![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Who are those foreigners? French Gascons? -- Error 00:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can the user "Peter Wye" explain exactly why did he unconsideratily revert last night's changes without bothering to discuss any issues he might have in the Talk page first? If this happens again, I'll stick an NPOV banner on this page, as this page is in need of some serious work.
I have restored my version, and anyone wishing to improve it please leave your argumentations on this page first.
From Peter Wye,
I've read everything on this page.
Please see my previous entry, where I pointed to the Linguistic Policy Act, which states that the only official name of Catalan institutions is the Catalan one. That is because Catalan linguistic policy (which is modelled after Quebec's) practises positive discrimination towards Catalan and Aranese, unlike that of, e.g., the Basque Country. Catalan names are also what we use in the expat community.
In addition, you should be aware that the use of Spanish forms for certain Catalan names (such as those of Catalan institutions and politicians) is considered by Catalonians and many Spaniards as a form of Spanish chauvinism, which is why they are not generally used even in the Spanish-speaking media, and part of what makes this article POV in its current form.
Please point out exactly which ones and why, and how that affects NPOV.
I shall note that we are writing an article about Catalonia, rather than Catalonia in the context of the Spanish State. We should branch this out into "Catalonia" and "Catalonia (Autonomous Community)", following the example of the entries for the Basque Country.
In light of what I've indicated above, regarding the official and social use of those names, as well as the custom in the English-speaking community, I shall remove those again. Please don't reinsert them unless you've got an irrefutable argument in favour of doing so.
Lastly, please be careful when making edits (says me who just forgot to save this), you've wiped out quite a bit of useful stuff added by user Error last night. I'll simply revert back to his version because that leaves me happy for the moment. Please advise if any of the other text you dragged back in was intentional (such as the rather verbose explanation of what the Generalitat is, which I had replaced by a short sentence and a link to Generalitat de Catalunya)
Lots more work to do on this article. Next day I'll copy it to a temporary subpage under Talk, which will be used as the basis for the "Catalonia (Autonomous Community)" entry (which is mostly what the current one deals with anyway).
---
Grr! I forgot to save my changes to this Talk page and had to retype them again, that's why the changes to the article went in first.
OK, now that I've finally provided the reasoning for my changes here, I'll revert one back, assuming your revert was due to this unintended absence of agumentation on my part. Once again, pls. careful with those changes, you managed to erase Error's contributions a second time.
And now that you know that introducing the name in Spanish is considered as much of a political statement as is, in your view, not having it, I trust we can move onto more useful work.
---
Update from 10:25, 12 Oct 2004: Added Italian and Arabic to the list of names of the country in various languages. Rationale is that Italy has a (tiny) Catalan-speaking minority, and Arabic is the 1st or 2nd language of a significant part of Catalans.
Modifications on 2004-10-29
Corrected a couple of misspellings, and rewrote the paragraph about the governing coallition ("Maragall's government will thus be an uncomfortable alliance between...") to correct a factual inaccuracy and eliminate its POV tone by removing assertions not backed by independent references and the accuracy of which was debatable.
More work remains to be done on this section. To start with, could someone please provide references to support the paragraph that starts "One of the keys to Catalan politics is the fact that Barcelona..." Seems very unclear to me whether any of the affirmations made there are anything else but the author's personal impression. And what is that paragraph trying to say, anyway?
As for the passage that goes "Despite his radical background, Pujol..." What is meant by Pujol's radical background? Apart from the use of an emotionally charged word, this is the first time I hear someone label Pujol a "radical", and I'm curious as to the reasons why? :)
And now on to the second sentence on the same paragraph. What is it trying to say by saying that "nationalist factions became increasingly dissatisfied with his rule"? Whose rule? Pujol's in Catalonia or Aznar's in Madrid? And what is a "nationalist faction"? The 47.3% of parliamentary representation from the fully autoctonous parties CiU and ERC, or the 85.8% of seats occupied by parties defining themselves or their programmes as "catalanist", or something else? So, was CiU dissatisfied with their own representative's (Pujol) rule, or is CiU not a "nationalist" party, or were these "factions" (including the "faction" governing Catalonia) in fact dissatisfied with Aznar's Spanish government, or exactly what?
In order to improve the above, both from an accuracy, balance, and literary point of view, I suggest that contributions (especially on volatile topics such as politics) be solidly based on (and preferably limited to) factual data, and free of any kind of interpretative comment. Personally, I think a minimal familiarity with the subject would also be beneficial, in order to lessen the risk of the author misinterpreting the data.
From the article: "...this small region of 7,000 is the only place where Occitan (majoritarily spoken in France and some Italian valleys) has full official status." What can this possibly mean? Certainly Occitan is not a majority language in France. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
The "comarques" of Vallespir, Conflent, Fenolleda, Capcir, Alta Cerdanya and Rosselló make up the "Département" of Pyrénées-Orientales and not the "Région" of Languedoc Roussillon, which comprises the Départements of Aude (11), Gard (30), Hérault, Lozère (48) and Pyrénées-Orientales (66). I have therefore rectified this point. (26/11/2004)
Someone inserted the following into the discussion of language: "and Spanish (48%-52%)". I've cut it, but only because it was so terse that it was unclear in its meaning. We should further discuss the status of the Spanish language in Catalonia besides the fact that it is co-official. We have meticulous numbers on how many people in Catalonia understand Catalan and even Aranese, but nothing on the fact that close to 100% understand Spanish at an effectively native level and nothing about the percentage who consider Spanish their first language. This should be an additional section in the article, covered at the same level we cover Catalan and Aranese. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Change 24/12/2004 Ivan. It was said that Catalonia is an autonomous region, but that does not make any sense if you don´t tell to which country it belongs. Knowing the implications of the words country and state in Catalonia i just used the name Spain.
How similar are the Catalan and the Spanish? An answer to this question would make the data about the numbers who understand both languages easier to interpret. For example, some Slavic languages are so similar that the mutual understanding is close to 100%. -- Georgius 13:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Maybe I am not the only one who does not know that the two Romance languages are not so similar as e.g. Czech and Slovak or Serbian and Croatien. Perhaps it could be explained in the article?-- Georgius 17:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added 24/07/2006 "Official languages are Catalan, Spanish (also known as Castilian), and (in Val d'Aran) Aranese."
Catalá (Catalan) is not the same as Castellano (Castilian) Spanish. The two languages are actually quite different (i.e. no use of "ñ", instead use of "ny" - "Banyoles" instead of "Bañoles"; the more common use of "d'" (Catalan) instead of "de" (Castellano) - this is notable even in the names of cities and such "Pica d'Estats" instead of "de Estados" or "Val d'Aran" instead of "Valle de Aran") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.9.8 ( talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.
I feel that this article is being unduly critical of Catalonia. While I personally do not agree with the separatist pretensions that often filter through this article, the edits that have occurred have in my opinion presented Catalonia in a negative light that it does not deserve.
These edits must be discussed.
Peter Wye 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sunday January 2, 2005
I tend to agree, but I will admit that the article is not a priority for me right now. Do you have specific edits to propose? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think the following needs to be substantiated: "The major football club FC Barcelona is "more than a club" and acts as an unofficial "national" team for Catalonia."
I have never heard any Catalan speak of Barça in this light. It is true that it represents the pro-Cataluña side of the divide, but no more than that.
