Catalan-speaking countries Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spain Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Previous discussions from this Talk page are archived here: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hi, I do not want to start again that dark period of discussions we had in the past: no time, no lust. Just want to point out that there was a long discussion to put the "nationality" word in the leading paragraph and after months of discussions, we found a kind of solution (based on everyone's fatigue): putting the "Legal Status with Spain" section just after the first paragraph. Now this paragraph has been moved, and it is contained in the Politics section. I might agree that this paragraph belongs to the Politics section, but I think this breaks the consensus. If we move this information there, we must cite the word "nationality" in the leading paragraph, with the proper redirection to the "Legal Status" section. Any solution? Wishes.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:consensus, the Legal Section should be restored, as it was originally agreed by a consensus. Any other option should be discussed first. --the Dúnadan 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section restored per critics to my move

Not wanting to admit that this section being just under the lead paragraph instead than in the politics section is just making this article look astonishingly weird, only proves that you are only interested in making clear to the world that there are users only interested in the pursuit of showing the world their nationlastics beliefs.

Not a single article in wikipedia follows this same path about a "legal status within...", not a single. The consensus decided to include this text and I find it is interesting, but it clearly belongs to the politics section and should be present there.

It is the same thing about your "need" to cite the word nationality in the lead.

Xtv said: "we must cite the word". I'm sorry, we don't have to! Your political urge to do it is not present in 99,9% of the wikipedia editors

Now let's decide your choice... Are you good editors wanting to make FA articles? or are you only interested in making wikipedia a political pamphlet? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that no one deleted the content in that section; it was simply moved into the "Politics" section. I agree with this decision, as it stands out as very unusual to name a section that way. It is important to keep, but it belongs in the "Politics" section. Kman543210 (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told it: I think this part belongs to the politics section, but it is also true that the creation of this section was a compromise to avoid putting the word nationality to the leading paragraph. I have no objection on putting all this paragraph in the politics section and then adding a sentence in the introduction making reference to the nationality/nation matter, with the proper redirection to the politics section. Something like "In the year 2006 (check it out, now I don't have time to check details), the Parlament of Catalonia approved with 89% of support a declaration considering Catalonia as a nation, but the Spanish government discredited this declaration, declaring (yes, it's just an idea, it must be rewritten) Catalonia just as a nationality, in the sense described in the Politics section. The main political party in the opposition of the Spanish government considers that Catalonia is not even a nationality (I think this is not true and PP recognizes nationalities, but it's just an idea and we should search for the proper sources)". This is just a proposal, do you have any other idea to solve it?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that this paragraph belongs to the politics section, that's already a little step forwards.

On my part, I believe that every single time the Catalan statute is mentioned, it should be followed by: "the referendum in Catalonia has been legally contested by the surrounding Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community, as well as by the Partido Popular. [...] As of December 2007, the Constitutional Court of Spain is assessing the constitutionality of the challenged articles; its binding conclusion is expected for 2008"

So, wanting to quote by any means as sed lex a text which hasn't been assessed as constitutional yet isn't quite encyclopedical. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the words "nationality" or "nation" belong in the introduction. In my opinion, this can be confusing, as it doesn't translate well. It could leave the reader with the impression that Catalonia is an independent nation seperate from Spain, which it is not until (if) it achieves independence. I'm not sure I understand why it would need its own section. Was the compromise that it have its own section or that it be included in the article? Kman543210 (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It could leave the reader with the impression that Catalonia is an independent nation seperate from Spain" are you being genuinely naive? or you rather outsmart everybody around here by playing naive? in either case: you got it right. In other words: yes, to leave that impression on the reader is what is likely to be meant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.81.70.5 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise of not including the word "nationality" in the introduction was that a special section needed to be included after the introduction. If the section is made a subsection of the Politics section, then, indeed the compromise is broken. Now, if the consensus were to change, I do believe that the word "nationality" is appropriate in the introduction: it is both a constitutional and statutory legal definition of a term not only used in the English version on the constitution of Spain but also in the Encyclopedia Britannica's main article of Spain—a reputable publication that could hardly be accused of "mistranslating". This particular word was precisely the politicians "consensus" in the 1970s amongst two extremes: those who viewed the existence of many "nations" within Spain—à la United Kingdom, in which this encyclopedia, despite [properly] defining Wales as a nation, readers do not think of it as an independent country—and others who viewed the existence of a single indivisible nation: Spain. If that is the word they chose (nationality) and the one used in the Statue of Autonomy of Catalonia, then our task is simply to clearly state what the documents say. --the Dúnadan 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just so disappointing how we all dont give a damn about improving the rest of the article, only bothering to "contribute" (that joke isnt funny anymore) again and again with the same politics things....amateurish bad politicians mirroring here whatever wankery offered by grown up even worse professional politicians...

I may pass this time. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 00:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the way in which five other reputable reference sources describe Catalonia in the introduction:

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: a region in NE Spain, bordering on France and the Mediterranean: formerly a province.

The American Heritage Dictionary: A region of northeast Spain bordering on France and the Mediterranean Sea.

Colombia Electronic Encyclopedia: autonomous region (1990 pop. 6,165,638), NE Spain, stretching from the Pyrenees at the French border southward along the Mediterranean Sea.

Encyclopedia Britanica: comunidad autónoma (autonomous community) and historic region of Spain, encompassing the northeastern provincias (provinces) of Girona, Barcelona, Tarragona, and Lleida. The autonomous community of Catalonia occupies a triangular area in the northeastern corner of Spain and is bordered by France and Andorra to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the east, the autonomous community of Valencia to the south, and the autonomous community of Aragon to the west.

MSN Encarta Encyclopedia: autonomous region in northeastern Spain, comprising the provinces of Barcelona, Gerona, Lérida, and Tarragona. The shape of an inverted triangle, Catalonia is bounded on the north by the Pyrenees Mountains, on the west by the region of Aragón, and on the east by the Mediterranean Sea.

The 2 dictionaries use simply "region" whilst the encyclopedias all use the more formal "autonomous region" or "autonomous community", which is the way that it currently is in the article. None of them uses "nation" or "nationality" in the introduction paragraph for describing Catalonia. Again, I think we all can agree that the "Legal" section is important to include, but the question is whether it gets it's own section or a subsection within the "Politics" section. I vote for a sub-section within the "Politics" section, but I'll go with whatever consensus is obviously.

Also about the UK situation, that's probably not a good example of what to follow. Those articles are not always stable, and the question constantly comes up whether to call them regions, nations, countries, or constituent countries without a clear-cut consensus. Kman543210 (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Britannica: [1]

Article 2 of the constitution both recognizes the right of the “regions and nationalities” to autonomy and declares “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation.”

