Talk:Catalonia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Christopher Columbus of Catalonia?

http://www.cristobal-colon.com/COLON/OTRASTESIS/TESISCATALANA/ING-CATALANA2.htm

Observation based on the diaries, letters and family shields. According to American researchers say there is evidence to believe that it was of Catalonia . (see also DISCOVERY CHANNEL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.26.229 (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget the "Discovery Channel"; I catch them with a lie almost every time I watch it. They're NOT reliable at all, unfortunately. Columbus was probably from Italy but there are also studies that put him into Portuguese and also Catalan origin. You choose. --Floridianed (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that they are willful liars; however, any television program has to be interesting enough to draw in viewers. I've noticed that many of the programs on several channels will present controversial theories, many times bordering on fringe theories, that haven't been accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The evidence they present is usually thought provoking, but just as Floridianed said, it may not always be reliable. Keep watching for your interest and entertainment, but I would always check out the information with different sources. Remember that they are getting their information from other sources as well, so it should be easy to find out of it's a fringe theory or not. Kman543210 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Catalonia vs Catalonia (autonomous community)

In spite of the opinions posted above, the name of the country (...region, nation, AC or whatever you want) remains Catalonia. So the title of the article should be "Catalonia". This has been the title since its creation, and this is the one users expect to found.

The use of such brackets is good when disambiguation is needed, but here is not necessary. "Catalonia" is the same of "Autonomous community of Catalonia" in 99% of cases. Besides, references to "Principalty of C." or "Catalan countries" are linked enought in the article. All articles on Autonomous Communities in Spain are labeled Aragon, Andalucia, Extremadura, except when a disambiguation with the cities is needed: Valencia, Madrid, Murcia.

So I can't found a reason for this change, and I propose to revert it. --Joan sense nick 01:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The thing is, since Catalonia is first a nationality (or region) which was then constituted as an autonomous community, we have proposed to change the lead section to reflect this, as well as to explain the historical territory from which the nationality is derived. However, Maurice27 said that this article should be exclusively about the AC (post 1979), and in order to eliminate the possibility of using any other definition for Catalonia in this particular article, he renamed it.--the Dúnadan 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I find myself agreeing to the change (disregarding the legalese, when people say Catalonia they are normally refering to the AC). However, I want all concerned to agree that there will be no attempt to turn it into the kind of abortion that we can see on the Catalan wiki (Which begins:"Catalonia is a country in the mediterranean basin, just to the right of Spain. No, no, it IS, because country can mean region, even though when we say country, we don't mean region. I know lets have a patriotic poem in the second paragraph.")

The first paragraph must make it clear that it refers ONLY to the AC. Boynamedsue 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. I will definitely have to review the article in Wikipedia, if Catalonia is presented as a país, it cannot be said to be located to the east of Spain (thus implying that Spain is an exclusive país). Catalonia lies within Spain. I'll look into that. Now please note, that the article about the AC is ca:Comunitat autònoma de Catalunya. Please see how the AC is presented there.

Now, I disagree with only saying that Catalonia is an AC here. It is an AC as a legal entity, but, alas, I repeat myself, it acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality. There is nothing wrong in saying that, both constitutionally and statutorily referenced.

--the Dúnadan 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading the following lead, please, Boynamed how can you think that an user can confuse in the meaning and think that Catalonia is not an AC of Spain?

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation. As such, it is commonly reffered to as the Autonomous community of Catalonia.

So,please, can you explain us where is (from your point of view) the confusion that can make you think that Catalonia is not an AC? --GillesV 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Catalunya, anomenada tradicionalment Principat de Catalunya, és un país europeu de la Mediterrània occidental situat, en gran part, a la costa nord-est de la península Ibèrica. És un dels territoris dels Països Catalans i es troba dividit administrativament en dues parts: la Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya a Espanya i la Catalunya Nord a França. Hom, quan parla de Catalunya actualment, es refereix sobretot al territori sota l'administració de la Generalitat de Catalunya, que és l'únic que duu aquest nom com a oficial."

• Catalonia is not a country (it never was one)
• Catalonia is not a territory of the "països catalans" (they don't exist)
• Catalonia is not divided in two parts (it never was)
• Northern catalonia does not exist (using non official names is not encyclopedic)

What an unbelievable stinky, lying, steaming bulls**t. I can't believe my eyes!!!! I swear I can't! Those people should be banned for life and sent back to school. What an astonishing pile of s**t! Even if talking about the principality (something I doubt as it has its own article ca:Principat_de_Catalunya). BTW, Dunadan as edited that article (See [1]) without changing anything... 0_0

Thanks God for not letting wikipedia become vikipedia!!!!

--Maurice27 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the reiterated insults and lack of etiquette that administrators involved in this discussion seem to overlook (arguably because they agree with Maurice27's point of view), I will not engage on the debate about what a country is and is not. However, I must say that you pay no attention to what other people write. You are looking at the wrong article, I asked you to read: ca:Comunitat autònoma de Catalunya. If you had the decency of at least reading the discussions in other wikipedias you would have noticed that there is an ongoing discussion there to eliminate the article you just cited (Catalonia) in order to merge it with the Principality of Catalonia, something I myself proposed. But of course, decency, etiquette, and some common sense is a lot to ask from you. --the Dúnadan 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

---

And if you had the decency of at least reading what we write here, you would had answer about this:

• Catalonia is not a country (it never was one)
• Catalonia is not a territory of the "països catalans" (they don't exist)
• Catalonia is not divided in two parts (it never was)
• Northern catalonia does not exist (using non official names is not encyclopedic)

About the catalan version of principality of catalonia:

Principat de Catalunya de Viquipèdia

"El Principat de Catalunya, i per antonomàsia el Principat, és el nom històric i tradicional de Catalunya. És un terme jurídic(1) (en llatí principatus) que aparegué al segle XIV per indicar el territori sota jurisdicció de les Corts Catalanes(2), el sobirà del qual (en llatí, princeps) era el rei del Casal de Barcelona(3)(4), sense ser formalment un regne(5). Tampoc era un comtat(6) ja que el comtat de Barcelona no comprenia tot Catalunya.

• 1- juridic term? since when? it has any official status
• 2- under catalan corts jurisdictions? since when? as far as I'm concerned the Crown of Aragon was a kingdom, not a republic
• 3- King of house of Barcelona? since when? NEVER there was a king of Barcelona nor Catalonia
• 4- King of house of Barcelona? ahhhhhhh... you mean the King of ARAGON!!!!
• 5- so... there was a king without kingdom? that is gorgeous!
• 6- nor a county... that's fantastic

So, the explanation of catalan vikipedia is that the principality is: the name invented by some jurists for a republic governed by a king. A king without kingdom... And we must make sure not to call it a county, because a city is not a full territory....

Being an admin of the catalan vikipedia as you are, and having noticed this explanations (as your visits to these articles are proven), you should resign from being admin just for the shame of approving it. Quit talking about other admins on wikipedia. NOBODY would have approved that trash here.

But of course, decency, neutrality , and ANY common sense is a lot to ask from you either

--Maurice27 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Maurice you know how wikipedia works, if you have any problem with that points discuss them at the point it belongs..I have to say that? Ok...you have to discuss it in ca:Principat de Catalunya. Don't go away witn another thing and answer only what Dúnadan is suggesting that is simply nonsense. --GillesV 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC) The nonsense is your attitute ... --GillesV 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do! I agree that what Dúnadan is suggesting is nonsense.! --Maurice27 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What am I suggesting?? We are not discussing whether the Catalan Wikipedia is right, we are not discussing whether Catalonia is a kingdom, we are not discussing whether Catalonia is a country. Neither me, nor any other user have argued or even suggested that Catalonia is a country, nor a nation, nor a kingdom, and we have not discussed the validity of the term "principality". So, why do you bring that up? We are discussing whether we should present Catalonia in this Wikipedia as a "nationality of the Spanish nation". If you disagree with the article about the Principality in Wikiepdia, go ahead, and discuss it over there. Bringing unrelated discussions from other wikipedias is irrelevant.--the Dúnadan 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to assume good faith another time. Bringing unrelated discussions is a good strategy in order to forget answering the proposal of a new definition. The problem is that it is very easy to see that. --GillesV 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Gilles, but the most frustrating thing of all is that administrators take no action and ignore his reiterated attacks, insults and improper behavior and language. --the Dúnadan 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A good strategy? You guys are funny! You even want to deny what are your intentions about modifying this article! I've shown people what has become the definition of Catalonia in cawiki being both of you active members (and admin) of those catalan articles. This is a serious (at least we try) encyclopedia, and you are not to transform it to your own "catalan country". Wanting to describe Catalonia as a nationality as described by the spanish constitution (which is false) by both of you this very same night (here [2] and [3]) is good proof of your intentions. That's two unsourced and clearly false edits.

Come on Dúnadan, don't be a little boy going crying to tell Physchim about me insulting you (as you always do). Calling the catalan article "an unbelievable stinky, lying, steaming bulls**t" as it is now is not insulting. It is reality!

--Maurice27 06:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a talk page and the discussion is about this article, not others. That edit is not false Maurice, it is both constitutionally and statutorily referenced, have you read the first article of Catalonia's Statute? Let's see: Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution. And about the Constitution: the second article in the preliminary title says: The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all. so it is obvious that Catalonia has 2 options to be constituted as an AC, to be a nationality or to be a region. It is obvious that Catalonia chooses to be a nationality in an Statute approved by its Parlamient, in referendum and by the Spanish Parlamient so...where is the unsourced and clearly false edit?-GillesV 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep quoting the catalan statute. WE KNOW that it does state Catalonia to be a nationality already! But you know very well that the spanish constitution does not state ANYWHERE Catalonia to be a nationality. It does garantee the right to the nationalities or regions to become ACs, but it does not say which territory would be any of these two options. When the constitution was written, any region of spain had yet declared itself a nationality, so it is physically impossible for the constitution to define Catalonia as a nationality.

--Maurice27 13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So quit trying to say the opposite! The spanish constitution DID NOT state Catalonia to be a nationality!

But are you sure that you have read my edition? Obviously,the constitution only gives the option but not defines it all it is the Catalan Statute who states that : Catalonia as a nationality , exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution . .

After reading my last edition:[[4])] Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation.

Where is that edition saying that is the constitution who defines Catalonia as a nationality? It is the Statute who defines that as the basic institutional rule of each Self-governing Community.I don't have any problem with your last edit, it is more concrete.But your accusations are simply false.--GillesV 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed this, trying to found some consensus:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain.