An anonymous editor recently made cuts without explanation. I have restored several where I can see no justification for the cuts. I let the following cut stand, though, because the content seems polemical, and should not be in the narrative voice of the article. If we want to get something like this in there, we should be citing someone as saying it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
A similar passage must have come in while I wasn't looking, and was, again, recently cut without comment. Again, if someone wants opinionated material like this in the article, they need to cite who says this. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I made some of theese cuts without explanation (the ones you kept). It was my first contribution, and don't know how to sign. Sorry. I just felt angered for the hostile style against my country. Thanks for your work! -- Joan sense nick 22:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A recent edit completely changed the lead of the article. Old lead:
Substituted lead:
The question is, is this an article about the Autonomous Community of Catalunya, in Spain, or about historic Catalunya, a now-stateless nation? I think it should be the former: that's what English-speakers most commonly mean when they say "Catalonia" or "Catalunya", and that there should be an article at some other title about Catalonia in the historical sense.
If we decide to go the other way, there is a lot of rewriting to do, because most of this article is specific to the autonomous region (although a few sections are more about the historical entity). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
East Coast Boy, I see that you removed large parts of the article in two edits with no edit summaries. Did you move these somewhere else? Given that this was done from an account with no previous activity, this was a pretty drastic way to start. I don't want to "bite the newbie" but could you please explain: did you move this material (which included quite a few solid citations) somewhere else, or did you just delete it? I have to assume the latter, since your account doesn't show any other edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Bizarre. I thought the consensus conculsion above was that this should be the article on the present-day autonomous region, and that the historic state should go elsewhere. But the exact opposite has happened (the bulk of the former article was cut-and-pasted to Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and the present title, which I would think almost any English-speaker (indeed, almost anyone) would reasonably expect to have lead to the present-day autonomous region is now a near stub about the long-defunct state. And none of the people who have took this apart seem to have thought through how any of this relates to the existing and quite excellent article History of Catalonia which, perhaps mercifully, was not touched in this process.
No one who worked on this gave a comprehensive description of what material was moved where. I am much to busy right now to sort through this. If someone can write such a description, it would be greatly appreciated. If not, I hope that one of the several other experienced editors who has, in the past, worked on this article has some time to look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Look at the how Ireland, Basque Country, Brittany etc. have been resolved. This is completely consistent with them. My friends from Perpinyà are just as Catalan as my friends from Barcelona. In the same way that Belfast is in Ireland, but not in the Republic of Ireland. However, I would agree that a disambiguation page should be added, particularly because there are already lots of links from other pages to Catalonia, some of which refer to the nation and some of which refer to the Autonomous Community. -- 62.57.149.30 16:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a non-sense the disctinction between Catalonia and its actual administrative status! When you look for France, you have to skip to French republic?.
I found political purposes in the supression of any reference of Catalonia as a nation. -- Joan sense nick 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for previous edits without sign. I have removed the divisions of "historic territory of Catalonia" for blatantly false. In the middle ages, Catalonia was part of a kind of multi-kingdom state, named "Corona de Aragón" (Aragón Crown). Its king was king of Aragón, Valencia, Baleares (Balearic islands) and count of Barcelona (something as king of Catalonia). "Historic Catalonia" (if you consider Barcelona County as Catalonia, which I agree)never was composed of Valencia, Balearic Islands and 'a fringe of Aragón'. That could be (partially) right IF you are talking about Catalonian-SPEAKING territories. Catón 18:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you in a point: Catalonia was a part of the "Crown of Aragon", and "Historic Catalonia" never included the Kingdom of Valencia and the Balearic Islands (Kingdom of Majorca).
But, unfortunatelly, this is NOT what you have cutted off:
This paragraph refers to the parts of Catalonia ceded to France in 1659 ( Treaty of the Pyrenees), and to Aragon when a new territorial division of Spain was made, I think in 1812. There is not a word about Valencia nor the Islands. So I don't understand your objections.
Besides, you make some historic errors: The Kingdom of Aragon never included Valencia, the Islands nor Catalonia. It's not the same "Kingdom of Aragon" than "Crown of Aragon". This Crown, in certain periods, included other kingdoms, and the catalan counties.
By the way, you can see my suggestion in order of the use the name of the Crown of Aragon to designate this more accuratelly.
-- Joan sense nick 23:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I have never said that kingdom of Aragon possessed Valencia. Please, read my post. I accept your view: 'Crown of Aragon' to refer to the political entity grouping Aragon, Catalonia and, eventually, Valencia, Balearic Islands and Italian territories. Catalano-Aragonese Kingdom would be OK, since it has some use among historians (though it can be objected by valencianos and balears). Catalonia should refer only to the domain of counts of Barcelona or the regions with this name after 1476.
I have changed the title 'Decline of Catalonia' instead of 'Catalonia after the Middle Ages'. I can not understand why 'decline of Catalonia' coincides with unification with Castille. It is a bit strange to talk about 'decline' and tell how Catalonia got industrialised. or how Catalonia got richer. With the same motivations you could talk about 'Decline of Castille' or 'Decline of Catalonia' when it unified.
Paisos Catalans
I insist: The term 'Paisos Catalans' is an insult to Valencianos and people from Balearic Islands. (I am not, by the record). I can not understand why it stands. Please, try a Google search. You will only find it in nationalists pages.
About the map 8th century
The map about Spain in 8th century is just wrong. Firstly, it talks about '8th century'. If before 711, it should have included whole pensinsule under visighotic kingdom, but assuming it presents Islamic power I understand that it shows Hispania (current Spain&Portugal) and S current France. If so, why does it include Asturica, Galicia and Cantabria (sorry, which kingdom is this?)as 'Territoris sota obediencia del Califato Omeia de Damasc'? They were independent territories (en passant, they are represented far larger than they were) or, at least, as independent or as goth as the 'Regne Got D'Ardó'. When Pirenaic kingdoms were set, they owned only the mountains (Aragò, Ribagorza...) and only after francs' intervention they enlarged. The extension showed by the map it was only reached several centuries later.
More: The 'valiat d'Hispania': Why does it include Tarraconensis, Baetica and so on? They were roman provinces, not Islamic ones.
More: The 'bascons lliures'. Well, let us admit there were independent basques tribes both sides the Pirineos. Were they more lliures than catalans?
Summary: What nationalist page are this map taken from? Catón 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the map after waiting comments. There are many maps on kingdoms in Middles Ages Spain. If someone has one without copyright problems, post it. Catón 15:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The distinction between Catalonia (nation) an Autonomous Community of Catalonia (spanish decentralized administration of part of the catalan territory) can solve the problem, but only if contents of each one are accurately defined.
Most of cultural and historical contents must be included in "Catalonia". "Aut. Community of Cat." should include only the contents that concern strictly the territory of this Autonomous Community (the educational system, in exemple). This is the general sense of the contents in articles about Ireland or Britanny, quoted above.
Note that it's also possible to differentiate between "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain". So the Autonomous Community of Catalonia is a part of de current Kingdom of Spain.
If Catalonia is a part of Spain or not (I think not) is an issue in discussion. The neutral point of view policy in wikipedia is preserved using always a double reference of the articles: Catalonia can be included in "European countries" and also in "Subdivisions of Spain". Its a good formula for nations with not recognized state, and information is not cutted off but increased. -- Joan sense nick 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Joan, the Autonomous Community of Catalonia IS in Spain. This is a fact we cannot deny (I don't like it any more than you do, but the Encyclopedia is for facts, not for points of view). But the historic territory is now split between France and Spain.
For those who understand Catalan, I've just looked at the Catalan articles, and they have done the same as us. If you understand Catalan, look at the pages and it will probably give you some ideas on how to improve the two English pages.