The three regions that had voted for a statute of autonomy in the past—Catalonia, the Basque provinces, and Galicia—were designated “historic nationalities” and permitted to attain autonomy through a rapid and simplified process.

--the Dúnadan 03:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I do not want to loose more time discussing I'd leave it as it is now: during many time the article has been stable and there has been no discussions. None of us like the result, but we all find the other solution worst. Just because I do not want to loose more time...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems that we are still stucked... as always. Nobody is asking to remove the text, only to classify it in the correct section, which is politics, in order to get a well balanced article.

The political ego of some users is preventing to reech an agreement, so I included a 3O|section template in order to get more opinions on this matter. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 09:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's completely unfair to reopen the debate just trying to bring the article to your part (I won't say to your political ego just because I find it disrespectful in such a kind of discussion). I think you hadn't liked that I, without any proposal of a better solution, introduced the word nationality (or even nation) in the leading paragraph and then, when you ask to remove it, I ask for a 3rd opinion. Moreover when this 3rd opinion is not aware of the loooooooooo(...)oooong discussion we had before reaching this "neutral" point. If you introduce the 3O|section template in this paragraph, I think it should be included also in the leading paragraph, since the controversy involves both paragraphs. But I really think it's better to accept the consensus we reached and which brought us a long period of peace, and not loose more time discussing about futile things again.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xtv, I really believe that, this time, I'm making good steps towards collaborating. As soon as I heard you didn't agree with my last move in the article, I undid it.

This said, Dunadan and yourself keep citing our previous consensus. May I remind you that asking for other users apart of our tiny group (the very same as always) is, what I believe, healthy.

The Catalan articles are not our possesion, neither yours, neither ours. Why are you against other opinions? Are you scared about not reading what you want? If that is going to be the case, You should accept it. Maybe, it will no be the case and most of the people agree to keep that section this way... Who knows..

If you feel we should do the same thing with the lead, feel free to add the template to it! It would be hypocrite on my part to say it is healthy to hear about other's opinions in the "legal status within..." and not wanting the same thing for the lead...

I invite you to add the template and explain here in the talk-page your concerns about adding the word "nationality" in it. I fully assure you'll get some answers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 11:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Maurice, this time you are acting in a polite way, and I thank you it sincerely. I have nothing against new opinions, I just want them however first to read all our discussions: I do not want to start again with the same arguments. Just because now there were no discussions, I didn't want to break this status quo. Let's see and, if we start again with the long battle (hopefully not), I will introduce also the 3O for the leading paragraph... Cheers.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but let's write it in actual English. This sentence is so convoluted that as a native English speaker I can't tell what it means to say: "Catalonia, alongside Basque Country, Galicia and Andalusia self-ascribed as "nationalities" in the elaborations of their Statutes of Autonomy – the first three acceding to autonomy automatically – and more recently in their new Statutes or recent amendments Aragon, the Valencian Community, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands also did." - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Xtv's edit (which can only be named as censorship as there is no other reason to erase the tag but to prevent other users to give their opinions), I decided to add this new one. In fact I even like it better as it links to a guideline which does support my point and which I paste down here:

Article Structure:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section often results in non-encyclopedic structure and content, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also may create a hierarchy of fact—the details in the main passage are "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

See also: Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Pro & con lists, The Guide to Grammar and Writing - Composition Patterns: Comparison and Contrast

Now, I ask everybody... Do we have to follow wikipedia guidelines? Or do we not? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop throwing WP guidelines around in mass. They can be all bundled together as the "WP:Time to Make Sense". Whoever doesn't get me might be in the wrong place. --Floridianed (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed these contributions because of being extremely controversial and biased:

• "The nation building exercise being exerted by the Catalan nationalist governing party and nationalist elite makes the language its building block as principal carrier of Catalan identity." If we assume that "the Catalan nationalist governing party" refers to CiU, we all know the sentence made by the President of Catalonia Jordi Pujol: "Catalan is everyone who lives and works in Catalonia, and wants to be it".
• that aims to increase the use of Catalan by discouraging the use of Spanish. That's just completely false and tendentious
• About nationalist sentiment: "The majority of citizens don't however feel represented by these views and are more concerned with the effective running of everyday affairs by their local government." It has been stated: "There is significant Catalan nationalist sentiment", not "There is a majority of...". I think the best think is to find a poll to reference the unreferenced fact and then tell exactly how many people has the nationalist sentiment. I'll do it right now.
• recent representative and distinctive symbols: the Catalan flag,...: a flag used at least since 1150 is not so recent.
• The long description of the "Guerra dels Segadors" should be described in the article of History of Catalonia.
• remove of "Catalans will proudly display their Catalan flags or Senyera as a show of national pride.": what's wrong with it? it's just true...
• The Feria de Abril paragraph is quite ridiculous if we consider that neither the organizers believe the 2 million visitors.

Cheers.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "periodistadigital.com" does not satisfy the quality standards to be included as a reference. Example: El gorila Hugo Chávez (...). Translation: "The gorilla Hugo Chávez...".

One reference says "Campaña de la Generalitat para que los inmigrantes rechacen el español", but the campaign from the Generalitat is not to be against Spanish, but to use Catalan (people who come from Poland, South-Sahara, etc. with their respective languages). I think this reference does not represent what it tries to represent.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I am the first to cast shadows on certain sources. However, this can not be taken to the extreme to consider that everything that certain sources quote is wrong or biased. The other day I saw an edit summary saying (I guess ironically) something like "why dont you quote libertad digital, too?"

As a matter of fact, libertat digital, el plural, e-noticies...they are all biased, but, do they lie when they make the weather forecast too? do they lie when they say that Barça won last night? Excuse the rather stupid questions, but what I mean is that they can serve as an echo of a certain situation, which they can stress or debase, but I dont think they are inventing it all the way.

This said, I still agree in that those sources can be regarded as somewhat faulty. Probably the text they are quoting should be re-formulated or new, more authoritative, sources, be found. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (as in the whole section), we are getting too much into the detail. Why don't we explain also what do each political party think about the law? we could also add the opinion of Convivència Cívica Catalana, Òmnium Cultural, we could quote then some sentences from Foro Babel and the Casals de Jaume Primer and perhaps some parts of the Manifiesto and, of course, the Contramanifest... buffff...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see AT ALL that this reference claims that "in Spain, politically a vast and enormous majority consider these efforts a way to discourage the use of Spanish". Sincerely, I do not see the relation. In the whole poll, there are just 3 vast majorities: 58.9% of the people who agree with the the co-official languages, and 70.4 and 79.3 who contradict themselves telling that both languages should be used and (at the same time), in case just one can be used, it should be Spanish. Where is the question about the discourage of the use of Spanish in Catalonia? If we have to go back where it was, as Maurice proposes, I vote to go back before the hilarious Ciutadans' sentence "by discouraging the use of Spanish" was added.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.