In my opinion it's easy and clear, and POV free. The current edition it's certainly ugly and difficult to understand. In my opinion, other considerations are better placed in the sections further down (status within Spain), or have been mentioned above (first line link to Principalty). --Joan sense nick 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess this definition brings us back to Maurice27's reversion, and what was a consensus is now challenged by three users. I still don't understand why saying that Catalonia is a nationality, or that acceded to its autonomy in being recognized a nationality is POV, after all, it is a statutory definition in full compliance with the constitution of Spain, so it is "POV free", in fact, it has been argued that the exclusion of the term nationality would imply POV.

It is clear that there is no consensus, so let's try to reach a compromise. For my part, I would accept the short definition of Catalonia as an AC for the lead section, if the section of the "legal status within Spain" is revised and NPOVed, especially the unreferenced claim from the government. I would propose to simply say, like the Statute of Autonomy does, that even though the Parliament has defined Catalonia as a nation, the constitution [not the government] recognizes the national reality [sic] of Catalonia as a nationality. --the Dúnadan 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joan, seems it is hard to find a consensus for the lead :S I can agree with the compromise presented by Dúnadan and agree that Legal Status with Spain section needs to be "NPOVed" but first I try to make a new proposal.(I leave the term historical region, removing both historical region and nationality from the lead from my point of view would not be a complete definition). :--GillesV 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is a historical region of Spain constituted as an Autonomous Community.

The Autonomous community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006) and its territory corresponds to most of the historic territory of the Principality of Catalonia.

It borders France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south. To the east there is a 580 km coastline which meets the Mediterranean Sea.

Official languages are Catalan, Spanish, and Aranese. --GillesV 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for consensus, I propose:

1. A short, clear, POV free definition of the article. (Cat is an AC in the kingdom of Sp, plus some general data)

2. The current first italics line disambiguating to historic territories.

3. The section "Legal Status with Spain" with a literal quotation of the definition of Catalonia in the Preamble of the Statute, referenced with the addenda "text proposed by the Parliament of Catalonia, passed by the Parliament and the Senate of Spain, and approved by the citizens of Catalonia in referendum with 1.899.897 favorable votes (73%)".

--Joan sense nick 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I proposed (except for the addendum). I won't oppose to it, as long as the NPOVing of the legal status section is done, eliminating the "to the government..." POV phrase. However, I wouldn't oppose Gilles V addition of "historical region" in the introduction, either. Is there a way you can consider adding that phrase in the introduction to reach a compromised consensus? --the Dúnadan 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This does raise the question as to why this section is there at all. Can't it just be moved to "Law and government in Catalonia"? Do you really feel that the most imporatant thing to discuss with a random English-speaking visitor is the "Legal status within Spain". Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes I do. The first section of articles about countries/states/provinces is either Etymology or History. I don't think that the order of the sections conveys any sort of importance, does it? If it does, and the first section (not the lead section), is the most important one, then, by all means, given the uniqueness of the Spanish system, this section should be at the beginning, and not History, Geography or Etymology. The fact that we've been discussing this issue for so long means that this is not a minor issue (contrary to popular belief, we do not discuss just for the fun of it). It is such a major issue that the constituent congress had to select a neutral word, "nationality", and had to clearly state in the constitution that Spain is composed by nationalities and regions, which exercise their self-government as autonomous communities. I find it extremely POV to dismiss this particular definition (and constitutional!) given its importance in Catalan culture and politics, and self-identity. It not just a matter of a "law" or a "political propaganda". It's been there for hundreds of years, and it is fully recognized by the constitution.

Have you noticed that Scotland is defined as a nation and a constituent country of the UK even though there is no constitutional (well, there is no constitution in the UK) nor legal statement that qualifies it as such, and they are simply citing the webpage of the Prime Minister? Who says Scotland is a nation? Common sense? Popular sentiment? In the case of Catalonia, there is a constitution and a Statute of Autonomy approved by the Spanish Parliament (that is, by all Spaniards, not only Catalans, fully and democratically therein represented) that quite clearly use a word which conveys what they feel they are (a nationality) within the unity of the Spanish nation. Ignoring this is POV, stating it complies with everything Wikipedia stands for: NPOV. All arguments against its inclusion have revolved around personal interpretations and even disqualifications of the constitution of Spain, some even daring to claim that it cannot be considered a valid neutral source! So, if not the constitution, then what? Our opinions?

We are proposing a consensual version whereby the neutral, referenced, verifiable and constitutional term "nationality" is removed form the lead introductory paragraph as Marucie27 had once proposed. This, to us, the 5 users who disagreed with him, means compromising. I only asked that the "Legal status within Spain" be fully NPOVed and properly referenced, that means you (or the other party) compromising. If you are not willing to do that, then you are right: this discussion is going nowhere, and a particular version, based on a political preference, will be the defining feature of this article.

-the Dúnadan 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I give my opinion (--GillesV 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)) about NPOVing the Legal status within Spain section (for me a necessary section in order to arrive to a compromise with the new lead):

I want to remark that the phrase: In the opinion of the Spanish Government this mention is of declaratory not legal value, since the Spanish Constitution recognizes the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation" is POVish because after looking for a reference I think that a good one about the opinion of the Spanish Government is what said the Spokesman of Socialist Parliamentary Group Mr López Garrido speaking about that terms in a session about Catalonia's Statute at the Spanish Congress.

He said: (Reference: Page 21 of Acta del Congreso de los Diputados en la sesión cuyo orden del dia era "Emitir dictamen por parte de la Comisión Constitucional y de la Delegación del Parlamento de Cataluña, a la vista del informe elaborado por la ponencia conjunta.)

Ha sido destacado y es de notar que, en efecto, aquí hay un texto en cuyo preámbulo —que no tiene carácter normativo de ninguna clase,señor Jané, es verdad, pero tiene importancia política,jurídica e interpretativa, sin duda que la tiene y no le vamos a quitar ninguna fuerza en eso- se establece —y el Parlamento de Cataluña lo ha aprobado— que Cataluña es una nación y las Cortes Generales respetan esa decisión del Parlamento de Cataluña y lo introducen en este preámbulo.

I translate it (but better if the reader understands the spanish version): In effect, there is a text here whose introduction - that does not have normative character of any class, Mr. Jané, it is true, but it has political, legal and interpretative importance, without a doubt it has, and we are not going to remove the force of that. And it establishes -and the Parlamient of Catalonia has approved it- that Catalonia is a nation and the General Court respects that decision of the Parliament of Catalonia and they introduce it in this preamble.

So if we say the first part we should say it all:

• 1st: For the Spanish Government it does not have normative character
• 2nd: state that for them it has political, legal and interpretative importance.

Moreover, I don't know if it is good mixing the Government's opinion with the Spanish Constitution saying in the same phrase: ,since the Spanish Constitution recognizes the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation". The phrase is normative (Spanish Constitution) but the Spokesman says (see all the pdf) that Catalonia's Statute does not contradict the Constitution because the term nation appears in the preamble (introduction) and not in the part with normative value (articulado).--GillesV 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia vs Catalonia (autonomous community)

Is this article about the historic Catalonia or about the Autonomous Comunitie of Catalonia. If it is about the historical region,why does it keep talking about Spain and only the spanish part. And if not, why does it start by defining Catalonia as if we were talking about the historical version of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.186.57 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Building a consensus

In my opinion, Catalonia is a nation. But this is not a place for my opinion, for any opinion: this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Opinions stated in the first lines of the article (most people don't go further) are the beginning of never-ending boring edition-wars. A consensus text is needed, and to work toghether keeping it away from radical (both sides) editors.

These first lines sholuld be short, clear and NPOV, and refer only to objective facts. We can use this section as a sandbox. My first proposition is:

This article is about the autonomous community. See also Principality of Catalonia (for the historic territory) and Northern Catalonia.

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain.

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006). It borders France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east. Official languages are Catalan, Spanish, and Aranese. The capital city is Barcelona.

==Legal status within Spain==

"The Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation by an ample majority. The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality".

"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". .

(Text proposed by the Parliament of Catalonia, passed by the Parliament and the Senate of Spain, and approved by the citizens of Catalonia in referendum with 1.899.897 votes in favour (73%)).

--Joan sense nick 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal as a consensual version. --the Dúnadan 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept the consensual version as a compromise (perhaps I'm tired of discussing about it! :)) and as an emergency solution to the edit war. I give my opinion too: that version is just shorter and clearer but 1st:not complete (I think that erasing both nationality and historical region is a POV) and 2nd: I think that a paragraph about the history of Catalonia would give to the reader a wider vision to the topic. Ignoring the historical aspects can cause confusion to a reader who reads the Legal status with Spain section without any background of Catalonia before being an AC. I accept this proposal as a compromise but for me this is not the lead of a GA article. I think that Scotland and Northern Ireland are examples of articles with a good lead (and they are both GA articles).But at least I hope that this ends the problems for some time. --GillesV 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gilles. After all, if a reputable source such as Britannica (like I pointed out before) defines Catalonia as a historical region and an AC too, I can't see why we shouldn't. But, for the sake of stopping this edit war, Joan's proposal seems good to me, and the legal section is NPOVed enough. --the Dúnadan 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A stronger consensus is needed to go on, please let your proposals here. --Joan sense nick 09:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've all agreed on your proposal. As for my proposal, I have repeatedly suggested it above, and the current introduction ("acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality...") was part of it. Like I said, for the sake of reaching a consensus, I am willing to accept your proposal and the NPOVed "Legal status within Spain" section. I haven't inserted your proposal because I am waiting for the other users' opinions, mainly Physchim, Maurcie27 and Boynamedsue. However, it's been over a week, and they haven't commented anything. Maybe we should wait a couple of days, and then insert your proposal.--the Dúnadan 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a must that in the leading section there should be a reference to the historical region and define it as a nationality. I find this proposal POV. However, I won't make any war if most of the people thinks this is a good introduction...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead is POV but I think the legal section that follows NPOVs the whole article, I know it is not the best solution (each section should be NPOV) but if that makes a consensus and gives the article some stability I agree with that. If that is useless then we need a mediation and I will not give my support to that lead. In a mediation my point of view is that the best solution is to bring the NPOVed Legal Status within Spain section to the lead,remove that strange section (do you see a section called Legal Status of Barcelona in Catalonia in Barcelona's article) and expand the lead with some historical aspects that summarise Catalonia's history over the time like we do usually in other articles.--GillesV 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Destroying a consensus through the medium of textual analysis

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status declared as a nationality of the Spanish nation by its statute. As such, it is commonly referred to as the Autonomous community of Catalonia. It borders France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south. To the east there is a 580 km coastline which meets the Mediterranean Sea.

the part in bold seems to indicate (it says nothing, exactly, is opaque and unencyclopedic, but it SEEMS to indicate) that Catalonia became an autonomous community the moment its statute declared it a nationality. Is "declared" a verb or a participle in this sent? If it is a verb what is its subject?

