Talk:Catalans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ethnicity

What a mess.

• Catalan people are the people from Catalonia. — Yeah, mostly, though it's all a matter of how you define "Catalonia". For example, plenty of people from north of the border in France would consider themsleves Catalan, alghought they do not live in the region now commonly known as Catalonia. And I suspect that some Balears would also consider themselves Catalan, though not having spent time there, I'm unsure.
• A language that mainly is spoken by Catalans is Catalan. — Horribly put, at the least. Also very ambiguous. Does this mean that most Catalan people speak Catalan (probably true)? Or that most people who speak Catalan are, in the narrow sense Catalans (probably not, or barely so, since Catalan-speaking Valencians and Balears taken together are at least roughly comparable in number.
• Among Eastern U. S. Hispanics as well as Cuban Hispanics Catalan origin can been found more often of than among Hispanics in general. — Again, horribly put. "…more often of than among…"? Does this mean to say that Catalans form a higher percentage of U.S. and Cuban Hispanics than they do of Hispanics worldwide (possibly true, but I'd want to see a citation)? or that Catalans form the majority of U.S. and Cuban Hispanics (very unlikely, to say the least)?
• Native speakers of Catalan have an overall majority among the most famous Spaniards. — Extremely unlikely, very POV (who decides who is the most famous?). Just of the top of my head, none of the most world-famous Spanish political figures are Catalan; in the arts, while Catalans have been very important the last 125 years or so, prior to that time names like Velázquez, Murillo, Goya, and Zurbarán leap to mind: they are not Catalans. In literature, I cannot think of a Catalan whose fame approaches that of Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca or, in the New World, Sor Juana, Gabriel García Marquez, or Jorge Luis Borges (who I think was part Catalan, but did not, to the best of my knowledge, ever write in the language; he did spend a year or two in Mallorca as a young man, so I'm sure he picked up at least some of the language).
  • Hey! Many historians believe and have strong evidences that Cervantes was catalan and that Don Quixote was firstly written in Catalan. It's believed that it was a book to ridiculize the Castilians, but when the Castilian rulers saw it, they translated the book and tried to erase all the evidences that Cervantes was catalan. And that happened with many things, like with Cristopher Columbus: everybody knows he was Catalan. The problem is that, once again, the castilians tryed to make it castilian. They have always did the same: they turn into castilian everything that smells to catalan or basque.

You can check this: http://www.histocat.cat/hta/v31_09.htm. It's a document from the Foundation of the Historical Studies of Catalonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.35.221.98 (talk • contribs) 10 December 2006.

• This includes Salvador Dali and Pablo Picasso. — Actually, while it certainly includes Dalì, it probably shouldn't include Picasso, who was from Barcelona, but (I gather from discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia) was not a Catalan. (Picasso was from Malaga, Andalusia) Felipealvarez 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
• The current status of the Catalans has caused dispute amongst academics as to whether they should be labelled a distinct ethnic group or merely a distinct group of Spaniards. — Now we come to the equal and opposite mess. The only respectable dispute in academia I've ever heard of as to whether Catalans are a distinct ethnic group is among those who define ethnicity primarily in terms of ancestry, where it is pretty hard to say that anyone in Iberia (except the Basques) is ethnically distinct. After all, over the course of the millennia, Iberia has been quite a melting pot. If Catalans are not a distinct ethnicity, then neither are the Portuguese.
• The fairly distinct Catalan language would seem to agree with the idea of being a unique ethnic group — Fairly distinct, indeed. As in "Russian is fairly distinct from Czech".
• however cultural differences with other Spaniards are a lot less distinguishable. That's rather relative. Arguably, cultural differences among Western Europeans aren't that dramatic, but we don't lump them all into one "ethnic group". Catalan cuisine is distinct enough that anyone who knows their way around it could easily tell the difference blindfolded, probably even from eating a slice of bread; I haven't ever noticed any castellers, geganters, or dancers of the sardana in Andalucia (and it is only recent migration that has brought flamenqueros to Barcelona). Make a date for 20:00 with a Catalan and, while they probably won't be there on the dot like a New Yorker or a Prussian they'll be there by 20:15; make that same date with a madrileño and if you show up even at 20:30 you'd better bring something to read. I could go on. Yes, there are some traditions common to pretty much all of Iberia, but the Catalans are no less distinct than the Portuguese, whom we would never call "Spaniards".
  • After reading your whole, mostly sensible complaint, it comes to a big shock your comment on Catalonians being punctual while Madrileños are tardy. I assume you're trying to be funny, but you sound snobby. Quite similar to some readings by dearest Sabino Arana. 128.195.88.18 06:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was intending to be funny. But I didn't intend at all to be snobby: it's not that I think one of these customs is better than the other, just different.- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've been heavy-handed in my criticism, but this topic deserves an article, and I don't think we have even the right start of one here. - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, Picasso was not from Catalonia nor from Barcelona, he was born in Malaga (like Antonio Banderas) which is down south in Andalusia,the other side of Spain.--Burgas00 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I agree with u this page sucks....--Burgas00 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Picasso: Born in Málaga, raised at least partly in Barcelona, but the point is the same: he's not a Catalan. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

U dont think Catalans are ethnically distinct? They look pretty different to me. Those who dont, tend to have some immigrant origin (from other parts of Spain). On average Catalans are thin nosed, fairer and generally a "french looking" people.... :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006.

