![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Since User:Xtv is once again trying to get me blocked I would like to remind him (and of course everybody else reading) that, there is ANY wikipedia guideline to state which language should go first. That said, some months ago, there was a consensus in which Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries (from which user Xtv is an active member and some other people agreed in that the name of the languages should be displayed in alternate order throughout the article (the order 3 lines below in the lead and in the infobox is different than the one in the first line of the lead paragraph) as to keep everybody happy (as both languages are co-official in this region).
If user Xtv is unable to follow the moves from his wikiproject he should remove his name from the members list.
If the anon user is reading this, he is invited to explain his opinion instead than vandalizing.
If either Xtv or the anon user are willing to break the consensus (probably one of the few we got in tha catalan related articles) they are invited to explain it here before vandalizing or reporting me without reason. -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox they are displayed: "Official languages Spanish and Catalan"
It has 518 km of coastline on the Mediterranean and covers 23,259 km² of land with 4.8 million inhabitants (2005). Its borders largely reflect those of the historic Kingdom of Valencia. According to the Statute of Autonomy, Valencia is recognized as a nationality. The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory). The capital of the autonomous community is the city of Valencia.
In the infobox they are displayed: "Official languages Valencian and Spanish"
I hope that this helps to prove my point about the consensus reached long ago. The order of the languages is consistently changed throughout the content of the articles about regions where both Catalan and Spanish are co-official. --
MauritiusXXVII
(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)
09:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Since Maurice27 is not able to bring the references to the supposed consensus -which actually I think that does not exist at all-, I ask you, WMC, to bring back the article to the original version. Thank you.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 17:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
So... I have no great interest in this issue, though I can see that some people care a great deal, unsurprisingly, language can be emotive. But I can provide some rules. Firstly, if you're going to clima a consensus for some version, you have to be able to back that up by refererence to that consensus. If you can't, you should stop talking about it and everyone else is entitled to ignore it. Second, edit comments like "re-arranged to standard order" are unhelpful and probably provocative, unless you are prepared to provide some reason as to why that order should be considered standard. Unless someone can provide a killer argument as to why the order should be X (which is unlikely or they would already have done so), what we need is some idea of how to resolve the dispute: either some kind of wiki policy, some governmental policy to follow, or failing that I'll just toss a coin William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops!! I didn't realise this was such an emotive issue. It's not as by making the edit I was trying to say one language was better or more important than the other. I simply changed the order in which languages are displayed on documentation and signage in Catalonia and that is the order they are displayed. Politics, politics, politics. Now I see why the EU, UN and so on, spend so much time and money deciding on seating arrangements of country figure heads. Oh how what we really need is for them to make the world a better place and for us to concentrate on improving this article as a whole. Well just my humble thoughts... 87.80.24.72 ( talk) 11:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley: I am not very enthusiastic with the alphabetical order. It's too arbitrary. In this case, p.e., it could make that a language that is spoken by less than 0.1% of the population went in the first position. And it could reopen discussions about names (Aranese/Occitan, Catalan/Valencian, Spanish/Castillian...). I propose one of the 2 following solutions:
Cheers-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory, William M. Connolley had to help us resolving this problem, but it's already about one month since he came here for the last time, I've asked him help twice and he has ignored us. Therefore, I propose to ask some other help from admins.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been also accused of "unreasonable deletion of content" and wanting "to make a major change deleting one paragraph" by the same anon user and user:Xtv.
This is the one from the "legal status within Spain" section:
"The 1979 as well as the current Statute of Autonomy, approved in 2006, state that "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, which is its basic institutional law."[9].
The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the "Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality". While this Statute was approved by and sanctioned by both the Catalan and the Spanish parliaments, and later by referendum in Catalonia, it has been legally contested by the surrounding Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community,[10] as well as by the Partido Popular. The objections are based on various topics such as disputed cultural heritage but, especially, on the Statute's alleged breaches of the "solidarity between regions" principle enshrined by the Constitution in fiscal and educational matters. As of November 2008, the Constitutional Court of Spain is assessing the constitutionality of the challenged articles; its binding conclusion is expected for 2008."
And this is the one from the "History" section (which I
erased):
Catalonia's second statute of autonomy, adopted by the Catalan government on 22 December 1979, officially recognized Catalonia as a nationality. Then, the amended version approved on 9 August 2006 has defined Catalonia as a nation in the preamble. The precise meaning of the term nation is ambiguous as to not conflict with the Spanish Constitution. The Statute of Autonomy also establishes that "Catalonia wishes to develop its political personality within the framework of a State which recognizes and respects the diversity of identities of the peoples of Spain". After the charter was first passed in the regional parliament, it was then edited in conjunction with the Cortes Generales (Spanish bicameral parliament). Except the Partido Popular, all the other political parties represented in the Catalan autonomous Parliament endorsed the final redaction of the statute, which was then approved by means of a referendum held in June 2006 in which 73.9% voted for the autonomy plan and 20.8% against it. The turnout was unprecedentedly low, at around 49% of the total census, which resulted in the highest abstention ever registered in Catalonia in a referendum.
Now, is it me or both paragraphs just claim the exactly same thing? They are redundant! So, in order to keep the article clean and willing to have an overall better article, I explained the move and deleted it. If anyone disagrees, they just have to make use of this talk-page instead than using futile and opportunists moves in order to get me blocked. -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an open report about edit warring in this article. If you continue reverting this page, you'll be blocked.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added a Clean-up to the economy section of this page, which doesn't make much sense. Needs the attention of a native spaker. I may try and correct this, but it may be better for someone with a greater knowledge of the Catalonian economy. JosephLondon ( talk) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Catalonia is not a "Autonomous Community". Catalonia is a nation, a country if you want, with 1.000 years of history. Nowadays its way of government is a "Autonomous Community", but only since 1980. The main law of Catalonia -really a spanish law approved in the spanish Parliament- says it very clear: ARTICLE 1. CATALONIA Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with this Estatut, which is its basic institutional law.
Wikipedia says Scotland and Wales, and England of course, are countries. Why Catalonia isn't it? Oriolandres ( talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In the same way that wiki-articles referred to England, Great Britain, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, etc. are based on Encyclopædia Britannica, it's obvious that wiki-article of Catalonia must be based on Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (in English, Big Catalan Encyclopædia) and move all politic stuff to Politic's point, of course. I think it's the most respectful option to catalan people so I've done the appropiated changes. Crema ( talk) 16:18, 4th January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.51.105 ( talk)
I absolutely agree with Mauritius XXVII, Wikipedia must be based on facts, and saying that Catalonia is a nation or a country is false, as false as saying that Andalusia or Murcia are nations. By now, as for Catalunia, the fact is that we just can say that it is an Autonomus Communuty, as the rest of ACs in Spain, and if someone doesn't know what an Autonomus Community is, thats not a problem Oriolandres, anyone can look it up in Wikipedia. And don't talk about the most "respectful option", because then we should say that every AC in Spain is a country, to be respectful to everyone, since if we say that Catalonia is a nation or a country because of its past, why don't we say that Andalusia is a nation? During the muslim period and till the conquest of Granada, Al-Andalus was less spanish than Euskadi or Catalonia. If we want a unbiased Wikipedia, we cannot base an article on just the Big Catalan Encyclopædia, but also in other ones, and we cannot say something that isn't true only to "respect" some people. your.hand.in.mine ( talk) 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Catalonia a nation? First notice I have. The status a society has (town, city, region, country, state, etc.) is decided by their people and their representation (politicians). Catalonia's Parlament decided that first Estatut article was "Catalonia is a nation", so YES, Catalonia is a nation. In the same way, this status is contempled by their Encyclopædia. Who do you think you are to decide what a comunity is against its own decision? Crema ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.51.105 ( talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
dear god, are we still on this? The legal status section clearly articulates the complex legal maze of what Catalonia is or isn't in Spanish law. It is agreed by all the current area of territory governed by the Generalitat is an autononmous community, the rest is POV.
boynamedsue. 208.51.23.195 ( talk) 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen, sonny. I've been brawling in the mud about this for nigh on 4 years, don't send me soft volleys like that one.
"The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality."
The preamble is not legislative but descriptive, and the term "nation" was not, therefore, adopted into law.
If we look at the text:
"El Parlament de Catalunya, recollint el sentiment i la voluntat de la ciutadania de Catalunya, ha definit Catalunya com a nació d'una manera àmpliament majoritària. La Constitució espanyola, en l'article segon, reconeix la realitat nacional de Catalunya com a nacionalitat."
This does not state that Catalunya is a Nation, it states that "El parlament de Catalunya" has defined Catalonia as a nation. Even if if the Preamble had legal validity, all it does is state that 2 different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive)opinions as to the "National status" of Catalonia exist.
The text which created the AC of Catalonia (and which has legislative value), the constitution, states that Catalonia is "nationality". However, that term is meaningless in English when used to describe an entity such as the Catalan Autononmous Community, so we explain the factual case in the "legal status" section, and leave the term "Autonomous Community" in the intro.
208.51.23.195 ( talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC) boynamedsue
Excuse me, but I find such a politic intention in affirming the national status of Catalonia than in denying it. The obsession of denying it is also a political point of view. In Spain, any recognition of the identity of the catalan people is denied in prevention of further paths to independence. It is a role the spanish nationalists play and it is a fact it is suffered in Catalonia. We all know it. Catalonia is a country as Scotland is a country. That does not mean that Catalonia is independent from Spain, in fact it is administrated as a autonomous region, as it does not mean Scotland is independent from the United Kingdom. In any case, the obsession of some of you of eliminating any reference to it only pictures your politica prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.139.38 ( talk) 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
English in this article is suffering seriously. I quote an example: "Actually the government of la Generalitat de Catalunya are developing a new type of administation that will agroup comarques and will substitute the provinces. Actually are called àmbit funcional territorial but with a new law will be called vegueries, there are seven àmbits (Àmbit metropolità de Barcelona, Camp de Tarragona, Alt Pirineu i Aran, Comarques Centrals, Comarques gironines and Ponent). That seven àmbits are define by the regional plan of Catalonia (in Catalan, Pla territorial general de Catalunya).[2][3]" "Actually" in english does not mean "at the moment" as "actualmente" does in spanish. The correct word would be "currently". Also the verb "agroup" does not exist in english as far as i can tell. Also syntax is suffering. Please take the time to revise the text or I can do it when I find some time. Schizophonix ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that there are some problems with that sentence: "The flag of Catalonia or Senyera (flag in Catalan), is a vexillological symbol based on the coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon, which consists of four red stripes on a golden background. It is an official symbol since the Statute of Catalonia of 1932." The flag was an heraldic emblem of Counts of Barcelona before being in the Crown of Aragon.-- Vilar 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Carles, noticing your last , I just want to point you that each and every other article about CCAA has the vectorial map (just take a look yourself). If we want to keep some equality and sense around wikipedia, the correct thing is to leave the other one. there is no real reasons for this article to be the exemption. My thoughts only. --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Carles. Long time no see.
I wanted to make you reconsider your position about keeping the european centered maps. For almost one year(?), you have been defending those maps against (quite a lot now) changes by multiple editors to the one used in the rest of CCAA related articles. We already discussed this matter long time ago (uniformity in wikipedia articles, the country being more important than the continent...).
You know I don't agree with your position, but for the sake of both of us I left your option. But now, you should admit that your opinion is probably a minority.
Tell me what you think. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Carles, all the autonomies of Spain have the same map. I understand that you are independentist but this it is not motive for including a map where you cannot see the whole country. I am sorry, but it isn't logical to include a map different to the rest. Diplomatiko ( talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm restoring the regular map (the one which all the other articles use). There's no reason to use another map: NUTS maps don't offer an enough clear sight of a country subdivision location. Furthermore, this (and sometimes the Valencian Community one, for obvious reasons...) is the only country subdivision article in the entire Wikipedia where they're used. Icallbs ( talk) 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
this version is clearly the most desirable one. It has what all of us find important on a map. But we do lack of all the other maps for the rest of the Autonomous Communities. If someone knows how to add the small european map on the rest of them (and willing to), the problem is solved. I already tried to some days ago, but to manipulate svg's is beyond my comprehension... ;) --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
We must differentiate between geographic and politics definition. Catalonia is a shit of geographical area comprising actual Catalan Community in Spain and Cerdanya which actually is the french department of Pyrinèes Oriental. If there is any reference to Catalonia as a nation, it must cover all Catalonia and not merely the Catalan Community of Spain. Both populations consider theirselves Catalans sharing the same Catalan language, (even it is not considered an official language in France because political assumptions) whith respect for each political nationality, french or spanish.
The definition must be considered as follows:
Catalonia Community covers an area of 32,114 km² and has an official population of 7,210,508[1]. It borders Cerdanya in France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, the Valencian Community to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east (580 km coastline). Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Aranese.
I understand that the separatist ideas of some french and spanish nationalism against the European Union cultural heritage must be erradicated if we want the wikipedia project to progress.
I struggle to believe that Perpignan in France should only be counted as "Catalan speaking". They fly the Catalan flag, it's historically and cultural strongly Catalan, and the Rugby League team (which should also be mentioned and linked in the article) is called Catalan Dragons. In Catalan the area is called Northern Catalonia.
I'm sure this is a controversial issue whatever is included in the article, but ignoring Northern Catalonia in the article completely strikes me as a whitewash and not a neutral POV. Davini994 ( talk) 10:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the article uses the word "Catalan" as an English demonym adjective in almost all cases. The article even states in the infobox itself that the English demonym is "Catalan". However, the section on popular culture uses the demonym "Catalonian". Which is correct, if any? Either the references to "Catalonian" need to be changed to "Catalan" or, alternatively, "Catalonian" should be recognised as a possible demonym. Madeinsane ( talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right. 'Catalonian' is incorrect, or at least not as correct as 'Catalan'. I've removed the former from the article. That said, the entire section on popular culture needs clearing up. It is very badly written and might also be split to a new page. Any thoughts? --
Tomclarke (
talk)
15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"...the name of the Spanish province Catalonia, which is but a slight deformation of Goth-Alania, "province of the Goths and Alans"..." (from Alans, Encyclopaedia Iranica) http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f8/v1f8a013.html Böri ( talk) 14:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
--This is not true at all, just a fantasy theory, the name Catalonia probably comes from Gothalunda/Gothland > Catalunya or from Castelans(people who lives in castles)> Castelunya > Catalunya -- 79.159.194.238 ( talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you seek the answer to this question in ordinary English dictionaries, you’ll find entries like this:
or
or
So are Wikipedia editors entitled to describe Catalonia as a nation? On the basis of the foregoing, clearly they are. And what about the Spanish Constitutional Court? Well, neither they nor any other institution or legislature have any business to dictate English usage. Many editors (particularly some who are not native English speakers) have failed to take account of this fact. When the term “nation” is used in the context of Catalonia’s legal status, we need to make it quite clear in what sense it’s being used.