I know that people here have agreed to this change, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. These feeble and pointless attempts at including the term "nationality" in the opening paragraph are compromising the quality of the article. Bin the legalise and report the facts. Looks like AC, smells like AC, Tastes like AC (with tomato on), is an AC. The nationality thing goes in Legal status.

Boynamedsue 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OH, I notice there is no mention of "nationality" in the Legal Status section. Best find a quote supporting it before adding.

Boynamedsue 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the consensual version at all? What you are destroying is not the consensual version. We hadn't inserted the consensual version since we were waiting for you and other users to comment, so what you "destroyed" was not a consensual version anyway. The consensual version does not include the term nationality in the lead section, but only in the "legal status" section. The consensual version agreed upon was this:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Catalonha), is an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain.

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006).It borders France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east.

Official languages are Catalan, Spanish, and Aranese.

The capital city is Barcelona.

==Legal status within Spain==

"The Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation by an ample majority. The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality".

"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". .

Please show a positive attitude since your comments and adjectives seem to indicate that you believe you are categorically right and that you will destroy whatever we agree upon because you believe you are "right" and we are "wrong", based on your personal opinions. If that is not the case I apologize, but please refine your comments and requests a bit so that there are no misunderstandings.

--the Dúnadan 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BNS you can reword that to solve the tense problemes that you noticed . For example--> Catalonia, as a nationality of the Spanish nation ^{(reference Statute Article 1)} , is an Autonomous Community of Spain[...] --GillesV 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia cannot look, smell or taste like an AC because that is abstract , the same for nationality. Wikipedia as a tertiary source should reflect what the Statute says and what the Constitution says despite it obviously is not your opinion. It is not my opinion too. To follow the consensus and the compromise reached in the legal texts seems a good option. To remove the term nationality is an opinion (yours) that from my point of view is also compromising also the quality of the article. And ok , I agree that it is better to solve the tense problems.--GillesV 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

GillesV, I understand what you are saying. However, to state "nationality" is an opinion, as is to state "not a nationality". The Spanish constitution states that there are "nationalities" in Spain, but not that Catalonia is one.

The preamble to the estatute, which lacks legal force, states that Catalonia is a "nationality". These are important points, but they are not cast iron facts, they are legal opinions, and should be dealt with in the legal status section. They are points of debate, so we should restrict ourselves to stating, with sources, the positions in the relevant documents. We are not dealing with the real and tangible when we talk about the word "nationality". This confused position is not the first thing people need to know about Catalonia.

That Catalonia is an autonomous community is not in doubt, as this is the name given to the regional governmental structures of Spain who administer a budget and institutions, I don't understand how it is that many users can't see this distinction, I have drawn it many times, and it tends to be ignored.

Dunadan, I would be grateful if you would remove the links to comments I have made on user talk pages, and limit yourself to topics relevant to the content of the article. If you wish to make comments on them, and I would prefer comments to snide insinuations, please answer them on the relevant talk pages, or feel free to leave messages on my own.

Boynamedsue 13:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia as a "nationality" is not an opinion, if it is part of the legally binding articles of the Statute of Autonomy [not in the Preamble, please read the Statute, first article]. It was approved, not only by the people of Catalonia, but by the Spanish Parliament. It is, therefore, a legal term as valid, but with different meaning, as the term "autonomous communities". Many people dislike the term, but it is nonetheless a legal term. It would be an opinion to negate or contradict what the Statute of Autonomy says. It would be POV not to include the term. The Constitution of the United States never says, on any article, that Massachusetts is a "Commonwealth", yet, in the legally binding law of that particular state, the term is picked up and used for the state. In other words, unless you [out of a personal opinion] disregard the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia [as biased], you cannot claim that the term "nationality" is an opinion: it is a legal term applied to Catalonia which was approved not only by the Catalan Parliament (composed by all democratically elected political parties) but by the Spanish Parliament, which is the voice and the representation of all Spaniards [ergo, it is the opinion of all Spaniards democratically represented] of all political parties.

Many Catalans strongly believe that Catalonia is a nation (not in the political meaning, but in the ethnic meaning of a linguistic-cultural people that are part of a political unitary nation: Spain). To them, this is self-evident. To other Catalans, Catalonia is nothing but a political division of Spain, and at most a "region". The Parliament of Spain, to avoid these two extremes, coined a middle-ground term (now even accepted by the Real Academia Española [5]) to define these particular regions with a (quoting) especial identidad histórica y cultural [a special historical and cultural identity]. This term is "nationality". Then, the Statue of Autonomy within the articles, that is, within the legally binding content, picks up the term and uses it to state that Catalonia, as a nationality, constitutes itself as an autonomous community. This is in fact what Britannica, a very reputable source states: that Catalonia is a nationality, as I pointed out above.

I strongly believe that using a legally approved term, now even backed up by the RAE, is the most neutral way to define Catalonia, to avoid the political extremes (i.e. nation). Moreover, it is a neutral term chosen by the Parliament of Spain, not by a particular POV, and not by a particular political party, not by a particular Wikipedian (me, or you or anyone). By WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, it must be included, and by complying with the aforementioned policies, honesty, neutrality and verifiability is everything Wikipedia stands for.

I will remove the links to your comments, per your request. I would be grateful, however, if you treat this discussion in the most neutral, honest and amicable way, setting aside your personal [dis]like for Catalonia. I do not belong to any particular POV nor party, nor political orientation. I am simply stating what the constitution and the Statute of Autonomy say. I do not resort to sarcasm to push my POV or to suggest that the constitution or Statute of Autonomy is "an opinion". Please do the same.

--the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BNS,it is not the preamble who says that Catalonia is a nationality , it is the first article (obviously with legal value): 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. As you say the Constitution leaves two options: region or nationality, in the Statute (and also in the Statute of 1979) Catalonia chooses to be a nationality and that's a fact not a POV.--GillesV 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And I feel that you're not used with the structures of the Spanish law. Preliminary title's articles have legal value (and are the basic ones). An example: The preliminary title of the Spanish Constitution --GillesV 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus/compromise

Some users seem to ignore the search for a compromise that Joan sense Nick, Dúnadan and me started above.

I think that all of we can accept changes but editing the article without discussing is not the way. Including unnecessary sentences or removing terms without discussing is not fair. For example I agree we can remove See Catalan Countries but not if it is done without asking to the community in the discussion page.--GillesV 17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Gilles, the problem is that you seem to be using a double standard: what you don't like is "including unnecessary sentences" and must be removed while what you like can't be removed without discussion....

It is not a double standard, above we said we want to reach consensus...we cannot arrive to that without discussing. First we were near to Joan sense nick version and after 1 or 2 weeks may be what it says is OK but no one reached a compromise to that new version.--GillesV 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

here you go my explanation of my recent edits, which I was writing while you wrote the above

User Gilles V is reverting in the Legal Status part the "recently amended" part on the grounds that this was included also in the 1979. Apparently he is misunderstanding the sense of this "recently amended" and probably seeing something suspicious in there. No worries, Gilles: this does not mean that it was not included in the 1979 version of it, it just means that we are quoting HERE the 2007 version of it, nothing more and nothing less. I can't see the problem.

Also he is reverting the "legally binding" part, apparently unaware of the importance this was given in the Spanish media to this distinction about the preambule and the main part of the text. While this distinction may be subject of legal discussion, blurring or not clear enough, to hide this fact here is surely not the best way to go about it. It is not that it corresponds to us (we are not that important...sigh!) to decide how much legally binding the preambule is, but what we must do is to mention here this distinction which, indeed, was used at the time of approving the Estatut.

In the history part, since I am the one removing the "Catalan Countries" reference and my summary edit wasn't enough for him, let me, then, explain myself here: it never existed a "Catalan Countries" history, because History never goes backwards and the "Catalan Countries" concept only gained currency in the late 20th century, provided that those "Catalan Countries" were very diverse and their economic and politic evolution took each of the "Countries" in a different direction. Thus, to redirect this to the "Catalan Countries" article is obviously biased from a Catalanist point of view. I wouldn't have a problem to redirect it to the Crown of Aragon, though, since this would be quite more accurated. The Crown of Aragon is indeed mentioned already in the text, but amid many other concepts, thus, introducing a "See Also" for this one article is fine with me.

Mountolive.

• Yep I agree with the removal of See Catalan countries as I said above. I revert the Recently ammended part because it was not in Joan sense nick consensual version. here OK..nsnc. But it is not true that, as user BNS said, his second definition was adopted in law when the statute was approved by the Spanish parliament as LEY ORGÁNICA 6/2006, of the 19th of July, Reform of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia because the definition of Catalonia as a nationality was in 1979.--GillesV 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

well, I wasn't aware about the so called consensus being solid. I actually thought that still the whole thing is a work in progress. If I screwed any firm consensus, my apologies then. If not, well, I still stand by "recently amended" because...well, the Estatut was amended recently, you know? :D

once again: I am not saying that this was or was not included in the 1979 version (ok, ok, I know it was, that was only a manner of speaking!), I am just saying that -and this is a sure fact- it is included in the "recently amended" 2006 Estatut because...well, the Estatut was recently amended (last year)! is that a crime?? :D

anyway, I gotta go and see the match, in the meantime: I have my Jordi Pujol mask ready for a good party in Canaletes...do you??

Mountolive

Haha, the consensus is NOT solid! that is why we said we wanted the feedback of you or BNS or..more users and say OK that is consensus.