File:President pujol.jpg

Jordi Pujol. Thin-nosed? Fair-skinned? French-looking? Or perhaps he's an immigrant. - JM

I think there is quite a bit of variety in Catalan physiognomy, and while the type you mention is common in Catalonia (Dalí leaps to mind) certainly there are famous Catalans who do not fit the stereotype. Two eminently Catalan examples provided. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

hehehe... its true one cant generalize. This Josep guy does look Bulgarian actually! In Spain Jordi Puyol is compared to Yoda from Star Wars. But, it is true they generally fit the description I gave... Look at the folowing Catalans I just thought up out of the top of my mind:

• "Tricicle" ( Catalan comedians, look up "Paco Mir"),
• "els joglars" (theater group- look up "Albert Boadella"),
• "Javier Sarda"(latenight presenter),
• "Mercedes Milá" and "Lorenzo Milá" (bigbrother presenter and news presenter).
• "Duran i Lleida", nationalist politician from CiU.
• "Pau Gasol", Catalan Basketball player in the NBA.

All these guys, u see them and u just know they are Catalan... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 14 Dec 2006.

What about Valencians and people from the Balearic Islands??? Are they to be considered Catalans?? They say they are not (specially Valencians). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.37.18.88 (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006.

Many andorrans consider themselves as andorrans rather than catalans. They're quite a unique people due to the relative historical isolation. Though obviously they are genetically, linguistically and culturally mixed with the catalans, but probably no more so than are the irish with the english - and you don't want to tell the irish that they're english!

It's quite a non suitable comparison I think. Those Andorrans decending from catalan-speaking families generally don't feel ofended and sometimes not even unconfortable when they are called 'catalans'. I've talked to many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monturiol (talk • contribs) 21:51, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Why are you speaking for the Valencian people? I am Valencian and my people and the Catalan people are brothers :) Violenciafriki 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we write about the Estatut?--Burgas00 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

When will we have the pleasure of reading the articles of "Barcelona people" or even better the " St Andreu people"? And later we should add the asturian people, the "Oviedo people" and, don't forget the "calle Uría people", they are clearly a different ethnic group... xD xD desternillante¡!81.9.222.4 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with drilling down like that, as long as the larger entities are also covered. For example, you might look at how the various Jewish ethnic divisions. This includes some quite tiny groups (e.g. Romaniotes, the now-extinct Chuts) where there were cultural distinctions worth making. - Jmabel | Talk 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I don't think this is wrong but strange to find out a page like that. In the spanish wikipedia, at least, it would be something unacceptable to make up a page about "catalan race" or "ethnic". Nonetheless this is english wiki, the anglosaxon view and world. Anyway the wikipedia's definition of an ethnic group says;

• An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986). Recognition by others as a separate ethnic group, and a specific name for the group, also contribute to defining it. Ethnic groups are also usually united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic or religious traits. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community. Processes that result in the emergence of such a community are summarized as ethnogenesis.

So according to this, it would be perfectly reasonable to create one called "asturian people", wouldn't it? 156.35.192.3 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that "Austrian" probably isn't much anyone's ethnic identity. Most Austrians consider themselves ethnic Germans. I would guess that there is a far stronger sense of specific ethnic identity among Swabians, Saxons, or even Bavarians than among Austrians. Insofar as there is such an identity in Austria, it is more likely to be on a smaller scale than the country as a whole: e.g. as a Lower Austrian or a Tyrolean (the last of which would certainly also include the German-speakers now in Italy). And, I believe, all of these would consider themselves subgroups of ethnic Germans. - Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see now (someone called my attention) that this was a question about Asturian people, not Austrian people. Asturians historically have a distinct language; there certainly are differences between Asturian culture and (say) Castilian culture; I don't know a ton about Asturias—unlike Catalunya, I've never spent any time there—but I haven't heard that people there generally consider themselves a distinct ethnicity, nor, as far as I know, has there been any prolonged time in history in which they constituted a power in their own right (except maybe the early 1930s!). I believe we have an article on their language, certainly could use an article on what is specific to their culture. I think it would be harmless to have an article that treated them the same way we treat an ethnic group, but I don'think it is harmless not to.

To analogize to my own ethnicity: we have articles on Jews and Ashkenazi Jews; we don't have a separate article on Litvak Jews, though I'd have no principled objection to having one, there certainly are some distinct aspects of that history, and Litvak Yiddish can certainly be distinguished from other dialects of Eastern Yiddish. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of inaccuracies while not simply lies. It's a debatable issue if Catalonia is a nation, is what the Spanish constitution calls a nationality or simply a region, but what is not debatable at all is that Valencia or the Balearic islands aren't part of Catalonia in any way (and never have been). The so-called Catalan Countries are an invention of Catalan independentists and when I say Catalan I mean from Catalonia, the traditional region or current Autonomous Community. Let's write about facts and not about opinions or inventions. I mean, the map shown correponds to the zones where varieties of the Catalan language are spoken according to linguists and on some of that regions people don't even accept that they speak Catalan (most Valencians say they speak Valencian). Anyway, is Argentina a part of Spain just because they speak Spanish? By the way, I challenge anyone to show just one scientific study that proves any ethnic difference between the Catalans and the rest of Spanish population. Let's talk about facts and not about inventions. Say to a random guy from Valencia or Alicante that he's Catalan and your best option is probably run as fast as you can. Many people in Catalonia complain about a cultural opression (especially under Franco), which is true but there is a sector in Catalonia that have invented a past and a history that is simply a lie: they say that Catalonia was independent (when it has always been a part of a bigger entity), also that there has been a Catalan empire (Catalonia was a region in Aragon Crown), they say there was a Catalonia-Aragon confederation (try to find something different from the term "Aragon" when referring to the historical kingdom in Middle Age sources), etc.--83.70.43.179 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia was actually an independent entity from 988 to 1137. And it was not a region of the Aragon crown, it was a county with its own institutions. The Aragonese crown and the County of Barcelona joined when the Aragonese king offered his daughter's hand to the Catalan Count, before dying without male decendence. This way, and from then on, the Aragonese king was also the count of Barcelona and vice-versa. Each territory kept its own institutions, its just that the same person was on both state's head. If we now talk about the Catalonia-Aragon confederation is just because for too many years Spanish historiography has meant (and it seems by your comment that it succedeed) to make people belive that Catalonia was absolutely nothing but a poor region of Aragon, so we were aragonese and never catalan. That's why we need to develope some kind of mechanism to prevent that, this new denomination being an example. I'm recently noticing a growing trend outusite the Spanish borders which consists in blaming catalans for everything. It seems that, I don't know how or why, people is feeling uncomfortable or under thread because of our identitary claims. I don't understand which satisfaction you get from this. I just hope that you fight the Spanish lies and opressive acts with the same intensity (belive me, the history of the Spanish repression is much more interesting than the Catalan one).

