Talk:First Carlist War

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too centered 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Politically biased 

message: 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)
replies: text: "http://flagspot.net/flags/es%5Ecarlw.html"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flag is Anachronistic 

message: The English for desamortización is perhaps disengagement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desamortización 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish Financiers???? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other articles to model from? 

message: recently reverted an edit by  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Until you find the source I think it must be left out of the article, . 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)
replies: text: Sure, that is why I am not pushing it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your long-standing contributions to this important article.  A. C. Santacruz  ⁂  Talk 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources missing on important point.  

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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 ). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue basque nationalism weight