Let me hasten to add that the foregoing mustn’t be taken to imply that I’m supporting a Catalanist position here: that would be to fall into exactly the sort of confusion between linguistic usage and legal definition that I'm criticizing.
AdeMiami ( talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The first definition of nation would relate to to "Catalan people" rather than the current administrative division of Spain. There is an article on that topic so it might be valid over there, but as a native English speaker, I can say that linguistically speaking your source does not support the idea that the autonomous community of Catalonia is a nation.
A nation in English is either a nation state, or a people, Catalonia (AC) does not fulfill either of those requisites. Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you think I'm amusing Frank, but I certainly don't hate anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the definitions above do not apply to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, which is the topic of this article. The autonomous community of Catalonia is not an "aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory", though one could make an argument that the Catalan people were. It is an administrative division of the Spanish state.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Look, this back and forth edit warring isn't really helping anything. You guys need to discuss it here. As an outsider with no stake in this, could I clarify a few points and ask people to follow them up below? There seem to be three main issues here -
Per the above section, I don't think anyone can argue against the idea Catalonia is a "nation" in the broadest sense of the word - in the same way that is is also a "region", and "area" or whatever, as well as more formally an "Autonomous Community". The Spanish Constitutional Court ruling would also seem - according to the Telegraph piece being cited - to have now more formally confirmed/accepted the use of the term "nation" in the latest Statute of Autonomy. However, it seems that they are saying that precisely because it is simply a vague cultural term that does not have a "legal value" or constitutional implications - ie it's accurate, but not that significant. The issue at stake is what to highlight and prioritise in the lead, and I'm not sure that simply sourcing to the Telegraph piece helps. That article also describes Catalonia as a "region", and it's not clear on what basis one term is being preferred here over any other. It seems to me that using more formally defined terminology, where the terms wiki-link to pages about terms as they are used in a Spanish context - ie as in this version - would be better.
Andreas Balart ( talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a formal, agreed view in the real world of which of Catalan and Spanish is the "main" language, eg by virtue of official recognition as such within Catalonia and/or Spain as a whole, or are there official figures that reveal one language is more commonly spoken as a first language in Catalonia than the other? If so, the order should just follow that. If not, or there's no clear answer on those criteria, how about going by alphabetical order, ie Catalan first (although it would be slightly odd to apply this across all languages and put Aranese right at the top)?
It seems kind of obvious to me that the Parliament field in the infobox should refer to the Catalan parliament and link to that page, not to the national Spanish parliament. See Scotland for example.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, if they help. There's plenty else that needs improving with the rest of the article, and genuine vandalism seems to slip by unnoticed while all this gets edit warred over. -- N-HH talk/ edits 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100710/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_catalan_charter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Spain's Constitutional Court accepts the definition as nation for Catalonia but has no legal value. For legal purposes is still considered a historical nationality and in any case should not be included within the framework of political status. Catalonia is only an autonomous region of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Eva Grossjean ( talk) 11:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nations are not defined solely by Constitutions, mon cher Arkarull.
If that was the case, the USA could never be considered a nation, since a definition of the United States as a nation is nowhere to be seen in there. And yet, they are a nation--and what a nation, by the way!
Britain, on the other hand, does not even have a written Constitution to back her nationhood. And yet, it is another nation.
As I wrote before in this forum, some people mix 'statehood' with 'nationhood'. Gross mistake: sometimes they might coincide, but some other times they might not.
This legalistic insistence on the Spanish Constitution demonstrates, if anything, a large degree of intellectual laziness.
xxx 81.39.12.15 ( talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And sorry for my poor English. It's probably my "large degree of intellectual laziness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Eva. I will not go into your game. In any case you should know that sociology has evolved a bit since Weber. It's amazing how in one paragraph you have insulted Spain, the Spanish, the Catholic tradition, and so on. You should review a little the History before returning to the topics of the Inquisition and the innate stupidity transmitted through Catholicism. I will repeat it again to see if you can assimilate without insulting even if you disagree:
Oops, no they are not, I misread the total population. 1812ahill ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a consensus on how the languages are displayed: alternating order. If you look at this article, you can find "Catalan>Spanish" in the infobox and all through the article, and "Spanish>Catalan" in the infobox and all through the article. I think it's the better order we can agree, but there's another version (the one who Andreas, Eva and others revert to often) which has only "Catalan>Spanish". I think it's obvious the first option is better than this one, as it's clearly more neutral. Again, the most logical option (and most used on Wikipedia) would be by percentage of speakers in Catalonia, so it'd be Spanish>Catalan>Aranese. Some users have complained about this version and I honestly respect it, so again I think the best order is the alternating one.
Also, the "National" in "National symbols of Catalonia" was introduced by Andreas Balart in 372097193 with no explanation, and I think it's controversial and not very appropiate to put it there because of the next issue.
About the "nationality" part, as discussed above in this very talk page, it's unreferenced (even Jimbo Wales has said so, before being reverted by Andreas as a vandal (!!), controversial (the Constitutional Court which has ruled "nation" has no value). Also, there's a problem about "Catalonia is a nationality", because that makes no sense whatsoever in English. "Nationality" in English =/= "Nacionalidad" in Spanish, due to the peculiar situation of this term in Spain. Icallbs ( talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Icallbs , not my intention increparte, but the Catalan language has been banned several times by Spanish law. The last time was with the Franco regime (1939-1975), this situation seriously endangered the Catalan language and its number of speakers, as the Catalan was removed from schools, media, books and any official statement, relegated only the informal conversation, almost clandestine. The fact that this situation is quite close in time and, therefore, the current situation arising from a failure to come so bad, should make us raise our awareness of the issue. So I think the way you propose to treat the order of the languages is simple and naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.65.74 ( talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
My two cents as food for thought, as I will most likely not participate in subsequent debates due to lack of time. First, regarding the order of the languages, it really doesn't matter which comes first (and one could argue endlessly as to why Catalan or Spanish should come first). But, I do argue for consistency, in which case, if you stick to Spanish>Catalan (or vice versa), this order should be kept throughout the article, instead of alternating. It is more encyclopedic, and less confusing. This is not an issue about neutrality. It is simply an issue of style.
Now, regarding "nationality", I disagree with Icallbs. "Nationality" does make sense in English, and it is indeed extensively used. I would advocate for its use in the introduction based on the following points:
To me, if reputable academic sources have no issues with the term "nationality" (in English) and being the word chosen by the Spanish Parliament in 1978 and being a constitutional term, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It is fully referenced in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
Last but not least, other autonomous communities that usually receive less attention (for whatever reason) have used the word "nationality" in their introductory paragraphs (e.g. Galicia, the Valencian Community) without any controversy.
Ahh, as a PS, the Constitutional Court upheld the term "national symbols of Catalonia" (8th article) as fully constitutional, in the sense (I quote), "of their condition of symbols of a nationality constituted as an autonomous community in exercise of the right acknowledged and guaranteed by the 2nd article of the Spanish Constitution [...] they are, in sum, the symbols of a nationality without any pretension [...] of contradiction to the symbols of the Spanish Nation". Later on, the resolution also adds that the 8th article is "constitutional" (conforme a la constitución) interpreted in the sense that the said term is exclusively referring in its meaning and use, to the symbols of Catalonia "defined as a nationality" and integrated into the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation". [12]. Ergo I don't see a problem with using "national symbols", when the term itself has been declared constitutional. But of course, you cannot avoid using this term without also making reference to the definition of Catalonia as a nationality, so we are back to square one.
And as a final side note (a second PS), I noted that someone said that the functions of the states of the USA and the autonomous communities in Spain are almost identical. Not true, precisely because the former is a federation and the latter is not. In a federation powers are transferred from the states to the federation and anything not explicitly transferred (i.e. collectively transferred as written in the constitution) is a prerogative of the individual states. In centralized (or partially decentralized) countries, (the so called "regional-States") it is the central government that transfers powers to the constituent entities (e.g. the autonomous communities), and anything not explicitly transferred pertains to the central government. While in some areas (i.e. education, transportation, etc.) both the states of the USA and the autonomous communities of Spain exercise their jurisdiction in similar ways, the central government of Spain retains the power to enhance or remove any powers, and to intervene if necessary. That is why, in spite of being "one of the most decentralized countries in Europe", Spain still cannot be classified as a federation.
Cheers, -- the Dúnadan 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are confusing demonym with nationality. Based on "common usage" the term might sound weird in English (as a native English speaker myself)- but I must add that also in Spanish! (Specially so for Spanish speakers outside Spain). I would agree with the Economist that it is an ambiguous term. In fact, it was a carefully chosen word by the Spanish Parliament, precisely to avoid the word "nations" (reserved for Spain as whole only) while granting some regions some sort of distinction in that regard. Moreover, the ambiguity itself was chosen purposely. You can read a lot about this, from the Official Publications of the Congress of Deputies here or a brief summary here, especially the list of the "interpretations" of this term, according to the fathers of the constitution itself. Note that none of the definitions refer to a territory, but to communities (i.e. people). Because of this, the administrative entities were to be called "autonomous communities", instead of "autonomous regions", which was the term chosen in the 1931 constitution, even though "community" does not refer to a territory either.
On the other hand one could also argue that the word "nation" refers to a people who inhabit a territory, and not the territory itself regardless of who inhabits it. In fact, nation implies a people not a territory. But we all agree that Spain is a nation. And also a State. And also a territory. By extension, the same applies to "nationality", based on the definitions provided here and of course, in conjunction with the definitions of "nationality" according to the fathers of the Spanish constitution, and in conjunction with the many secondary publications (like the OECD) that use the term, with and without quotations. But it really doesn't matter. Whether nationality can be applied to a region or not, in English or Spanish, the ambiguity was chosen purposely, and, for good or for bad, it is the constitutional (and statutory) term to refer to Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Andalusia, and others recently. As to how to phrase it, I would simply quote the Statute of Autonomy, "Catalonia, as a nationality [of Spain], is constituted as an autonomous community ...."
(PS: I believe that for the most part, quotation marks are used to represent exact language, not necessarily to convey that the term does not make sense. In fact, within the same articles you cite above, the term "nation" is also written in quotation marks. Quotation marks are also used when designating or referring to something specifically, just like I did with the term "nation" in this sentence).
-- the Dúnadan 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
to Icallbs. I would like to know why Spanish>Catalan is more neutral! I think that if you want to used in some things Spanish>catalan is ok. But in the toponimia it has to be Catalan>Spanish because the only oficial toponimia is in catalan. So it has to be in English>Oficial>Others = English>Catalan>Spanish (E/Aranese/S for aranese municipalities), that would be the real neutral order. The oficial name of the CA is Catalunya, also it is used in spanish, Cataluña, but the oficial one is Catalunya. I don't understand why all you are doing that changes and saying that is "neutral" when in Catalonia in catalan or in spanish we wrote mostly the toponimia in catalan. I would like to say that it would be better to anyone edit for somedays that article before we arrive to a consensous, because it can't be that one people do a thing and then some other change it. -- Vilar 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for taking some days to reply back. Like I said before, I wasn't sure if I'd had the time to follow up on this debate. Regarding your proposal, "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities", the only issue that I have with it is that it doesn't specify what Catalonia is (a region or a nationality). The Spanish constitution does differentiate between the two as do the Statutes of Autonomy of those nationalities. In fact, during the transition to democracy, the "nationalities", ( Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia), were to be granted autonomy through a simplified, almost automatic process, whereas the regions if the wish to constitute autonomous communities, they had to follow up a longer more complicated process and fulfill specific requirements. Eventually all regions did, and a couple chose to describe themselves as "nationalities" as well (like Andalusia and Valencia). The distinction does matter in Spanish politics.
As a side note, not all autonomous communities represent [historic] regions or nationalities, only some do. Madrid, for example, belonged to the region of Castile (la Mancha), but was constituted as a separate autonomous community "in the nation's interest".
-- the Dúnadan 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True, the constitution simply states that the Spanish Nation is integrated by nationalities and regions and guarantees their right to autonomy (art. 2), by the process laid down on articles 143 to 158. Bear in mind that the constitution was written prior to the establishment of the autonomous communities; in fact articles 143 to 158 simply outline the process whereby the nationalities and regions could accede to autonomy, should they wish to do so, but, arguably, apart from the nationalities, it did not foresee which or how many would be created. [i.e. Cantabria and La Rioja were considered part of Castile at one point; plus the Congress reserved the right to concede autonomy to other entities other than the regions and nationalities]. Hence, the constitution, like the US constitution with respect to states and territories, does not provide a list or description to specific places. But that does not mean that there is any ambiguity as to the status of Catalonia (anymore than the status of California, even if its status is not stated in the US constitution): it is statutorily and constitutionally (per the wording of the latest ruling) a "nationality". That should not produce any edit warring, and if it does, it can only be classified as vandalism (as it goes against primary sources). I understand that saying that Catalonia is a nation is indeed controversial and cannot be put into the introduction, but this is not the case when it comes to the word "nationality". And I agree with you, it would be far better if other users would participate in the debate. -- the Dúnadan 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is necessary for effect of brevity but also preciseness to have a person who speaks both Catalan and Spanish contribute to this article (This is a link with plenty of information that this article has omitted but I believe is relevant and which is substantiated http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623). The psychological process of an individual living within the territory of Catalonia has to be included. Otherwise, the article becomes redundant and in the event of Catalonia becoming an independent free state more difficult to modify. The majority of people in Catalonia do not think of themselves as Spanish but rather as Catalans, specifically during this economic turmoil that Europe is going through and there are plenty of studies that reveal this to be the case. There are also many articles of propaganda from both the Spanish and the Catalan side and these needs to be whittled out for more objective sources. However the article should demonstrate the emotions of the Spanish people towards Catalans in that they have distain for Catalan existence and use racial jokes on a daily basis in reference to Catalans. They insist the language of Catalan not to be spoken in any other parts of Spain, and the Spanish parliament refuse to allow the Catalan language to be spoken within its walls. In a recent newspaper poll by the Spanish population excluding Catalonia, 78% of people supported military action against Catalonia if it proposed independence. This may be because the current government inside Catalonia is a pro-independent party which has a majority of 86% support and because of the current economic climate where Spain is on the verge of requiring an EU/IMF bailout. This has caused fear in the Spanish people as Catalonia is the wealthiest regions that provide support for Spain’s economy. The Spanish government are currently attempting to pass legislation that will reverse much of the powers Catalans have currently whereby the Spanish government insist Spanish should be the only language taught in Catalan schools. These repressions are what need to be discussed in the article.