In the other hand, nobody in Catalonia thinks that Valencia or the Balearic Islands are or have ever been Catalonia. There is no point on blaming us for anything similiar. Come here and ask. Hardly anybody even cares about Catalan Countries. But, by the way, if Catalan Countries are an invention, Spain is so. There are more cultural similarities between Valencians and Catalans than between Catalans and Castilians. You don't need any scientific prove. Ethnicity doesn't necessarily mean race. We may belont to the same race, but we have visible cultural differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monturiol (talk • contribs) 22:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism

I'm really inclined to cut the following: "The roots of Catalan nationalism stretch back to the earliest era of Visigothic rule and show a continuous pattern towards independence." For one thing, projecting any nationalism back into the Middle Ages is extrapolation: we are talking about an era where nation states as we know them simply did not exist. For another thing, what on earth is "a continuous pattern towards independence"? Although there was much back and forth, Catalonia's independence and autonomy steadily eroded from the 14th century to the mid-20th century. A mere 35 years ago, Catalonia was part of a centralized Francoist Spain that was attempting to crush the last vestiges of independent Catalan identity. Obviously, Catalan autonomy has been renascent since the restoration of democracy, but few would say that even today Catalonia is at all obviously on the path to independent statehood.

If someone can replace this with something more accurate, great, but if that doesn't happen in the next few days, I will simply delete this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I support Jmabel 's point of view. --Joan sense nick 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bull

They eat "young cows and no bulls"? Very unlikely: since one needs far more cows than bulls for breeding, husbandry almost everywhere in the world culls more (young) bulls than cows for meat. Is there any basis at all for this claim? - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cows are sacrificated young (before the 12 months) for eating. Adult bulls are seld to France where are more apreciated. If you go to a Catalan supermarcket you'll see that sell "carn de vedella" that means "meat of young cow". There are laws regulating the quality of this type of meat. 81.36.160.44 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Diet

I don't want to get in a big fight over this, but it's mostly uncited also:

• "The digestion of the English diet use to be considered hard by the Catalan people": quite a generalization, no citation.
• What once said "In the Catalan gastronomy, sausages (embotits) are very important, especially pork sausages such as botifarra or fuet'" now says "In the Catalan gastronomy are very imporant the embotits, derivates of pork such botifarra or fuet." As far as I can tell, this is mostly an introduction of really bad English; there is only one thing here that is possibly in the right direction: while embotits is certainly not an English word, are you saying that it means something other than sausages?
• "Hod food in rare in Catalan diet but there are sauces quite hod such allioli or romesco." Pretty bad English again; "hod food"?? A "hod" is a type of sling for carrying a heavy load. Perhaps "hot" in the sense of "spicy"? But in my experience allioli and romesco are no more than mildly spicy.

Jmabel | Talk 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone is including Valencian and Balearic people in the very first paragraph (they even mention "over 7 million" in the template)...I'd go and cut it, but I just had enough recently of nationalists coming to wikipedia so that they can make real here their wildest dreams, which they don't manage to do in real life so, this time, I will just make the boy happy and focus it what REALLY matters: ¿? "The digestion of the English diet use to be considered hard by the Catalan people"????? That's hilarious, man! who had the guts to write this in a so called encyclopaedic article and still keep a straight face? He does deserve a barnstar by all means...LOL Mountolive 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Young cows" must be "calves", or so I'm guessing. Gotta go: I'm getting hungry...Mountolive 07:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Valencian, Balearic and Catalunya Nord People

Isn´t this page a little too focused on catalans from Catalonia? I mean, if it includes all the people from the catalan speaking world as a same ethnic group, it should also include their pecualiarities and explain their differences, while at the same time, making clear the points in common that identify them as a single ethnic group (language, traditions, etc). Violenciafriki 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a peace of crap. The Catalans who have contributed to this article should be especially ashamed of their cultural illiteracy and editorial & linguistic incompetence. There are descendents of Catalans in the Western Antilles (namely Cuba and Puerto Rico, much less so in the Dominican Republic), they do NOT speak Catalan, most have NO clue that they "are" Catalan, if asked most will ignorantly claim French descent. Catalan is extremely similar to Occitan, unfortunately modern Catalan pronunciation has been vitiated by the degenerating influence of the Spanish-language media and nonnative-speaker pronunciation. In English it is spelled Catalonia, it is as wrong to write "Catalunya" in English as it is to write "London" in Spanish (please get this into your heads). Catalonia is, outside of Europe, unfortunately known for nothing except "tapas," "Barcelona," "Dali" (if that), and (I laugh) "Freixenet Cava" ("Xupa Xups" are no longer Catalan). I could go on...bizca catalunya (oh excuse me!) I meant to say visca.--Marsiliano 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Don´t feed the troll ;). Now, is there anyone interested in talking about the whole (too much) Catalonia focus in this article? Violenciafriki 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Language