I think disambiguation is definitely needed because of the fact that the word "Catalonia" can refer to either the Autonomus Community or the nation. It is not uncommon in France for "Catalogne" to refer to the Pyrénées Orientales department, though generally they would say the "pays catalan". -- 62.57.149.30 10:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
In any event, as material about Catalonia is becoming a bit scattered, I've started a template {{ Catalan-speaking world}}. As of this writing, it's "not ready for prime time" but I'd love to have help in getting it there. We could then add this to the relevant articles to "stitch them together": much more useful than a disambiguation page, though probably we should have that, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
(I have moved the following comment, which was inappropriately added at the top of the page approximately 28 Sept 2005 by User:Catón. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC))
In my humble opinion, the whole article should be removed.
The only vision is those of hardcore Catalan nationalists.The article is fully biased, politized and useless.
The very name 'Paisos Catalans' is considered for most non-nationalists as an insult and a show of imperialism.
Regarding the language: People from Valencia (including 'Estatuto valenciano') think valenciano is a separate language from Catalan. It is a matter of discussion but, agreed or not, it should be mentioned. Furthermore catalan /valenciano is not spoken at all in some parts of Valencia (while it is said it is spoken in a tiny part of Aragon, which is right, but, if not mentioned the aforementioned, biased).
Half the people in Catalonia speaks Spanish as its mother language. Every paper in Catalonia (including the most read, EL Periódico de Catalunya and La Vanguardia are Spanish-written. Those things is not mentioned. Why? Franco banned Catalan. Right. Nowadays Catalonian Government has almost banned Spanish in Catalonia. This is not mentioned. Why?
Regarding other topics:
When Catalonia enters into Spain the title is 'Decline of Catalonia' Why? Catalonia was a part of Aragón Crown (as the same level as Baleares, Aragón or Valencia) during all Middle Ages.
The modifications I entered were removed for no specific reasons, while the nationalist rubbish (sorry, but I can not find any other term to define the article) stands.
<end moved comments>
Well, I was trying to give reasons, but I see we are talking to a nationalist. - Your first remark comments itself. - The term Paisos Catalans is a 'show of imperialism'. Ask anyone, outside the nationalist world.'The successful inclusion of most of the Catalan-speaking world in France and Spain' is a show of peaceful integration among lands. This is my personal opinion. AS that is my PERSONAL opinion I do not ask to be included in the article. Meanwhile, the hateful 'Paisos Catalans' stands. - The discussion about Valenciano and Catalan is the most interesting, but it is not EVEN mentioned, nor the fact that Paralamento Valenciano thinks otherwise. Any reader of YOUR article will think Valencia is a kind of appendix of Catalonia. - Avui is the most susidied paper in Spain, while La Vanguardia and El Periódico (as well as 'Madrid' papers, of course) are written in Spanish (except the subsidied supplements, of course). The point is 'Catalan is not, by far, the only language in Catalonia'. This is so false as saying (Franco)that Spanish is the only language in Spain. - Decline of Catalonia: When Aragon Crown united with Castille, it has just passed a horrible civil war. It was empoverished and it saw Peninsular trade as a good alternative to Turkish-blocked Mediterranean Sea. As a matter of fact, Zaragoza (Saragosse) was larger than Barcelona. Aragon Crown only had (from your 'Mediterranean empire') Sicily, owned by a branch of the Aragonese royal family. Eventually, Aragon (with Catalonia) recovered Naples and Sicily, under the command of 'El Gran Capitán'... a castillian with mostly castillian troops. Catalonia was (by far) smaller than Castille. Of course the trade shifted to Atlantic. America was discovered, you know. And Turkish blocked Mediterranean sea, in spite of the efforts of the ...Spanish (Aragonese&Castillian) fleet. At the end of the 'decline' Catalonia is the main power in Spain, economic and cultural (many SPANISH speaking publishers are sited in Barcelona, when, you know, nobody can speak proper Spanish). I want to decline!
As a summary, this article has one view, YOURS. Check ANY other encyclopedia and tell me if they look similar. Catón 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Marco, my point is very simple: Catalan and Spanish live together in catalonia. Any attempt to say that only Catalan is spoken (as the article tells) is wrong. As you say, Catalonia is bilingual.
But you have not explained why you have returned to the previous version, when: - There was a silly map. Please, try a Google search on 'Regne got d'Arcó' or look for ANY 8th century Iberian Peninsula map. - I simply pointed out (quite softly, I must say) that Paisos Catalans is only used in nationalist circles. Which are your arguments for reverting such changes?
...and you are right. El Periódico has a Catalan edition ...since 1997! La pela es la pela (money is money). -- Catón 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to edit a version that, I hope, can be universally accepted.
Some comments to Catón:
-- Joan sense nick 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the name of the language in 'valenciano' (Spanish) is 'valencià' (Valencian). The point is I did not know how to say 'Valenciano' in English. I should have said 'Valencian'.
I am not a linguist. I only to make clear:
1) Many valencians think they speak a separate language of Catalan. 2) In Valencian 'Estatuto', the language they talk is referred as 'Valencian', not Catalan."The two official languages of the Autonomous Community are the Valencian and the Castilian. Everyone has the right to know and use them.".
I have no personal 'love' for the term 'Valencian' but the opinion of Valencians should be mentioned.
About the map. The point is that the map is pointless. It has no link to anything I know from Middle Ages History. I do not know the motivation of the author but I have said several things nobody has answered about the map.
By the way, you are right. The right term is, of course, 'Catalan' and not my 'Catalonian'.-- Catón 12:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please clarify the sentence: "and the small Franja de Ponent or Western Strip, part of the Spanish region (now Autonomous Community) of Aragon since 1812." I don't know much about the rest of the Franja, but Peter IV of Aragon (1319 - 1387) confirmed Fraga as belonging to Aragon. And as far as I know it stayed like that. Thanks, -- 84.56.158.168 21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake, the correct date is 1822, I should have consulted before...
You can find information on the history of fraga here:
[1],
[2] and
[3].
As you can see, the zone have changed of jurisiction several times, as is usual in most frontier zones. The historical frontier between Aragon and Catalonia was usually the Cinca river, that divides the city, (in some periods, the city was also divided between this two territories!). I include the zone to the "Catalan-speaking world" in a cultural and linguistic sense.
--
Joan sense nick
22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I am not an expert in history. But I think we have not so oposed points of view: the references GREC) given confirms part of the historic facts you have exposed. The zone have suffered several jurisdiction changes and is disputed.
But, it's a fact (not an opinion) that in the zone between Cinca River and current Autonomous Community of Catalonia there are native catalan-speakers. One of them, the Mequinensa-born important catalan novel author Jesus Moncada. Another one, the President of the Autonomous Community of Aragon (a Catalan native speaker himself, I think). So "la Franja" belongs to a "Catalan-speaking world.
If you can read in Spanish, take a look at the (not POV suspicious) spanish wikipedia article: Franja [4]. The definition of limits is quite detailed there. -- Joan sense nick 10:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
We have had people decide that this article should be only about the historic domain, and tear out everything about the present-day autonomous community. We have had people decide that this article should be only about the present-day autonomous community and tear out everything about the historic domain. Frankly, this is an enormous waste of everyone's time. Without favoring one ultimate solution over another, can we try to reach some kind of consensus before people go ripping apart the article again? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
A vandal recently increased the confusion on this article: now we have "Catalonia", "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" and "Traditional catalan domain". What's next?
It's clear that the target of such editions are NOT to give a best information on Catalonia in the encyclopedia, but to use it with political intentions. Main of them, to cut off any reference to Catalonia as a nation. Others, to describe an independent free Catalonia that is not real nowadays.