So are we moving the section to an independent article to keep bickering in there?

If so, who is making the change? under which title? Please guys express yourselves at the "detaching" section. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly support Xtv's idea (as expressed here [2]) of creating a Catalan in Catalonia or, I'd suggest, maybe even better Languages of Catalonia (to include the whole picture, not only Catalan) or something like that. That way, we could move elsewhere the steaming load of sxxt we tend to work on, while keeping this article as neat as we can. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. The language section must be revamped urgently. Of course, some "sources" shouldn't be erased by some users claiming them to be "Libertad Digital-ish". let's not forget there are many more used in wikipedia which are also very "Avui-ish". If a media is working in Spain, it is because it has passed not few controls by the authorities, and if they have the permission to publish news, nobody here should be allowed to censor them. Am I personnally not very fond in using some of them either (in neither way LD or Avui), but they should be considered instead as a better option than having a fact tag. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad Digital is a clear example about what shouldn't be taught in Communication faculties, whereas Avui is much more neutral in most part of issues. Libertad Digital is synonym of manipulation and hatred towards Catalans, Basques and socialists, whereas Avui is just a newspaper written in Catalan. Your nonsense comparisons are just offending me.

--Mreq (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since no one is making it, I will make this move myself. Languages of Catalonia has been created! rush, rush to get in there and start our thing in a new playground!! Mountolive _{please, behave} 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diff: [3] is cited as a source for the claim that a vast majority of the Spanish outside of Catalonia consider Catalonia's language policy "a way to discourage the use of Spanish." While the poll cited there shows a strong preference either for Castillianism or bilingualism, there is nothing in the poll about governments' intent. This does not cite for a belief that these governments intend to discourage the use of Spanish. It does cite for opposition to policies that favor regional languages. We should cite it for what it says, not make our own extrapolations of what the respondents must think about matters they were not asked about. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be your opinion, but I sincerely find questions 1,4 and 5 clearly referencing this matter. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it was only intended to make a remark of the biasing of another edit (as stated in the explanation). --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example of plenty by now. Quote from further above: "Catalonia is not a territory of the "països catalans" (they don't exist)"

"Pais" has several translations. One meaning for example is "land" or "homeland" and has nothing to do with the country. It also could be translated into "region" and other (similar). So if you don't understand Catalan you might want to inform yourself , maybe by asking Catalan speaking users. It seems to me by now, that you are the one trying to keep everything "Spanish" (Castellano). Hope I'm wrong. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And another thing: If the WP:3O doesn't work you just come up with another WP-guideline. So it seems to me that those instances only apply to you when you get the result you want. That is called "POV"-pushing if I'm not mistaken. Saludos, --Floridianed (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a matter of fact, adding gasoline to the fire doesnt work well with anybody (let alone with Maurice) and the above post is not contributing to the general peace at all. You can either tone down your comments yourself, admit that maybe the one above is not the best way to start. Otherwise you may expect some slightly over the top reply from him. I hope that, if that happens, then you dont play the angel yourself, because placing his user name in the title of your post and making judgements of what "it seems", it all sounds quite provoking, doesnt it?...anyway, if you are man enough to tease Maurice, you have to be man enough to endure his maybe a bit over-the-top reply, which I anticipate he is writing as of now...good luck, dude. I hope, for the sake of tranquility, that Maurice, for a change, doesnt bite that hook your are placing... Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ comment moved to Talk:Valencian Community ]

Lol Mounty... Everybody Chill out now! hehehehe... No, not this time... Floridianed deserves first an explanation. Well, let's start. Floridianed, I will only say 2 things:

• I invite you to read every single talk-page related to "those" Països Catalans and understand yourself about what has been written before participating/engaging in these disputes. Seems you are missing many many points. It is only an advice.
• Please, don't tell me what "Pais" means, there is simply no need. I'm half french & Spanish (both languages use that word) and I lived almost 6 years in Catalonia (Both in Lleida & Barcelona). Because of my work, I also visited weekly Andorra and I've been probably much more time in places like Valencian Community and Balearic islands than you (so I also know the significate in catalan). I know the culture, way of life, political feelings and history... (and I assure that MOST of the content about this in wikipedia is biased).

Now, if you want to participate in these disputes, take my first advice because (and pardon me for saying this) you are not bringing anything useful yet. These disputes have been extending for more than a year now, and there is a guideline which says that all sections belong to their topic. Sadly, you will see it, there are users more interested in making their political feelings clear in wikipedia rather than creating good articles. I've say it many times and I will repeat it to you again: "wikipedia is not a political pamphlet".

About the WP:3O. If it didn't work it was because they are only interested in disputes where only 2 editors are engaged and here we are talking 4 Vs. 4 cases. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the user who added the tag explain which phrases in that section are not neutral? I am asking because all of them are statements of facts. Moreover, it was the consensual version agreed upon by all users. --the Dúnadan 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get your answer in the sections Talk:Catalonia#Legal Status with Spain and Talk:Catalonia#Template:Criticism-section "Legal Status within Spain" (here above). There is no need to open 3 sections for the same topic. Let's use the correct procedure. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article follows an unusual structure, having, first of all (someone would say "at any cost") the "legal status section". However, the general structure of country articles (and this 'country' reference should flatter some of you guys ;) has a geography section and else...take it easy, guys, let's save "the best" for later: the "status" will come right after. Mountolive _{please, behave} 13:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. by the way, I think I said it before already, but I insist in that we should have the "etimology" section removed or really compressed and then enlarge the climate section and create a basic geography of Catalonia. I am usually against "etimology" sections because often it tends to be a cul-de-sac for a lot of speculation, nevermind whatever "encyclopedia Iranica" (¿?) reads. And someone should work out a decent Geography section, of course, that is not about language nor politics (sorry guys :( :P) but, believe it or not, we still need it here if we want to make a good article...Mountolive _{please, behave} 13:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you see already by now, I have made some structure changes. Little or none information has been affected so far, but just re-located. As I said also back in the day, I think the environmental policy could be deleted, for, as it is now, it doesnt seem to have a point nor we have similar sections in similar articles. I am removing it, feel free to restore if you think it fits. Mountolive _{please, behave} 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do we make to appear the political parties template to appear hidden, collapsed or whatever the name is? I think it would look better. Please help. Mountolive _{please, behave} 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

• I disagree with the deletion/compression of the Etymology section (all of it, except for the Gothia part, is well referenced; and a reference can most likely be found for that claim). Many articles of countries (following the nomenclature of this discussion ;-) ) have a section on Etymology (even if it is called differently, like Toponymy or "Names of ...").
• If only for the sake of consensus, I would agree to the relocation of the "Legal status within Spain" to its current position—or even as a subsection within the Politics section—if (a) it remains as a separate subsection of the aforementioned section, (b) its contents—so far statements of facts with references—remains unaltered (being a consensual version, they would require a consensual alteration); and (c) the introductory paragraph of the article is rewritten, given the fact that the section was thus created in content and location as a consensual agreement to remove any reference to the term "nationality" from the introductory paragraph; if the subsection if further relocated then a small sentence stating that Catalonia is statutorily defined as a "nationality of Spain" (or "a nationality of the Spanish nation", if you will), could be reintroduced to the introductory paragraph.
• Yes, I agree that the Geography section needs to be expanded. Let us all do our best to improve this article.