"although Spanish and/or French is universally spoken". Seems to me that elsewhere (was it Talk:Catalan language?) someone was being very strong in asserting otherwise, and pointing at some of his own relatives as counterexamples... - Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What is tha basis for saying that Valencian is "considered by most of its native speakers to be a separate language"? Certainly the Valencian Academy does not hold that opinion: they agree about the unity of the language, they just prefer to call it valencià rather than català. - Jmabel | Talk 00:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought

I’m new to this topic of Catalonia and Castile Frankly I’ve never heard of this type of discussion, I mean no disrespect but is there something every one here is neglecting to mention? For example; are Catalonians saying there being oppressed by the bigger stronger part of the country Castile? Are the Spanish Oppressing ethnic groups in their country? Is Valencia people and Catalan people considered minorities? I read something about Catalans are better (not in these words) then Spaniards (castile) why? If they are better why couldn’t they simply over power Castile they had plenty of time to do so? My point is, the Castile controls the country they deserve respect from there states, respect by making Spanish the official language, of course respect should be mutual but then again it is Spain not Catalonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.84.64 (talk • contribs) 21 December 2006.

Without at all engaging in concepts like one national or ethnic group somehow being "better": Catalans and Castilians certainly have different histories, different native languages, and (insofar as national character can be generalized) a pretty distinct national character (though in this last respect, perhaps no more different than, say, Andalusians and Castillians). I don't think many would single out Catalans as oppressed at present, but I also think that few would deny that they were culturally oppressed as recently as the Franco era.

Historically, Catalunya was swallowed up into (and arguably dominated) the Crown of Aragon, which then merged with the Crown of Castile to form modern Spain. I think there is little question that insofar as one of these became politically dominant within Spain, it was Castile. At some times in history, Spain has been relatively multicultural, and that political domination has nonetheless allowed for cultural and even juridical autonomy. At other times, though, when centralizing tendencies have had the upper hand, those centralizing tendencies have always favored Castilian political domination, and while they have not always favored the language and culture of just Castile, they have invariably been unfavorable to Catalonia. (The regions besides Castile that are universally considered Spanish—Andalucia being a particularly good example—have not generally suffered comparable cultural oppression in recent centuries, though they have at times suffered political oppression.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Awful map

It mixes both linguistic and political-historical data to create a Supercatalonia, i.e. it separates the Catalan speakers of la Franja de Ponent from Aragon or El Carxe from Murcia (according to the language they speak) in order to add them to the Catalan 'nation', while including in it the Castilian speakers from the whole of Western Valencia. All in all, not information, but political (and hegemonic) claim.

Cool maps

It's amazing, nevertheless, the close resemblance between this "awful" map to the collective map -built on personal data- that you can check at http://www.estatpropi.cat . That's a nice sample of members of the catalan people who have not forgotten it and claim a state for themselves. Call it "supercatalonia", if you wish. Or just an essay of on-line self-determination.

The difference between linguistic and historical borders is clearly shown in a lot of maps. For example: http://www.geocities.com/perpinya/varis/mapaplc2.jpg

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That map is a joke

Excuse my bad english.

That map of "catalan countries" mistakes speaking populations with suposed etnicity and thus should be erased. Nobody uses that map except pan-catalanist minority groups and it is not suported by any oficial institution nor factual genetic evidence.

It even contradicts with the data table that does not include valencians or balearics as catalans.

If nobody argues against I will erase it in a couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.126.37 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png

Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Catalan people?

In the text say:

The Catalan people are divided among four countries: COUNTRY REGION

Spain  Catalonia
Valencia
Balearic Islands
Aragon (Western Strip area)
Murcia (Carxe area)

This is a nazi idea like Austria is Germany, is imperalist and not true, is not the reality. In Valencia or Murcia there are not catalan people. Etnicity is voluntary, you cannot to say that valencian people is catalan, first because 74% don't speak catalan, second because they are considered by themshelves that valencian. Catalan people is the people of Catalonia, no more. --Hinzel 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fair use rationale for Image:Josep Samitier.jpg

Image:Josep Samitier.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Catalan and who isn't

Apparently some radical editors have decided that the answer to that question is "everybody who speaks any given variety of Catalan, is Catalan". Unfortunatelly for them, this assumption doesnt stand the most basic reality bite: go and ask the random farmer in el Carche or the village guy in Alguer and tell them "did you know that you are Catalan?" answer is likely to be "Excuse me, I didnt get the question: Cata-what?"

I'd rather take it with a smile because, the alternative, the prospect of wikipedia being plagued by Catalan radical nationalists trying to impose here their wildest wet dreams is not really enticing. That claim is so absurd that it rings more like a mere hoax than POV pushing itself.

You guys have to understand that Catalan people are...Catalan people. That should be easy to understand, but, if examples are needed, for example, think of Spanish people: are Argentineans Spanish people? well, they speak the same language after all, don't they? so, total population of Spanish people is how many? 500 million? Are New Zealanders English people? and so on....