I know you don't say that it is not included in 1979 but this is not what seems in one BNS edition: definition was adopted in law when the statute was approved by the Spanish parliament as LEY ORGÁNICA 6/2006, of the 19th of July, I think it is easier to remove that comment. For example, we don't say Spain is a democracy since the approval of its Constitutional law in 1977... ::I think there is no problem to say Catalonia is a nationality because it is legal and constitutional and it is from 1979. If not we will arrive to a phrase like :Catalonia is defined as a nationality since the approval of its Statute in X of Y of 1977 when the Spanish Parlamient on one sunny day approved it with the approval of X Y and Z parties and the opposal of blablah... do you understand what I mean?

about the other points:

• the part Recently amended OK it is more concrete. I agree that we can introduce it.
• the removal of Catalan Countries or change it for See Crown of Aragon OK,the same, I agree to change it.

then let's see what say the others and if we can reach a stronger consensus adding some users. If not I think we will not reach a stable definition never :)

About the party today..well I hope Maxi makes the Gallinazo in Bernabeu but sure that this will be hard! ;)--GillesV 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, so good. I like how the "Legal status" section is presented. I don't oppose the "recently amended" part because it is citing a phrase that wasn't part of the 1979 Statute (i.e. the Parliament approving the term "nation", that the constitution recognizes as "nationality"). Since that wasn't part of the original statute, it makes sense to say "recently amended".

The second part, of course was part of both Statutes like Gilles pointed out, so if something needs to be said, then we should say that this definition was approved in 1979 and confirmed in 2006, or nothing at all. Otherwise, by only saying that it was approved in 2006, even though it is true like Mountolive pointed out, it might imply that it is a new concept. It's better to avoid misunderstandings.

About the removal of "Catalan Countries", I don't oppose it either, because "Catalan Countries" is not a historical region, but simply a modern linguistic region (i.e. countries where Catalan is spoken) and occasionally a modern political concept. Therefore, it should not be in the History Section.

--the Dúnadan 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

People tend to forget here, that the catalan statute is still waiting for the sentence from the Tribunal Constitucional about the constitutionality of its content... So, using it as a "legal reference", is, at least, quite inappropriate... To say the least... And everybody around knows it! Legally, only the statute from 79 and the constitution from 78 ARE to be used yet. --Maurice27 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that but The Constitutional has not said anything yet and today the Statute is in use. We can introduce that PP and the Defensor del Pueblo made allegations to the constitutional court but then I think we must complete it all including that In 2005 the 88.9% of the Catalan Parliament declared Catalonia a nation in the articulado of the draft of the new Statute of Autonomy, but finally it was changed back to nationality due to political pressure from both the Spanish Government and Opposition.--GillesV 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I only said it should not be used as a "legal reference"... the constitunionality of its content is still not yet approved nor santionated. --Maurice27 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a legal confusion here, on both parts. On one hand the Statute was approved and sanctioned by the Spanish Parliament (the only authority with the power to sanction or veto laws); as such, it is the code of law that governs Catalonia as of 2006 in place. On the other hand it has been contested and challenged for its alleged constitutional breeches, pending the resolution of the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, the Parliament is the only institution allowed to sanction and veto laws, and it has already approved and sanctioned the Statute. The Supreme Court's prerogative is to question the sanction and declare whether it is constitutional or not, but the Supreme Court does not sanction or veto. If the Supreme Court rules that the Statute is unconstitutional, then the sanction will be revoked, and the Statute will have to be amended, and then the new version will have to be sanctioned by the Parliament. Now, please note that the Statute was challenged not because it declared Catalonia as a "nationality" (which was part of the 1979 Statute), and not because it included the term "nation" in the Preamble. It was contested because of the financing and fiscal autonomy that was granted to Catalonia; since Catalonia is a "comunidad de régimen común" and not a "comunidad foral", it has been argued that this fiscal autonomy is unconstitutional. We should wait for the final resolution by the Supreme Court, but like I said, the law has been sanctioned already and then challenged ("sancionada pero impugnada"). --the Dúnadan 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is better to speak in the article about what is legal nowadays as the article is about the present-day autonomous community. When the Constitutional Court make their resolution then we will have to reflect that. Unfortunately it is not true that the Estatut is contested only for financing and fiscal autonomy (that is true for the contests made by Valencia, Balears and Aragon ACs). Defensor del Pueblo is complaining oabout the paper of the Sindic de Greuges and PP is opposing to lots of articles and also the preamble (I cannot understand how can oppose to the preamble in a court if it has no legal value but PP does it ^^). Here you can see the PP contest signed by 26 deputies of the PP group.--GillesV 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Good to know then, thanks for the link. --the Dúnadan 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Legal Status Within Spain section is disputed

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section is disputed because:

• "The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality". This is a false statement. (factual accuracy)
• "Then, in the legally binding titular preliminary, "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". this is a sentence which does not explain its origin and leads to mistakenly believe it may come from the Spanish Constitution. (factual accuracy)
• the word nationality (in this context) is ONLY a recurring term in Spanish politics used to indicate the autonomous Communities with a collective, linguistic and/or cultural identity differentiated from the remainder of the State. Therefore it should be not be linked to nationality, but rather to Autonomous communities of Spain. (Neutrality anf factual accuracy)

This section lacks information on the importance of the subject matter because:

• Not a single reference is added on what are the legal rights and duties of this territory within Spain like:
• the right to self-government
• legislative and executive autonomy
• Fiscal matters.

To end up, this section looks like a poor and simple way to include the word nationality as many times and closer as possible to the lead in a complete POVish way, lacking of accuracy in the writing, lacking important information which the catalan nationalism "must not" find interesting to a political pamphlet and lacking of encyclopedic rigour.

--Maurice27 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your positive attitude in presenting your arguments. I agree with some, not with all, but I do appreciate and thank you for presenting them in a constructive and amicable way. Let me offer you a response:

• "The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality", is a literal verbatim, word-to-word citation of the Statute of Autonomy. As a primary source it has precedence over our personal opinions. There is no POV, we are citing a primary source that was approved and sanctioned by the Spanish Parliament. We might disagree, but it was nonetheless approved by the Spanish parliament.
• '"Then, in the legally binding titular preliminary, "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".'", the entire sentence is a verbatim, word-to-word, citation from the first article of both the 1979 and the 2006 Statutes of Autonomy. No words added. No POV. We are citing a law approved by the Spanish Parliament, twice, in 1979 and in 2006. Moreover, the word "nationality" is included in a very rigorous encyclopedia: Britannica. I would not call neither the Spanish Constitution, nor the Statue of Autonomy nor Britannica a "political pamphlet".
• the word nationality (in this context) is ONLY a recurring term in Spanish politics used to indicate the autonomous Communities with a collective, linguistic and/or cultural identity differentiated from the remainder of the State. Yes you are right, I absolutely agree with you. The word should not link to nationality. It should be but in quotations and it should link to another article (i.e. nationality (Spanish politics)) that explains the restricted meaning of the term within the Spanish politics, or like you proposed to autonomous communities if and only if, it explains the concept as well. Like you said, in Spain, nationality does not mean statehood. There is no "Catalan nationality", only a Spanish nationality in the fullest sense of the word. Catalonia is a "nationality" in the restricted sense of a AC with a collective, linguistic and/or cultural identity differentiated from the remainder of the State. I agree with your point of view in this matter. I propose that we expand the article about autonomous communities to define the two terms of the second article of the Spanish constitution: nationality and historical region, and also to define, contrast and compare the two types of autonomy: régimen común (the majority of the ACs) and forales (Navarra and Euskadi).

As for the rest of the points you say the section is lacking I also agree with you: they should be included. For starters, there is little to no fiscal autonomy because Catalonia is an autonomous community of common regime (régimen común) and not a charter community (comunidad foral). We must include this characteristic in that section. We could also include that this issue (the proposed fiscal autonomy) is contested in the new 2006 Statute and that a verdict is pending from the Constitutional Court.

Now, I would not expand too much on self-government and executive and legislative autonomy in this particular section. I would rather create/expand a section of Political administration of Catalonia, that would explain the division of powers within the community and up to what extent the autonomy of these powers is granted and to what extends it remains a prerogative of the Spanish government. I would also include the composition of the Parliament (how many seats, how are the deputies elected, how often are they elected, who calls an election, and which parties hold how many seats in the most recent legislature). I would also add how many senators and deputies are elected from Catalonia to the national Spanish parliament. I would also include the institutions created by the Catalan Parliament, like the Síndic de Greuges (the equivalent of the ombudsman or "defensor del pueblo"). But all of these best fit on "Political administration".

I understand your concern about secessionism and nationalism, and we must not imply that Catalonia is a "nation", nor a semi-independent region. Catalonia is an autonomous community, but it is also a "nationality" in the restricted sense of the word as stipulated by its Statute of Autonomy in accordance with the constitution. We must not hide this fact neither.

--the Dúnadan 04:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Language section is disputed

The neutrality, factual accuracy and lacking information on the importance of the subject matter of this section is disputed because:

• The POVish and biased way spanish language is negliged in favor of catalan.
• No spanish stadistical table is present (Catalan and Aranese are)
• No etymologycal explanation of the origins of spanish is present (Catalan and Aranese are)

--Maurice27 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments presented in a constructive way again.

• I agree with you in that it is POV to say that Spanish is negliged [sic] in favor of Catalan (i.e. que el castellano es desfavorecido frente al catalán). I agree with you in that it is a POV, but I thought yoo would also think that Catalan is being favored over Spanish (whether it is fair or unfair, I cannot say; that would be a POV). We can remove that particular sentence if you wish.
• When you once pointed out that there is no statistical table for Spanish and you offer a link to the Statistical Institute of Catalonia, we said we agreed with you and asked you to add it yourself. After a couple of weeks of no action, I went to that particular webpage (www.idescat.cat), but I could not find any statistical table about Spanish. I downloaded the whole document about the Linguistic Census ([6]), and it does not include any statistics about Spanish. Then, I understood why: it is assumed that the 100% of the Catalan population speaks Spanish, and that literacy implies knowing how to read/write Spanish because it is the official language of Spain. Spanish was the only language taught at schools since the 18th century, and both Catalan and Spanish are taught only after 1980. Whatever literacy rate Catalonia has (say, 99%) implies that 99% know how to read/write Spanish. Since Catalan was taught after 1980, a 99% literacy does not imply that 99% know how read/write Catalan, but only those that chose to learn it before 1980, and all those that went to Catalan public schools after 1980. Therefore, the document presents how many Spanish citizens of Catalonia (who all Speak Spanish) also know how to speak/read/understand Catalan, the co-official language of the AC. If you wish, we can specify this fact before the tables start, so that there is no confusion. Of course, we must subtract the percentage of foreigners that live in Catalonia that might not speak neither Catalan nor Spanish. I would also propose to include the percentage of the population that consider Spanish their native language, and the percentage that considers Catalan their first language. That would bring balance to the section.
• I would only include a brief explanation of Catalan's origin because it is declared the "native language" (lengua propia) of Catalonia. Since this language originated in this territory, maybe a brief explanation as to why it is statutorily labeled the "native language" is appropriate (i.e. the origins of Catalan). Then I would say that Spanish is the official language of Catalonia, but that it originated in Castile, and that Aranese is an Occitan variety native to the small region of Aran. What do you think?