In my opinion, most references in others articles on the wikipedia refers to "Catalonia", so this must be the main article on such issue.
The complexity of the definition of the geographic limits of Catalonia, and the confusion between Catalonia and the countries where Catalan is spoken (Catalan-speaking world is an excellent consensus word) are not easy to deal just in an article. I think "Catalonia" can be the main reference, on cultural issues (the most commonly quoted in other articles), and from "Catalonia", we can give a links to "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" and to the articles on the other historic countries that have been part of Catalonia in history.
"Autonomous Community of Catalonia" , in my opinion, can't be the main article, because:
Please, the inclusion of POV should be evited. Issues with complex diverse versions can use the formula "some catalan nationalists think ... " or, "this issue is currently in discussion" or so. But don't cut the work done, neither increase the number of redirections. This is an enciclopedia, to give true information. All information.
I ask administrators to move "Traditional catalan domain", and replace its contents to "Catalonia". -- Joan sense nick 09:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Joan sense nick in one sense: The main article should be 'Catalonia' and this article should include the contents of the 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'. I do not know which is the Wikipedia's usual way but I would prefer 'California' better than 'State of California' or Badajoz instead of 'Province of Badajoz'
However, I do not quite understand these sentences:
Which are exactly these territories? I do not know none. Of course, I consider 'relevant' more than 10%.
'Kingdom of Spain' is a name not used during First and Second Republic and most of Franco's rule. I do not see as a motivation to get rid of it.
I heartly encourage the use of remarks such as 'nationalists think...'. As a matter of fact the lack of these qualifications is what was spoiling the article.
Anyway, I think some of the last contributions well documented and should be maintained. Catón 11:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to revert to previous state but I will try to make both Catalonia and Autonommous Community of Catalonia less PVO biased (not only because national reasons) I can understand that especially many Spanish-centric contributors may consider (and I mean the whole kingdom, independently of political opinions) Catalonia only for the Spanish autonomy, but it's not true for instance for some French and Northern Catalonians, who can even regard Catalonia only for what is also Pays Catalan. I would personally put Catalonia as the historic territory (and this does not mean that there are not current links between North and South, which are indeed increasing) and I would point, as I have done in previous editions, disambiguations of Southern and Northern Catalonia in the header of the page. Another option would be to place a full disambiguation page and point to the different terms.
Please, opinions are welcomed. Let's discuss it here. Actions performed by IP or newly created users changing things without previous discussion are not a proper model. Toniher 11:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
'Catalunya Nord' (North Catalonia) is nationalist neospeak. The presence of Catalan language north of the Pyrinees is (sadly) very weak, let alone Catalan 'feelings'. I have never seen a large demonstration in N. Catalonia asking for 're-union' with Spanish Catalonia or for linguistic reasons.
So, I think Catalonia = A.C. of Catalonia. Of course, you can talk about French people speaking Catalan. When you speak about Catalonia History you should talk about Rousillon and Cerdanya (the same when talking about Spanish history) and when you talk about nationalist Catalan movements, you should talk about the scarce movements in France.
I know that they are people in Mexico that like to consider itself as Spanish instead of Mexicans, but that is no excuse to talk about American Spain and European Spain. Spain is the kingdom of Spain and you will only talk about other territories when talking about the language (Hispanic America, Equatorial Guinea, partly Philippines,...) or the History (Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Rousillon,...)-- Catón 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Catón 10:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Catón 14:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The main article should be 'Catalonia' and this article should include the contents of the 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'.Usually, when people speak about Catalalonia, it refers to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia and not of the historic territory.
I wouldn't object to any arrangement that can get some consensus, but here are two alternatives I would prefer
Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Wishing to help finding consensus, I agree with Jmabel. The real goal now must be to have one only article, and the best name is "Catalonia". Others must redirect there. --
Joan sense nick
21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Just two remarks on "Northern Catalonia" (facts, not opinions):
Just other remarks (facts, not opinions):
- Of course it is possible to be Catalan and French, so Catalan and Spanish. I am Spanish and European, Hispanic and European, European and mediterranean, Iberic and Latin. They use 'Perpignan/Perpinyà la Catalan' the same way in Olivenza are proud of its Portuguese origin... with none wanting to return to Portugal.
Check in the page www.mairie-perpignan.fr who has won the elections in Perpignan (French parties, with no presence of Catalan parties).
- I agree with you: North Catalonia it's not 'a real entity'. Check again if the 'Mairie' of Perpignan uses it (or anyone in any 'normal' encyclopaedia, or anyone who is not directly linked with RADICAL Catalan nationalists. Check if even CiU or Generalitat use it.
Again: You are inventing a politically-charged name and assume everything use it. I strongly disagree. The territories Catalonia lost in 17th century are named in every history book Rossellò or Rossellò i Cerdanya (Catalan). Yo can claim it, you can think it is Catalan territory, you can think it is as Catalan soil as Paseo de Gracia. And maybe you are right and Almighty God agree with you, but this does not change its name. France has longed (successfully) for Alsace and Lorraine for 47 years, but none has named them 'France Est'. They were 'l'Alsace et la Lorraine'.
By the way, I want Rossellò back. The greater Catalonia, the greater Spain.
-- Catón 10:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
There is an edition war in infobox title. There seems to be some guidelines about writing down only the official name. I do not know how it would apply in this case, and I do not have a strong opinion about. However, I have added the Occitan name, since it's official as well in Val d'Aran. Finally, I would suggest all these anonymous people to go to Spain entry and add all the official languages apart from the Spanish Reino de España. Come on! I would like you to be as insistent as you have been here. Toniher 13:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about an editing war: what there does appear to be is a persistent attempt (seemingly by the same small group of "editors") to introduce Catalan nationalist propaganda into what is supposed to be a neutral information page in an encyclopaedia. This is an inappropriate forum to ventilate such sentiments, and it would be a pity if this page were to end up "locked" as a result of the "unionist" versus "nationalist" vituperation which has already disgraced the companion page in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia.
For native English-speakers (such as myself), and doubtless for all non-Iberian users of the English-language Wikipedia, it is a matter of utter indifference whether Catalonia remains in Spain or becomes an independent "nation". However, as a neutral information resource, the article should reflect the status quo, not nationalist wishful-thinking. For better or worse, Catalonia presently remains a region within a country. Accordingly, common sense dictates that the autonomous community's "official name" in Spanish, the "official language" throughout the "country", should take precedence over the "official name" in the language spoken only in the "region". By way of comparison, this is what happens in Wales or Scotland, which also have their own parliaments - and even their own football teams!
Your call for a tit-for-tat editing of the entry for "Spain" betrays your ill-concealed nationalist agenda, as does your hollow (and bogus) recourse to a supposed "policy" on official names. However, what gives you away is your wish to relegate the community's official name in Spanish to a position below even that of the supposedly "official" name in Aranese - an Occitan mountain-dialect spoken by around 5,000 people. Since even the Generalitat's website does not feel the need to publish an Aranese version, it is difficult to see this as anything other than a gratuitous (and childish) excuse to denigrate the Spanish language.
This sort of Balkanistic, point-scoring propaganda has no place here. Please take it somewhere else.
An Englishman (17 October 2005)
ca - es - oc: Comment which of them and in what order. Toniher 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm no Catalan (nor Spanish, for that matter) and I try to be unbiased. Since in Catalonia toponomy is official only in Catalan (unlike Basque Country and Galicia), I think Catalan should be in first place, then Spanish and then Aranese. It's my opinion. We should not compare with Wales or Scotland, where particular languages are much less used than Catalan in Catalonia and where English toponomy is used more often. Marco Neves 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Who are those foreigners? French Gascons? -- Error 00:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can the user "Peter Wye" explain exactly why did he unconsideratily revert last night's changes without bothering to discuss any issues he might have in the Talk page first? If this happens again, I'll stick an NPOV banner on this page, as this page is in need of some serious work.