If you guys want to impose your views, you'd better try more delicate ways than this one, as seen elsewhere. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, take it easy. This is obviously a sensitive topic. But in this article political nationalism (in its different directions) should be distinguished from people and ethnics, and this also needs further improving. This happens for French people and German people as well. As a reference, I add a Borja image, which was referred by his opponents as "Catalano marrano". --Toniher (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking it easy I am, thank you ;)

It only takes a fast look at those articles to realize that neither the French people nor the German people cases have anything to do with this one. If you keep showing a radical fringe stance in this topic, refusing to accept reality, I'll have no other option but to report you. I am not willing to, for in (a rather distant already) past you've been showing a bit more of understanding of wikipedia (lately it's not like that, blame it on elections frenzy or what's going on? ;)

I yielded to your point in Catalan independentism, for the sake of good faith here. But whenever you turn to most obvious pov pushing, like in here (and believe me that this is one of the most staggering examples I've seen lately...probably the most) I have to react. I hope that, when you get discredited in this obvious POV pushing case, you dont shift to turn the article into the mess French people has been. It's up to you, anyway. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not theat :) You are assuming too many obvieties that I'm sure that from a non-Spanish (and non-Catalan) point of view are not as you regard in a simply manner as reality. As you can check, there is a warning in the very top of the page about the national identifcation, and I would favor this to be further developed within the article. --Toniher (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice the warning, I do!. It's saying: "warning: this is an article presenting the topic as seen by ERC and CUP" ;) which is maybe ok for ca.wiki (I won't dare to look at this article there today ;) but here, for the time being, some NPOV rules are enforced.

Oh, c'mon, is being touchy a Catalan nationalist thing or what? ;) that is not a threat, but a friendly advice so that you are aware of what is going on :) Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A friendly advice about your (as Dúnadan would say) very strong WP:TEND across the catapov-related articles beyond THE gate... and a friendly advice about how this incites me to the strike (STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!).

Some questions: is this a catalan ethnogenesis in the wp:en? I cannot find the article in wp:ca nor wp:es. There aren't interwikis. Why?

How many times have you heard "ètnia" talking about la gent catalana or el poble català? How many times? I can bring here some sources from Sabino Arana talking about ethnicities in Spain. If this is a wp:en-catalan ethnogenesis, if this is the case, you, Antonio Hermoso Pulido (aka Toniher) wouldn't be catalan: you aren't de socarrel, you aren't de ceba. Where's the 'ol Pujol and his "those who live and work in Catalonia"? Or... may be the catalan ethnic group has arrived recently, and the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cite it... or I cannot find it. In the common knowledge, to be a catalan means coming from Catalonia. Catalan people is the people from Catalonia. The rest is filfa:

• "The Catalan people continues today to proclaim liberty, justice and equality as higher values of its collective life, and manifests its desire to advance in a way which will ensure a dignified quality of life for all those who live and work in Catalonia" (Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006)

We could think reading the article that the statute is for the sardinian... the south-french people... or may be for the valencian people. Please... common sense and common knowledge. --Owdki ^talk 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You should not confound this article with ca:Condició política de català, which is an easier topic to tackle. I was not the creator of these ethnic series, but I have the impression that these kind of discussions are rather taboo or polemic depending on the culture. IMHO, under Catalan people article we would talk about those of Catalan descent, and also those who may regard themselves in the same cultural nation (in this case, mainly based on the language - see Joan Francesc Mira works). This could not be the same in other cases around the world and I consider this is regardless of their political national belonging feelings and other political attitudes, and they might even share others.

As you like to cite myself, I would fit in different ways both Castilian and Catalan people. --Toniher (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is, by far, the most controversial of all issues we have all dealt with, and a very delicate subject indeed. While I do not claim any particular POV, it is my opinion that:

• Articles of XXXX people could refer to people living in XXXX area (as in Mexican people redirecting Demography of Mexico, i.e. parallel to the Condició política de català) or as a group of people linked by some cultural trait, not necessarily all the inhabitants of a particular territory (as in Irish people).

This article seems to be constructed à-la second option. However, the difference between "Irish people"—just to give an example—and "Catalan people" is that the Irish diaspora, whether having emigrated 10 or 200 years ago, self—but collectively—identify themselves as "Irish". The only Catalan diaspora that fully self-identifies as Catalan is the Catalan emigration from Catalonia exclusive to other countries. Arguably, the Catalan-speaking population in southern France (the Pays Catalan) and the small fraction of Catalan-speaking Algherese also identify culturally as Catalans. But that is not the case with the great majority of Catalan-speaking people of Valencia and the Balearic Islands. Therefore, it is only under a very specific POV that all Catalan-speaking individuals are Catalan. Is that sentiment valid or not? That discussion is beyond Wikipedia. We simply cannot ignore that while a few Valencians do consider themselves Catalan, the great majority do not.

It is therefore, my recommendation, that this article deal only with Catalans from Catalonia and their diaspora, and to some extent with Catalans in southern France and Alghero. Maybe, a brief note could be added that may explain that under a very specific POV, Valencians are included into a "Catalan identity", but with much opposition. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand you may want to be overzealous, but just a remark, I suggest you to take a look at Spanish people and Portuguese people. My point is trying not to mix this issue with political national identification or alike. For instance, Andorra could be considered as homeland as Catalonia for Catalan people, despite its different sovereign status since XIIIth century.