When one thinks of Spain, one could construe it as being akin to an empire just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were all part of the Soviet Union (as was Russia) until they separated in 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until the break up in the 90’s. When one looks further at the remarks of the politicians in Spain on Catalonia and her citizens, they will clearly see identical policies as those held previously by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. One may construe they are different in that Spain function by democracy but is it really a democracy when the voice of a people is overwhelmed by the voices of others external regions that are only interested in a communities wealth and thereby prevent that community seeking to promote the independence of their language, culture, and traditions. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and one may have argued during the existence of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that the people of the breakaway republics were in fact Soviets and Yugoslavs but these people would not have accepted that and if one was to say to these people that they are still Soviets and Yugoslavs, these people would not like it as they fought for their independence for years, just as the Catalans have being doing against Spain. It would be disrespectful to minimize people so crudely that it would be similar to calling Irish people British.
One needs to ask important questions such as, why do Spanish people fear people ruling their own destiny as it states in democracy? Why do Spanish people insist on oppressing a people and their language and culture? How can Spanish People dispute the evidence that is available? Catalans have a different Language, different culture, and different traditions which are usually considered to mean different country. It is so obvious that Catalans are different people, as well as the Galician’s are, and of course the Basques (who’s language is believed to be one of the most ancient in the World and where linguists have been unable to place it within a linguistic family). This may be due to Spanish people’s fears in the current economic climate whereby they realize if Catalonia was to proclaim their independence, then the Spanish way of life would disappear and they will have to become responsible overnight whereby they must find other resources that will make them economically viable which they don’t currently have. However, if one was to ask a person from Catalonia what is their nationality, their cognitive state would proclaim more often than not, they speak different, ergo they think different. They are Catalan and not Spanish.
Nevertheless, I am not from Catalonia but rather Ireland and therefore I am a conscientious observer who has the luxury to see situations from the outside. My wife is from Barcelona and therefore whom thinks of herself as Catalan and my best friends are from the southern Spanish cities and whom think of themselves as Spanish. I have heard and seen the arguments from both sides of the divide (i.e the Catalan people and the Spanish people whom do not live in Catalonia) and I have read up on the issue and this formulated my decision. As long as I have a mind and a freedom to make decisions, I will continue to do so regardless what others may think or do, however many Catalans don’t have that luxury and they depend on articles like this to be as accurate as possible so that people around the World can see what their life is like and the plights they may endure. It is all well and good to quote this is a encyclopedia but then one must remember part of an encyclopedia is to tell the reality of a people within their confines. A link that may well return this article to an equilibrium can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 ( talk) 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are some heraldic and/or vexillological sources: Source 1, Source 2. Cadenas, A.A. and Cadenas, V. : Heraldica de las comunidades autonomas y de las capitales de provincia. Hidalguia, Madrid, 1985.159 p. ISBN 84-00-0604-7.
Another one: Societat Catalana de Genealogia... Escut de Catalunya/Coat of Arms of Catalonia --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence has an embedded POV. This is not only a NPOV policy problem. If you don't share the POV (or aren't sure what it is), you can't understand the meaning of the sentence:
This could mean that there is a linguistic balance between Castillian Spanish and Catalan which would be upset by more people speaking Castillian. It could also mean there is a linguistic balance towards mutually intelligible languages being spoken, which is upset by all these non-Spanish speakers coming in. In either case, it would help to: (1) chuck the phrase linguistic balance and specify which speaking groups are expanding and which are contracting; (2) treat Spanish-speaking immigrants from Latin America differently; (3) explain which local languages immigrants learn (or to what extent they learn neither). Cheers! -- Carwil ( talk) 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is lacking a geographic and geologic section describing the geomorphology of Catalonia. Xufanc ( talk) 10:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
ABOUT SURVEYS AND REFERENDUM
2 important facts about the surveys and referendum are missing. First, it mentions the survey where the separatist option won, but doesn't state that this was an exception, in a special context, and that the ones before showed the separatist option supported by not more than 20 % voters. Also, and even more important, the separatist referenda were won with percentages over 90 %, but participation was ridiculous, 20 % or less, and experts point out that separatist are presumed to have voted massively, while non-separatists would have paid little atention, so those referenda were considered a separatist defeat rather than a victory-- 88.3.243.255 ( talk) 23:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but please note that not all experts agree with this. Political Spanish experts have this theory while some others think differently. Others think that it was still the separatist victory as "non-active" separatists did not come to vote (thus, people who would rather become independent, but don't feel so strong about it). So, we should just state all the facts and let the reader judge, not give them a Centralist POV like you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.74.132 ( talk) 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So, I've read the economy part of the article and see how it is compared to Basque Country and Madrid. Isn't this misgiving the reader somewhat? I believe that Madrid and Basque Country's economical state should be stated, don't you think? The Basque Country pays no taxes to the Spanish state and Madrid is the capital. Yes, Madrid is more debatable, but consider how all trains must go through Madrid, and many enterprises have put their headquarters in Madrid. In addition, as the capital, it gains a considerable amount of the taxes others pay while Catalonia doesn't gain money but rather loses it with taxes. We should at least mention these details, even in the brief description, so people don't get the wrong idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.74.132 ( talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is the need to put that photo to the "independentism support" in the Administrative_and_territorial_division? It has already been explained in "politics" that there nationalist and independentist in Catalonia, the photo isn't important, in fact, it gives a completely wrong figure of the independentism in Catalonia, these information was taken from a non-binding and not-official referendum, only the 20% gave their vote. Real surveys have been made and in every one the people choose to stay in Spain over independence (see Catalan_independentism).
That gives a completely wrong image of Catalonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Living001 ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Catalan independentism is the social movement involving more people in Catalonia. Votes in the referendum at Barcelona were more than the ones received by political parties that are leading the council (PSC and CIU) . 20% of votes of the total census voting in favour of a referendum that is forbidden by spanish courts and that has no legal effects is highly relevant.–--
95.61.18.160 (
talk)
23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The social movement involving more people in Catalonia? Do you really believe what are you saying? Take a look to the surveys from the page Catalan independentism in Catalan (maybe you will like more that page)
Independentisme_català :
Also take a look to Independentismo Catalán, surveys:
Even in the feeling about the country: The people feel by far so catalan as spanish,with 42.7%
So once again, that photo is highly irrelevant. -- Living001 ( talk) 07:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That sources are surveys, answering a survey is NOT a social movement. Which other social movement in Catalonia involved more people than independentism during the last years? No one from a neutral POV can say independentism is "irrelevant" in Catalonia. Just searching about the topic you can notice it is highly commented.
95.61.18.160 (
talk)
23:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a picture in this article that depicts a map of the medieval kingdoms of Aragon and Castille. The picture also shows what seems to be the current borders of the Basque Country. Does this make any sense? I mean, if this picture is trying to show which kingdoms existed in the Peninsula during the Middle Age, why is it there the Basque Country, which was not a kingdom, but part of Castille? However, Navarra was actually an independent kingdom, which is not shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.235.216 ( talk) 19:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
hello,
i suggest make in the territorial divisions a clarification: put in the caption: lines: division from central governmrnt of spain colour: division for the government of catalonia ,because anyone does't know than there are two divisions, it could be messy
other thing: the last discussion article says than independentism is irrelevant basing in a polls. these polls are complete false. I live in catalonia, and I'm catalan and these polls never exist. there are a real polls asking: would you lke catalonia as an independent country in the un and ue? these polls were made on a lot of cities, and there was a very great victory of yes. I think than independentism and a senyera photo are necessay in this page for know the real desire of catalan people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.134.15 ( talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On a 20% turnout, where opponents of independence boycotted the poll. There are two pro-independence parties, they get about 18% of the vote between them. The opinion polls are reputable, and sourced. 109.100.77.96 ( talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (boynamedsue)
It is false that the feedback has been made in many cities. Were made in small towns and most census refused to participate. The accusations are baseless boycott.
I think it is necessary for effect of brevity but also preciseness to have a person who speaks both Catalan and Spanish contribute to this article (This is a link with plenty of information that this article has omitted but I believe is relevant and which is substantiated http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623). The psychological process of an individual living within the territory of Catalonia has to be included. Otherwise, the article becomes redundant and in the event of Catalonia becoming an independent free state more difficult to modify. The majority of people in Catalonia do not think of themselves as Spanish but rather as Catalans, specifically during this economic turmoil that Europe is going through and there are plenty of studies that reveal this to be the case. There are also many articles of propaganda from both the Spanish and the Catalan side and these needs to be whittled out for more objective sources. However the article should demonstrate the emotions of the Spanish people towards Catalans in that they have distain for Catalan existence and use racial jokes on a daily basis in reference to Catalans. They insist the language of Catalan not to be spoken in any other parts of Spain, and the Spanish parliament refuse to allow the Catalan language to be spoken within its walls. In a recent newspaper poll by the Spanish population excluding Catalonia, 78% of people supported military action against Catalonia if it proposed independence. This may be because the current government inside Catalonia is a pro-independent party which has a majority of 86% support and because of the current economic climate where Spain is on the verge of requiring an EU/IMF bailout. This has caused fear in the Spanish people as Catalonia is the wealthiest regions that provide support for Spain’s economy. The Spanish government are currently attempting to pass legislation that will reverse much of the powers Catalans have currently whereby the Spanish government insist Spanish should be the only language taught in Catalan schools. These repressions are what need to be discussed in the article.
When one thinks of Spain, one could construe it as being akin to an empire just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were all part of the Soviet Union (as was Russia) until they separated in 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until the break up in the 90’s. When one looks further at the remarks of the politicians in Spain on Catalonia and her citizens, they will clearly see identical policies as those held previously by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. One may construe they are different in that Spain function by democracy but is it really a democracy when the voice of a people is overwhelmed by the voices of others external regions that are only interested in a communities wealth and thereby prevent that community seeking to promote the independence of their language, culture, and traditions. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and one may have argued during the existence of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that the people of the breakaway republics were in fact Soviets and Yugoslavs but these people would not have accepted that and if one was to say to these people that they are still Soviets and Yugoslavs, these people would not like it as they fought for their independence for years, just as the Catalans have being doing against Spain. It would be disrespectful to minimize people so crudely that it would be similar to calling Irish people British.
One needs to ask important questions such as, why do Spanish people fear people ruling their own destiny as it states in democracy? Why do Spanish people insist on oppressing a people and their language and culture? How can Spanish People dispute the evidence that is available? Catalans have a different Language, different culture, and different traditions which are usually considered to mean different country. It is so obvious that Catalans are different people, as well as the Galician’s are, and of course the Basques (who’s language is believed to be one of the most ancient in the World and where linguists have been unable to place it within a linguistic family). This may be due to Spanish people’s fears in the current economic climate whereby they realize if Catalonia was to proclaim their independence, then the Spanish way of life would disappear and they will have to become responsible overnight whereby they must find other resources that will make them economically viable which they don’t currently have. However, if one was to ask a person from Catalonia what is their nationality, their cognitive state would proclaim more often than not, they speak different, ergo they think different. They are Catalan and not Spanish.
Nevertheless, I am not from Catalonia but rather Ireland and therefore I am a conscientious observer who has the luxury to see situations from the outside. My wife is from Barcelona and therefore whom thinks of herself as Catalan and my best friends are from the southern Spanish cities and whom think of themselves as Spanish. I have heard and seen the arguments from both sides of the divide (i.e the Catalan people and the Spanish people whom do not live in Catalonia) and I have read up on the issue and this formulated my decision. As long as I have a mind and a freedom to make decisions, I will continue to do so regardless what others may think or do, however many Catalans don’t have that luxury and they depend on articles like this to be as accurate as possible so that people around the World can see what their life is like and the plights they may endure. It is all well and good to quote this is a encyclopedia but then one must remember part of an encyclopedia is to tell the reality of a people within their confines. A link that may well return this article to an equilibrium can be found here http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 ( talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
We do have quite a few native Catalan and Spanish speaking editors on these pages,some of whom share your political views, and they often contribute. But the content of the page is quite ferociously monitored to avoid people of nationalist or non-nationalist beliefs from skewing it towards their viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with holding the views you do about Catalonia, but wikipedia needs to present only the facts about a topic, not speculation and opinion.
Having said that, if you think anything is missing, or there is bias in the article, please alter it, as long as you have a good source for the new information. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the difference in meaning between "nationality" and "nacionalitat" / "nacionalidad", I've removed nationality from the opening para, the situation is explained in a later paragraph, and in the English Speaking world, the Spanish term is meaningless/misleading without context.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Given another user insists on putting nationality in the opening paragraph, I have put the term in quotes, as appears later in the text, to show it is not an error but a translation. ("Scotland is a nationality", "Canada is a nationality" would get changed pretty quick...) Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, please discuss changes on this word when editing, there is a very long history of debate on this, which led to the whole constitutional mularkey being put in its own section because the open para was about 2000 words. Unless all other regions of Spain have their constitutional status in first para it seems a bit POV here to include it.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
All this happened while I wasn't looking either, so I don't know why the legal status section vanished. I've nothing against including the legal term "nationality", and it's still there later on in "Statutes of autonomy". I just don't think the opening paragraph is the best place for it, as it reads a bit like someone wants everyone to know that Catalonia is not just another region. A new "legal status within Spain" section closer to the top, containing the "statutes of autonomy" text, and some possible expansion (though perhaps not too much, because God knows, we both know far more than the average person will ever need to about these things), would meet with no objection from me.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed back recent edits referring to Cat and P.V. as Spanish territories, instead of regions. The term territory is usually used to describe regions outside of the main government of the nation, like the British Overseas Territories, or areas not enjoying full political rights within the nation (as in the US), I suspect that this is a bit of POV pushing.