I have restored my version, and anyone wishing to improve it please leave your argumentations on this page first.
From Peter Wye,
I've read everything on this page.
Please see my previous entry, where I pointed to the Linguistic Policy Act, which states that the only official name of Catalan institutions is the Catalan one. That is because Catalan linguistic policy (which is modelled after Quebec's) practises positive discrimination towards Catalan and Aranese, unlike that of, e.g., the Basque Country. Catalan names are also what we use in the expat community.
In addition, you should be aware that the use of Spanish forms for certain Catalan names (such as those of Catalan institutions and politicians) is considered by Catalonians and many Spaniards as a form of Spanish chauvinism, which is why they are not generally used even in the Spanish-speaking media, and part of what makes this article POV in its current form.
Please point out exactly which ones and why, and how that affects NPOV.
I shall note that we are writing an article about Catalonia, rather than Catalonia in the context of the Spanish State. We should branch this out into "Catalonia" and "Catalonia (Autonomous Community)", following the example of the entries for the Basque Country.
In light of what I've indicated above, regarding the official and social use of those names, as well as the custom in the English-speaking community, I shall remove those again. Please don't reinsert them unless you've got an irrefutable argument in favour of doing so.
Lastly, please be careful when making edits (says me who just forgot to save this), you've wiped out quite a bit of useful stuff added by user Error last night. I'll simply revert back to his version because that leaves me happy for the moment. Please advise if any of the other text you dragged back in was intentional (such as the rather verbose explanation of what the Generalitat is, which I had replaced by a short sentence and a link to Generalitat de Catalunya)
Lots more work to do on this article. Next day I'll copy it to a temporary subpage under Talk, which will be used as the basis for the "Catalonia (Autonomous Community)" entry (which is mostly what the current one deals with anyway).
---
Grr! I forgot to save my changes to this Talk page and had to retype them again, that's why the changes to the article went in first.
OK, now that I've finally provided the reasoning for my changes here, I'll revert one back, assuming your revert was due to this unintended absence of agumentation on my part. Once again, pls. careful with those changes, you managed to erase Error's contributions a second time.
And now that you know that introducing the name in Spanish is considered as much of a political statement as is, in your view, not having it, I trust we can move onto more useful work.
---
Update from 10:25, 12 Oct 2004: Added Italian and Arabic to the list of names of the country in various languages. Rationale is that Italy has a (tiny) Catalan-speaking minority, and Arabic is the 1st or 2nd language of a significant part of Catalans.
Modifications on 2004-10-29
Corrected a couple of misspellings, and rewrote the paragraph about the governing coallition ("Maragall's government will thus be an uncomfortable alliance between...") to correct a factual inaccuracy and eliminate its POV tone by removing assertions not backed by independent references and the accuracy of which was debatable.
More work remains to be done on this section. To start with, could someone please provide references to support the paragraph that starts "One of the keys to Catalan politics is the fact that Barcelona..." Seems very unclear to me whether any of the affirmations made there are anything else but the author's personal impression. And what is that paragraph trying to say, anyway?
As for the passage that goes "Despite his radical background, Pujol..." What is meant by Pujol's radical background? Apart from the use of an emotionally charged word, this is the first time I hear someone label Pujol a "radical", and I'm curious as to the reasons why? :)
And now on to the second sentence on the same paragraph. What is it trying to say by saying that "nationalist factions became increasingly dissatisfied with his rule"? Whose rule? Pujol's in Catalonia or Aznar's in Madrid? And what is a "nationalist faction"? The 47.3% of parliamentary representation from the fully autoctonous parties CiU and ERC, or the 85.8% of seats occupied by parties defining themselves or their programmes as "catalanist", or something else? So, was CiU dissatisfied with their own representative's (Pujol) rule, or is CiU not a "nationalist" party, or were these "factions" (including the "faction" governing Catalonia) in fact dissatisfied with Aznar's Spanish government, or exactly what?
In order to improve the above, both from an accuracy, balance, and literary point of view, I suggest that contributions (especially on volatile topics such as politics) be solidly based on (and preferably limited to) factual data, and free of any kind of interpretative comment. Personally, I think a minimal familiarity with the subject would also be beneficial, in order to lessen the risk of the author misinterpreting the data.
From the article: "...this small region of 7,000 is the only place where Occitan (majoritarily spoken in France and some Italian valleys) has full official status." What can this possibly mean? Certainly Occitan is not a majority language in France. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
The "comarques" of Vallespir, Conflent, Fenolleda, Capcir, Alta Cerdanya and Rosselló make up the "Département" of Pyrénées-Orientales and not the "Région" of Languedoc Roussillon, which comprises the Départements of Aude (11), Gard (30), Hérault, Lozère (48) and Pyrénées-Orientales (66). I have therefore rectified this point. (26/11/2004)
Someone inserted the following into the discussion of language: "and Spanish (48%-52%)". I've cut it, but only because it was so terse that it was unclear in its meaning. We should further discuss the status of the Spanish language in Catalonia besides the fact that it is co-official. We have meticulous numbers on how many people in Catalonia understand Catalan and even Aranese, but nothing on the fact that close to 100% understand Spanish at an effectively native level and nothing about the percentage who consider Spanish their first language. This should be an additional section in the article, covered at the same level we cover Catalan and Aranese. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Change 24/12/2004 Ivan. It was said that Catalonia is an autonomous region, but that does not make any sense if you don´t tell to which country it belongs. Knowing the implications of the words country and state in Catalonia i just used the name Spain.
How similar are the Catalan and the Spanish? An answer to this question would make the data about the numbers who understand both languages easier to interpret. For example, some Slavic languages are so similar that the mutual understanding is close to 100%. -- Georgius 13:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Maybe I am not the only one who does not know that the two Romance languages are not so similar as e.g. Czech and Slovak or Serbian and Croatien. Perhaps it could be explained in the article?-- Georgius 17:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Added 24/07/2006 "Official languages are Catalan, Spanish (also known as Castilian), and (in Val d'Aran) Aranese."
Catalá (Catalan) is not the same as Castellano (Castilian) Spanish. The two languages are actually quite different (i.e. no use of "ñ", instead use of "ny" - "Banyoles" instead of "Bañoles"; the more common use of "d'" (Catalan) instead of "de" (Castellano) - this is notable even in the names of cities and such "Pica d'Estats" instead of "de Estados" or "Val d'Aran" instead of "Valle de Aran") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.9.8 ( talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.
I feel that this article is being unduly critical of Catalonia. While I personally do not agree with the separatist pretensions that often filter through this article, the edits that have occurred have in my opinion presented Catalonia in a negative light that it does not deserve.
These edits must be discussed.
Peter Wye 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sunday January 2, 2005
I tend to agree, but I will admit that the article is not a priority for me right now. Do you have specific edits to propose? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think the following needs to be substantiated: "The major football club FC Barcelona is "more than a club" and acts as an unofficial "national" team for Catalonia."
I have never heard any Catalan speak of Barça in this light. It is true that it represents the pro-Cataluña side of the divide, but no more than that.