Despite this may fit better in other articles, I link you a poem of Pere Capella, so you can do further research. I would like to have more time to contribute myself ;) --Toniher (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your remarks User:Dúnadan, but I think we should keep the article the way it is. --Mhsb (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with your remarks. Mountolive and Owdki were right, in my opinion, when protesting against the inclusion of the total current population of the Catalan Countries in the group of catalan people considered in this article. This is against current common knowledge and surely cannot be the approach of an encyclopedic article nowadays. Nevertheless, I do not like the kind of reversions and the tone of the criticisms against Toniher's contributions. I think he is doing a valuable work but starting from a wrong point. He is been adding nice pictures and valuable historical information that must be definitely preserved in the article since it is relevant. My points are the following:

• The 'Catalan people' nowadays refer to inhabitants of Catalonia and their diaspora. This should be the main definition in the article.
• Historically this expression has referred to a wider group of people that can be identified as Catalan-speakers.

Therefore, I think that historical remarks in this article are fully pertinent, explaining the Reconquista process in the Valencia and Balearic Islands and how, in the first centuries after this process part of the inhabitants of these territories where considered catalan people (remember a famous fragment of Ramon Muntaner's chronicle or the fact, mentioned by Toniher, that Borgia family where known in Rome as "the catalan"). After some time this identification with the adjective "catalan" severely decreased as people identified themselves plainly as "valencian", "mallorquins" and so on. So, I suggest to preserve (probably expanded and better clarified) all this information in the article for the sake of completeness. --Cnoguera (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started doing some changes in this direction, but probably more are needed. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing some crucial point in this discussion, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that the criticisms and the changes I started making are going in the direction of making this article more similar to Spanish people and Portuguese people. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying more especifically Dúnadan than you. I move the text a bit... --Toniher (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if, per Cnoguera, the tone of my criticism regarding Toniher's edit here was not right. This said, his edits in this article are probably the most extreme POV I've seen lately (and you get to see quite a lot elsewhere).

We can not use changing criteria depending on the convenience...now ethnical, now historical, now political, then civic....all blended in a way as to annul the one which is widely accepted. All to serve the purpose and POV of including as much people as feasible under this concept.

And then putting a disclaimer in the top part of the article as a means of excusing for the mess.

It is simply not right, unacceptable and definitely unencyclopedic. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, I am quite shocked for the drastic edit you have just done, erasing completely my contributions. Maybe I failed completely in explaining my points, maybe you have not realized that the article was not last Toniher's version, but some substantial modification. I was trying to find a compromise between both positions. I was accepting your criticisms while keeping Toniher's work. Of course the disclaimer was unencyclopedic. I already erased it. Did you notice that the number of catalans in the table was again 7 million? Did you notice that they were again defined as those from Catalonia? Did you notice that the subsequent information was intended to be in a strictly historical context. Please, let us develop this discussion because otherwise I really do not know what to do. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I started from last Toniher's version, the available one this morning and I did several important changes to make it more acceptable. Of course I could be wrong, but if you think so please discuss it here and we'll surely construct something good together. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have reverted myself hoping to un-shock you ;).

Now, sorry again, but it still does look disastrous to me. I think the version you were working from was so fundamentally biased that it affects whatever we may want to put on top of it...

So, I'm paying a look at the article again...."Catalans are an ethnic group" are they? so Toniher is not Catalan, while I am? (by the way, I am not)...that is if by ethnic you mean surnames...what is actually meant by "ethnic" here? ethnicity in western societies is a topic which shouldnt be dealt with in the same ways as with, say, ethnicity in America....someone may want to explain what is the Catalan ethnicity...and we may get to interesting -and disparated- conclusions...

roughly: "people from Valencia were defined in the middle ages as Catalans by some other Europeans"....ok. And now people from Catalonia are usually defined internationally as Spanish of French, people from la Franja as Spanish (or Aragonese), people from Alghero as Italians (or Sardinians), so? which is the value of that when it comes to the substance of those articles?

And what is even the mention of El Carxe doing here? (I admit this is where I stop reading the version I am reverting) El Carxe has been populated by some dozens Valencian speakers ever since the early 1900s...they have never been defined as Catalans by anybody...not the least by themselves.

Criteria were dismally mixed. If Catalans are those who speak Catalan (besides those "ethnically Catalan" ¿? and counting), then it is the name of the language which matters a lot. And neither Valencians, nor Balearics, let alone Carxenians (¿?) call their language "Catalan" but they call it "Valencian" or "Mallorquí" etc, which is, unsurprisignly, the way they call themselves also in ethnographic terms.

Taking the philological scholar definition of a language (Catalan) and then infer from that any kind of ethnography is a shocking step. All people speaking English are English people? No. Why Catalan should be different?

let me give it a thought to this subjective point of view question (as related to the people covered in the current definition): who is wikipedia (or some wikipedia users) to tell people from Carxe, Alguer, la Franja, Balearics...that they are Catalans or that they can be "perceived" as Catalans? Do they possibly care about some Italian author calling Pope XXXX "catalano marrano" back in the 15th century? is that rationale enough to spill the whole cup of coffee all over the article?

who is wikipedia (or some wikipedia users) to go round the legal definitions, received wisdom and common sense? "enlightened despotism" is -just to follow with the example- out of fashion since some time after Italian authors ceased to call Valencians "Catalans".

what about WP:FRINGE? do we care about it? we should.

You may want to work if you want on these "addenda" theories by creating a section for them. But its highly speculative and POVish approach will have to be noted.

As for now, I have no other option but to revert to a maybe not perfect, but for sure much more NPOV version.

