" The galician language doesn´t derive from Spanish, both languages derivate from Latin at same time. Like other languages in contact (English and French) Galician has Spanish words, but is false that derives from Spanish. Xerelo 15:19, 14 February 2006

Population table

The table at the top of the article about the population of Galicia in 1900 is WAY too big. It disrupts the flow of the entire article, and what purpose does it serve anyway? That was more than a hundred years ago. I propose we delete it. -- NetherlandishYankee 05:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some VIP's missing

I think Alvaro Cunqueiro should be in.

Why was Simón Bolívar listed as a Galician? He was of Basque extraction. I have removed him from the list of politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.111.64 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Gastón Gaudio was born in Buenos Aires, Martin Sheen in Ohio and Cervantes in Alcalá de Henares. Maybe they´ve galician origins but they are not Galician at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.248.135 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Most Galicians aren't pipers

As a Galician myself, I feel this article is absolute biased. It's not only abot the leftist inclinations that the contributors badly hide under a false objectivity . Any wise reader can see through that.

The historical part wades through the centuries as a timeline of the "galician identity vs. the evil outside powers".

The first paragraph closing sentence: during the Leon-Castillian domination of the Kingdom, still exerted today should be deleted, since Galicia is de iure a region into the Spanish state with is own parliament, under spanish and european laws. Castilla-Leon is an obvious reference to the pre-15th century kingdom that ruled half Spain. Nowadays, Castilla-Leon is one out of the 17 spanish regions, same as Galicia. As a matter of fact, Galicia has much more selfgovernment competences than Castilla-Leon: http://www.mir.es

The whole article is focused on history and language with a leftist angle. It's ironic that the contributors spent so much time speaking about the Galician nationalist and federalist movements arose in the nineteenth century as if political organization was the main galician activity, when, since the arrival of democracy (1975) and public elections, Galicia has proved consistently one of the regions with the most absentism in the last 20 years: http://argos.mir.es/MIR/jsp/resultados/index.htm

The brief cultural notes are also biased. ALL people listed under "Outstanding contemporary musicians and groups", and every musician listed int the article –but Manu Chao, a french singer with galician parents known for his hippie/pro-leftist approach... All of them are folk formations and solists. And not all of them aren't outstanding. "Xacarandaina" is merely a local folk company/school from my hometown that grew bigger, but remains know only to folk followers. This list excludes any other genre: rock, pop, jazz, classic, electronic. And lefts outside artists way more famous and succesful. I'll just mention a few: Los Suaves, Xoel López, Siniestro Total. 'Los suaves' only have sold more than 4 of 5 formations listed in the article. Their career has spanned over 24 years, when many artists listed here are almost that age. Same happens to Siniestro Total, still an active group and considered amongst the punk pioneers in Spain.

According to the article, most of us galicians are pipers fighting a dictatiorial regime in a nationalist tradition that has pervived along the centuries. That's untrue. Plainly. --81.44.251.109 10:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Zosete

Holidays

Shouldn't it be Bank Holidays, or Regional Holidays? It is just a tiny detail, but just Holidays seems to me like if it were about the times of the year most Galicians go on holiday or something like that. angeljusto.com 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Galicia - A welcoming place?

Can anyone tell me if Galicia is welcoming to tourists and to people from other countries who wish to live in Galicia? Galicia seems to have a good future for tourism and other types of economy. Is this correct? MD

That seems to be a bit of a stereotypical question, of course there is going to be some welcoming and some more reserved like anywhere. Talking in a general way, it will depend where in Galicia you go though, you shouldn't encounter much trouble if moving there, they are nice people ;) but remember to respect their culture.

As to having a good future, can't see that myself, might be wrong, but galicians don't know how to exploit what their land has to offer, which might be a good thing in a way.

I think its a lovely place, though I might be biased. PatrickC (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Galicia really want to break away from spain?

Do Galicians really want to form their own separate country?

The greatest part of Galicians feel comfortable into the Spanish State, with significant desire to increase self-government. Independence is not on the agenda of most of us.

> But independence and self-determination is very much on the agenda for many of us... So, this issue should definitely feature in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.102.214 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes in Galician language section

I found the section above cited often misleading, so I have added the geographical limits of archaic Galician-Portuguese language as they can be found in most Galician and Portuguese textbooks. I have also added the text that can be found on Portuguese language page as it is far more objective. removing the comparison with Dutch and Fleming as it is merely POV - I ask for references, in any case.

By the way, what does 'both being Galician-Portuguese languages' mean?

Page move

User:David Kernow recently moved this article from "Galicia (Spain)" to "Galicia (autonomous community)", with the reasoning To follow disambiguation used by other articles on Spain's autonomous communities. However, the other ACs disambiguated in this way - Basque Country, Madrid, Murcia and Valencia - are a different class of disambiguation from Galicia, in that they're distinguishing between the AC and the city/province/wider region after which the autonomous community is named. In the case of Galicia, however, the distinction is between the Galicia in Spain and the one in Central Europe, as the dab page Galicia makes clear; there's nowhere else in Spain called Galicia. My feeling is that Galicia, Spain is the most appropriate form in line with Wikipedia conventions, but I'm opening the matter up for comment before moving it. --Blisco 19:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I missed this distinction when making the move, so I'm grateful to Blisco for pointing it out. On the one hand, "Galicia (autonomous community)" is consistent with the disambiguation used for the other communities Blisco lists, but not consistent with an implication that there is a second place called Galicia in Spain; on the other hand, "Galicia (Spain)" might be more consistent beside "Galicia (Central Europe)" on the Galicia disambiguation page (although Spain, unlike Central Europe, is a country) but seems inconsistent beside the other "... (autonomous community)" articles. Perhaps a solution might be to disambiguate Spanish communities using "... (Spanish autonomous community)", i.e. a synthesis of the two approaches...?  Regards, David Kernow 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• ...Following discussion with Norrin strange, have now amended the disambiguation to be "(Iberia)" per here. Hope everyone still happy. Regards, David 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• ...Copied from here:

  ...I thought that I should say that I don't think that adding "Iberia" is a better choice for Galicia. I grew up very close to Galicia, and I guarantee that "Iberia" is not a very common term that we use around here (except for the Spanish airline). It would probably sound better if we replace "Iberia" with "Iberian Peninsula", which is a far more common term. Or, in my opinion, simply name it "Galicia". As for the other Galicia in Central Europe, I believe that a disambiguation note would be enough. Best regards.--Húsönd 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Have therefore made (partial) revert to Galicia (Iberian peninsula); hope this acceptable to all. Regards, David Kernow 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can't see anything wrong with "Galicia (Spain)". Certainly there are people who think it shouldn't be in Spain (a minority of Galicians, it has to be said), but the fact remains that it is in Spain and is recognised as such by every country in the world. The statement of a simple constitutional fact shouldn't be regarded as violating NPOV providing the article deals with all POVs sufficiently. --Blisco 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don´t find name of the article as it is by now acceptable. The nacionalist proportion is a minority in Galicia and of course, not all of the BNG supporters want independence from Spain. If other more nationalist autonomous communities are referred to as X (Spain) or X (Autonomous Community), this article has even more reasons to have one of that names. Galicia (Iberia) seems to be and advertisement of a section of the Airlines company, as I have said other times, the term isn´t used nowadays as a synonym of Iberian Peninsula. And about if Galicia is in Spain or not, neither the European Community, nor the UNO or no other international or independent association with a mimimum prestige says that that it is not in Spain. So emphasizing the hypotetical non pertenence of Galicia to Spain in the title IS POV, of an overwhelmingly minority, and is not informative or encyclopedic. Not only the international legality and intitutions but also the feeling of almost all the World is covered with the other names. A reference, or a section inside the text of the article to explain the nacionalist tendences of a political party in Galicia (18,7%) would be enough to represent that option. Otherwise, the article would represent only them. --Garcilaso 18:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Right then, I'll move it back to "Galicia (Spain)", fix the ever increasing stock of double redirects (Galiza, Galicia Spain, Galicia, Spain, Galicia (Iberian Peninsula), Galicia (Iberian peninsula) [sic] and Galicia (Iberia), and hope that ends the saga once and for all! --Blisco 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: dammit, moving is blocked, it'll have to go through WP:RM and I haven't got the strength to do it at the moment. Oh, and I missed a couple of other redirects, Galicia (autonomous community) and the bizzare Gaelicia. --Blisco 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Emigration

Can someone with more information write about emigration and how it has affected Galcia and la Ley de Retorno. Like most Celtic countries there has been massive migration throughout the 20th Century.

Missing survey template

Whoever nominated this for page move forgot to create a space for survey and discussion. This WP:RM is invalid in its current form. Asterion^talk 14:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As I interpret the instructions, there's no obligation to create a specific space for a survey so long as the issue is discussed; I thought that the discussion above would be enough. But so that everyone's happy, here it is. --Blisco 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was Move. Duja 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Galicia (Iberian peninsula) → Galicia (Spain) – Current title gives undue weight to the minority separatist view, as well as being incorrectly capitalised. "Galicia (Spain)" - which was the title until a recent string of moves - is clear, concise, and reflects the internationally recognised constitutional situation. For further background please see discussion above. Blisco 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (edited 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - sorry, separatists. --Yath 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, simply because it's in Spain. I fail to see how this is "separatist", however. —Khoikhoi 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It should stay with the Iberian Peninsula so to please both separatists and unionists.--Húsönd 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I don't mind if the title is kept under the title Galicia (Iberian peninsula) , but Galicia (Spain) is more precise: for example, in the statute of autonomy of Galicia (something like the "Regional Constitution" of Galicia, the link is in Spanish, I'm sorry) you will never find the concept "Iberian Peninsula". For the same reason I think that Galicia (autonomous community) is a good choice, too. Er Komandante 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons I gave above: Clear majority of Galicians, not talking about the rest of Spain and International organisations and governements (UNO, European Union...) say that Galicia is part of Spain. So the international legality and general feeling around the World say so. It Wouldn´t be encyclopedic to emphasize a so-called non pertenence of that Autonomous Community to Spain alleged by a sole party with the 0.8% of the votes in last General Elections[1]--Garcilaso 10:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

How about Galicia (autonomous community) - would that be more acceptable to both sides? It fits with Basque Country (autonomous community), and the general set-up with Málaga (province), etc. Aquilina 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See discussion above - the purpose of the disambiguator is to distinguish it from Galicia (Central Europe), not a city or wider region in Spain called Galicia. Having said that, it's an option if we can't reach consensus on (Spain). --Blisco 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

References

There are no references or sources on this page??--Filll 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Celtic speaker

there is evidence that the last Galician Celtic speaker died in the 15th century.

Really? I am a Galician native speaker, holding a BA in Linguistics and I have never heard such a thing. I propose either such an stament to be removed or the author feed us with some reference. Thank you! bgdgz--195.252.87.124 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No answer to the request of sources since 9 November 2006. I remove the unreferenced assertion.--Garcilaso 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass emigration

I believe the line "Like other Celtic regions Galicia's history has been defined by mass emigration" should be edited. Galicia's Celtic history and culture is not denied, but Celticity is not the defining point of being Galician, and I don't see the point in saying 'like other Celtic regions'. More appropriately, 'like most of western Europe' would suit this. Enzedbrit 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)