An anonymous editor recently made cuts without explanation. I have restored several where I can see no justification for the cuts. I let the following cut stand, though, because the content seems polemical, and should not be in the narrative voice of the article. If we want to get something like this in there, we should be citing someone as saying it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
A similar passage must have come in while I wasn't looking, and was, again, recently cut without comment. Again, if someone wants opinionated material like this in the article, they need to cite who says this. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I made some of theese cuts without explanation (the ones you kept). It was my first contribution, and don't know how to sign. Sorry. I just felt angered for the hostile style against my country. Thanks for your work! -- Joan sense nick 22:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A recent edit completely changed the lead of the article. Old lead:
Substituted lead:
The question is, is this an article about the Autonomous Community of Catalunya, in Spain, or about historic Catalunya, a now-stateless nation? I think it should be the former: that's what English-speakers most commonly mean when they say "Catalonia" or "Catalunya", and that there should be an article at some other title about Catalonia in the historical sense.
If we decide to go the other way, there is a lot of rewriting to do, because most of this article is specific to the autonomous region (although a few sections are more about the historical entity). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
East Coast Boy, I see that you removed large parts of the article in two edits with no edit summaries. Did you move these somewhere else? Given that this was done from an account with no previous activity, this was a pretty drastic way to start. I don't want to "bite the newbie" but could you please explain: did you move this material (which included quite a few solid citations) somewhere else, or did you just delete it? I have to assume the latter, since your account doesn't show any other edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Bizarre. I thought the consensus conculsion above was that this should be the article on the present-day autonomous region, and that the historic state should go elsewhere. But the exact opposite has happened (the bulk of the former article was cut-and-pasted to Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and the present title, which I would think almost any English-speaker (indeed, almost anyone) would reasonably expect to have lead to the present-day autonomous region is now a near stub about the long-defunct state. And none of the people who have took this apart seem to have thought through how any of this relates to the existing and quite excellent article History of Catalonia which, perhaps mercifully, was not touched in this process.
No one who worked on this gave a comprehensive description of what material was moved where. I am much to busy right now to sort through this. If someone can write such a description, it would be greatly appreciated. If not, I hope that one of the several other experienced editors who has, in the past, worked on this article has some time to look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Look at the how Ireland, Basque Country, Brittany etc. have been resolved. This is completely consistent with them. My friends from Perpinyà are just as Catalan as my friends from Barcelona. In the same way that Belfast is in Ireland, but not in the Republic of Ireland. However, I would agree that a disambiguation page should be added, particularly because there are already lots of links from other pages to Catalonia, some of which refer to the nation and some of which refer to the Autonomous Community. -- 62.57.149.30 16:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a non-sense the disctinction between Catalonia and its actual administrative status! When you look for France, you have to skip to French republic?.
I found political purposes in the supression of any reference of Catalonia as a nation. -- Joan sense nick 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for previous edits without sign. I have removed the divisions of "historic territory of Catalonia" for blatantly false. In the middle ages, Catalonia was part of a kind of multi-kingdom state, named "Corona de Aragón" (Aragón Crown). Its king was king of Aragón, Valencia, Baleares (Balearic islands) and count of Barcelona (something as king of Catalonia). "Historic Catalonia" (if you consider Barcelona County as Catalonia, which I agree)never was composed of Valencia, Balearic Islands and 'a fringe of Aragón'. That could be (partially) right IF you are talking about Catalonian-SPEAKING territories. Catón 18:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you in a point: Catalonia was a part of the "Crown of Aragon", and "Historic Catalonia" never included the Kingdom of Valencia and the Balearic Islands (Kingdom of Majorca).
But, unfortunatelly, this is NOT what you have cutted off:
This paragraph refers to the parts of Catalonia ceded to France in 1659 ( Treaty of the Pyrenees), and to Aragon when a new territorial division of Spain was made, I think in 1812. There is not a word about Valencia nor the Islands. So I don't understand your objections.
Besides, you make some historic errors: The Kingdom of Aragon never included Valencia, the Islands nor Catalonia. It's not the same "Kingdom of Aragon" than "Crown of Aragon". This Crown, in certain periods, included other kingdoms, and the catalan counties.
By the way, you can see my suggestion in order of the use the name of the Crown of Aragon to designate this more accuratelly.
-- Joan sense nick 23:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I have never said that kingdom of Aragon possessed Valencia. Please, read my post. I accept your view: 'Crown of Aragon' to refer to the political entity grouping Aragon, Catalonia and, eventually, Valencia, Balearic Islands and Italian territories. Catalano-Aragonese Kingdom would be OK, since it has some use among historians (though it can be objected by valencianos and balears). Catalonia should refer only to the domain of counts of Barcelona or the regions with this name after 1476.
I have changed the title 'Decline of Catalonia' instead of 'Catalonia after the Middle Ages'. I can not understand why 'decline of Catalonia' coincides with unification with Castille. It is a bit strange to talk about 'decline' and tell how Catalonia got industrialised. or how Catalonia got richer. With the same motivations you could talk about 'Decline of Castille' or 'Decline of Catalonia' when it unified.
Paisos Catalans
I insist: The term 'Paisos Catalans' is an insult to Valencianos and people from Balearic Islands. (I am not, by the record). I can not understand why it stands. Please, try a Google search. You will only find it in nationalists pages.
About the map 8th century
The map about Spain in 8th century is just wrong. Firstly, it talks about '8th century'. If before 711, it should have included whole pensinsule under visighotic kingdom, but assuming it presents Islamic power I understand that it shows Hispania (current Spain&Portugal) and S current France. If so, why does it include Asturica, Galicia and Cantabria (sorry, which kingdom is this?)as 'Territoris sota obediencia del Califato Omeia de Damasc'? They were independent territories (en passant, they are represented far larger than they were) or, at least, as independent or as goth as the 'Regne Got D'Ardó'. When Pirenaic kingdoms were set, they owned only the mountains (Aragò, Ribagorza...) and only after francs' intervention they enlarged. The extension showed by the map it was only reached several centuries later.
More: The 'valiat d'Hispania': Why does it include Tarraconensis, Baetica and so on? They were roman provinces, not Islamic ones.
More: The 'bascons lliures'. Well, let us admit there were independent basques tribes both sides the Pirineos. Were they more lliures than catalans?
Summary: What nationalist page are this map taken from? Catón 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the map after waiting comments. There are many maps on kingdoms in Middles Ages Spain. If someone has one without copyright problems, post it. Catón 15:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The distinction between Catalonia (nation) an Autonomous Community of Catalonia (spanish decentralized administration of part of the catalan territory) can solve the problem, but only if contents of each one are accurately defined.
Most of cultural and historical contents must be included in "Catalonia". "Aut. Community of Cat." should include only the contents that concern strictly the territory of this Autonomous Community (the educational system, in exemple). This is the general sense of the contents in articles about Ireland or Britanny, quoted above.
Note that it's also possible to differentiate between "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain". So the Autonomous Community of Catalonia is a part of de current Kingdom of Spain.
If Catalonia is a part of Spain or not (I think not) is an issue in discussion. The neutral point of view policy in wikipedia is preserved using always a double reference of the articles: Catalonia can be included in "European countries" and also in "Subdivisions of Spain". Its a good formula for nations with not recognized state, and information is not cutted off but increased. -- Joan sense nick 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Joan, the Autonomous Community of Catalonia IS in Spain. This is a fact we cannot deny (I don't like it any more than you do, but the Encyclopedia is for facts, not for points of view). But the historic territory is now split between France and Spain.
For those who understand Catalan, I've just looked at the Catalan articles, and they have done the same as us. If you understand Catalan, look at the pages and it will probably give you some ideas on how to improve the two English pages.