--the Dúnadan 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can improve the section because like Maurice pointed out it is a bit POVish. In general lines I agree with the ideas presented by Dúnadan and Maurice to solve it but I want to remark the following 3 points too:

About the text: *The Catalan autonomous government has been promoting[5] the Catalan language since its comeback in the early 1980s to date.Thus, public education is mostly given in Catalan and partly in Spanish, while government bureaucracy is entirely in Catalan [A]. Businesses are required to display all information (e.g. menus, posters) at least in Catalan under penalty of legal fines. [B] The Catalan government maintains this policy in order to protect and promote Catalan in response to the repression and prohibition of the Franco years. Nowadays it encourages new immigrant residents to learn and use Catalan.[C]

[A]: For me that is POVish. It is the language of normal and preferential use in the Public Administrations of Catalonia (Generalitat, Ajuntaments) but you can use spanish too and the forms are in both languages so bureaucracy is not entirely in Catalan. Moreover, in the the Administrations that belong to the State that are in Catalonia the situation is just the opposite, you can use catalan but the language of normal use is spanish. If bureaucracy includes the courts then that point is absolutely false.

An example of Catalan Administrations using spanish was before the referendum of the Statute, when Generalitat sent the text to the people of Catalonia in both languages, not only in Catalan.

[B]:There is a linguistic law: [7], if you ignore a law and someone denounces you (Agencia Catalana de Consum, Omnium Cultural,...) the judge can impose you a fine but I think that the fines are not included in the text law. Does anyone know that?

So I think there is no need to remark that someone can fine you if you ignore a law. The verbatim of the article applied in that situations is:

La señalización y los carteles de información general de carácter fijo y los documentos de oferta de servicios para las personas usuarias y consumidoras de los establecimientos abiertos al público deben estar redactados, al menos, en catalán. Esta norma no se aplica a las marcas, los nombres comerciales y los rótulos amparados por la legislación de la propiedad industrial.

I feel that we can improove the accuracy of that comment: I give an idea..tell me what do you think about it: In a positive discrimination to the Catalan language Catalonia's linguistic law requires to display information of fixed character at least in catalan.

[C]:I know it is true but we can improve it with a reference.

About the brief explanation that Dúnadan is suggesting in his reply may be a good way to approach to that could be the part I. Significado y situación de la lengua catalana of the preamble of Ley 1/1998,.

--GillesV 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the structure of the section into three little sections : Catalan, Spanish and Aranese. I removed the reference See main article: Catalan language and introduced two, one for Catalan and another for spanish. Obviously spanish section needs to be improved and I think Maurice said that has the data to do it. I also changed parts that I feel that were not precise about fines and linguistic policy and referenced them. And like Maurice said when he started the dispute the section is lacking an etymologycal explanation of the origins of spanish. I agree that it must be included.--GillesV 01:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

'Lengua propia'

I think we are going to need to discuss this term. The term "own language" appeared until recently, obviously THAT can't stay.

I would be in favour of avoiding all mention of "lengua propia" for 3 reasons.

1) It is not current outside of Spain, its only notable use being in the "Un declaration of linguistic rights", where it appears as "The language proper to a territory". This usage has not extended beyond this (generally good) document. As it was the result of a conference in BCN, I suspect an excessive Spanish influence led to this phrase's inclusion.

2) It's POV. Who says what is proper and what isn't? This is tacitly acknowledged in the current article with the weasel phrase "is considered to be". Ironically, Catalan in Catalunya is one of the examples of "lengua propia" with which I have least problems. However that's just my point of view ;-)

3) It's a bastard to translate, without the "to a territory" the phrase makes no sense. And even then it is a very clunky construction, "proper" having a prescriptive connotation in modern English.

Anyway, I expect most of us can agree to cut the reference to "own language", if anyone has any comments or observations, please come back to me.

Boynamedsue 08:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)==

I agree and disagree. Responding to BNS's three points above:

• (1) The UN Declaration of Linguistic Rights is, by far, a valid source to prove relevancy. Personal suspicions aside, the phrase is valid in and outside of Spain. If the "bastard" (sic) exclusion of the phrase "to a territory" [i.e. to Catalonia] seems to be the problem, then it can be added to the article.
• (2) No, it is not POV. "Who says what is proper (sic) and what isn't?" Well, not us, that's for sure. Then who? Well, in this case the Statute of Autonomy, the supreme law of Catalonia approved by all Catalans of all political points of view fully represented in the Parliament and sanctioned by all Spaniards fully represented in the Spanish Parliament, establishes that Catalan is the proper (sic), own (sic), or native language of Catalonia. As a primary source fully verifiable, and being a set of laws, it cannot be said to be POV. Unless, of course, another equally valid legal source contradicts this particular definition, then we would have to include both legal sources to comply with WP:NPOV. If, however, there is no equally valid legal source that contradicts a statutory definition, but merely a Wikipedian's point of view which happens to dislike what the Statute of Autonomy says, and opinion that does not comply with WP:Verifiable nor WP:CITE, then there is no POV in this matter, but merely an opinion. I believe the reference to "own language" must stay.
• (3) I disagree with the [mis]translation of lengua propia as "proper language" or "own language" (this one appearing in the official translation of the Statute of Autonomy into English). The correct translation that makes sense in English grammar is "native language", or, à la UN, "proper to Catalonia". If you wish to change it to "native language", then I agree, because it makes logical sense to English ears. If you wish to change it to "own language", even though I don't think it is the best translation, at least it is verifiable in a valid reputable primary source, so I would agree to that too. And, like I said, if you wish to change it to "language proper to Catalonia", since it also makes sense in English, I agree to that to. But I disagree with the deletion of this particular reference.
• A fourth point: Logic. To say that Catalan is the native language or the language proper to Catalonia is as logical as to say that English is the native language or the language proper to England. Of course, in Catalonia, Spanish is the official language, but it originated in Castile not in Catalonia; in other words Spanish is the native language of Castile, and the official language of Spain [and of course, Catalonia is part of Spain]. I fail to see the purported POV in such a self-evident sentence: Catalan is the language proper to Catalonia / English is the language proper to England.

--the Dúnadan 13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan. UN charter of linguistic rights uses "language proper to a territory", without reference to Catalonia. It is the only use of "language proper to a territory" on the whole net. This concept just doesn't exist in the anglosphere, where we tend to view people, rather than territories, as having native languages. We would usually use the term "national language" for a nation, "regional language" for a region, "minority language" for a language spoken by a minority, "traditional language" for a language formally spoken by a community, or spoken historically by a majority but now spoken by a minority.

In terms of linguistics, the Generalitat is the equivalent of a man in a pub. It can't legislate over academia, it has no academic qualifications, so its declaration that has no value for us, we need academic sources, preferably linguists, who can define the status of Catalan in Catalonia. That staus is complex and fluid, and is not best served by this term.

However, why don't we try some variations for a laugh (own language, proper language etc), then put the equivalents on the pages for Welsh, Quebecois, Scots Gaelic and Breton, and see how long they last.

Of course the concept of a language proper to a territory (i.e. Catalonia, or Spain, or Wales) exists in the English-speaking world (or as you call it, "anglosphere"). The fact that the UN charter uses the phrase confirms the relevancy of the term, regardless of the territory you want to apply it to. Now, you say, "we tend to view people, rather than territories as having native languages". Who's we? You?. You and me? As a native speaker of English, I can tell you that the phrase does apply to territories. (If you are still in doubt, try googling "Native language of England" in quotations).

Whatever a Generalitat, a Parliament, a Congress or a National Assembly, legislates upon has encyclopedic value, whether it is in linguistics (by declaring that Valencian is the language of Valencia) or ethnicity (that the indigenous peoples of Mexico are the "foundation" of the pluricultural nation) has legal value, whether they are experts in linguistic or ethnicity or not. It seems extremely self-evident that Catalan is the language proper to Catalonia as much as the indigenous peoples of Mexico are the ethnic groups autochthonous to Mexico. Even if linguistics state the obvious, that Catalan is the native language of Catalonia ([8], [9], [10]) it is politicians who declare its status, so it pertains to the Generalitat and the Spanish Parliament (don't forget the Spanish parliament sanctioned the law), to declare the status or legal recognition it receives within the territories in which it is spoken. It has declare it is the native language or the language proper to Catalonia. You might call it a "man in a pub", I call it a verifiable primary source. I think Wikipedia calls it a verifiable primary source too (review those links). After all, threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "truth" (or what we perceive to be opposing truths) but what can be verified (see appropriate link).

Finally, please log in and sign your comments.

--the Dúnadan 00:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunny. If "Language proper to territory" existed as a widely accepted concept, there would be more than 7 hits on google for it. Native language is more commonly used to refer to people than places. It is rarely used in academic contexts when related to a territory, of course, if you can find an Academic source stating that Catalan is the native language of Catalonia please post it. In English (first language author).

I'm playing this one with a straight bat, the Generalitat say "lengua propia", this does not mean native language. "Propia" indicates belonging, in a way native doesn't, "own language" captures the meaning but is brutal, and pretty much unusable in an encyclopedia. I think that "Language proper to the territory" in quotes is the best we can do. It's a conceptual difference between Spain and the English speaking countries.

Boynamedsue 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have missed the point. If you google Native language of England you will get 10,200 results. In other words, the phrase, which connotatively does refer to the language proper to a territory, is used by English speaking authors. The same phrase, being grammatically and conceptually correct, is picked up by Catalan authors writing in English.

Now, in Spanish, propio has a wide range of connotations (acepciones) which include, but are not limited to: belonging, characteristic of, natural of, convenient to (from RAE). As such, "own" does not fully capture the meaning of it (brutally or otherwise), and "proper to" is the closest to it. "Native to", in English, has a larger set of meanings that the Spanish "nativo". Native, in English, is defined as: inborn, natural, normal, local, simple, indigenous, unaffected, originating from ([11]). As such, "native" captures some of the meanings and connotations of "propio", and the connotation of the phrase "a language proper to" a particular place (local to, originating from, natural to). The 10,200 google results (for "native language of England") agree to that.