--the Dúnadan 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support adding "nationality" to the introduction of the article. I think this can be confusing and without the explanation may add confusion to the status of Catalonia within Spain (that's why it takes a big chunk to explain this). Kman543210 (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support adding "nationality" to the introduction of the article either. The term is explained ad nauseam in the rest of the article and the urge to include it in the lead paragraph is only politically motivated. "Legal status within Spain" is, on the contrary, to become a separate subsection within the Politics section. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we don't have an agreement then. Btw, please MountoliveMaurice27, stop attributing purported "political motivations" to the actions of other users. That serves no good in any debate. Try to offer arguments and counterarguments, or making consensual proposals, for a change. --the Dúnadan 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err, Mountolive? hello? someone called me?...looks like you had a somewhat Freudian slip of tongue over here...should I worry?...Mountolive _{please, behave} 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a mistake, I apologize. --the Dúnadan 21:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC). Cool, no problem...Mountolive _{please, behave} 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunadan, I would love to hear the reasons for this urge to include the word "nationality" in the lead. Would you please explain it to us? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already told many times, I would find marvellous to move the "status" part and then add in the lead some reference of the word nationality. Why? well, I think all these discussions are a good example of why should it be included. Do all these problems arise in Extremadura, Castile-La Mancha, Tennessee or Bourgogne? The definition of Catalonia is very controversial (reread all the discussions). Even the Parliament of Catalonia and the Spanish Parliament -being leaded by the same party- disagree with its definition. Such a big controversy around the definition of Catalonia (the main purpose of the lead) should have a sentence in the lead. We could now discuss how should be the sentence: "Catalonia is a nation/nationality of Spain/nationality of the Spanish nation/whatever" with the corresponding link to the "status" section.

And Maurice, I also ask you once again not to talk about political motivations. Being clear that everybody (let me remark: everybody includes both sides) has their own motivations, using it as an attack brings nothing to the discussion. Btw, I would love to hear the reasons for this urge not to include a short sentence referring to the word nationality (and with the proper link to the "status" section, so that nobody believes that being a nationality implies being an independent country, recognized by the UN) in the lead. Would you please explain it to us?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, as I already said, I agree on reducing slightly the etymology section (and even creating the article Etymology of Catalonia as a main article for this section).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to include it? Of course... let me quote: "The definition of Catalonia is [so] very controversial (reread all the discussions). Even the Parliament of Catalonia and the Spanish Parliament -being leaded by the same party- disagree with its definition". Do you like it? Of course, it yours. You can make it mine also... Now, let's hear Dunadan's answer in why to include it--MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because that is what the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia says, and how it defines its own territory? Being the Statute of Autonomy the fundamental legal law of Catalonia recognized and protected by the Spanish Constitution (art. 147), which allows for the use of the term (art. 2)? Perhaps because Britannica itself, on the article about Spain, designated it as a "historical nationality"? May I ask now, what are the reasons for its exclusion?--the Dúnadan 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations read "Mais outre qu'on ne le trouve jamais dans les documents du Moyen Age, les altérations phonétiques qu'il suppose rendent l'hypothèse peu vraisemblable", for those with a decaying French, this means, roughly "besides the fact that you never find this (term) in medieval documents, the phonetic deviations implied make this hypothesis unlikely". In other words: this quote is not supporting Gotholandia, but rather discarding it. Pity.

As for the other, I couldnt read the one you are providing in English (sorry, ain't no master in googlebooks...could you please direct the reference straight to the part you are quoting? it would help me!) Still, searching in that very same page we get this one [4] which reads "se advierte que (...) Gotholandia (es) no obstante, demasiado culta(s), refinada(s)"...I can't read the rest, but I guess what follows is "to be taken seriously".

So, all in all, these two sources seem to agree in that "Gotholandia" is too good to be true. Looks like some lazy historian wanted to cut corners and came up with this one, but not everyone is swallowing it.

That is why etimology sections pretty much suck and are an unencyclopedical waste of time: cases like Catalonia's are impossible to source. Or, more correctly, you can source the same thing... and its opposite. And which one is correct? Nobody knows, go ask Guifré el Pilós now... Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's go step by step

First, NPOV, requires all POVs (points of view) to be represented and properly cited, in all topics. Source A may say "this is so, because so and so"; source B may say "this is not so, because so and so". We cannot pick which one is right (i.e. not any citation goes...). That is why the text says "another theory suggests...".

As for the Google book, I really do not know what link you clicked on, so I'll add it here again, just in case. The book is titled: "A History of Spain from the Earliest Times to the Death of Ferdinand the Catholic". On page 154, the author cites Lafuente, and adds a footnote: "The Spanish March was at first known as Gothia, which, says Lafuente. became modified as follows : Gothia, Gothland, Gothlandia, Gothalandia, Gothalania, Catalonia, Cataluña. Lafuente iii 88 and 198, 205 and 208". To search through the content of a book in Google Books, on the right hand side there is an option to "Search in this book". Type: Gothia, and it will provide all instances where the word appears (in this case only two).

Per the above, I'll restore it, unless you have a particular reason to keep the Iranian Encyclopedia?

--the Dúnadan 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that NPOV and POV apply to this section too? If so, I am rather concerned of your approach to this section, honestly.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with NPOV or POV, but it is a matter of quality of the sources. I dont think neither Iranica nor any of these sources have the last word, guess why: because there is no final word. You have skipped this part in my post above

That is why etimology sections pretty much suck and are an unencyclopedical waste of time: cases like Catalonia's are impossible to source. Or, more correctly, you can source the same thing... and its opposite. In any case, you can not use the source in French to support this. It actually seems pretty conclusive in dismissing any factuality for Gotholandia, and the other one with "demasiado culta, refinada" is in line with it.