If anyone wants to change this, please revert individually rather than simply undoing my changes, as I have also had to put back UK spellings. Wiki policy is that British spellings are acceptable, and the first ones used in the article should remain (or at least it was).
Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Just one question: why do you use the term of "territory" and not the correct one as "nation": What's Catalonia for the writer of this article: an Spanish territory or region or a "nation" in Spain? User: Casablanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.210.131 ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
In English parlance Catalonia is a region, in Spanish law it is a Nationality, which has a meaning in English which is not applicable to a territory. In the non-legally binding preamble to its statute of autonomy, it is a nation. In the opening paragraph we used the term "autonomous community" because it describes the current situation without POV.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph is wrong: In the Spanish Constitution of 1978 Catalonia, along with the Basque Country and Galicia, was defined as a "nationality". The same constitution gave Catalonia the automatic right to autonomy, which resulted in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1979.
The word "Catalonia" does not appear even once in the Spanish constitution (only the Basque Country and Navarre are explicitly mentioned due to the historic charters - "fueros"). The only mentions to "nationalities" can be found in Article 2: "it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all". That's it. Period. Original text in English can be found in the official website of the Spanish Government: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/C511DC05-40C5-4739-8AB6-FA3CEE3B4F28/0/Constitucion_EN.pdf
-- 85.57.223.75 ( talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Catalonia's statutes of autonomy, approved by referendum and the Spanish government, use the meaningless term "nationality".
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The preamble is not a legislative document, it has no prescriptive value in law and so does not affect the legal status of Catalonia. That's the only way it got through the Spanish parliament, as you know
BNS
208.51.23.195 ( talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Many Catalan and non-Catalan spaniards do not consider Catalonia to be a nation, so to state Catalonia is a nation is a POV. Nothing wrong with it, but it shouldn't be in a wikipedia article.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 04:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes Galazan. Something that has only 90% support is by definition a POV, unless it is legislated to the contrary, which is not the case with the N word, as its position in the preamble of the estatut is not considered to have legal value. As for Catalans who don't believe Catalunya is a nation, go to Hospitalet and throw a brick, you'll probably hit two of them. Boynamedsue ( talk) 05:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
About your previous comments, a territory is not an outter area of a country, from where do you get this (mis)information?! A territory is a "land" (either dependent or independent), Catalonia, is a region, territory, land, community, area, and legally named an "autonomous community", with the status of "Nationality", dependent of Spain. The Spanish Constitution doesn't mention Catalonia is a region, or Spain is only made up of regions. The Constitution says Spain is made up of "Nationalities and Regions", and Catalonia is one of those nationalities, whether you like it or not, whether it sounds odd in English or not. What term shall we use instead? the so controversial term in Spain "nation"? We should just mention what the law says, and it says "nationalities". 83.46.23.210 ( talk) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Look in a English dictionary and see what nationality means. In wikipedia it is:
"Membership of a nation or sovereign state, usually determined by their citizenship, but sometimes by ethnicity or place of residence, or based on their sense of national identity."
By ths definition, Catalonia, England, Spain, the UK and Australia can't be nationalities. Catalonia is a "nacionalidad" or a "nacionalitat". Something completely different from a "nationality".
As for territory "Yorkshire is a territory", "England is a territory", "Munster is a territory", "Alaska is a territory"... Sorry no, "territory" in those contexts is inaccurate, imprecise and misleading. Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I heartily concur with Boynamedsue's observations. The fact is that this article is (supposed to be) in English, but it (and others on topics related to Spain, its ACs, its languages, etc.) is being invaded by a creeping tide of Spanglish that perverts the meaning of key terms. What the Spanish or Catalan (or Basque, or whatever) courts and legislature decide things should be called is applicable only to the Spanish, Catalan or Basque languages, etc., and can't be regarded as constraining the vocabulary used in English. By way of example I'm putting the term nacionalidad in Spanish in the lead. AdeMiami ( talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Spain has created a conceptual and linguistic innovation "nacionalidad=region with a different historical background which does not quite amount to nationhood" does not mean that this meaning is transfered into English simpñy because the word "nationality" is cognate with "nacionalidad". Any reasonably educated English person seeing the sentence "Catalonia is a nationality" will say "no it's not, it can't be" and assume it is an error on the part of the writer.
For that reason, if the word "nationality" appears in the lead, it must be in inverted commas to indicate to the reader "yes, we know this isn't correct English, but it's not a mistake. If you want to know more follow this link."
I like the idea of using the Spanish word directly, but the problem with that is that some users of a catalanist persuasion will consider this to be unacceptable for various reasons, and it's probably more stress than it's worth to do so. Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Territory, I do think that the word territory carries a slight implication of exclusion from the main body of the state, but I've nothing against it being used occasionally. However, before my initial complaint, another user had changed almost every "region" and "AC" in the text to territory, which to my ear gave it a POV feel. A couple of territories in the text are fine by me, but not to the exclusion of all other terms, especially the more accurate "Autonomous Community".
Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget Andalucia and the Canary Islands, yes I think that's a very good idea.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
BNS you confuses the meaning of word " nation" with the word " state". Please read the definitions and their examples in the oficial Cambridge Dictionary. You make a mistake if you link an encyclopedia about knowledge with laws about political pacts between political parties. I'm not saying to write "Catalonia is a european state", of course not!, I'm just defending it's a "nation", and this fact is accepted by the general majority of Catalan people.-- Galazan ( talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Gal, personally I don't see the word nation as particularly important, after all it's just a word that has no empirical reality. But it's clear that according to wikipedia's standards of verifiability, Catalonia isn't a nation. Probably the majority of Catalans consider Catalonia to be a nación/naciò. Probably a minority don't, along with a majority of Spaniards (including Catalans). But until it is legally defined as such, or the majority of sources internationally state that it is, it can't be called this in wikipedia, though of course these POVs can be reported.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You are maybe right, the Britannica article (Catalonia, Region (Spain)), uses the phrase "historic region" in the lead, something I'd have no problem seeing here. However, the rest is behind a pay wall, so I can-t see the quote you are refering to. When it uses "nationality" does it say "Catalonia is a nationality" or "Catalonia is refered to as/has the legal status in Spain of/ a nationality"?
The OECD report on Catalonia uses the term "Autonomous Region" in its opening lines. Again, no problem. Catalonia is clearly an (excessively) autonomous region. No English language source I have ever seen uses "nationality" in its primary description of catalonia, though I'm sure you will find isolated examples of "Catalonia is a nationality" (usually written by non-native speakers) or more commonly "the Spanish constitution defines Catalonia as a nationality". To put it in the lead seems to me to be giving undue weight, but I'm happy to compromise with users desperate to get as close as possible to the opening sentence "Catalonia is, was, and always will be a nation."
Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I edited a article of Wikipedia about Catalonia. Like fuc*** catalan=nazi
Catalonia (the actually Autonomous Community of Catalonia) is a part of a nation without state. This nation isn't Spain. This nation is known as "the Catalan Countries" and Catalonia form part of that. The Catalan Nation hasn't got a state. The Catalan Countries are distributed in Spain and France. I observed that in the article about Catalonia there wasn't this information so I added that.
So, I can't understand why Wikipedia deleted my revision of the article. I want an explanation and, if is necessary, start a discussion about the topic.
Thanks.
-- Comasblog ( talk) 21:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the reason is that wikipedia only reflects facts rather than opinions. Obviously, many Catalans feel the way you do, and many don't. What wikipedia does is report the current legal status quo, otherwise it'd just be a war of people who think as you do saying one thing, then people who disagree saying another.
Regards
Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (see today's AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This entry appears to materially over-state Catalonia's GDP. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, the correct figure for 2008 is €200,9bn (as opposed to €216.9bn in the entry), and the correct per-capita figure is €27,627 (as opposed to €30,700).
Since the national GDP/C is €23,858, the effect is to approximately double the degree to which Catalan prosperity exceeds national prosperity.
Source: http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft35%2Fp010&file=inebase&L=1
Note that IdesCat, which is apparently the regional statistics bureau, gives a different (higher) figure. This is apparently based on their own re-calculation of Catalonia's GDP. However they also quote the national GDP/C as above, and it's not clear to me that the two approaches are comparable. Maybe someone with economics skillz could take a look?
Anyway, the figure they give for 2008 (€29,160) doesn't match the one in the entry either.
http://www.idescat.cat/pub/?id=aec&n=356&lang=en
Also, one of the two sources (CIDEM, currently ref #47) appears to no longer exist as a serious website; it is now a "directory" advertises things like hair treatment products. Suggest it is removed as a reference.
I have not made these changes because I am totally new to Wikipedia editing and don't want to mess it up. Can someone with more gravitas please check and change?
168.168.33.250 ( talk) 09:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not let such bland statements go uncontested.
According to historian Josep M. Figueres, in the collective book "El català en els mitjans de communicació: situació actual i perspectives", published by the Societat Catalana de Comunicació in 2002, in 1933 (that is, before the Civil War) the production of books in Catalan amounted to 20% of all book production in Spain. The Franco regime reduced the presence of catalan in publishing production till it almost disappeared completely. In the latter years of the dictatorship there was a slight recovery of books in Catalan, but in 1976 they amounted to only 4% of all book production in Spain.
p. 22 ISBN 84-7283-620-7
Censorship is a second important issue left out here.
In Pelai Pagès i Blanch (ed.)'s book "Franquisme i repressió: la repressió franquista als països catalans (1939-1975)" (València: Universitat de València, 2004), the chapter by lawyer and sociolinguistic Francesc Vallverdú "Testimonis de repressió i censura", (pp. 181-188), is perfectly clear and well illustrated about the level of censorship exercised, in different ways, throughout the first 25 years of the Franco regime.
In conclusion,
Would the editors like a short text? If so, let me know m_strubell@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrubell ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Publications in Catalan continued in Spain throughout the '40s. There was a source in Catalan linked stating this, but it's been removed. It shows a low level of publishing to the late '40s then a gradual increase. This more than justifies the statement that publishing in Catalan continued throughout the dictatorship. Though walking round a Catalan second hand bookship would be enough to prove this.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, here's a non-wikiable, but decent source showing a crash in the number of Spanish books at the same time Catalan was reduced to a couple of books per year, and detailing its recovery at the same time as Catalan publishing boomed. http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2008/02/19/quantitative-analysis-by-language-of-barcelona-publications-in-british-library-integrated-catalogue-1900-1960/
Well, it clearly didn't nearly disappear, unless we are referring to the early 40's, when very little was published in Spain at all.
109.100.68.15 ( talk) 06:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Really no people speak catalonian, imposed in schools — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.83.137.184 (
talk)
00:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to correct the spelling of the province of Girona, as an English translation is Gerona. Girona is its name in Catalan. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalu%C3%B1a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.80.92 ( talk) 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Gerona is a correct name. Like you put carrer d'Aragó while the correct & official name is Aragón — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 ( talk) 00:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. Arcillaroja ( talk) 13:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert in the subject but I'm catalan and I'm quite surprised there's no reference to Catharism here (since it's the most common etymological explanation here). Even in Catharism article you can find a reference to Catalonia /info/en/?search=Catharism and the "Catar Launia" theory makes so much more sense than most of the ones appearing here. I'm asking some friends in the field to provide richer references, but wanted to make note of it just in case someone overlooked it. Thabeat ( talk) 23:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article says, "In the November 25, 2012 Catalan parliamentary election, sovereigntist parties supporting a secession referendum gathered 59.01% of the votes and hold 87 of the 135 seats in the Catalan Parliament. Parties supporting independence from the rest of Spain obtained 49.12% of the votes and a majority of 74 seats." Sorry but how could this be possible since the sum of 59.01% and 49.12% is over 100? 31.4.243.81 ( talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Gregory Durnovo
Easy. The 49% refer to those who want independence. The 59% includes them - and other who want the issue decided by referendum. It is NOT pro-independence v anti-indepndence. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
Could we settle this once and for all? While I broadly agree that this should be in the lead in some form or other – I think it's a significant enough point not to be an undue or recentism issue and it doesn't have to be mentioned in such a way that it reads as taking sides – the way we actually describe the situation probably needs some review. I haven't been following the ins and outs of this recently, but I'm not sure it's accurate any longer to say, for example, that a "referendum on independence" will be taking place, and relying on a year-old news report probably isn't ideal either. Equally, just taking it out entirely with edit summaries such as "damp squib" or "NNPOV" isn't very helpful. N-HH talk/ edits 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The repeated recent bid to suggest in the lead that Catalan was banned outright rather than simply in official use now has a purported source. However, I looked around before reverting the first bid to change the scope of the wording here. I could not find any evidence that any of the Nueva Planta decrees banned people from speaking or writing in Catalan. The source provided doesn't either: what it says is "a series of measures .. imposed the use of Spanish in public life". It doesn't even mention a ban on Catalan at all, let alone an all-encompassing one. N-HH talk/ edits 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
These two edits have a) added "nation" so that we now have three different descriptions of what Catalonia "is" in the very first sentence and b) switched the order of languages in two places so that Spanish comes after Occitan/Aranese. Unfortunately editing on this page seems to be more about scoring political/nationalist points than actually presenting the average reader with clear information.
I would just revert the latest changes but I think a slightly more comprehensive agreement and settlement is needed. N-HH talk/ edits 09:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if my proposal above is going to be knocked on the head, something needs to be done with the first sentence:
It's drowning in jargon and legalese unknown to the English language – as well as an overlong list of alternative, non-English, names – and offers no clarity, in anything approaching plain words, as to what Catalonia is. As the links I provided above show, no other published source offers such a confusing and unclear definition of this place in its opening sentence. N-HH talk/ edits 21:00, 2 September 2013 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Since User:Xtv is once again trying to get me blocked I would like to remind him (and of course everybody else reading) that, there is ANY wikipedia guideline to state which language should go first. That said, some months ago, there was a consensus in which Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries (from which user Xtv is an active member and some other people agreed in that the name of the languages should be displayed in alternate order throughout the article (the order 3 lines below in the lead and in the infobox is different than the one in the first line of the lead paragraph) as to keep everybody happy (as both languages are co-official in this region).