Let's not take this further than it should go. I disagree with the deletion of properly sourced neutral information. I agree that the translation poses somewhat (but not a very complicated) problem. In my opinion, and as an English native speaker, the Generalitat mistranslated it as "own" language. But at least that phrase can be fully referenced, citing a primary source, which happens to be neutral and approved by a two democratically elected Parliaments. Reading your previous comments I was afraid you disagreed with the legal status of Catalan and its label of "lengua propia", something we cannot argue against unless by citing equally valid legal sources. But if you are concerned about grammar, then the problem is not as complicated as it seems. The options "native language" and "language proper to" seem to be the best choices. A reference note with the term in Spanish and the [mis]translation done by the Generalitat ("own") could be included.

--the Dúnadan 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again.

It's two issues.

1)The way to render "lengua propia".

We are getting close to resolving that, "language proper to Catalonia" in quotes, stating that this is the legal declaration of the Generalitat is my preferred option, but we'll see how that goes.

2)Whether we should state Catalan is "the native language of Catalonia". I also googled "native language of England", and got a lot of hits. My concern is about their quality, I think the usage is more widespread than I expected, but is it used in good academic sources? And is the situation analagous with Catalonia? Are people saying "England" as a short hand for the people of England? If so, Catalan is ONE of the native languages. If it refers to origin in a territory people shouldn't say "English is the native language of America", but I think they do (I also think this is wrong).

We should mull this second point over calmly (as you said, its not the end of the world) obviously, contributions from other users are welcomed.

Boynamedsue 16:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any other native language of Catalonia? Spanish is native to Castile and Occitan (Aranese) to Occitania. Close to 50% of the population in Catalonia do not have Spanish as their native language, but that doesn't make it native to a territory where it did not originate from, and viceversa (e.g. Catalans living in Castile and León).

A quick search (if you wish we can do a more comprehensive research) brought me to this Academic program course description, from an English philological program that uses the phrase "native language of England".

I personally prefer "native to", but I would agree to "proper to" as a compromise.

By the way, I appreciate and commend you for your attitude and willingness to discuss amicably in this debate.

--the Dúnadan 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What about that "importance" tag?

A lot of interesting points have been raised here, but none of the foregoing relates to the importance of the subject-matter, which is questioned by the tag at the beginning. Surely the importance of this section on language is indisputable? At all events, the sheer amount of discussion here would seem to confirm that. AdeMiami 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

removed dispute on legal status

BNS: I removed it as i think that these statements are 0k in quotes (the dreaded "nationality" included). I think we need to extend this section so it does more than just explain the "nationality" referred to in legal docs.

Rewrite for non-political reasons

Hi, this sent is too long, confusedand has too many ideas. I want to rephrase it without getting into a brawl. Suggestions please:

"At the same time the law coexists with the fact that a 53,4% of the citizens of Catalonia have Spanish as their native language and assures that Catalan and Spanish, as official languages, can both be used by the citizens in all the public and private activities, without discrimination. Legal transactions made in either of the two official languages are binding"

Boynamedsue 08:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What about: "According to the most recent linguistic census elaborated by the Government of Catalonia, 53,4% of the citizens declared to have Spanish as their native language.<add ref> The law, therefore, assures that both Catalan and Spanish –being official languages– can be used by the citizens without prejudice in all public and private activities. Moreover, legal transactions made in either language are considered to be binding<add ref>"

--the Dúnadan 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, legal transactions made in either language are considered to be binding" is not necessary. The rest seems fine to me. --Maurice27 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits on legal status

Hi all. First I cited, verbatim, the second article that states that the indissoluble Spanish nation recognizes and guarantees the right of self-government to the nationalities and regions that constitute it. I decided to cite it verbatim because it conveys a different meaning than the interpretation that was being given (e.g. "gives them the right to declare themselves nationalities"). As far as I can read from the second article, no right is given to declare: the constitution recognizes the existence of these regions and then guarantees their right to be autonomous. I do not want to interpret the second article, so I think its better just to cite what it says, and let the reader interpret.

I also added Valencia, the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands to the list of "nationalities"; these three have also defined themselves as such in their new Statues of Autonomy. The Statue of the Canary Islands, however, is still pending the sanction of the Spanish Parliament.

Finally, I removed the "Incomplete TAG" since, based on Maurice's and BND comments above, it already satisfies their concerns:

• It doesn't define Catalonia as a nationality, but says that the constitution and/or the Statue of Autonomy do.
• It states verbatim what these two documents say; no interpretation of what the articles are trying to say (no POV neither on mine nor their part)
• It includes info on the fiscal and educational autonomy granted in the new Statue which is being challenged for allegedly violating the constitution. It also includes links to create new articles on what "nationality" means for the Spanish constitution, and what an "autonomous community of common regime" means to contrast it to an "chartered autonomous community" (comunidad foral) with fiscal autonomy.

Please comment on the above changes. --the Dúnadan 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine and acceptable to me. --Maurice27 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and languages

I am not satisfied at all with the introduction. Why Catalonia is considered a Autonomous Community and not an historical territory or whatever? because we accept the definition from the constitution. The constitution also talks about nationalities, and in the Estatut, Catalonia is considered as it. Therefore, either we say that "Catalonia is a constituent Autonomous Community considered a nationality", or we say that "Catalonia is considered by the Spanish constitution an Autonomous Community and, based in the constitution and the Estatut, it is considered a nationality". But I find complitely POV to define Catalonia as an AC (based on the Constitution) and when we talk about nationality (which has disapeared from the leading section) we just quote that the Spanish constitution says...

About the languages, I think it is ridiculous to have a section descriving the origin of Spanish language. I think it could be interesting to add information, statistics about the percentage of people who understands it, who speaks it and so one (well, I don't know if it is so interesting to say: In Spain everybody knows Spanish, but... that's another point). About Catalan's symilar section, I can understand that in the article of Catalonia there is a reference about the origin of the language, since this language has been created in this very territory (I'd find normal also to speak about Spanish in the article about Castilla). However, I don't find this historical introduction crucial. About the Catalan statistics, however, I find complitely necessary to show something contradictory and it is that the language from Catalonia is not spoken and understood by many people from this territory. Something symilar justifies Aranese statistics.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The historical territory is described in the article Principality of Catalonia the same way the historical territories of Castile and León or Castile-La Mancha are described in the article Kingdom of Castile. Let's not mix Churras with Meninas...

If you're willing to reopen the debate about the lead paragraph, just take a read in the archived content... You will find answers to your questions about the lead, the constitution, the statute, the legal status within Spain...

About the languages, I sincerely doubt that "In Spain everybody knows Spanish"... Have you been around Osona or Berguedà lately? --Maurice27 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't understand me: I accept that there is an article about the AC. Of course, it must be. But, why is it an AC? Because the constitution says it, true? then, if we accept the constitution as a truth, we must say: Catalonia is a nationality created as an AC. Both things come from the constitution. If we see the constitution "biased", then we must say: Catalonia is, as it says the constitution, an nationality created as an AC. So my point is:

1. Constitution implies AC.
2. Constitution implies nationality.

Then, either say "Catalonia is AC and Catalonia is nationality", or "the Constitution says Catalonia is AC and the Constitution says Catalonia is a nationality". But not say Catalonia is AC and the constition says is a nationality.

And no, I don't feel confortable with this leading paragraph and I'd like to find a point where we all can agree. I couldn't contribute often in the WP the last months and therefore I couldn't contribute in the discussion.

About Spanish: can you give some statistics about the Spanish knowledge in Osona or Berguedà? It will be more interesting (as I alreday proposed) than saying nothing. And I think this has no relation with the fact that Spanish is Indoeuropean language, Iberian, or whatever (this is the part I find inapropiate, not the statistics).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you Xtv; that is what I have been arguing since the beginning of this discussion. However, I do not wish to reopen recent wounds when a compromised consensus was been reached, at least not until the Request for Arbitration regarding this article has been solved. I would rather wait until arbitrators give their advise on the matter, and then reopen this debate. --the Dúnadan 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also was waiting, but I just saw the arbitration comitee won't discuss about the content. So, I don't like that now the introduction is so POVish and that it is accepted as "concensus one". No, if you want, we reopen the debate after the arbitration, but it must be clear that the problem is not solved yet.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it is a matter of sources vs. opinions. I (we) have repeated ad nauseum that stating that Catalonia is constitutionally declared to be one of the "nationalities" of Spain is fully verifiable by two sets of constitutional laws and one reputable tertiary source (Britannica), regardless of whether we feel that Catalonia is more than a "nationality" (nation?) or less than a simple "region" (place?), or whether we think the term cannot be used in the English language. If the Mexican constitution declares that the indigenous peoples (in spite of their small number) are the "original foundation" of the pluricultural nation, who are we to say otherwise, or to declare that it is biased, selective or invalid? Same thing when it comes to the "nationalities" of Spain.

Since we have been ludicrously accused of not providing sources and rejecting sources, while the opposing party has not provided a single source but opinions and have rejected the above sources (the constitution, the Statute and Britannica) as invalid, selective and biased from us "Catalanists" and since the administrator involved in this issue backed up their claim, let's wait for the final ruling regarding whether it is us or them who is pushing a POV through a violation of WP:Verifiability or any other policy of Wikipedia.

--the Dúnadan 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither comfortable with the introduction and agree with Xtv proposition. It's more accurate and fully legally documented. If its a matter of sources, then this is a clearly better choice.--Paco ✉ 21:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems that we opened the issue about the lead again. I agree with Xtv that the problem is not solved yet,I give my opinion: Legal Status within Spain section is not necessary,or at least it should not be the one after the lead. But in order to change this I feel that it is absolutely necessary is to define Catalonia using the appropiate terms. For me the good term is nationality not nation or region because there are no verifiable sources stating this.--GillesV 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree that we put nationality in the first paragraph, something like "The generalitat of Catalonia and the Spanish government define Catalonia as a 'Nationality'", with the proviso that members of wikimob Catalonia go to Valencia, Pais Vasco, Andalucia and all Spanish regions defining themselves as nationalities and change the lead paragraph there, ensuring that it is never removed. This will damage the quality of the articles but what the f___.

Boynamedsue 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And even that wouldn't be true! Nobody outside those AC uses the nationality word as the constitution does not mention them. The Spanish Government, therefore, uses historical region to name them. --Maurice27 08:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

it should also be noted in this regard that, well, at least in theory, a change of sign in the government is possible. In the Generalitat case it wouldn't affect this piece, but at the Spanish level it would most probably do: by all accounts, it doesn't seem likely that a PP government would agree calling Catalonia a "nationality".