No, I dont like Iranica either (I find it quite ridiculous that we are quoting it at all in this particular case). I dont know if you were really following me (I seem to remember you did, because you replied) when I said this is why I'd get this section removed. So far only you have opposed (Xtv seemed to agree with me). It is ok if you want to keep it, but by adding chatter on NPOV, POV and else does not seem like the way to make this ill-fated section palatable... Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow you, but I guess you didn't follow my argument regarding NPOV and POV... the acronyms have carried a quite unnatural and negative connotation, and that is why I put in parenthesis what I meant by them. What I meant is that different scholars (and Burke is one, citing Lafuente) have an Academic point of view (i.e. hypothesis), while others (I guess you can add the source criticizing it as refinado here) have another Scholarly point of view (hypothesis). So, discarding one for another is inadequate. In fact, WP:NPOV, states: All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. It is in that sense, that I had argued that we need to present all POVs (points of view).

Of course, I agree with you—and have argued before—that sources need to be reputable (such as a published scholarly book, an encyclopedia, or in the case of Politics, a Statute of Autonomy or a Published Law). In fact, I'd be more than happy to delete plenty of rather not-so-reputable and opinionated sources in other sections. But, let's rather discuss one thing a a time.

I agree with you that Etymology—unlike Exact Sciences—is based on hypotheses, which should be, for the most part, logical, linguistically speaking. But that doesn't prevent reputable authors from including them in treatises, books and even encyclopedias.

--the Dúnadan 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there seems to be a confusion, the source that claims that it is "refinado" is not the same source that I added, that is another book. I don't know how you got into that one (since I didn't add that link). --the Dúnadan 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is some issue with the links. The link you are giving leads me to a book in Spanish using that wording suggesting that "Gotholandia" is a rather latter-day made up theory. I dont know if that happens to everyone or only to me. I am not sure if you are led to this "refinado" link or not really. Sorry, this is out of my control.

Try this one.--the Dúnadan 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Still the same. What am I supposed to get, a book's page with bolded words? I get like a cover, that's all. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you get the cover to a book in English called "history of spain...." (not the one in Spanish you were talking about) right? Well, then follow the instructions I wrote above to find the page number with the citation. I would rewrite them again, but it would be a waste of KB. --the Dúnadan 23:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it! As for wasted KBs, we have enough in this post so far...as you see, I didnt revert you in the main text anyway. If the sense of my last edit there is not clear, just let me say that Lafuente is only one, not even the author of that book confirms whether he follows Lafuente on that or not, and there are other sources contradicting Lafuente. That is why the dubious tag. Hope we are good by now. I'm going home now, not sure if I'll post for the rest of the night. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 00:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contradicting? rather questioning his hypothesis, I guess. But hypotheses can't be contradicted unless evidence is found against them in which case, the contradiction is not a hypothesis, but a fact. The fact that someone called it refinado doesn't necessarily contradict the hypothesis. It is, in fact, another hypothesis. By the way, it seems evident, to me, that Burke actually agrees with Lafuente, citing him not to prove him wrong, but to complement his previous statement on that same page. I honestly don't think the "dubious" tag applies. The sources cited are not that "dubious" (say like a personal blog or propaganda). --the Dúnadan 00:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we disagree here. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 00:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Wikipedia:Disputed statement, the link provided by the "dubious - discuss" template:

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

* It contains unlikely information, without providing references.. Does not apply. A reference has been provided.

* It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.. Does not apply, it has been verified by the link provided.

* It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.. Well, maybe Mountolive can answer this, but I really don't think so.

Like I said before, that theory is verifiable. Of course, other authors may disagree, but neither can be proven right or wrong, so an Etymology section, as expected, presents all possible theories.

Shall we remove the "tag"?

--the Dúnadan 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ok now.Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<quote> For an extended period, Catalonia, as part of the Crown of Aragon, continued to retain its own usages and laws, but these gradually eroded in the course of the transition from feudalism to a modern state, fueled by the kings' struggle to have more centralized territories. Over the next few centuries, Catalonia was generally on the losing side of a series of wars that led steadily to more centralization of power in Spain, like the Reapers' War (1640–1652).

</quote>

France did not lose the segadors war of Catalonia was in fact the winning side, since the only thing that was won France —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.148.55 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for beginning a discussion. Please quote the exact text of the consensus, and provide a link to it, to avoid ambiguity William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you know I've been a long time away and I haven't checked Wikipedia for a long time, but however I do have asked you specifically the reasons to put first Spanish and then Catalan and you simply ignored me (and I am still waiting your answer about infoboxes. If you do not answer and all the other people seem to agree, I'll proceed to accept it as a consensus). I will appreciate also the exact text of the consensus and the link to it. Thanks.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William, it is in between the thousands of Kb of discussions in the talk pages of either articles Catalonia, Valencian Community or Balearic Islands. I sincerely don't have the time to look for it. Those articles have been moved, redirected, the talk pages archived... I would like to point that I believe I even didn't take part myself in that discussion, just read it once. Maybe users like Dúnadan, Mountolive, CNoguera or Physchim62 who probably were the ones participating could point us where to find it. I would like to say that I don't even think it is the best solution on how to display the languages (and Xtv is a perfect example wanting to change the order again), but that is what some users decided. An alphabetical order is much more desired in order to prevent disputes (not here, in all wikipedia), but Xtv's argument about Catalan being the language of Catalonia is just a nonsense. Catalan is just as co-official as Spanish is. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm unable to find the consensus, I'll post the leads of these two articles, Valencian Community and Balearic Islands as a proof of what I am saying:

• The Balearic Islands (Catalan and official:[1] Illes Balears; Spanish: Islas Baleares) are an archipelago in the western Mediterranean Sea, near the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The four largest islands are Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza, and Formentera. The archipelago forms an autonomous community and a province of Spain, of which the capital city is Palma. The co-official languages in the Balearic Islands are Spanish and Catalan (i.e. Mallorquí, Menorquí and Eivissenc, as Catalan is known by its speakers in this territory).

In the infobox they are displayed: "Official languages Spanish and Catalan"

• The Valencian Community (Valencian and official:[1] Comunitat Valenciana; Spanish: Comunidad Valenciana) is an autonomous community located in central to south-eastern Spain. It is divided in three provinces, from South to North: Alicante, Valencia and Castellón.

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)[reply]

I do not remember having ever spoken about the order in which these names have to appear. I have always thought it was the "first-arrive, first-served" law. I mean: when you start an article with British English, you can not change to American English just so. And so I thought we had this matter. I would need a link "to prove [your] point about the consensus reached long ago" because I really think we have never discussed about it. Actually, I think you are confused with the consensus we had about the name of Valencian Community, in which Montoulive and me (with no other opposition) agreed on using different names of the place in the whole article.