If user Xtv is unable to follow the moves from his wikiproject he should remove his name from the members list.
If the anon user is reading this, he is invited to explain his opinion instead than vandalizing.
If either Xtv or the anon user are willing to break the consensus (probably one of the few we got in tha catalan related articles) they are invited to explain it here before vandalizing or reporting me without reason. -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox they are displayed: "Official languages Spanish and Catalan"
It has 518 km of coastline on the Mediterranean and covers 23,259 km² of land with 4.8 million inhabitants (2005). Its borders largely reflect those of the historic Kingdom of Valencia. According to the Statute of Autonomy, Valencia is recognized as a nationality. The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory). The capital of the autonomous community is the city of Valencia.
In the infobox they are displayed: "Official languages Valencian and Spanish"
I hope that this helps to prove my point about the consensus reached long ago. The order of the languages is consistently changed throughout the content of the articles about regions where both Catalan and Spanish are co-official. --
MauritiusXXVII
(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)
09:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Since Maurice27 is not able to bring the references to the supposed consensus -which actually I think that does not exist at all-, I ask you, WMC, to bring back the article to the original version. Thank you.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 17:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
So... I have no great interest in this issue, though I can see that some people care a great deal, unsurprisingly, language can be emotive. But I can provide some rules. Firstly, if you're going to clima a consensus for some version, you have to be able to back that up by refererence to that consensus. If you can't, you should stop talking about it and everyone else is entitled to ignore it. Second, edit comments like "re-arranged to standard order" are unhelpful and probably provocative, unless you are prepared to provide some reason as to why that order should be considered standard. Unless someone can provide a killer argument as to why the order should be X (which is unlikely or they would already have done so), what we need is some idea of how to resolve the dispute: either some kind of wiki policy, some governmental policy to follow, or failing that I'll just toss a coin William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops!! I didn't realise this was such an emotive issue. It's not as by making the edit I was trying to say one language was better or more important than the other. I simply changed the order in which languages are displayed on documentation and signage in Catalonia and that is the order they are displayed. Politics, politics, politics. Now I see why the EU, UN and so on, spend so much time and money deciding on seating arrangements of country figure heads. Oh how what we really need is for them to make the world a better place and for us to concentrate on improving this article as a whole. Well just my humble thoughts... 87.80.24.72 ( talk) 11:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley: I am not very enthusiastic with the alphabetical order. It's too arbitrary. In this case, p.e., it could make that a language that is spoken by less than 0.1% of the population went in the first position. And it could reopen discussions about names (Aranese/Occitan, Catalan/Valencian, Spanish/Castillian...). I propose one of the 2 following solutions:
Cheers-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory, William M. Connolley had to help us resolving this problem, but it's already about one month since he came here for the last time, I've asked him help twice and he has ignored us. Therefore, I propose to ask some other help from admins.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been also accused of "unreasonable deletion of content" and wanting "to make a major change deleting one paragraph" by the same anon user and user:Xtv.
This is the one from the "legal status within Spain" section:
"The 1979 as well as the current Statute of Autonomy, approved in 2006, state that "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, which is its basic institutional law."[9].
The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the "Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality". While this Statute was approved by and sanctioned by both the Catalan and the Spanish parliaments, and later by referendum in Catalonia, it has been legally contested by the surrounding Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community,[10] as well as by the Partido Popular. The objections are based on various topics such as disputed cultural heritage but, especially, on the Statute's alleged breaches of the "solidarity between regions" principle enshrined by the Constitution in fiscal and educational matters. As of November 2008, the Constitutional Court of Spain is assessing the constitutionality of the challenged articles; its binding conclusion is expected for 2008."
And this is the one from the "History" section (which I
erased):
Catalonia's second statute of autonomy, adopted by the Catalan government on 22 December 1979, officially recognized Catalonia as a nationality. Then, the amended version approved on 9 August 2006 has defined Catalonia as a nation in the preamble. The precise meaning of the term nation is ambiguous as to not conflict with the Spanish Constitution. The Statute of Autonomy also establishes that "Catalonia wishes to develop its political personality within the framework of a State which recognizes and respects the diversity of identities of the peoples of Spain". After the charter was first passed in the regional parliament, it was then edited in conjunction with the Cortes Generales (Spanish bicameral parliament). Except the Partido Popular, all the other political parties represented in the Catalan autonomous Parliament endorsed the final redaction of the statute, which was then approved by means of a referendum held in June 2006 in which 73.9% voted for the autonomy plan and 20.8% against it. The turnout was unprecedentedly low, at around 49% of the total census, which resulted in the highest abstention ever registered in Catalonia in a referendum.
Now, is it me or both paragraphs just claim the exactly same thing? They are redundant! So, in order to keep the article clean and willing to have an overall better article, I explained the move and deleted it. If anyone disagrees, they just have to make use of this talk-page instead than using futile and opportunists moves in order to get me blocked. -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an open report about edit warring in this article. If you continue reverting this page, you'll be blocked.-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added a Clean-up to the economy section of this page, which doesn't make much sense. Needs the attention of a native spaker. I may try and correct this, but it may be better for someone with a greater knowledge of the Catalonian economy. JosephLondon ( talk) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Catalonia is not a "Autonomous Community". Catalonia is a nation, a country if you want, with 1.000 years of history. Nowadays its way of government is a "Autonomous Community", but only since 1980. The main law of Catalonia -really a spanish law approved in the spanish Parliament- says it very clear: ARTICLE 1. CATALONIA Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with this Estatut, which is its basic institutional law.
Wikipedia says Scotland and Wales, and England of course, are countries. Why Catalonia isn't it? Oriolandres ( talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In the same way that wiki-articles referred to England, Great Britain, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, etc. are based on Encyclopædia Britannica, it's obvious that wiki-article of Catalonia must be based on Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (in English, Big Catalan Encyclopædia) and move all politic stuff to Politic's point, of course. I think it's the most respectful option to catalan people so I've done the appropiated changes. Crema ( talk) 16:18, 4th January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.51.105 ( talk)
I absolutely agree with Mauritius XXVII, Wikipedia must be based on facts, and saying that Catalonia is a nation or a country is false, as false as saying that Andalusia or Murcia are nations. By now, as for Catalunia, the fact is that we just can say that it is an Autonomus Communuty, as the rest of ACs in Spain, and if someone doesn't know what an Autonomus Community is, thats not a problem Oriolandres, anyone can look it up in Wikipedia. And don't talk about the most "respectful option", because then we should say that every AC in Spain is a country, to be respectful to everyone, since if we say that Catalonia is a nation or a country because of its past, why don't we say that Andalusia is a nation? During the muslim period and till the conquest of Granada, Al-Andalus was less spanish than Euskadi or Catalonia. If we want a unbiased Wikipedia, we cannot base an article on just the Big Catalan Encyclopædia, but also in other ones, and we cannot say something that isn't true only to "respect" some people. your.hand.in.mine ( talk) 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Catalonia a nation? First notice I have. The status a society has (town, city, region, country, state, etc.) is decided by their people and their representation (politicians). Catalonia's Parlament decided that first Estatut article was "Catalonia is a nation", so YES, Catalonia is a nation. In the same way, this status is contempled by their Encyclopædia. Who do you think you are to decide what a comunity is against its own decision? Crema ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.51.105 ( talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
dear god, are we still on this? The legal status section clearly articulates the complex legal maze of what Catalonia is or isn't in Spanish law. It is agreed by all the current area of territory governed by the Generalitat is an autononmous community, the rest is POV.
boynamedsue. 208.51.23.195 ( talk) 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen, sonny. I've been brawling in the mud about this for nigh on 4 years, don't send me soft volleys like that one.
"The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality."
The preamble is not legislative but descriptive, and the term "nation" was not, therefore, adopted into law.
If we look at the text:
"El Parlament de Catalunya, recollint el sentiment i la voluntat de la ciutadania de Catalunya, ha definit Catalunya com a nació d'una manera àmpliament majoritària. La Constitució espanyola, en l'article segon, reconeix la realitat nacional de Catalunya com a nacionalitat."
This does not state that Catalunya is a Nation, it states that "El parlament de Catalunya" has defined Catalonia as a nation. Even if if the Preamble had legal validity, all it does is state that 2 different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive)opinions as to the "National status" of Catalonia exist.
The text which created the AC of Catalonia (and which has legislative value), the constitution, states that Catalonia is "nationality". However, that term is meaningless in English when used to describe an entity such as the Catalan Autononmous Community, so we explain the factual case in the "legal status" section, and leave the term "Autonomous Community" in the intro.
208.51.23.195 ( talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC) boynamedsue
Excuse me, but I find such a politic intention in affirming the national status of Catalonia than in denying it. The obsession of denying it is also a political point of view. In Spain, any recognition of the identity of the catalan people is denied in prevention of further paths to independence. It is a role the spanish nationalists play and it is a fact it is suffered in Catalonia. We all know it. Catalonia is a country as Scotland is a country. That does not mean that Catalonia is independent from Spain, in fact it is administrated as a autonomous region, as it does not mean Scotland is independent from the United Kingdom. In any case, the obsession of some of you of eliminating any reference to it only pictures your politica prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.139.38 ( talk) 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
English in this article is suffering seriously. I quote an example: "Actually the government of la Generalitat de Catalunya are developing a new type of administation that will agroup comarques and will substitute the provinces. Actually are called àmbit funcional territorial but with a new law will be called vegueries, there are seven àmbits (Àmbit metropolità de Barcelona, Camp de Tarragona, Alt Pirineu i Aran, Comarques Centrals, Comarques gironines and Ponent). That seven àmbits are define by the regional plan of Catalonia (in Catalan, Pla territorial general de Catalunya).[2][3]" "Actually" in english does not mean "at the moment" as "actualmente" does in spanish. The correct word would be "currently". Also the verb "agroup" does not exist in english as far as i can tell. Also syntax is suffering. Please take the time to revise the text or I can do it when I find some time. Schizophonix ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that there are some problems with that sentence: "The flag of Catalonia or Senyera (flag in Catalan), is a vexillological symbol based on the coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon, which consists of four red stripes on a golden background. It is an official symbol since the Statute of Catalonia of 1932." The flag was an heraldic emblem of Counts of Barcelona before being in the Crown of Aragon.-- Vilar 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Carles, noticing your last , I just want to point you that each and every other article about CCAA has the vectorial map (just take a look yourself). If we want to keep some equality and sense around wikipedia, the correct thing is to leave the other one. there is no real reasons for this article to be the exemption. My thoughts only. --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Carles. Long time no see.
I wanted to make you reconsider your position about keeping the european centered maps. For almost one year(?), you have been defending those maps against (quite a lot now) changes by multiple editors to the one used in the rest of CCAA related articles. We already discussed this matter long time ago (uniformity in wikipedia articles, the country being more important than the continent...).
You know I don't agree with your position, but for the sake of both of us I left your option. But now, you should admit that your opinion is probably a minority.
Tell me what you think. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Carles, all the autonomies of Spain have the same map. I understand that you are independentist but this it is not motive for including a map where you cannot see the whole country. I am sorry, but it isn't logical to include a map different to the rest. Diplomatiko ( talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm restoring the regular map (the one which all the other articles use). There's no reason to use another map: NUTS maps don't offer an enough clear sight of a country subdivision location. Furthermore, this (and sometimes the Valencian Community one, for obvious reasons...) is the only country subdivision article in the entire Wikipedia where they're used. Icallbs ( talk) 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
this version is clearly the most desirable one. It has what all of us find important on a map. But we do lack of all the other maps for the rest of the Autonomous Communities. If someone knows how to add the small european map on the rest of them (and willing to), the problem is solved. I already tried to some days ago, but to manipulate svg's is beyond my comprehension... ;) --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
We must differentiate between geographic and politics definition. Catalonia is a shit of geographical area comprising actual Catalan Community in Spain and Cerdanya which actually is the french department of Pyrinèes Oriental. If there is any reference to Catalonia as a nation, it must cover all Catalonia and not merely the Catalan Community of Spain. Both populations consider theirselves Catalans sharing the same Catalan language, (even it is not considered an official language in France because political assumptions) whith respect for each political nationality, french or spanish.
The definition must be considered as follows:
Catalonia Community covers an area of 32,114 km² and has an official population of 7,210,508[1]. It borders Cerdanya in France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, the Valencian Community to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east (580 km coastline). Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Aranese.
I understand that the separatist ideas of some french and spanish nationalism against the European Union cultural heritage must be erradicated if we want the wikipedia project to progress.
I struggle to believe that Perpignan in France should only be counted as "Catalan speaking". They fly the Catalan flag, it's historically and cultural strongly Catalan, and the Rugby League team (which should also be mentioned and linked in the article) is called Catalan Dragons. In Catalan the area is called Northern Catalonia.
I'm sure this is a controversial issue whatever is included in the article, but ignoring Northern Catalonia in the article completely strikes me as a whitewash and not a neutral POV. Davini994 ( talk) 10:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the article uses the word "Catalan" as an English demonym adjective in almost all cases. The article even states in the infobox itself that the English demonym is "Catalan". However, the section on popular culture uses the demonym "Catalonian". Which is correct, if any? Either the references to "Catalonian" need to be changed to "Catalan" or, alternatively, "Catalonian" should be recognised as a possible demonym. Madeinsane ( talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right. 'Catalonian' is incorrect, or at least not as correct as 'Catalan'. I've removed the former from the article. That said, the entire section on popular culture needs clearing up. It is very badly written and might also be split to a new page. Any thoughts? --
Tomclarke (
talk)
15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"...the name of the Spanish province Catalonia, which is but a slight deformation of Goth-Alania, "province of the Goths and Alans"..." (from Alans, Encyclopaedia Iranica) http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f8/v1f8a013.html Böri ( talk) 14:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
--This is not true at all, just a fantasy theory, the name Catalonia probably comes from Gothalunda/Gothland > Catalunya or from Castelans(people who lives in castles)> Castelunya > Catalunya -- 79.159.194.238 ( talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you seek the answer to this question in ordinary English dictionaries, you’ll find entries like this:
or
or
So are Wikipedia editors entitled to describe Catalonia as a nation? On the basis of the foregoing, clearly they are. And what about the Spanish Constitutional Court? Well, neither they nor any other institution or legislature have any business to dictate English usage. Many editors (particularly some who are not native English speakers) have failed to take account of this fact. When the term “nation” is used in the context of Catalonia’s legal status, we need to make it quite clear in what sense it’s being used.