Mountolive | Talk 11:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we say "The generalitat of Catalonia and the Spanish government define Catalonia as an Autonomous Community"? No, we say "Catalonia is an AC". So then we can't use different judgements. If we say "Catalonia is an AC" we must say also "Catalonia is a nationality". And this doesen't deppend on the party who is governing. Catalonia was recongnizes as a nationality also during the Aznar's government. About Euskadi, I think it wouldn't be too dificult to put that word. About the other "nationalities", you probably know that the feeling of most of the citizens is very different from the one in Catalonia. They put this word in their statute just to take out importance to this word. In any case, I don't want to loose more time discussing there, even if I can agree with you that in terms of verificability, all those articles could also contain this word.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Xtv, the statute of Andalucia is the democratic wish of the people of Andalucia, just as much as that of catalonia is...and after all a nationality is just an Autonomous community which is also a historical region (as opposed to those regions which materialised out of thin air or are a result of recent volcanic activity). Surely if it is verifiable, then it must be added to the article. Or are you stating that Spanish regional statutes are not valid sources?

Again, an autonomous community is a unit of government which exercises power at a regional level in Spain. A nationality is, what was it? "a historical region" of Spain?

I'm not stating that this term is not accepted by the government, I am stating that it is, and that this peculiar legal status is evidenced by multiple sources. However, I don't want to see this word used without context, and I certainly don't want to see it on, for example, Catalonia but not the Canary Islands.

What we need is a consensus to introduce a standard way of dealing with this "nationality" quilombo over all the pages relating to Spanish regions.

Boynamedsue 16:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is a matter of if and/or how we interpret the verifiable sources so far provided. Let me quote the Statute "Catalonia, as a nationality, constitutes itself as an autonomous community...", and the constitution "...recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government [i.e. autonomy] of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed [of]".

To me, a natural reading of the aforementioned texts is: "Spain is composed of nationalities and regions who constitute themselves as autonomous communities". The present tense implies that the nationalities and regions exist. The second part (autonomous community) is the political configuration of the latter (nationalities and regions).

To put another example, the same article cites that Spain is an indissoluble nation, but its political configuration is that of a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. Spain is a nation, Catalonia is a nationality of Spain. Spain is a constitutional monarchy, Catalonia is an autonomous community of the constitutional monarchy of Spain. Both terms are constitutional and both refer to Catalonia in different ways: the first as a region with cultural identity [12] and the second as a first-level political administration of the Kingdom of Spain.

I think that the term "nationality" should be included, like you pointed out, in all autonomous communities that are statutorily recognized as such, including the Canary Islands.

--the Dúnadan 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will provide a difference between nacionalities and regions (of Spain). The president of a nationality, such as Catalonia or Galicia, can dissolve the parliament and call an election. Presidents of regions cannot. Pmmollet^Talk 07:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, perhaps I didn't explain myself good, but I think it was clear I was telling that this articles have the same right as the Catalonia one to have this words, they are both so verifiable. I just talked about the feeling of the people, but just a comment. If the people who discusses about Andalusia article wants to add the word, I will support it, of course. But I have no time to go arround all the articles about regions/nationalities which I barely know to write on them, when I have almost no time to write in the articles I know. If you dislike that nationality is used in Catalonia article but not in the Canary islands, I will support you if you want to introduce this term in this article, but if nobody wants to put it there, I don't care.

So, if you want that the nationality word is introduced in the proper context, and I want it to be in the leading paragraph, we could try to find a solution like: "Catalonia is a nationality (as some Autonomous Communities are constituted in Spain) ..." (symilar to the Catalan/Valencian solution I proposed), and then the legal status section.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The nationality is constituted as the ac, not the other way round.

Anyhow, I absolutely reject the use of nationality without explanation of what a nationality is, and who says it.

This is not a question of sources, it is a question of their presentation. If we write a sentence which makes no sense, we are duty-bound to explain it, or else there is no point in having an encyclopedia.

Also, the "national sentiment" that you detect in Catalonia is irrelevant. Catalonia is no more, or less, a "nationality" than Canarias.

Boynamedsue 12:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So, do we have to say also who says that Catalonia is an AC? because is the very same source... So either "the Constitution together with the Estatut say that Catalonia is a nationality" and "the Consitution says that Catalonia is an AC" or "Catalonia is an AC" and "Catalonia is a nationality", but not mixing criteriae.

About nationality, is true that the national feeling is irrelevant. My comment was, as I said, a digression. However, the nationalist/independentist feeling that exists in Catlonia (and Euskadi and so one) is remarcable enough to be in the article. It is a fact that there is a polical idiosyncrasy in Catalonia which should be noticed. In the same way, if there is any specific political characteristic in any other AC, can be also described in its article.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that much of what you are saying is relevant to the intro xtv. I certainly think that the peculiarities of Catalan politics have a place in a well ordered politics section, but the supposedly unique national characteristics are merely unique in your opinion. If we use verificable sources, constitutionally Catalonia is not exceptional.

I move that we should try and link up with other Spanish AC pages and try and find a Spain-wide way of dealing with the "nationality" question. Dunadan found an interesting article from Britannica, which used the term historical region (the constitutional meaning of "nationality") in the intro, then explained nationality in a constitutional section. Whatever happens, I feel that is essential to move forward with an all-Spain solution to this question, as it is clearly not just relevant to this page.

Boynamedsue 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that the political part must be put in the lead paragraph. I agree it must be in a specific paragraph. However, "nationality" is the way in wich Catalonia is recognized to be constituted as an AC. So, I think it must appear in the first paragraph. About the all-Spain solution, I think we don't have to open a problem in the articles where there is no problem. It's better just to solve this one.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In line, not only with what Britannica reports, but with the report of the OCED[[13] that I showed Boynamedsue, regarding devolution in Spain, the term "nationality" seems not to be restricted to Spain, but is used for territories in other States. It was particularly used also to refer to Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland within the United Kingdom, and in the introduction implies that it is synonymous of territories, regions or ethnic groups within any country.

Moreover, since devolution in Spain is highly asymmetrical there are "exceptional" autonomous communities:

• two autonomous communities (the Basque Country and Navarra) were granted full fiscal autonomy in recognition of the charter of rights granted to their kingdoms/regions in the 16th century (one of which is officially known as a "chartered community", comunidad foral), while the rest are autonomous community of common regime.
• Even amongst this restricted subset of ACs of common regime there are peculiarities in terms of the devolved power of education and the autonomy of the police force (or lack thereof).
• Finally, as both the paper and Britannica correctly report, three regions were "exceptional" or "peculiar" in that they were considered even before the 1979 constitution as "historical nationalities" and attained autonomy automatically (or through a "fast-track" process) precisely in recognition of their status, whereas the rest had to comply with the requirements prescribed in the 142-143 articles of the Spanish constitution. The café para todos was granted in autonomy (and in recognition of Andalusia as a nationality), but not in an equalization of privileges or self-governing degree. Lets not forget that the second article of the Spanish constitution recognizes both "nationalities and regions", that is, two distinct categories to describe identity, even if all are administratively autonomous communities with varying or asymmetrical degrees of self-government and privileges.

Today, seven Statues of Autonomy now claim the term "nationality" to define themselves. This term conveys the full meaning of the word both in Spanish and in English, and being a constitutional and statutory term, I believe it should be used to describe all those communities identified as such, properly referenced and contextualized, of course. --the Dúnadan 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi D. The difference beween Wales and Scotland (I'll leave NI out of it) is that they are considered nationalities in the national sense, rather than the only valid definition in the Spanish constitution, which is that of "historical region". It must be remembered that when we say "Catalunya es una nacionalidad" we are constitutionally saying "Catalunya es una region historica", nothing more nothing less.

Both Scotland and Wales form part of the UK as part of a Union of countries, in free association. This Union can be dissolved at any time, if in accordance with the democratic wishes of the people of those countries. They also have a much higher degree of historical continuity in terms of borders and institutions than Catalunya. Crucially, there is no constitution that imposes their perpetual unity within the British state.

In view of the evidence you presented I would be happy to follow the example of Britannica and introduce the term "historical region" into the intro, and leave "nationality" contextualised in the legal status section.

Again, the meaning of "nacionalidad" in the constitution and the SOA is "historical region", in English the word "nationality" does not convey this meaning, so it should not appear uncontextualised.

The other comments you make regarding differing degrees of autonomy are interesting, and you are clearly very knowledgable in this area, but I don't think they are massively relevant to discussion of this term. They would sit very well in a "Level of autonomy" section though. Pehaps on ACs of Spain?

Boynamedsue 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrub what I said about the only constitutional meaning being "historical region". Thought that was the case but can't find a source. The people who wrote the constituion of 78 were having a laugh.

Boynamedsue 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland while being labeled as "nationalities", they are also, in a de facto manner -the UK does not have a constitution- considered constituent nations of the United Kingdom, and as of recently, they have the right to secede should they choose to. In that sense, yes, there are important differences between the concept of a British nationality and a Spanish nationality. However do note that:

• the introduction uses the word nationality in a manner that implies its synonymy with merely "regions", "territories" or even "ethnic groups" (linguistic?) all which do apply to Spanish nationalities
• the author does make use of the world "nationalities" and even "historical nations" to refer to the Spanish nationalities, instead of the term "historical region", which again, implies, that even though British nationalities and Spanish nationalities are not equal in their characteristics, the designation applies to both.

I don't think (and this is arguable) that when Britannica says that Catalonia is a "historical region", it is saying that "nationality" means "historical region", but that Catalonia is also a "historical region". Why? Well, I think that this over-simplified synonymy may not hold: if Spain is comprised by "nationalities" and "regions", then is it comprised by "historical regions" and "regions"? Are "historical regions" not current? or are "regions" not "historical"? RAE's definition, while not "constitutional", holds better: a nationality, in Spanish politics, is an autonomous community with historical and cultural identity. This might be in line with the controversial, yet approved, Preambles of the Statutes of Autonomy of the seven ACs which make use of the term "nationality", and which also use the phrases: "historical identity", "regional identity" and even "national identity" and "national reality".

I think that what I am trying to say is: (1) there are two constitutional designations for the constituent parts of Spain: nationality and region; the terms are good in English; (2) "historical regions" is not a completely adequate definition of what a "nationality" is, in Spanish politics.