Btw, Maurice27, I don't remember having said that we have to change the order just because Catalan is the language of Catalonia. And you say I am a perfect example of wanting to change... an order that hadn't been changed since 2002, when the article was created? It has been 6 years so. Who wants to change the order then? --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xtv, for once I am not related to the "discussion" and I'm in no way interested to engage in another with you. I posted the explanation because it was required by the admins, but I don't have the time nor the willingness to discuss with you your disagreement in this matter nor your obsession about me being the center of your universe. If you read what I have written, you could address your doubts to the correct persons. It was not me who reached that consensus, so don't adress to me if you don't agree with it. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice27, you've been asked to give the link to the consensus and you couldn't. I really think that the consensus about this matter didn't exist and your examples just show that until you started the edit warring, it the order was not a problem. I ask you one more time: I want a link to that supposed consensus. Thanks.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I anwer you one more time: Xtv, for once I am not related to the "discussion" and I'm in no way interested to engage in another with you. I posted the explanation because it was required by the admins, but I don't have the time nor the willingness to discuss with you your disagreement in this matter nor your obsession about me being the center of your universe. If you read what I have written, you could address your doubts to the correct persons. It was not me who reached that consensus, so don't adress to me if you don't agree with it. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I reverted this edit by User:JosephLondon due to the explanation given ("rearranged to standard order"). The order selected is in NO WAY the standard one as there are no wikipedia guidelines to state the order in which the official languages of a territory are to be displayed. If JosephLondon does know any guideline, he is invited to participate with his oppinion in this talk page. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 08:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither JosephLondon nor Maurice27 should have made any revert, since there is still no resolution about this conflict. Maurice27, you are always going too fast: couldn't you wait for WMC's resolution (as I am doing by now), before reverting?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I already proposed to use alphabetical order a while ago. I can't find any way more neutral than that. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 20:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For the sake of argument I counter-propose the equally arbitrary reverse-alphabetic ordering. Are you OK with that? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse-alphabetic ordering? That would mean to display Spanish the first one, so the problem would be still the same with Catalanists. I want you to understand that I couldn't care less about the order of the languages but edit warrings will continue until a a solution/decision is taken. So, what is the more neutral order? Alphabetic order? By number of speakers? --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to understand that I couldn't care less about the order of the languages: OK, thats fine. I'll expect you not to make any more reverts concerning the order then, since you don't care what it is. Those who do care can now worry about it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an answer that doesn't help us at all. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you were a common editor in the catalan related articles and had to discuss each and every edit you make in these articles you wouldn't be so optimistic. Just take a look at the archived pages. And you're right... It's all about politics, politics, politics... And Nationalism. It's all about making wikipedia to become (or to prevent it to be) a political pamphlet! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice27: please, avoid speaking about political pamphlets or any other subjective (non productive) statement. From my point of view, it's you the one who is making the political crusade, but I do not write it here and there as a truth, because I know that neither you nor me are always right and, even more important, I find that discrediting other people with futile arguments goes against wikietiquette.

@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:

• Maurice says he doesn't care about order, but as I already told, the original display was: first Catalan, then Spanish. In other places, this order changes, and until now I think everybody respected it (as well as some articles, which are written in different English standards), until an ip changed this order and then Maurice pushed for this new order. My first proposal is: first of all, official languages. Secondly, non official languages. If there is more than one official language (as in this case), we respect the order of the first person who wrote the article (as well as we respect the English standard of the first person who starts an article).
• My second option is: there are some places in which there is a "traditional" language (for example: the Catalan statute says "Catalan is the proper language of Catalonia", the Valentian government has a list in which they describe which is the "traditional" language of each city and every village, and Balearic statute says also "Catalan language, proper of Balearic Islands, ..."). In these places, I'd put in the first place this traditional language. The criterion to choose if a language is traditional or not would be: in Aran Valley: 1st Aranese, then Catalan, then Spanish. The rest of Catalonia and Balearic Islands: first Catalan, then Spanish. In Valencia: Follow Government's criterion.

Cheers--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So funny that both your options display the order you are interested in. Perfect example of neutrality. Did your school, back in the years, also displayed the students of your class also depending on how "traditional" you were or the way the principal decided? No, you were displayed by alphabetical order, which is the way humanity as always ordered the names in order to prevent disputes. I agree it is "too arbitrary", that's exactly how it works. It is a rule! A neutral rule! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree that some things are repeated and could be simplified, but I wouldn't delete the whole paragraph. So as it is now, the last thing mentioned about Catalan history is from 1978 and one line telling that today Catalonia is a dynamic part of Spain and that Barcelona receives lots of tourist. I think that a couple of sentences telling sth about the new statute are mandatory.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The anons seem to be IP-hopping, so blocking is tedious. Instead I've semi-protected the page for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What did I say? It's all about making wikipedia a political pamphlet! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mauritius. As we say (I apologize for the translation), "If you don't make politics, it's your way of making politics". Or, as Franco said "Do as I do, don't make politics". Catalonia is a country, in the same way you aren't a citizen of your nation, but a human being. On the other hand, who in the world understand what is a "Autonomous Community". It's easy, say it a "country". Best wishes! Oriolandres (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.145.230 (talk) [reply]

And as I always say, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it must reflect referenced and true facts. As of November 2008, Catalonia independence hasn't been asked by the Catalan parliament nor accepted by the Spanish parliament. It hasn't been recognised by any UN member states either, nor has received international acceptance. As of November 2008 the facts are that Catalonia is nothing else than a self-governing region within Spanish sovereigncy. So as much as your opinion is respectable, Wikipedia is not the place to exercise your right to express your POV. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't know if Murcia or Andalusia is a nation, but they are countries, don't you know the meaning of country? A country don't have to be a nation. Yo can see in France... Pays de Loire, etc. Pays=Country. And that Catalonia is a nation is a FACT there's an article of the statute that say that... if you don't accept that you are not accepting what you say "Wikipedia must be based on facts". And the statute it's a fact. Anothet fact is the social movements, feminism isn't a fact? Why don't you accept?--Vilarrubla (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, is the Preamble, and as you should know if you really want to discuss this, the preamble is not legislative. PS. "Catalonia is a nation" is NOT a FACT; "According to the Preamble of the Statute (which has not legislative meanings) Catalonia is a nation", that's a FACT. — your.hand.in.mine (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is not a point of view, the Estatut of Catalonia, A LAW, say that Catalonia is a nation, the Spanish Government have accepted, so is legal and until the Constitutional Tribunal say nothing about it, Catalonia is a nation and also an autonomous community of Spain.--Vilarrubla (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

We must differentiate between geographic and politics definition. Catalonia is a 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'm sorry but I must disagree with you. There is another concept for the whole catalan-speaking territories and it is Catalan Countries.

