Talk:Regionalism (politics)

message: Surely there is a difference between nationalists and regionalists? Plaid Cymru and the SNP are nationalist parties, who claim that Wales and Scotland are nations and should be independent nation states.  Regionalist parties only want autonomy within a state. --Rhyswynne 10:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalists vs Regionalist

message: I think that there's a difference between regional parties (ex: CSU) and regionalist parties (regional parties demanding autonomy for their regions, ex: Lega Nord, SNP, PC, etc.). --Checco 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regionalist parties and regional ones

message: I don't believe my original article was POV; what can be POV about a hypothetical term, which in this case was "can be", which indeed it can be a worrying time for a central government when local spots wish to devolve power to themselves! I mean, take the UK, why should the county of Merseyside ask for more powers than West Yorkshire or Norfolk have!! And why would the highest office grant it to them when nobody else seems to need it?! But I'll be fair, the paragraph was badly written; so I don't mind the present version. I did change one part; I didn't think it needed the line "not always so" because that is perfectly clear from the first two paragraphs. I thought it better to give an example. And I chose the Balkans of course as it is the one for which I have most personal experience; the organisations responsible for the end of the federation in 1990/1991 were all descended from parties whose roots go back as far as the golden age of modern nationalism, the 18th century. So just as some people in some places advocated unification, others elsewhere opposed the idea. When the latter group's speakers finally took stage, they pretended to be "united" but sought for "more". We have a saying in the Balkans, "Give someone your finger, he'll want the whole hand; give the hand, he'll want the arm; then the head and so forth", like a child and his craving for more chocolate. My point is that independence is exactly that, the structure of certain national systems makes it more practical for some to use regionalist tactics to achieve their goals. That is the only point I wanted to make and I think it deserves a mention. Obviously it is better phrased now, so I doubt it needs any more editing. Evlekis 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Yugoslavia is a good example, as the various groups were split on ethnic/religious lines (but I'm no expert on Balkans history)--Rhyswynne 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperation 

message: I'd like to convert the "regionalism" page to a disambiguation and move the content here to regionalism (politics). Regionalism in literature and art are at least as significant as Regionalism in politics, and what's more those articles are currently much better-maintained than this one. Academically I've studied both politics and literature - more of the former than the latter, in fact - so I'm fairly certain I'm evaluating the relative weight of those articles without bias. --Orphic (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me.  Actually, I wish I'd thought of it.  I support the idea. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Regionalism also exists within countries or even within cities.  Once such region [[New 
England]], is an extreme example of regionalism within the United States. In that region 
and those who identify with it, they want to promote Boston, the region's largest 
city, as the de facto capital and force all adjacent cities and states to accept it. 
 One such state is Connecticut, which is a part of metro New York.  
Regionalists in the Boston area seemingly wannt to do anything that it takes to "reel 
in" CT as a full member of New England and to take it out of the NYC metro region that 
it is a part of.  This includes going to such extremes as buying CT businesses and 
putting a "New England" label on it in the form of declaring said businesses as a "New 
England" business instead of a CT or NYC area business.  Once example is [[People's 
United Bank]] which used to be simply "People's Bank" headquartered in [[Bridgeport, 
CT]] which is the NYC metro region.  New England investors bought the bank and declared 
it a New England bank when it was simply a CT and NY bank.  Recently, they have gone to 
such extremes to promote CT as New England, which seems to have been the real aim of the 
purchase, that have billboard as all along interstates in CT that heads: "New England 
has spoken..."  One such sign is in Stamford, CT which is clearly in the NYC metro 
region, where the words "New England" seem to dominate the sign.  Is appears as if it is 
there to advertise CT is New England more so than anything else.  What also leads to 
this conclusion is the fact the People's United bank is not any place in New England, it 
is only in CT and NY!  So how could "New England" have spoken?  With some ways of 
thinking, even spending money for a certain goal is not beyond some regionalists.
Other extremes include opening stores and stocking products out of the Boston area such 
as ice cream, milk and Boston sports team products in CT stores to give the appearance 
that CT is geared toward Boston even if it is not.  This is all done in an effort to 
strengthen the city of Boston in not only the northeastern US, but in the US itself.  
This, is regionalism at one of it's most insane moments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.187.106 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regionalism in New England/NYC 

message: Transylvanianism is not regionalism. Its name is not related. Please read User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is on regional and regionalist movements/parties, both of them, non just regionalist ones. Whatever its purpose, "Transylvanianism" is a regional movement and can be mentioned in the "See also" section quite uncontroversially. I was not the one who added the link in the first place. A third editor, User:Autospark, who thanked for my edit, agrees with me. Two editors, including me, rollbacked your removal. Finally, your total rollbacks are quite disturbing: why removing Romania altogether? In a nutshell, you are the only one to oppose the inclusion of Transylvanianism in the "See also" section so far, thus you should avoid rollbacks: why not first seeking compromise, then edit the article on the issue.--Checco (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But Transylvanianism does not fit the initial definition of Regionalism this article gives. It doesn't say anywhere it's simply about regional movements. And almost all examples given in the article are about nationalisms, not just mere regional movements, so adding Transylvanianism to that part is like comparing it to Chechen nationalism, Tibetan nationalism or Galician nationalism, when they are not on the same "level". But if the article is left at its current state, I have no complains. Super Ψ Dro 09:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Transylvanianism

message: Regional parties 106.76.214.228 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social 

message: On the third paragraph of the Regionalism, autonomism, and nationalism section, it is said that Frente Polisario (the national liberation movement of the Sahrawi people) is a secessionist party from "Western Sahara (Morocco)". Although Frente Polisario is indeed a national liberation movement seeking to push a nationalist and what can be arguably considered a regionalist agenda, considering the Front a "secessionist political party from Morocco" goes against the own nature of Polisario as a national liberation movement (Frente Polisario doesn't consider itself a political party) and supports the Moroccan thesis that Western Sahara belongs to Morocco and Polisario simply seeks to separate the territory.
Western Sahara is considered by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory occupied by Morocco, which I'd say clearly means that Western Sahara is not legally or de jure part of Morocco, in other words, treating it as separatist is biased towards Morocco's side and could go against the Neutral point of view of Wikipedia.
I won't remove it from the article myself as I'm clearly biased on this topic and I'd rather see what others think about it. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frente Polisario]] as a secessionist party.