I think disambiguation is definitely needed because of the fact that the word "Catalonia" can refer to either the Autonomus Community or the nation. It is not uncommon in France for "Catalogne" to refer to the Pyrénées Orientales department, though generally they would say the "pays catalan". -- 62.57.149.30 10:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
In any event, as material about Catalonia is becoming a bit scattered, I've started a template {{ Catalan-speaking world}}. As of this writing, it's "not ready for prime time" but I'd love to have help in getting it there. We could then add this to the relevant articles to "stitch them together": much more useful than a disambiguation page, though probably we should have that, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
(I have moved the following comment, which was inappropriately added at the top of the page approximately 28 Sept 2005 by User:Catón. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC))
In my humble opinion, the whole article should be removed.
The only vision is those of hardcore Catalan nationalists.The article is fully biased, politized and useless.
The very name 'Paisos Catalans' is considered for most non-nationalists as an insult and a show of imperialism.
Regarding the language: People from Valencia (including 'Estatuto valenciano') think valenciano is a separate language from Catalan. It is a matter of discussion but, agreed or not, it should be mentioned. Furthermore catalan /valenciano is not spoken at all in some parts of Valencia (while it is said it is spoken in a tiny part of Aragon, which is right, but, if not mentioned the aforementioned, biased).
Half the people in Catalonia speaks Spanish as its mother language. Every paper in Catalonia (including the most read, EL Periódico de Catalunya and La Vanguardia are Spanish-written. Those things is not mentioned. Why? Franco banned Catalan. Right. Nowadays Catalonian Government has almost banned Spanish in Catalonia. This is not mentioned. Why?
Regarding other topics:
When Catalonia enters into Spain the title is 'Decline of Catalonia' Why? Catalonia was a part of Aragón Crown (as the same level as Baleares, Aragón or Valencia) during all Middle Ages.
The modifications I entered were removed for no specific reasons, while the nationalist rubbish (sorry, but I can not find any other term to define the article) stands.
<end moved comments>
Well, I was trying to give reasons, but I see we are talking to a nationalist. - Your first remark comments itself. - The term Paisos Catalans is a 'show of imperialism'. Ask anyone, outside the nationalist world.'The successful inclusion of most of the Catalan-speaking world in France and Spain' is a show of peaceful integration among lands. This is my personal opinion. AS that is my PERSONAL opinion I do not ask to be included in the article. Meanwhile, the hateful 'Paisos Catalans' stands. - The discussion about Valenciano and Catalan is the most interesting, but it is not EVEN mentioned, nor the fact that Paralamento Valenciano thinks otherwise. Any reader of YOUR article will think Valencia is a kind of appendix of Catalonia. - Avui is the most susidied paper in Spain, while La Vanguardia and El Periódico (as well as 'Madrid' papers, of course) are written in Spanish (except the subsidied supplements, of course). The point is 'Catalan is not, by far, the only language in Catalonia'. This is so false as saying (Franco)that Spanish is the only language in Spain. - Decline of Catalonia: When Aragon Crown united with Castille, it has just passed a horrible civil war. It was empoverished and it saw Peninsular trade as a good alternative to Turkish-blocked Mediterranean Sea. As a matter of fact, Zaragoza (Saragosse) was larger than Barcelona. Aragon Crown only had (from your 'Mediterranean empire') Sicily, owned by a branch of the Aragonese royal family. Eventually, Aragon (with Catalonia) recovered Naples and Sicily, under the command of 'El Gran Capitán'... a castillian with mostly castillian troops. Catalonia was (by far) smaller than Castille. Of course the trade shifted to Atlantic. America was discovered, you know. And Turkish blocked Mediterranean sea, in spite of the efforts of the ...Spanish (Aragonese&Castillian) fleet. At the end of the 'decline' Catalonia is the main power in Spain, economic and cultural (many SPANISH speaking publishers are sited in Barcelona, when, you know, nobody can speak proper Spanish). I want to decline!
As a summary, this article has one view, YOURS. Check ANY other encyclopedia and tell me if they look similar. Catón 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Marco, my point is very simple: Catalan and Spanish live together in catalonia. Any attempt to say that only Catalan is spoken (as the article tells) is wrong. As you say, Catalonia is bilingual.
But you have not explained why you have returned to the previous version, when: - There was a silly map. Please, try a Google search on 'Regne got d'Arcó' or look for ANY 8th century Iberian Peninsula map. - I simply pointed out (quite softly, I must say) that Paisos Catalans is only used in nationalist circles. Which are your arguments for reverting such changes?
...and you are right. El Periódico has a Catalan edition ...since 1997! La pela es la pela (money is money). -- Catón 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to edit a version that, I hope, can be universally accepted.
Some comments to Catón:
-- Joan sense nick 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the name of the language in 'valenciano' (Spanish) is 'valencià' (Valencian). The point is I did not know how to say 'Valenciano' in English. I should have said 'Valencian'.
I am not a linguist. I only to make clear:
1) Many valencians think they speak a separate language of Catalan. 2) In Valencian 'Estatuto', the language they talk is referred as 'Valencian', not Catalan."The two official languages of the Autonomous Community are the Valencian and the Castilian. Everyone has the right to know and use them.".
I have no personal 'love' for the term 'Valencian' but the opinion of Valencians should be mentioned.
About the map. The point is that the map is pointless. It has no link to anything I know from Middle Ages History. I do not know the motivation of the author but I have said several things nobody has answered about the map.
By the way, you are right. The right term is, of course, 'Catalan' and not my 'Catalonian'.-- Catón 12:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please clarify the sentence: "and the small Franja de Ponent or Western Strip, part of the Spanish region (now Autonomous Community) of Aragon since 1812." I don't know much about the rest of the Franja, but Peter IV of Aragon (1319 - 1387) confirmed Fraga as belonging to Aragon. And as far as I know it stayed like that. Thanks, -- 84.56.158.168 21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake, the correct date is 1822, I should have consulted before...
You can find information on the history of fraga here:
[1],
[2] and
[3].
As you can see, the zone have changed of jurisiction several times, as is usual in most frontier zones. The historical frontier between Aragon and Catalonia was usually the Cinca river, that divides the city, (in some periods, the city was also divided between this two territories!). I include the zone to the "Catalan-speaking world" in a cultural and linguistic sense.
--
Joan sense nick
22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I am not an expert in history. But I think we have not so oposed points of view: the references GREC) given confirms part of the historic facts you have exposed. The zone have suffered several jurisdiction changes and is disputed.
But, it's a fact (not an opinion) that in the zone between Cinca River and current Autonomous Community of Catalonia there are native catalan-speakers. One of them, the Mequinensa-born important catalan novel author Jesus Moncada. Another one, the President of the Autonomous Community of Aragon (a Catalan native speaker himself, I think). So "la Franja" belongs to a "Catalan-speaking world.
If you can read in Spanish, take a look at the (not POV suspicious) spanish wikipedia article: Franja [4]. The definition of limits is quite detailed there. -- Joan sense nick 10:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
We have had people decide that this article should be only about the historic domain, and tear out everything about the present-day autonomous community. We have had people decide that this article should be only about the present-day autonomous community and tear out everything about the historic domain. Frankly, this is an enormous waste of everyone's time. Without favoring one ultimate solution over another, can we try to reach some kind of consensus before people go ripping apart the article again? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
A vandal recently increased the confusion on this article: now we have "Catalonia", "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" and "Traditional catalan domain". What's next?
It's clear that the target of such editions are NOT to give a best information on Catalonia in the encyclopedia, but to use it with political intentions. Main of them, to cut off any reference to Catalonia as a nation. Others, to describe an independent free Catalonia that is not real nowadays.