Catalonia's definition is being discussed in the section above (for a long time).--Civit cardona (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think that I have improved it but maybe can be any mistake.--Vilar 13:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys can't speak English, you shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia. --Taraborn (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since both claims are correct, next time, instead than removing a correct fact from an article (i.e: "based on the coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon"), you should, if willing to add your POV, limit yourself to add to that sentence a "and of the counts of barcelona" instead than erasing the content (which is also fully referenced). --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 01:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not erased anything and that was not fully referenced. The reference #46 says: "The flag of Catalonia, which is the traditional flag with four red stripes on a yellow background, shall be present on public buildings and during official acts held in Catalonia." and I don't see anything about Crown of Aragon or Counts of Barcelona in that reference. --Vilar 10:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carles, noticing your last edit, 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)[reply]

Sorry, Maurice, I beg to disagree. At least the maps for the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands have also been changed today (see [5] and [6]) to this kind of Spain-centered map. So the situation is not like you seem to describe: the map in Catalonia article being a unique strange singularity to be corrected with respect to a long well-established tradition in all the remaining communities. No. The fact is that just now some people propose this new solution. We can discuss it, of course. My initial point is that I prefer the maps those communities have had for a long time because they are more globally-minded and show their position not only inside Spain, but also in a European context. --Carles Noguera (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, like so many other times, it is not a point of what we do prefer, but to continue the path followed by the majority of the other articles. Let's not forget that this article is part of an encyclopedia, and as such, all related articles must follow the same guidelines. If you take a look at all the articles about CCAA. Like it or not, the vectorial map seems to be the prefered by all the editors involved in the majority of all those articles. If you take a look at the portuguese districts(Braga (district), Bragança (district), Faro (district), Lisboa (district)...), the french regions (Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, [Bourgogne]], Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Pays de la Loire, Rhône-Alpes...) or the italian italian regions (Abruzzo, Calabria, Lazio, Marche, Sardinia, Tuscany...), you will notice that they all do share the same maps and that are always "country-centered" (if I may say so). Having different types of maps depending on the region selected is in my opinion undesirable.

That said, I believe that the correct thing is to implement the map used by the majority of the articles CCAA-related. In addition, let's not forget that this is this the english wikipedia, and as such, it is like the "international version" of it. If some user from Indonesia wants to learn about a CCAA (let's say Catalonia in this particular case) you can bet for sure he might be much more interested to understand where it is placed in relation to the rest of the country than in relation to Europe.

I think that those are the 2 most important reasons to keep the vectorial map. If someday, Europe really becomes something close enough to a united country, then your position of an europen-minded map should be the one to follow... But only if that is the position for all the articles in wikipedia related to europen regions... Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, Maurice, and sorry for my late reply (I am back from holidays just now). I agree with you that homogeneity is good in general, but I'm still not sure whether it constitutes a sufficient reason for the change you propose. I haven't seen any wiki policy enforcing this uniformity, although I agree with you that it is desirable. But, actually, there would be a way to make both of us happy, i.e. to preserve both good properties at once (global-minded maps and homogeneity): uploading maps like those we had during the last years for the Catalan-speaking communities also for the remaining Spanish autonomous communities, right? This is my proposal. --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were on vacations... Hope you enjoyed them! I don't mind your proposal but, do you know how to create maps? Because I don't. If nobody uploads those maps for the rest of the CCAA, we get back to start. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 09:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've enjoyed them a lot, thanks! :) Good to see that you are open to a proposal that would solve both of our concern at once. As regards to the maps, this seems to completely feasible. I am checking that those files already exist: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. (you see the pattern). So homogeneity is not really a problem. --Carles Noguera (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Maurice! Nice to meet you here again. Hope you're doing fine.

I don't completely agree with your analysis of the situation. First, those maps are not my invention. They were already in stable versions of the entries when I joined the project, more than two years ago. Second, after a quick check on the history of the entry on Catalonia, I've counted only four users changing the map to the Spanish-centered one since we discussed the issue. And none of them, unlike you, has bothered to write a single line on the talk page to state their points for the change. On the other hand, there has been one user who has proposed a Catalan-centered map which, coherently with my globally-minded approach, I don't like and I don't support. Therefore, I don't think that "lonely Carles fighting against a majority of users who argue for a Spain-centered map" is a faithful account of the situation, because they are few, they hardly argue, and there have even been proposals in a different direction. In this discussion, we made our positions quite clear. Let me remind my points:

• The main thing here is to offer an accurate map (faithful to both geographical and political reality) and as informative as possible to help readers from all over the world to locate these regions.
• In particular, the maps should clearly show the administrative borders of the autonomous communities, their position inside Spain (for they belong to this sovereign state, and nowadays sovereign states are the key element in geopolitical divisions), and their position in a wider context to give the maximum information to non-European readers. All of this can be achieved with the pictures I've been defending.
• Homogeneity with entries about other regions is certainly a good value to pursue and, as I already showed, it does not contradict any point above, because we already have in Commons maps of this kind (showing both Spanish and European context) for all the remaining Spanish regions.

--Carles Noguera (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Diplomatiko. Many thanks for joining the discussion. I would like to kindly ask you a couple of things. First, it would help the discussion a lot, if you would read carefully what has been said so far. In particular, you'll find a specific proposal dealing with the uniformity problem you are concerned with. Second, I would appreciate it very much if you would abstain from making assumptions on other users personal views. It doesn't really help the discussion (after all, personal opinions of the editors do not matter much when we are trying to produce a neutral text), and sometimes (this is the case now) you can be misled to wrong conclusions: I am not an independentist (not even a nationalist), as it can be easily seen in the userboxes in my webpage. Anyway, we can forget about this, because talk pages are not meant to discuss about any user, but about the article in question and to decide how to collectively improve it. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are taking your time to think about it. Fair enough. In the meantime, I shall restore the previous consensual map. --Carles Noguera (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Icallbs. Thanks for your comments. But, have you bothered to read the discussion above where I showed that your concerns on homogeneity in Spanish regions entries are compatible with my concerns for globality for non-Spanish readers? Please take a look at it. On the other hand, let me remind that prior to changing a disputed content, you should reach consensus, not the other way around as you have done know (see [13]). Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misunderstood "NUTS". These are the Spanish NUTS regions, in which the map you use is based.

I've read that discussion, and I must say those maps aren't suitable at all in this kind of articles. They just aren't, just have a look at France's subdivisions articles, or Italy's, or Portugal's, or Poland's. Sadly, I think those "concerns" aren't really "for globality". Exaxtly because non-Spanish users are the ones who will be reading this, they'll the ones the maps should be adressed to. I encourage you to read the consesus-building article you pointed before for the further seeking of a common point. Other users like MauritiusXIII can help us improving these aspects too. In the meantime, probably the regular map is the better option because of the homogeneity. Also, I'd like you to consider Dr01drpny's option, it's the same map as the rest of Spain's regions and it has the globality element.