Let me hasten to add that the foregoing mustn’t be taken to imply that I’m supporting a Catalanist position here: that would be to fall into exactly the sort of confusion between linguistic usage and legal definition that I'm criticizing.
AdeMiami ( talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The first definition of nation would relate to to "Catalan people" rather than the current administrative division of Spain. There is an article on that topic so it might be valid over there, but as a native English speaker, I can say that linguistically speaking your source does not support the idea that the autonomous community of Catalonia is a nation.
A nation in English is either a nation state, or a people, Catalonia (AC) does not fulfill either of those requisites. Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you think I'm amusing Frank, but I certainly don't hate anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the definitions above do not apply to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, which is the topic of this article. The autonomous community of Catalonia is not an "aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory", though one could make an argument that the Catalan people were. It is an administrative division of the Spanish state.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Look, this back and forth edit warring isn't really helping anything. You guys need to discuss it here. As an outsider with no stake in this, could I clarify a few points and ask people to follow them up below? There seem to be three main issues here -
Per the above section, I don't think anyone can argue against the idea Catalonia is a "nation" in the broadest sense of the word - in the same way that is is also a "region", and "area" or whatever, as well as more formally an "Autonomous Community". The Spanish Constitutional Court ruling would also seem - according to the Telegraph piece being cited - to have now more formally confirmed/accepted the use of the term "nation" in the latest Statute of Autonomy. However, it seems that they are saying that precisely because it is simply a vague cultural term that does not have a "legal value" or constitutional implications - ie it's accurate, but not that significant. The issue at stake is what to highlight and prioritise in the lead, and I'm not sure that simply sourcing to the Telegraph piece helps. That article also describes Catalonia as a "region", and it's not clear on what basis one term is being preferred here over any other. It seems to me that using more formally defined terminology, where the terms wiki-link to pages about terms as they are used in a Spanish context - ie as in this version - would be better.
Andreas Balart ( talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a formal, agreed view in the real world of which of Catalan and Spanish is the "main" language, eg by virtue of official recognition as such within Catalonia and/or Spain as a whole, or are there official figures that reveal one language is more commonly spoken as a first language in Catalonia than the other? If so, the order should just follow that. If not, or there's no clear answer on those criteria, how about going by alphabetical order, ie Catalan first (although it would be slightly odd to apply this across all languages and put Aranese right at the top)?
It seems kind of obvious to me that the Parliament field in the infobox should refer to the Catalan parliament and link to that page, not to the national Spanish parliament. See Scotland for example.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, if they help. There's plenty else that needs improving with the rest of the article, and genuine vandalism seems to slip by unnoticed while all this gets edit warred over. -- N-HH talk/ edits 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100710/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_catalan_charter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Spain's Constitutional Court accepts the definition as nation for Catalonia but has no legal value. For legal purposes is still considered a historical nationality and in any case should not be included within the framework of political status. Catalonia is only an autonomous region of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Eva Grossjean ( talk) 11:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nations are not defined solely by Constitutions, mon cher Arkarull.
If that was the case, the USA could never be considered a nation, since a definition of the United States as a nation is nowhere to be seen in there. And yet, they are a nation--and what a nation, by the way!
Britain, on the other hand, does not even have a written Constitution to back her nationhood. And yet, it is another nation.
As I wrote before in this forum, some people mix 'statehood' with 'nationhood'. Gross mistake: sometimes they might coincide, but some other times they might not.
This legalistic insistence on the Spanish Constitution demonstrates, if anything, a large degree of intellectual laziness.
xxx 81.39.12.15 ( talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And sorry for my poor English. It's probably my "large degree of intellectual laziness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Eva. I will not go into your game. In any case you should know that sociology has evolved a bit since Weber. It's amazing how in one paragraph you have insulted Spain, the Spanish, the Catholic tradition, and so on. You should review a little the History before returning to the topics of the Inquisition and the innate stupidity transmitted through Catholicism. I will repeat it again to see if you can assimilate without insulting even if you disagree:
Oops, no they are not, I misread the total population. 1812ahill ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a consensus on how the languages are displayed: alternating order. If you look at this article, you can find "Catalan>Spanish" in the infobox and all through the article, and "Spanish>Catalan" in the infobox and all through the article. I think it's the better order we can agree, but there's another version (the one who Andreas, Eva and others revert to often) which has only "Catalan>Spanish". I think it's obvious the first option is better than this one, as it's clearly more neutral. Again, the most logical option (and most used on Wikipedia) would be by percentage of speakers in Catalonia, so it'd be Spanish>Catalan>Aranese. Some users have complained about this version and I honestly respect it, so again I think the best order is the alternating one.
Also, the "National" in "National symbols of Catalonia" was introduced by Andreas Balart in 372097193 with no explanation, and I think it's controversial and not very appropiate to put it there because of the next issue.
About the "nationality" part, as discussed above in this very talk page, it's unreferenced (even Jimbo Wales has said so, before being reverted by Andreas as a vandal (!!), controversial (the Constitutional Court which has ruled "nation" has no value). Also, there's a problem about "Catalonia is a nationality", because that makes no sense whatsoever in English. "Nationality" in English =/= "Nacionalidad" in Spanish, due to the peculiar situation of this term in Spain. Icallbs ( talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Icallbs , not my intention increparte, but the Catalan language has been banned several times by Spanish law. The last time was with the Franco regime (1939-1975), this situation seriously endangered the Catalan language and its number of speakers, as the Catalan was removed from schools, media, books and any official statement, relegated only the informal conversation, almost clandestine. The fact that this situation is quite close in time and, therefore, the current situation arising from a failure to come so bad, should make us raise our awareness of the issue. So I think the way you propose to treat the order of the languages is simple and naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.65.74 ( talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
My two cents as food for thought, as I will most likely not participate in subsequent debates due to lack of time. First, regarding the order of the languages, it really doesn't matter which comes first (and one could argue endlessly as to why Catalan or Spanish should come first). But, I do argue for consistency, in which case, if you stick to Spanish>Catalan (or vice versa), this order should be kept throughout the article, instead of alternating. It is more encyclopedic, and less confusing. This is not an issue about neutrality. It is simply an issue of style.
Now, regarding "nationality", I disagree with Icallbs. "Nationality" does make sense in English, and it is indeed extensively used. I would advocate for its use in the introduction based on the following points:
To me, if reputable academic sources have no issues with the term "nationality" (in English) and being the word chosen by the Spanish Parliament in 1978 and being a constitutional term, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It is fully referenced in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
Last but not least, other autonomous communities that usually receive less attention (for whatever reason) have used the word "nationality" in their introductory paragraphs (e.g. Galicia, the Valencian Community) without any controversy.
Ahh, as a PS, the Constitutional Court upheld the term "national symbols of Catalonia" (8th article) as fully constitutional, in the sense (I quote), "of their condition of symbols of a nationality constituted as an autonomous community in exercise of the right acknowledged and guaranteed by the 2nd article of the Spanish Constitution [...] they are, in sum, the symbols of a nationality without any pretension [...] of contradiction to the symbols of the Spanish Nation". Later on, the resolution also adds that the 8th article is "constitutional" (conforme a la constitución) interpreted in the sense that the said term is exclusively referring in its meaning and use, to the symbols of Catalonia "defined as a nationality" and integrated into the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation". [12]. Ergo I don't see a problem with using "national symbols", when the term itself has been declared constitutional. But of course, you cannot avoid using this term without also making reference to the definition of Catalonia as a nationality, so we are back to square one.
And as a final side note (a second PS), I noted that someone said that the functions of the states of the USA and the autonomous communities in Spain are almost identical. Not true, precisely because the former is a federation and the latter is not. In a federation powers are transferred from the states to the federation and anything not explicitly transferred (i.e. collectively transferred as written in the constitution) is a prerogative of the individual states. In centralized (or partially decentralized) countries, (the so called "regional-States") it is the central government that transfers powers to the constituent entities (e.g. the autonomous communities), and anything not explicitly transferred pertains to the central government. While in some areas (i.e. education, transportation, etc.) both the states of the USA and the autonomous communities of Spain exercise their jurisdiction in similar ways, the central government of Spain retains the power to enhance or remove any powers, and to intervene if necessary. That is why, in spite of being "one of the most decentralized countries in Europe", Spain still cannot be classified as a federation.
Cheers, -- the Dúnadan 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are confusing demonym with nationality. Based on "common usage" the term might sound weird in English (as a native English speaker myself)- but I must add that also in Spanish! (Specially so for Spanish speakers outside Spain). I would agree with the Economist that it is an ambiguous term. In fact, it was a carefully chosen word by the Spanish Parliament, precisely to avoid the word "nations" (reserved for Spain as whole only) while granting some regions some sort of distinction in that regard. Moreover, the ambiguity itself was chosen purposely. You can read a lot about this, from the Official Publications of the Congress of Deputies here or a brief summary here, especially the list of the "interpretations" of this term, according to the fathers of the constitution itself. Note that none of the definitions refer to a territory, but to communities (i.e. people). Because of this, the administrative entities were to be called "autonomous communities", instead of "autonomous regions", which was the term chosen in the 1931 constitution, even though "community" does not refer to a territory either.
On the other hand one could also argue that the word "nation" refers to a people who inhabit a territory, and not the territory itself regardless of who inhabits it. In fact, nation implies a people not a territory. But we all agree that Spain is a nation. And also a State. And also a territory. By extension, the same applies to "nationality", based on the definitions provided here and of course, in conjunction with the definitions of "nationality" according to the fathers of the Spanish constitution, and in conjunction with the many secondary publications (like the OECD) that use the term, with and without quotations. But it really doesn't matter. Whether nationality can be applied to a region or not, in English or Spanish, the ambiguity was chosen purposely, and, for good or for bad, it is the constitutional (and statutory) term to refer to Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Andalusia, and others recently. As to how to phrase it, I would simply quote the Statute of Autonomy, "Catalonia, as a nationality [of Spain], is constituted as an autonomous community ...."
(PS: I believe that for the most part, quotation marks are used to represent exact language, not necessarily to convey that the term does not make sense. In fact, within the same articles you cite above, the term "nation" is also written in quotation marks. Quotation marks are also used when designating or referring to something specifically, just like I did with the term "nation" in this sentence).
-- the Dúnadan 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
to Icallbs. I would like to know why Spanish>Catalan is more neutral! I think that if you want to used in some things Spanish>catalan is ok. But in the toponimia it has to be Catalan>Spanish because the only oficial toponimia is in catalan. So it has to be in English>Oficial>Others = English>Catalan>Spanish (E/Aranese/S for aranese municipalities), that would be the real neutral order. The oficial name of the CA is Catalunya, also it is used in spanish, Cataluña, but the oficial one is Catalunya. I don't understand why all you are doing that changes and saying that is "neutral" when in Catalonia in catalan or in spanish we wrote mostly the toponimia in catalan. I would like to say that it would be better to anyone edit for somedays that article before we arrive to a consensous, because it can't be that one people do a thing and then some other change it. -- Vilar 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for taking some days to reply back. Like I said before, I wasn't sure if I'd had the time to follow up on this debate. Regarding your proposal, "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities", the only issue that I have with it is that it doesn't specify what Catalonia is (a region or a nationality). The Spanish constitution does differentiate between the two as do the Statutes of Autonomy of those nationalities. In fact, during the transition to democracy, the "nationalities", ( Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia), were to be granted autonomy through a simplified, almost automatic process, whereas the regions if the wish to constitute autonomous communities, they had to follow up a longer more complicated process and fulfill specific requirements. Eventually all regions did, and a couple chose to describe themselves as "nationalities" as well (like Andalusia and Valencia). The distinction does matter in Spanish politics.
As a side note, not all autonomous communities represent [historic] regions or nationalities, only some do. Madrid, for example, belonged to the region of Castile (la Mancha), but was constituted as a separate autonomous community "in the nation's interest".
-- the Dúnadan 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True, the constitution simply states that the Spanish Nation is integrated by nationalities and regions and guarantees their right to autonomy (art. 2), by the process laid down on articles 143 to 158. Bear in mind that the constitution was written prior to the establishment of the autonomous communities; in fact articles 143 to 158 simply outline the process whereby the nationalities and regions could accede to autonomy, should they wish to do so, but, arguably, apart from the nationalities, it did not foresee which or how many would be created. [i.e. Cantabria and La Rioja were considered part of Castile at one point; plus the Congress reserved the right to concede autonomy to other entities other than the regions and nationalities]. Hence, the constitution, like the US constitution with respect to states and territories, does not provide a list or description to specific places. But that does not mean that there is any ambiguity as to the status of Catalonia (anymore than the status of California, even if its status is not stated in the US constitution): it is statutorily and constitutionally (per the wording of the latest ruling) a "nationality". That should not produce any edit warring, and if it does, it can only be classified as vandalism (as it goes against primary sources). I understand that saying that Catalonia is a nation is indeed controversial and cannot be put into the introduction, but this is not the case when it comes to the word "nationality". And I agree with you, it would be far better if other users would participate in the debate. -- the Dúnadan 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is necessary for effect of brevity but also preciseness to have a person who speaks both Catalan and Spanish contribute to this article (This is a link with plenty of information that this article has omitted but I believe is relevant and which is substantiated http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623). The psychological process of an individual living within the territory of Catalonia has to be included. Otherwise, the article becomes redundant and in the event of Catalonia becoming an independent free state more difficult to modify. The majority of people in Catalonia do not think of themselves as Spanish but rather as Catalans, specifically during this economic turmoil that Europe is going through and there are plenty of studies that reveal this to be the case. There are also many articles of propaganda from both the Spanish and the Catalan side and these needs to be whittled out for more objective sources. However the article should demonstrate the emotions of the Spanish people towards Catalans in that they have distain for Catalan existence and use racial jokes on a daily basis in reference to Catalans. They insist the language of Catalan not to be spoken in any other parts of Spain, and the Spanish parliament refuse to allow the Catalan language to be spoken within its walls. In a recent newspaper poll by the Spanish population excluding Catalonia, 78% of people supported military action against Catalonia if it proposed independence. This may be because the current government inside Catalonia is a pro-independent party which has a majority of 86% support and because of the current economic climate where Spain is on the verge of requiring an EU/IMF bailout. This has caused fear in the Spanish people as Catalonia is the wealthiest regions that provide support for Spain’s economy. The Spanish government are currently attempting to pass legislation that will reverse much of the powers Catalans have currently whereby the Spanish government insist Spanish should be the only language taught in Catalan schools. These repressions are what need to be discussed in the article.