Hope I have explained myself better now. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I was sure there was some misunderstanding somewhere. I already said this morning that I was just starting to lead to the NPOV and more changes were needed (this should not be difficult, as I realize that we agree in many fundamental points). Let me comment your remarks one by one and then propose something.

"The catalans are an ethnic group", yes this was a strange statement (nowadays completely false), which I wanted to reformulate in subsequent revisions.

"Catalans are perceived internationally as part of Spanish people". Definitely true (I am traveling often and I know it very well) and wikipedia must reflect this international common knowledge. In Spanish people you can find pictures of Dalí and Gaudí, and I will never complaint about it. Also catalan-speaking people were internationally perceived as Catalan people in Middle ages. That is another cold fact (and at that time the ethnical definition was still true perhaps). Why should not Wikipedia reflect it as well? (as a historical remark, not in the current definition, of course!).

The mention to El Carxe was completely out of place, you are right, and I did not notice when I was editing.

Not all people speaking English are English people, not all people speaking Spanish are Spanish people. I would never claim otherwise. But notice that in Spanish people entry they have no trouble in making interesting remarks about History and how the Spanish population was extended to other countries, even if nowadays their descendents are not considered Spanish.

I definitely agree with you in the fundamentals. Wikipedia is not here to stipulate any new meaning for any term, it should just collect already existing linguistical usages and knowlegde. Knowing these, and taking into account how analogous articles have been developed, we should be able to develop this one in the right way. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Be conscious that we are not discussing about Catalan people now, but about all other "people" categories, who should be redone maybe according to the outcome of our discussions :)

For instance, Italian people present header now is: The Italians are a Southern European ethnic group found primarily in Italy, Switzerland, France and, by virtue of a wide-ranging diaspora, throughout Western Europe, the Americas and Australia. Their native language is Italian, and historically Italian dialects and languages. Their religion is predominantly Roman Catholic.

By the way, the definition of "ètnia" (ethnic group) in DIEC2 Catalan dictionary.

Comunitat humana definida per criteris culturals o lingüístics.

Human community defined by cultural or lingustic criteria.

Cheers! --Toniher (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My humble proposal

Instead of arguing point by point, this is my proposal for all X people-type pages, whatever the X ethnicity. All of them should display a huge banner on top with something like It is impossible to establish objectively who is X people and who is not (unless it just means citizen of State X). And about taking Spanish people as a model page, please... (insert big laughter) Just prove that there are 25 million of Argentinians who are Spanish ! --Jotamar (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert wars

The arguments and the revert wars that are going on here are very disappointing.

I wanted to write an article about Catalan people for the Hebrew Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is often a good source for translation, but when i translate from it, i still check the sources and do my best to ensure that the information is stable and verifiable.

Unfortunately this article is nowhere near that. The revert wars here are wrong. They are wrong because they are full of emotions. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't be about emotions, but about verifiability.

I don't know whether it is OK or not to say that Valencians are a part of "Catalan people". But in arguments such as this it doesn't matter what i know or don't know, or what any other editor knows or thinks. This article should say this: "Book X says that the definition 'Catalans' includes A, B, C and D; Book Y says that the definition 'Catalans' includes only A and B; etc.". That's the only solution for such arguments. Verifiability and reliable sources are the key to POV. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Since I'm coping with this I realize it is nearly impossible to have an emotion-free discussion, if you are a little pro-catalan the right wing pp or spanish nationalism people do their war, if you doubt some things, its the same with the catalan nationalists. Allthough, either castellan-originated as catala-originated people have many different point of views, not only extrems. Its maybe just the number of speakers is to high, so there are more loud. At least some modern definition of a spanish catalan can be found at: [1], Articel 7. And just before any edit-war starts-it is possible that people define people as part of their state or not-many years the preamble of the German Republic expressed, they were deciding for the german brothers in the east too.... Or based on the European definition about minorities it is a private decision, if you feel part of them e.g. in Germany, everbody is accepted as Frisian, when he decides to be one, unless his national identity... But surely there are people, who would like to define a Frisian only as pureblood, not muggelish or whatever. --CeGe (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Options

Cnoguera, it's great to hear that I explained myself better this time and that there are no misunderstanding between us. It is also good to hear that a plurality of users agree on the fundamentals here. That includes peoples from all point of views. Indeed I think the question is (if only this time) self-evident enough to gather and enforce a majoritary consensus.

As for other wikipedia entries (let it be Spanish people, Italian, or any other given), well, I think we would be in the wrong path if we tried to reproduce whatever their patterns are here. In the first place, it would be a self-referenced move (in the sense of wikipedia-centric). In the second place, even though I haven't studied them properly, as a matter of fact I assume that the patterns of similar articles greatly vary amongst them.

If we edited here having those in the rearview mirror, maybe we would be well end up comparing articles which were not that similar in the first place other than for their title names (as a side note, I dont think that Spanish and Catalan people are mutually excluding each other, Spanish would be the sum up of all regional identities, but that is another story and totally urelated to this discussion at this point).

I stand for a clear cut of this one article, more or less as it is now, "polished" in the details if you may. In my opinion, if we were to include things like "catalan-speaking people being internationally perceived as Catalan people in Middle ages", then we would be doing nothing but buying ourselves particularly difficult to solve dead-ends and problems. Then, most apparent dead-ends are also cooking round the corner with the ethnicity topic.