In my opinion, most references in others articles on the wikipedia refers to "Catalonia", so this must be the main article on such issue.
The complexity of the definition of the geographic limits of Catalonia, and the confusion between Catalonia and the countries where Catalan is spoken (Catalan-speaking world is an excellent consensus word) are not easy to deal just in an article. I think "Catalonia" can be the main reference, on cultural issues (the most commonly quoted in other articles), and from "Catalonia", we can give a links to "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" and to the articles on the other historic countries that have been part of Catalonia in history.
"Autonomous Community of Catalonia" , in my opinion, can't be the main article, because:
Please, the inclusion of POV should be evited. Issues with complex diverse versions can use the formula "some catalan nationalists think ... " or, "this issue is currently in discussion" or so. But don't cut the work done, neither increase the number of redirections. This is an enciclopedia, to give true information. All information.
I ask administrators to move "Traditional catalan domain", and replace its contents to "Catalonia". -- Joan sense nick 09:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Joan sense nick in one sense: The main article should be 'Catalonia' and this article should include the contents of the 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'. I do not know which is the Wikipedia's usual way but I would prefer 'California' better than 'State of California' or Badajoz instead of 'Province of Badajoz'
However, I do not quite understand these sentences:
Which are exactly these territories? I do not know none. Of course, I consider 'relevant' more than 10%.
'Kingdom of Spain' is a name not used during First and Second Republic and most of Franco's rule. I do not see as a motivation to get rid of it.
I heartly encourage the use of remarks such as 'nationalists think...'. As a matter of fact the lack of these qualifications is what was spoiling the article.
Anyway, I think some of the last contributions well documented and should be maintained. Catón 11:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to revert to previous state but I will try to make both Catalonia and Autonommous Community of Catalonia less PVO biased (not only because national reasons) I can understand that especially many Spanish-centric contributors may consider (and I mean the whole kingdom, independently of political opinions) Catalonia only for the Spanish autonomy, but it's not true for instance for some French and Northern Catalonians, who can even regard Catalonia only for what is also Pays Catalan. I would personally put Catalonia as the historic territory (and this does not mean that there are not current links between North and South, which are indeed increasing) and I would point, as I have done in previous editions, disambiguations of Southern and Northern Catalonia in the header of the page. Another option would be to place a full disambiguation page and point to the different terms.
Please, opinions are welcomed. Let's discuss it here. Actions performed by IP or newly created users changing things without previous discussion are not a proper model. Toniher 11:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
'Catalunya Nord' (North Catalonia) is nationalist neospeak. The presence of Catalan language north of the Pyrinees is (sadly) very weak, let alone Catalan 'feelings'. I have never seen a large demonstration in N. Catalonia asking for 're-union' with Spanish Catalonia or for linguistic reasons.
So, I think Catalonia = A.C. of Catalonia. Of course, you can talk about French people speaking Catalan. When you speak about Catalonia History you should talk about Rousillon and Cerdanya (the same when talking about Spanish history) and when you talk about nationalist Catalan movements, you should talk about the scarce movements in France.
I know that they are people in Mexico that like to consider itself as Spanish instead of Mexicans, but that is no excuse to talk about American Spain and European Spain. Spain is the kingdom of Spain and you will only talk about other territories when talking about the language (Hispanic America, Equatorial Guinea, partly Philippines,...) or the History (Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Rousillon,...)-- Catón 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Catón 10:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Catón 14:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The main article should be 'Catalonia' and this article should include the contents of the 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'.Usually, when people speak about Catalalonia, it refers to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia and not of the historic territory.
I wouldn't object to any arrangement that can get some consensus, but here are two alternatives I would prefer
Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Wishing to help finding consensus, I agree with Jmabel. The real goal now must be to have one only article, and the best name is "Catalonia". Others must redirect there. --
Joan sense nick
21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Just two remarks on "Northern Catalonia" (facts, not opinions):
Just other remarks (facts, not opinions):
- Of course it is possible to be Catalan and French, so Catalan and Spanish. I am Spanish and European, Hispanic and European, European and mediterranean, Iberic and Latin. They use 'Perpignan/Perpinyà la Catalan' the same way in Olivenza are proud of its Portuguese origin... with none wanting to return to Portugal.
Check in the page www.mairie-perpignan.fr who has won the elections in Perpignan (French parties, with no presence of Catalan parties).
- I agree with you: North Catalonia it's not 'a real entity'. Check again if the 'Mairie' of Perpignan uses it (or anyone in any 'normal' encyclopaedia, or anyone who is not directly linked with RADICAL Catalan nationalists. Check if even CiU or Generalitat use it.
Again: You are inventing a politically-charged name and assume everything use it. I strongly disagree. The territories Catalonia lost in 17th century are named in every history book Rossellò or Rossellò i Cerdanya (Catalan). Yo can claim it, you can think it is Catalan territory, you can think it is as Catalan soil as Paseo de Gracia. And maybe you are right and Almighty God agree with you, but this does not change its name. France has longed (successfully) for Alsace and Lorraine for 47 years, but none has named them 'France Est'. They were 'l'Alsace et la Lorraine'.
By the way, I want Rossellò back. The greater Catalonia, the greater Spain.
-- Catón 10:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
There is an edition war in infobox title. There seems to be some guidelines about writing down only the official name. I do not know how it would apply in this case, and I do not have a strong opinion about. However, I have added the Occitan name, since it's official as well in Val d'Aran. Finally, I would suggest all these anonymous people to go to Spain entry and add all the official languages apart from the Spanish Reino de España. Come on! I would like you to be as insistent as you have been here. Toniher 13:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about an editing war: what there does appear to be is a persistent attempt (seemingly by the same small group of "editors") to introduce Catalan nationalist propaganda into what is supposed to be a neutral information page in an encyclopaedia. This is an inappropriate forum to ventilate such sentiments, and it would be a pity if this page were to end up "locked" as a result of the "unionist" versus "nationalist" vituperation which has already disgraced the companion page in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia.
For native English-speakers (such as myself), and doubtless for all non-Iberian users of the English-language Wikipedia, it is a matter of utter indifference whether Catalonia remains in Spain or becomes an independent "nation". However, as a neutral information resource, the article should reflect the status quo, not nationalist wishful-thinking. For better or worse, Catalonia presently remains a region within a country. Accordingly, common sense dictates that the autonomous community's "official name" in Spanish, the "official language" throughout the "country", should take precedence over the "official name" in the language spoken only in the "region". By way of comparison, this is what happens in Wales or Scotland, which also have their own parliaments - and even their own football teams!
Your call for a tit-for-tat editing of the entry for "Spain" betrays your ill-concealed nationalist agenda, as does your hollow (and bogus) recourse to a supposed "policy" on official names. However, what gives you away is your wish to relegate the community's official name in Spanish to a position below even that of the supposedly "official" name in Aranese - an Occitan mountain-dialect spoken by around 5,000 people. Since even the Generalitat's website does not feel the need to publish an Aranese version, it is difficult to see this as anything other than a gratuitous (and childish) excuse to denigrate the Spanish language.
This sort of Balkanistic, point-scoring propaganda has no place here. Please take it somewhere else.
An Englishman (17 October 2005)
ca - es - oc: Comment which of them and in what order. Toniher 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm no Catalan (nor Spanish, for that matter) and I try to be unbiased. Since in Catalonia toponomy is official only in Catalan (unlike Basque Country and Galicia), I think Catalan should be in first place, then Spanish and then Aranese. It's my opinion. We should not compare with Wales or Scotland, where particular languages are much less used than Catalan in Catalonia and where English toponomy is used more often. Marco Neves 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)