When one thinks of Spain, one could construe it as being akin to an empire just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were all part of the Soviet Union (as was Russia) until they separated in 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until the break up in the 90’s. When one looks further at the remarks of the politicians in Spain on Catalonia and her citizens, they will clearly see identical policies as those held previously by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. One may construe they are different in that Spain function by democracy but is it really a democracy when the voice of a people is overwhelmed by the voices of others external regions that are only interested in a communities wealth and thereby prevent that community seeking to promote the independence of their language, culture, and traditions. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and one may have argued during the existence of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that the people of the breakaway republics were in fact Soviets and Yugoslavs but these people would not have accepted that and if one was to say to these people that they are still Soviets and Yugoslavs, these people would not like it as they fought for their independence for years, just as the Catalans have being doing against Spain. It would be disrespectful to minimize people so crudely that it would be similar to calling Irish people British.
One needs to ask important questions such as, why do Spanish people fear people ruling their own destiny as it states in democracy? Why do Spanish people insist on oppressing a people and their language and culture? How can Spanish People dispute the evidence that is available? Catalans have a different Language, different culture, and different traditions which are usually considered to mean different country. It is so obvious that Catalans are different people, as well as the Galician’s are, and of course the Basques (who’s language is believed to be one of the most ancient in the World and where linguists have been unable to place it within a linguistic family). This may be due to Spanish people’s fears in the current economic climate whereby they realize if Catalonia was to proclaim their independence, then the Spanish way of life would disappear and they will have to become responsible overnight whereby they must find other resources that will make them economically viable which they don’t currently have. However, if one was to ask a person from Catalonia what is their nationality, their cognitive state would proclaim more often than not, they speak different, ergo they think different. They are Catalan and not Spanish.
Nevertheless, I am not from Catalonia but rather Ireland and therefore I am a conscientious observer who has the luxury to see situations from the outside. My wife is from Barcelona and therefore whom thinks of herself as Catalan and my best friends are from the southern Spanish cities and whom think of themselves as Spanish. I have heard and seen the arguments from both sides of the divide (i.e the Catalan people and the Spanish people whom do not live in Catalonia) and I have read up on the issue and this formulated my decision. As long as I have a mind and a freedom to make decisions, I will continue to do so regardless what others may think or do, however many Catalans don’t have that luxury and they depend on articles like this to be as accurate as possible so that people around the World can see what their life is like and the plights they may endure. It is all well and good to quote this is a encyclopedia but then one must remember part of an encyclopedia is to tell the reality of a people within their confines. A link that may well return this article to an equilibrium can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 ( talk) 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are some heraldic and/or vexillological sources: Source 1, Source 2. Cadenas, A.A. and Cadenas, V. : Heraldica de las comunidades autonomas y de las capitales de provincia. Hidalguia, Madrid, 1985.159 p. ISBN 84-00-0604-7.
Another one: Societat Catalana de Genealogia... Escut de Catalunya/Coat of Arms of Catalonia --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence has an embedded POV. This is not only a NPOV policy problem. If you don't share the POV (or aren't sure what it is), you can't understand the meaning of the sentence:
This could mean that there is a linguistic balance between Castillian Spanish and Catalan which would be upset by more people speaking Castillian. It could also mean there is a linguistic balance towards mutually intelligible languages being spoken, which is upset by all these non-Spanish speakers coming in. In either case, it would help to: (1) chuck the phrase linguistic balance and specify which speaking groups are expanding and which are contracting; (2) treat Spanish-speaking immigrants from Latin America differently; (3) explain which local languages immigrants learn (or to what extent they learn neither). Cheers! -- Carwil ( talk) 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is lacking a geographic and geologic section describing the geomorphology of Catalonia. Xufanc ( talk) 10:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
ABOUT SURVEYS AND REFERENDUM
2 important facts about the surveys and referendum are missing. First, it mentions the survey where the separatist option won, but doesn't state that this was an exception, in a special context, and that the ones before showed the separatist option supported by not more than 20 % voters. Also, and even more important, the separatist referenda were won with percentages over 90 %, but participation was ridiculous, 20 % or less, and experts point out that separatist are presumed to have voted massively, while non-separatists would have paid little atention, so those referenda were considered a separatist defeat rather than a victory-- 88.3.243.255 ( talk) 23:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but please note that not all experts agree with this. Political Spanish experts have this theory while some others think differently. Others think that it was still the separatist victory as "non-active" separatists did not come to vote (thus, people who would rather become independent, but don't feel so strong about it). So, we should just state all the facts and let the reader judge, not give them a Centralist POV like you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.74.132 ( talk) 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So, I've read the economy part of the article and see how it is compared to Basque Country and Madrid. Isn't this misgiving the reader somewhat? I believe that Madrid and Basque Country's economical state should be stated, don't you think? The Basque Country pays no taxes to the Spanish state and Madrid is the capital. Yes, Madrid is more debatable, but consider how all trains must go through Madrid, and many enterprises have put their headquarters in Madrid. In addition, as the capital, it gains a considerable amount of the taxes others pay while Catalonia doesn't gain money but rather loses it with taxes. We should at least mention these details, even in the brief description, so people don't get the wrong idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.74.132 ( talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is the need to put that photo to the "independentism support" in the Administrative_and_territorial_division? It has already been explained in "politics" that there nationalist and independentist in Catalonia, the photo isn't important, in fact, it gives a completely wrong figure of the independentism in Catalonia, these information was taken from a non-binding and not-official referendum, only the 20% gave their vote. Real surveys have been made and in every one the people choose to stay in Spain over independence (see Catalan_independentism).
That gives a completely wrong image of Catalonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Living001 ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Catalan independentism is the social movement involving more people in Catalonia. Votes in the referendum at Barcelona were more than the ones received by political parties that are leading the council (PSC and CIU) . 20% of votes of the total census voting in favour of a referendum that is forbidden by spanish courts and that has no legal effects is highly relevant.–--
95.61.18.160 (
talk)
23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The social movement involving more people in Catalonia? Do you really believe what are you saying? Take a look to the surveys from the page Catalan independentism in Catalan (maybe you will like more that page)
Independentisme_català :
Also take a look to Independentismo Catalán, surveys:
Even in the feeling about the country: The people feel by far so catalan as spanish,with 42.7%
So once again, that photo is highly irrelevant. -- Living001 ( talk) 07:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That sources are surveys, answering a survey is NOT a social movement. Which other social movement in Catalonia involved more people than independentism during the last years? No one from a neutral POV can say independentism is "irrelevant" in Catalonia. Just searching about the topic you can notice it is highly commented.
95.61.18.160 (
talk)
23:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a picture in this article that depicts a map of the medieval kingdoms of Aragon and Castille. The picture also shows what seems to be the current borders of the Basque Country. Does this make any sense? I mean, if this picture is trying to show which kingdoms existed in the Peninsula during the Middle Age, why is it there the Basque Country, which was not a kingdom, but part of Castille? However, Navarra was actually an independent kingdom, which is not shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.235.216 ( talk) 19:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
hello,
i suggest make in the territorial divisions a clarification: put in the caption: lines: division from central governmrnt of spain colour: division for the government of catalonia ,because anyone does't know than there are two divisions, it could be messy
other thing: the last discussion article says than independentism is irrelevant basing in a polls. these polls are complete false. I live in catalonia, and I'm catalan and these polls never exist. there are a real polls asking: would you lke catalonia as an independent country in the un and ue? these polls were made on a lot of cities, and there was a very great victory of yes. I think than independentism and a senyera photo are necessay in this page for know the real desire of catalan people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.134.15 ( talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On a 20% turnout, where opponents of independence boycotted the poll. There are two pro-independence parties, they get about 18% of the vote between them. The opinion polls are reputable, and sourced. 109.100.77.96 ( talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (boynamedsue)
It is false that the feedback has been made in many cities. Were made in small towns and most census refused to participate. The accusations are baseless boycott.
I think it is necessary for effect of brevity but also preciseness to have a person who speaks both Catalan and Spanish contribute to this article (This is a link with plenty of information that this article has omitted but I believe is relevant and which is substantiated http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623). The psychological process of an individual living within the territory of Catalonia has to be included. Otherwise, the article becomes redundant and in the event of Catalonia becoming an independent free state more difficult to modify. The majority of people in Catalonia do not think of themselves as Spanish but rather as Catalans, specifically during this economic turmoil that Europe is going through and there are plenty of studies that reveal this to be the case. There are also many articles of propaganda from both the Spanish and the Catalan side and these needs to be whittled out for more objective sources. However the article should demonstrate the emotions of the Spanish people towards Catalans in that they have distain for Catalan existence and use racial jokes on a daily basis in reference to Catalans. They insist the language of Catalan not to be spoken in any other parts of Spain, and the Spanish parliament refuse to allow the Catalan language to be spoken within its walls. In a recent newspaper poll by the Spanish population excluding Catalonia, 78% of people supported military action against Catalonia if it proposed independence. This may be because the current government inside Catalonia is a pro-independent party which has a majority of 86% support and because of the current economic climate where Spain is on the verge of requiring an EU/IMF bailout. This has caused fear in the Spanish people as Catalonia is the wealthiest regions that provide support for Spain’s economy. The Spanish government are currently attempting to pass legislation that will reverse much of the powers Catalans have currently whereby the Spanish government insist Spanish should be the only language taught in Catalan schools. These repressions are what need to be discussed in the article.
When one thinks of Spain, one could construe it as being akin to an empire just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were all part of the Soviet Union (as was Russia) until they separated in 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until the break up in the 90’s. When one looks further at the remarks of the politicians in Spain on Catalonia and her citizens, they will clearly see identical policies as those held previously by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. One may construe they are different in that Spain function by democracy but is it really a democracy when the voice of a people is overwhelmed by the voices of others external regions that are only interested in a communities wealth and thereby prevent that community seeking to promote the independence of their language, culture, and traditions. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and one may have argued during the existence of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that the people of the breakaway republics were in fact Soviets and Yugoslavs but these people would not have accepted that and if one was to say to these people that they are still Soviets and Yugoslavs, these people would not like it as they fought for their independence for years, just as the Catalans have being doing against Spain. It would be disrespectful to minimize people so crudely that it would be similar to calling Irish people British.
One needs to ask important questions such as, why do Spanish people fear people ruling their own destiny as it states in democracy? Why do Spanish people insist on oppressing a people and their language and culture? How can Spanish People dispute the evidence that is available? Catalans have a different Language, different culture, and different traditions which are usually considered to mean different country. It is so obvious that Catalans are different people, as well as the Galician’s are, and of course the Basques (who’s language is believed to be one of the most ancient in the World and where linguists have been unable to place it within a linguistic family). This may be due to Spanish people’s fears in the current economic climate whereby they realize if Catalonia was to proclaim their independence, then the Spanish way of life would disappear and they will have to become responsible overnight whereby they must find other resources that will make them economically viable which they don’t currently have. However, if one was to ask a person from Catalonia what is their nationality, their cognitive state would proclaim more often than not, they speak different, ergo they think different. They are Catalan and not Spanish.
Nevertheless, I am not from Catalonia but rather Ireland and therefore I am a conscientious observer who has the luxury to see situations from the outside. My wife is from Barcelona and therefore whom thinks of herself as Catalan and my best friends are from the southern Spanish cities and whom think of themselves as Spanish. I have heard and seen the arguments from both sides of the divide (i.e the Catalan people and the Spanish people whom do not live in Catalonia) and I have read up on the issue and this formulated my decision. As long as I have a mind and a freedom to make decisions, I will continue to do so regardless what others may think or do, however many Catalans don’t have that luxury and they depend on articles like this to be as accurate as possible so that people around the World can see what their life is like and the plights they may endure. It is all well and good to quote this is a encyclopedia but then one must remember part of an encyclopedia is to tell the reality of a people within their confines. A link that may well return this article to an equilibrium can be found here http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 ( talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
We do have quite a few native Catalan and Spanish speaking editors on these pages,some of whom share your political views, and they often contribute. But the content of the page is quite ferociously monitored to avoid people of nationalist or non-nationalist beliefs from skewing it towards their viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with holding the views you do about Catalonia, but wikipedia needs to present only the facts about a topic, not speculation and opinion.
Having said that, if you think anything is missing, or there is bias in the article, please alter it, as long as you have a good source for the new information. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the difference in meaning between "nationality" and "nacionalitat" / "nacionalidad", I've removed nationality from the opening para, the situation is explained in a later paragraph, and in the English Speaking world, the Spanish term is meaningless/misleading without context.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Given another user insists on putting nationality in the opening paragraph, I have put the term in quotes, as appears later in the text, to show it is not an error but a translation. ("Scotland is a nationality", "Canada is a nationality" would get changed pretty quick...) Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, please discuss changes on this word when editing, there is a very long history of debate on this, which led to the whole constitutional mularkey being put in its own section because the open para was about 2000 words. Unless all other regions of Spain have their constitutional status in first para it seems a bit POV here to include it.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
All this happened while I wasn't looking either, so I don't know why the legal status section vanished. I've nothing against including the legal term "nationality", and it's still there later on in "Statutes of autonomy". I just don't think the opening paragraph is the best place for it, as it reads a bit like someone wants everyone to know that Catalonia is not just another region. A new "legal status within Spain" section closer to the top, containing the "statutes of autonomy" text, and some possible expansion (though perhaps not too much, because God knows, we both know far more than the average person will ever need to about these things), would meet with no objection from me.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed back recent edits referring to Cat and P.V. as Spanish territories, instead of regions. The term territory is usually used to describe regions outside of the main government of the nation, like the British Overseas Territories, or areas not enjoying full political rights within the nation (as in the US), I suspect that this is a bit of POV pushing.