Icallbs (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I combined both maps to try to fulfill both concerns regarding homogeneity and wider region location inside Europe. You can add it to the article if you agree with it: File:Localització de Catalunya.png. Cheers. --Dr01drpny (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thank you very much, Dr01drpny, for your input. That moves towards the good direction to resolve the dispute, indeed. As for Icallbs, first let me say I'm sorry for having misunderstood the "NUTS" thing; I didn't know that concept. Thank you for pointing it out. However, you might want to apologize as well for assuming bad faith in me when you write "I think those concerns aren't really for globality". I am proud to claim that all my contributions to Wikipedia (both in articles and in talk pages) are openly honest and faithful to my points of view; it would certainly be stupid to act otherwise when I am editing under my real name. So, this frank globality concern is starting to be addressed by Dr01drpny in his proposal, and I have tentatively tried how it looks in the article. I would like to ask him, since he looks very deft in map creation, to propose some other solutions which could make the European map bigger (now it is too hard to see). An easy solution is to increase the box on the right-bottom corner (there is some space on the sea and Africa that could be covered without problems). A better one would be to create something analogous to the maps used in Scotland, Wales or England, where the European map is the main one while the whole state (the UK in this case) is also shown in the box, which seems to be something of the highest importance to some users. After seeing (some of) these possibilities we could decide which is the nicest and most suitable for these articles. Needless to say, to satisfy the urge for homogeneity in Spanish autonomous communities articles, the new kind of map will have to be produced for each of them. Looking forward to hearing from all of you, --Carles Noguera (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I agree with the idea of having a wider (Europe / World) localization map, especially for people from other countries. Still, there are some users who want homogeneity with the maps of all the other regions of Spain. Creating a new version of all these maps is a notable effort, and it would require a deeper consensus (currently the map is being changed almost every day). Maybe something to talk about in the WikiProject Spain. In the meanwhile I uploaded an updated version of the file with a bigger Europe map as Cnoguera asked. You can see the preview | here. --Dr01drpny (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks again for you valuable help. That one is better indeed, but I still think that something like the UK maps would be even better (both having a clear depiction of the whole state administrative structure, as required by Maurice and Icallbs, and nice big global maps for a globally-minded English encyclopedia as seen e.g. in the UK entries). I suggest to explore that possibility before taking any decision. I understand the non-trivial effort the whole thing requires (and I truly thank you for your excellent technical help), but there certainly are strong concerns about homogeneity by several users, as you can see in the discussion above. As far as I am concerned, as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_Countries, at least I'll work to have a uniform solution for the three articles under its scope. Sadly enough, while we are fruitfully discussing the issue here, some users like this anonymous IP keep trying to impose their point of view without bothering to contribute to the consensus building. I've already warned him about it. --Carles Noguera (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, if it is too difficult to produce these alternative maps, I suggest to go for the easiest solution and stick to the good old NUTS maps. Moreover there seems to be agreement on that elsewhere.--Carles Noguera (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That example doesn't suits our particular case... The country-centered map in that example just sucks! Portugal and France don't even appear. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. You're right, now I see it. I assumed, reasonably, that this discussion in Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community) was analogous to ours because there actually was an identical edit war proposing the same kind of map. But now I see that the discussion is strangely ignoring that one and proposing an ugly Spain-centered map where the country looks like an island... --Carles Noguera (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like an island? Have you seen the German, French, Italian, Portuguese, or basically any other country subdivision article other than the British ones to use world maps for locating a region? It's stupid! Furthermore, the current map shows Portugal, the French border and even North Africa, which is much more than many (probably more than any other but the UK's constituent COUNTRIES [see what I did there?] articles). In the discussion you pointed at, there were only two votes... That's not a "long-standing consensus" nor it shows a reasonable solution. I'm sorry if I've been a bit rough in this comment, but these attempts to vandalize Wikipedia (specially the English one, cause it's the one millions of people from all countries, even non-English, read), trying to mislead them make me really upset. Icallbs (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Icallbs, now you look upset indeed. Now you start referring to the proposals you don't like as "stupid" and to their defense as "attempts to vandalize Wikipedia" and "trying to mislead"... You know? it's a bad sign when one needs to use derogative terms to undermine the opponent's position in the discussion. But if you count to ten, take a deep breath, sit back and then read carefully the stuff above again, you'll realize what's written isn't that stupid after all. First, you'll see that the Spain-centered map where the country looks like an island I was referring to is, in fact, this one, and the island metaphor was already used in that discussion. Second, you'll see I only attracted your attention to the Basque Country thing becauses it does resemble the discussion we currently having here, so it might be relevant. Third, you'll see I never described as a "long-standing consensus" what they have there, but I only said that "there SEEMS to be an agreement" there (and it really looks like that, when nobody has expressed any opinion against the NUTS map in that discussion thread; interestingly not even yourself after you added the map you want).

The discussion here is certainly far from being over. We are still waiting for new options from Dr01drpny or any other user able to produce them. So I wasn't restoring the NUTS maps (and BTW those are the really long-standing ones as a matter of fact in the Valencian Community, Balearic Islands and Catalonia entries) because of an alleged achievement of a new consensus. I was doing it because otherwise, when the map you like is there, some people seem to completely forget about the discussion and disappear for days. Interestingly enough, they suddenly come back when I restore the previous solution (sometimes yourself, sometimes some mysterious IPs which give little to none explanation for their edits). And, symmetrically, I could as well object that your putting back there the state-centered map is not fair before a decision is reached. But I won't, because my intention is already fulfilled by having people interested again in the discussion, which is the main issue here. Let us proceed then. --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, don't mess this discussion here with the rest of the Autonomous Communities'. IF and only IF there is a general Wikipedia guideline regarding this issue, you can discuss other articles. Otherwise, keep it as a per article discussion and don't change other articles in which you are NOT involved, as the BAC one. We had our own discussion there and reached our own consensus. BTW, I don't get the "goodness" of that island-like map. It's geographical projection is not adequate for representing Spain, nor it does represent accurate detailed maps for each AC, as the green ones do. And again, these maps were replaced recently by anonymous users, probably to match them with the maps used in the Spanish Wiki, that may be are not the most accurate ones, you know. David (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is that "IF" precisely which I've been looking for weeks! Can't find anything... but I'm sure there is a guideline for these cases. If we find a guideline, we got the solution... I've tried quite a few wikiprojects but nothing... Any ideas, anyone? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

--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)[reply]