What I mean is that claims such as that one on "international medieval perception of Catalans" are bold enough to deserve a quote covering them, whereas the quote won't be handy. In other words, they are highly hypothetical and virtually unverifiable, since no one knows for sure about that (how Catalans were perceived by the rest of the world is not a major topic in any given historiography). And, well, they don't really add much to the substance of the topic. Backing claims like that one with a single (or handful of) medieval sources (such as "catalano marrano") as compiled by the usual supporters of a certain approach to the matter would be something of a "hand-picking" à la carte sourcing. It is sometimes easier to prove the exception than the rule, the news is a man biting a dog, not the other way around. We could be falling in presentism. Or we could end up endorsing an Italian author who maybe was the exception rather than the rule. It's trouble.

Adding is fine. But we have to draw a line or we will incur in breaches of WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, at first sight cold facts may very well end up overstating unduly any given stance which is neither widespread nor verified.

It's for reasons like these that I stand for keeping the article basically as it is, as lean as possible.

If you still think that alternative stuff deserves their space, then maybe an ok way to deal with it would be to creat another article covering them all, something like "Alternative Theories on 'Catalanity'" (sic) or something in the same fashion (but under a better name). As read in the UNDUE policy:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

This way we would have a clean cut article on catalan people gathering the widespread uncontroversial info and, alternative theories would have their own space.

Am I making any sense yet? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your remarks make perfect sense. In fact, to my surprise I am realizing that we have crashed here into a quite complex general problem. Our colleague Jotamar was noting it in his comment above. It is really hard to write this kind of articles about groups of people. Because, what are thye real properties defining those groups: ethnics? language? culture? history? citizenship? Take a look at several analogous pages and you'll be amazed. As you predicted, there are great critical divergences. It shows that (even in its mighty English version) Wikipedia is still in its very first stages of development and almost all the work is yet to be done! It is completely inconsistent! By reading those entries you realize that Spanish people are a nation, while Italians are not. Germans are not a nation, but English people are. You can also learn that Welsh are a nation and ethnic group and the same for Scottish people, while Catalans are neither a nation nor an ethnic group. Galicians are an ethnic group and a nationality, but not a nation. You can even learn that the total population of (unmixed) Spanish people is 135 million, and 185 million in the case of Portuguese. Damn! What the hell does all this mess mean! It seems to me that someone should create a Wikiproject for those "XXX people" entries and put there some criteria, some order, some common ground! But what can we do? We are Catalan (or at least people highly interested in Catalan-related articles) and we have to deal with our own crappy entry ;) We should do some (at least semantical) research and learn what the hell we are (an ethnic group? a nationality? a nation? a group of speakers of some dialect? a group of people born in some autonomous community? a group of people that happen to be living in some autonomous community?). Well, I'd better stop my irony here (I hope you'll excuse me, it is just my natural reaction after realizing such a big chaos...) and start being constructive.

As I was saying, your remarks are very reasonable. Let us try to develop our entry step by step keeping in mind all Wikipedia policies (specially the relevant ones you mentioned), keeping in mind the current common knowledge about the expression, but also the history and well documented facts (and so I am not referring to a fistful of conveniently picked exceptions). And I will also keep in mind another piece of common knowledge which sometimes has been described by using slogans of the form mallorquins, catalans i valencians som cosins germans. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rereading my own comments I realize that so much irony was hiding my real position: no matter how big mess there might be in analogous articles, we now should care only about this one and develop it the best we can as a result of a joint work by people coming from different backgrounds. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We may want to start by things within our capacities, such as cleaning a bit the all-important "diet&dishes" section, with interesting remarks such as Catalan people eat fowl more than the red meat of the English diet, and like to eat young cows (vedella), sheep (xai) and no bulls. The digestion of the English diet used to be considered hard by the Catalan people. Also we may want to put everything into 21st century context, for even if you dont have a light breakfast (preferably with pà amb tomaquet) that shouldnt eliminate you from the 'socarrel' Catalan stock ;)

As for 'cosins germans' and else, you know that family matters, when nasty, tend to get the most strained of them all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those diet & dishes comments are funny :) Let's do it like this, first easy things, then we'll see what to do with more difficult stuff. And excuse me if I am still showing some language barriers, but I didn't catch your last comment about nasty families... --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I have found the existence of the Wikiproject on ethnic groups. Maybe those guys could tell us whether we are to be considered under their scope... --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have left a note there? I just try to start the discussion about rules, how to describe ethnic groups in the german wiki--CeGe (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Celts and Celtiberians in Catalonia ?

I've never heard of Celt or Celtiberian settlements in Catalonia. I think someone has mixed it up with other areas. Besides that, the Celtiberians were not a mixture of Celts and Iberians, that is a myth. --Jotamar (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Catalonia was invaded by Urnfield people (indoeuropeans) in 1200 b.c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.76.25 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead rephrasing

The new wording at the lead is ok with me if only historically. Indeed, the Principality of Catalonia used to include Roussillon and those were Catalan, culturally and politically, back in the day. However, I'd say that the primary identity of the Roussillon is not Catalan, but French. Very few of them will describe themselves as "Catalan".

That is why I still favour the previous wording (see below) which, while not denying at all the fact that "Catalanity" may be extended to that French part, it is more clear and it is much closer to reality.

The Catalans are the people from Catalonia, in Spain; this includes people originating in that region but living elsewhere. The inhabitants of the adjacent portion of southern France – known in Catalonia proper as Catalunya Nord (Northern Catalonia), and in France as the Pays Catalan – are often included in this definition.

I feel like changing it back to that one, would be good to hear other people, too, if only to improve the previous wording. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)