If anyone wants to change this, please revert individually rather than simply undoing my changes, as I have also had to put back UK spellings. Wiki policy is that British spellings are acceptable, and the first ones used in the article should remain (or at least it was).
Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Just one question: why do you use the term of "territory" and not the correct one as "nation": What's Catalonia for the writer of this article: an Spanish territory or region or a "nation" in Spain? User: Casablanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.210.131 ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
In English parlance Catalonia is a region, in Spanish law it is a Nationality, which has a meaning in English which is not applicable to a territory. In the non-legally binding preamble to its statute of autonomy, it is a nation. In the opening paragraph we used the term "autonomous community" because it describes the current situation without POV.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph is wrong: In the Spanish Constitution of 1978 Catalonia, along with the Basque Country and Galicia, was defined as a "nationality". The same constitution gave Catalonia the automatic right to autonomy, which resulted in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1979.
The word "Catalonia" does not appear even once in the Spanish constitution (only the Basque Country and Navarre are explicitly mentioned due to the historic charters - "fueros"). The only mentions to "nationalities" can be found in Article 2: "it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all". That's it. Period. Original text in English can be found in the official website of the Spanish Government: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/C511DC05-40C5-4739-8AB6-FA3CEE3B4F28/0/Constitucion_EN.pdf
-- 85.57.223.75 ( talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Catalonia's statutes of autonomy, approved by referendum and the Spanish government, use the meaningless term "nationality".
Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The preamble is not a legislative document, it has no prescriptive value in law and so does not affect the legal status of Catalonia. That's the only way it got through the Spanish parliament, as you know
BNS
208.51.23.195 ( talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Many Catalan and non-Catalan spaniards do not consider Catalonia to be a nation, so to state Catalonia is a nation is a POV. Nothing wrong with it, but it shouldn't be in a wikipedia article.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 04:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes Galazan. Something that has only 90% support is by definition a POV, unless it is legislated to the contrary, which is not the case with the N word, as its position in the preamble of the estatut is not considered to have legal value. As for Catalans who don't believe Catalunya is a nation, go to Hospitalet and throw a brick, you'll probably hit two of them. Boynamedsue ( talk) 05:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
About your previous comments, a territory is not an outter area of a country, from where do you get this (mis)information?! A territory is a "land" (either dependent or independent), Catalonia, is a region, territory, land, community, area, and legally named an "autonomous community", with the status of "Nationality", dependent of Spain. The Spanish Constitution doesn't mention Catalonia is a region, or Spain is only made up of regions. The Constitution says Spain is made up of "Nationalities and Regions", and Catalonia is one of those nationalities, whether you like it or not, whether it sounds odd in English or not. What term shall we use instead? the so controversial term in Spain "nation"? We should just mention what the law says, and it says "nationalities". 83.46.23.210 ( talk) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Look in a English dictionary and see what nationality means. In wikipedia it is:
"Membership of a nation or sovereign state, usually determined by their citizenship, but sometimes by ethnicity or place of residence, or based on their sense of national identity."
By ths definition, Catalonia, England, Spain, the UK and Australia can't be nationalities. Catalonia is a "nacionalidad" or a "nacionalitat". Something completely different from a "nationality".
As for territory "Yorkshire is a territory", "England is a territory", "Munster is a territory", "Alaska is a territory"... Sorry no, "territory" in those contexts is inaccurate, imprecise and misleading. Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I heartily concur with Boynamedsue's observations. The fact is that this article is (supposed to be) in English, but it (and others on topics related to Spain, its ACs, its languages, etc.) is being invaded by a creeping tide of Spanglish that perverts the meaning of key terms. What the Spanish or Catalan (or Basque, or whatever) courts and legislature decide things should be called is applicable only to the Spanish, Catalan or Basque languages, etc., and can't be regarded as constraining the vocabulary used in English. By way of example I'm putting the term nacionalidad in Spanish in the lead. AdeMiami ( talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Spain has created a conceptual and linguistic innovation "nacionalidad=region with a different historical background which does not quite amount to nationhood" does not mean that this meaning is transfered into English simpñy because the word "nationality" is cognate with "nacionalidad". Any reasonably educated English person seeing the sentence "Catalonia is a nationality" will say "no it's not, it can't be" and assume it is an error on the part of the writer.
For that reason, if the word "nationality" appears in the lead, it must be in inverted commas to indicate to the reader "yes, we know this isn't correct English, but it's not a mistake. If you want to know more follow this link."
I like the idea of using the Spanish word directly, but the problem with that is that some users of a catalanist persuasion will consider this to be unacceptable for various reasons, and it's probably more stress than it's worth to do so. Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Territory, I do think that the word territory carries a slight implication of exclusion from the main body of the state, but I've nothing against it being used occasionally. However, before my initial complaint, another user had changed almost every "region" and "AC" in the text to territory, which to my ear gave it a POV feel. A couple of territories in the text are fine by me, but not to the exclusion of all other terms, especially the more accurate "Autonomous Community".
Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget Andalucia and the Canary Islands, yes I think that's a very good idea.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
BNS you confuses the meaning of word " nation" with the word " state". Please read the definitions and their examples in the oficial Cambridge Dictionary. You make a mistake if you link an encyclopedia about knowledge with laws about political pacts between political parties. I'm not saying to write "Catalonia is a european state", of course not!, I'm just defending it's a "nation", and this fact is accepted by the general majority of Catalan people.-- Galazan ( talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Gal, personally I don't see the word nation as particularly important, after all it's just a word that has no empirical reality. But it's clear that according to wikipedia's standards of verifiability, Catalonia isn't a nation. Probably the majority of Catalans consider Catalonia to be a nación/naciò. Probably a minority don't, along with a majority of Spaniards (including Catalans). But until it is legally defined as such, or the majority of sources internationally state that it is, it can't be called this in wikipedia, though of course these POVs can be reported.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You are maybe right, the Britannica article (Catalonia, Region (Spain)), uses the phrase "historic region" in the lead, something I'd have no problem seeing here. However, the rest is behind a pay wall, so I can-t see the quote you are refering to. When it uses "nationality" does it say "Catalonia is a nationality" or "Catalonia is refered to as/has the legal status in Spain of/ a nationality"?
The OECD report on Catalonia uses the term "Autonomous Region" in its opening lines. Again, no problem. Catalonia is clearly an (excessively) autonomous region. No English language source I have ever seen uses "nationality" in its primary description of catalonia, though I'm sure you will find isolated examples of "Catalonia is a nationality" (usually written by non-native speakers) or more commonly "the Spanish constitution defines Catalonia as a nationality". To put it in the lead seems to me to be giving undue weight, but I'm happy to compromise with users desperate to get as close as possible to the opening sentence "Catalonia is, was, and always will be a nation."
Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I edited a article of Wikipedia about Catalonia. Like fuc*** catalan=nazi
Catalonia (the actually Autonomous Community of Catalonia) is a part of a nation without state. This nation isn't Spain. This nation is known as "the Catalan Countries" and Catalonia form part of that. The Catalan Nation hasn't got a state. The Catalan Countries are distributed in Spain and France. I observed that in the article about Catalonia there wasn't this information so I added that.
So, I can't understand why Wikipedia deleted my revision of the article. I want an explanation and, if is necessary, start a discussion about the topic.
Thanks.
-- Comasblog ( talk) 21:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the reason is that wikipedia only reflects facts rather than opinions. Obviously, many Catalans feel the way you do, and many don't. What wikipedia does is report the current legal status quo, otherwise it'd just be a war of people who think as you do saying one thing, then people who disagree saying another.
Regards
Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (see today's AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This entry appears to materially over-state Catalonia's GDP. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, the correct figure for 2008 is €200,9bn (as opposed to €216.9bn in the entry), and the correct per-capita figure is €27,627 (as opposed to €30,700).
Since the national GDP/C is €23,858, the effect is to approximately double the degree to which Catalan prosperity exceeds national prosperity.
Source: http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft35%2Fp010&file=inebase&L=1
Note that IdesCat, which is apparently the regional statistics bureau, gives a different (higher) figure. This is apparently based on their own re-calculation of Catalonia's GDP. However they also quote the national GDP/C as above, and it's not clear to me that the two approaches are comparable. Maybe someone with economics skillz could take a look?
Anyway, the figure they give for 2008 (€29,160) doesn't match the one in the entry either.
http://www.idescat.cat/pub/?id=aec&n=356&lang=en
Also, one of the two sources (CIDEM, currently ref #47) appears to no longer exist as a serious website; it is now a "directory" advertises things like hair treatment products. Suggest it is removed as a reference.
I have not made these changes because I am totally new to Wikipedia editing and don't want to mess it up. Can someone with more gravitas please check and change?
168.168.33.250 ( talk) 09:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not let such bland statements go uncontested.
According to historian Josep M. Figueres, in the collective book "El català en els mitjans de communicació: situació actual i perspectives", published by the Societat Catalana de Comunicació in 2002, in 1933 (that is, before the Civil War) the production of books in Catalan amounted to 20% of all book production in Spain. The Franco regime reduced the presence of catalan in publishing production till it almost disappeared completely. In the latter years of the dictatorship there was a slight recovery of books in Catalan, but in 1976 they amounted to only 4% of all book production in Spain.
p. 22 ISBN 84-7283-620-7
Censorship is a second important issue left out here.
In Pelai Pagès i Blanch (ed.)'s book "Franquisme i repressió: la repressió franquista als països catalans (1939-1975)" (València: Universitat de València, 2004), the chapter by lawyer and sociolinguistic Francesc Vallverdú "Testimonis de repressió i censura", (pp. 181-188), is perfectly clear and well illustrated about the level of censorship exercised, in different ways, throughout the first 25 years of the Franco regime.
In conclusion,
Would the editors like a short text? If so, let me know m_strubell@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrubell ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Publications in Catalan continued in Spain throughout the '40s. There was a source in Catalan linked stating this, but it's been removed. It shows a low level of publishing to the late '40s then a gradual increase. This more than justifies the statement that publishing in Catalan continued throughout the dictatorship. Though walking round a Catalan second hand bookship would be enough to prove this.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, here's a non-wikiable, but decent source showing a crash in the number of Spanish books at the same time Catalan was reduced to a couple of books per year, and detailing its recovery at the same time as Catalan publishing boomed. http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2008/02/19/quantitative-analysis-by-language-of-barcelona-publications-in-british-library-integrated-catalogue-1900-1960/
Well, it clearly didn't nearly disappear, unless we are referring to the early 40's, when very little was published in Spain at all.
109.100.68.15 ( talk) 06:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Really no people speak catalonian, imposed in schools — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.83.137.184 (
talk)
00:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to correct the spelling of the province of Girona, as an English translation is Gerona. Girona is its name in Catalan. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalu%C3%B1a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.80.92 ( talk) 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Gerona is a correct name. Like you put carrer d'Aragó while the correct & official name is Aragón — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 ( talk) 00:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. Arcillaroja ( talk) 13:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert in the subject but I'm catalan and I'm quite surprised there's no reference to Catharism here (since it's the most common etymological explanation here). Even in Catharism article you can find a reference to Catalonia /info/en/?search=Catharism and the "Catar Launia" theory makes so much more sense than most of the ones appearing here. I'm asking some friends in the field to provide richer references, but wanted to make note of it just in case someone overlooked it. Thabeat ( talk) 23:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article says, "In the November 25, 2012 Catalan parliamentary election, sovereigntist parties supporting a secession referendum gathered 59.01% of the votes and hold 87 of the 135 seats in the Catalan Parliament. Parties supporting independence from the rest of Spain obtained 49.12% of the votes and a majority of 74 seats." Sorry but how could this be possible since the sum of 59.01% and 49.12% is over 100? 31.4.243.81 ( talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Gregory Durnovo
Easy. The 49% refer to those who want independence. The 59% includes them - and other who want the issue decided by referendum. It is NOT pro-independence v anti-indepndence. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
Could we settle this once and for all? While I broadly agree that this should be in the lead in some form or other – I think it's a significant enough point not to be an undue or recentism issue and it doesn't have to be mentioned in such a way that it reads as taking sides – the way we actually describe the situation probably needs some review. I haven't been following the ins and outs of this recently, but I'm not sure it's accurate any longer to say, for example, that a "referendum on independence" will be taking place, and relying on a year-old news report probably isn't ideal either. Equally, just taking it out entirely with edit summaries such as "damp squib" or "NNPOV" isn't very helpful. N-HH talk/ edits 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The repeated recent bid to suggest in the lead that Catalan was banned outright rather than simply in official use now has a purported source. However, I looked around before reverting the first bid to change the scope of the wording here. I could not find any evidence that any of the Nueva Planta decrees banned people from speaking or writing in Catalan. The source provided doesn't either: what it says is "a series of measures .. imposed the use of Spanish in public life". It doesn't even mention a ban on Catalan at all, let alone an all-encompassing one. N-HH talk/ edits 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
These two edits have a) added "nation" so that we now have three different descriptions of what Catalonia "is" in the very first sentence and b) switched the order of languages in two places so that Spanish comes after Occitan/Aranese. Unfortunately editing on this page seems to be more about scoring political/nationalist points than actually presenting the average reader with clear information.
I would just revert the latest changes but I think a slightly more comprehensive agreement and settlement is needed. N-HH talk/ edits 09:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if my proposal above is going to be knocked on the head, something needs to be done with the first sentence:
It's drowning in jargon and legalese unknown to the English language – as well as an overlong list of alternative, non-English, names – and offers no clarity, in anything approaching plain words, as to what Catalonia is. As the links I provided above show, no other published source offers such a confusing and unclear definition of this place in its opening sentence. N-HH talk/ edits 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)