--the Dúnadan 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

even though the Generalitat only uses Catalan when addressing the general population

Citation needed

This sentence is false and should be removed. As a prove, just see over 1.000 Catalan Governement sites, are all in Spanish as forced by the Spanish Constitution. For shortness, I just leave the main site, http://www.gencat.cat/ but anyone can check, whatever document is there always in Spanish language, and often also in English.--Paco ✉ 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep I live in Catalonia and completely agree with that point. In order to solve this I put the the flag and if no one gives a valid reference I suppose that we all agree that this phrase should be removed. --GillesV 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

well, I added that line myself. The main site posted addresses the general public in Catalan. Then you can click for the Spanish version but, which is the one offered in the first place?

in any case, I guess I was referring to the official statements made by the Generalitat in institutional occasions....could anyone provide a reference showing a speech made by any Generalitat official, from the President downwards, in other language that Catalan? I am talking of institutional speeches of any form...you know: el dia de la Constitució, el missatge de cap d'any, el títol de hockey patins del Barça, the Feria de Abril one almost for sure also....could anyone find any speech in a language other than Catalan?

I don't think so.

what do we see in the plate by the door of the Generalitat premises? Only its name in Catalan, you know....Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Departament de caça i pesca, Sots departament de lluços, whatever. Always in Catalan only.

I got slightly upset when I saw the next to that statement....since to ask for citations on that would be like asking for citations to prove that orxata is made in València or that there is a lot of tourism in Benidorm, as someone joked about once....

same situation with written leaflets, aren't those written in 99% of cases only in Catalan? (the remainder 1% is most probably for Arab, Urdu and other newcomers freshly off the boat)

It has been proven by the link provided that in the internet sites, Catalan is the preferred language (even though links to Spanish and possibly English do exist).

Now, if you may, I would like someone to come with speeches made in other languages than Catalan by Generalitat officials within Catalonia.

On the other side, I don't understand why editors who are likely to be fully supportive of Catalan seem to have a problem with this fact being reflected here. What's the problem this time?

--Mountolive | Talk 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We return to ad hominem arguments vs Catalan editors. Obviously in the Generalitat of Catalonia the default language is Catalan as the linguistic law states but you can find the information and forms also in Spanish. When you address to the administration they attend you in the two languages. Sure that you can find sources saying that orxata is made in Valencia or that there is a lot of tourism on Benidorm, then why don't you provide any source about what you see as a fact? It should be very simple , no?

• Do you think that how a Conselleria is called is the key about how the Generalitat addreses to the general population?
• Do you think that the language of the institutional declaration of the President of the Generalitat is the key?
• Do you think that the language of the rosters is the key of how they address to the population and that demonstrates that they only use catalan?

I think that it is much clearer Nowadays Catalan is the language of the Catalan autonomous government and the other public institutions that fall under its jurisdiction. The fact that Catalan is the language of the Administration does not mean that they don't use spanish to address to the population that is what you are saying stating " Generalitat only uses Catalan when addressing the general population." That is absolutely false, when you go to the administration you can use both languages always and for example during the referendum of the Statute Generalitat sent the text it in both languages.

If you want you can say that the Conselleries are named in Catalan and that the President of Generalitat uses Catalan in its institutional declarations you can do it but if you do that then remember to explain also that the King of Spain or the President of the Government don't use Catalan in its declarations or that when you go to renew your ID (DNI) in Catalonia the rosters and the documents are only in Spanish despite the linguistic law. Don't you think that it is useless to arrive at that level?

I think that the situation is simple: The Catalan Administrations use catalan by default and the spanish administrations use spanish by default, if you don't explain all the situation you may confuse the readers.--GillesV 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

well, believe it or not, is not so easy to find a source stating the obvious. But even if there is (and for sure there is more than one) there is also one thing called "common sense" and it is telling me not to lose my time biting the wikilawyering hook looking for sources stating the obvious, in other words, that the Catalan Generalitat agents always use Catalan only in their official statements within Catalonia.

you may have heard that a man bitten by a dog is no news, but a man biting a dog is some news indeed . Thus, it would be probably most interesting and relevant to find sources showing Catalan Generalitat officials, at whichever level you like, addressing the public in Spanish within Catalonia. Please feel free to look into that if you want, because you are challenging me to prove the obvious, I think it is fair enough to challenge you to prove the extraordinary, which is often easier.

Gilles, the sentence in question states that the Generalitat "only uses Catalan when addressing the general population" while you are saying that citizens may address the Generalitat in Spanish, which is, I think quite obviously, a different story.

So, yes, the citizens may address the Generalitat in Spanish, but the Generalitat always address the citizens in Catalan.

As for "keys", well, I don't think those are "the keys", it rather looks to me like if you were twisting a bit my reasoning instead....all I am providing are good examples illustrating that statement, and there are many more (don't ask me for them, please, because, as I said, I would like to use my wikitime in a more enjoyable manner than these articles often allow).

--Mountolive | Talk 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: Benidorm is a touristic place ...one reference is [14], it was not hard to find it. Then why can you provide a source to your claims?

The statement "the Generalitat only uses Catalan when addressing the general population" is from my point of view simply false and also unsourced. Let's see some examples where we can see that Generalitat is not only using catalan:

• The news on its website are in spanish (don't you think they're addressed to the general population? or to who then?) Some examples : any on [15] -> [16] [17] [18]
• [19]
• The RSS feed (obviously addressed to the general population, don't you think?) are also in spanish . [20]. Other feeds are in spanish too [21]
• You can read the DOGC in spanish [22]
• You can ask Generalitat to send you the Statute in spanish [23]
• You can find some of the declarations also in spanish [24] , End of year message [25] ,...

So your claim is clearly false, as you can see Generalitat is not only using catalan when addresing to the general population. You may say it is the language of preferential use, then I agree because sometimes some information is not translated. You can also state that the institutional declaration of its President in Christmas is in Catalan, or that the rosters on the Departments are at least in Catalan according to the linguistic law.

But it is clear that the phrase "the Generalitat only uses Catalan when addressing the general population" is absolutely wrong. On one side we have your common sense, on the other some facts that prove that the institution also uses spanish to address to the population.

Oh, and about Generalitat officials (please don't confuse the officials with the institution). Well , for example yesterday they made a press conference about Endesa's huge problem in Barcelona which I saw in 3/24 channel. The officials used first Catalan but used spanish after. I also remember more press conferences or notes broadcasted by 3/24 and when the official switches to spanish they cut the signal just because the channel is addressed to Catalan speakers and then it is not necessary to broadcast the same information two times. Can you provide evidence that officials use always only Catalan? If not then it makes no sense to state that the officials use always Catalan because it is unsourced. --GillesV 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gilles, my friend, it was already stablished above that Generalitat based websites do have a Spanish (and sometimes English) version as well, even though the one displayed first is the one in Catalan.

Thus, ok, you can keep posting links of these Spanish version of all those websites if you think it helps your point, but that leaves mine untouched. I may have not expressed myself clear (and some additional confussion has been added from your side to my statement) but, once again, I repeat: the Generalitat addresses the general population in Catalan. I am talking of their agents in press meetings, I am talking of their brochures, I am talking of the books they publish, I am talking, in sum, of all those who speak on behalf of the Generalitat (I am not confusing officials with the institution, but, since the institution can not talk because it is not a person, but it still has communications needs, it has to speak through its officials, right?).

As for those spokesmen speaking in Spanish yesterday...did you happen to think that they maybe were answering in Spanish a question formulated by a journalist in Spanish? This is consistent with your point that people may address the Generalitat in Spanish (which is obvious and I am not discussing) but my point is something else, it is that, when the Generalitat addresses the general citizenry in its public statements, Catalan is always used and please don't show me again the Spanish versions of the websites because I think that what I am saying is clear enough, innit?

(also, one day, if you are bored, you may want to check how many emissions you find of the Generalitat funded channels TV3 and Catalunya Ràdio in Spanish....reversely, I could show you the TVE (not related to the Generalitat) emissions in Catalan via their regional centre in BCN and then maybe you would get the idea of the statement you don't like)

I would have also appreciated it if you had formulated your views in a less controversial way ("your claim is clearly wrong", "on one side we have your common sense, on the other some facts" and the like) because you are not helping civility with them, actually you are quite teasing my own urge to sound myself cheeky like I have done already in this post..... but, you know what? I have seen too often in these articles where Catalanist users are active the answer "manzanas traigo" (I'm bringing some apples) to the question "dónde vas?" (where are you going?).

This story is old and it goes on, as Morrissey said regarding something else (something much more interesting, for sure) and the whole scenario is really dull and inattractive to me, which means that I am quitting this discussion and you are free to suppress that sentence if you want to. If you prefer to replace it saying that the Generalitat doesn't have any preferred language and it uses indistinctively Catalan and Spanish, is also fine to me. Life goes on, despite some "inaccuracies" (to say the least) in wikipedia

I am quitting (again, like I have quit similar discussions) because, when the discussion is reaching the level that we have to prove with a source that the Catalan government chooses Catalan to communicate, then there is something fundamentally wrong in the discussion and I am not heroic enough to explain some things to certain users.

And, most important, I quit this discussion because you may agree that it is quite sad and there have to be better things to do in life and in wikipedia than looking for links proving that there is a lot of tourism in Benidorm.

Salut Mountolive | Talk 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Or that Horchata is made in Valencian Community... --Maurice27 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was on holidays until today but we're in the same situation. Some facts from the website (is a RSS feed or the DOGC not addressed to the population!?) vs your common sense. You keep labeling users as catalanist and non-catalanist to defend your point which is an ad hominem argument. The fact that a Generalitat official is always using catalan does not prove that Generalitat only uses catalan because: 1) That an official always uses Catalan does not mean that he is not using spanish never so the word only seems wrong to me. 2) In the case you can find sources for your statement it is clear that Generalitat uses more ways to address to the population. I provided sources like the RSS feeds or comunicados that are in spanish and it is clear that they're addressed to the general population. I defend that the accuracy of the phrase improves saying that it is the language of preferential use but is wrong to say that Generalitat only uses catalan to address to the population.--GillesV 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All users defending that in Catalonia, a spanish speaker citizen is treated like a catalan speaker one, should see this. The difficulties parents have to scholarize their children in a spanish speaking class in a public school (something normal if they are in Spain, right?)... Spanish has the same number of lective hours, being an official language, as english or french (2-3 hours per week, just like a foreign language and the spanish class is given in catalan!!!)... How can they even defend the idea of the Generalitat using both languages at the same level? The Generalitat is the institution promoting this. --Maurice27 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thins it would have been more NPOV to say that Generalitat's preferential language is Catalan. I agree. But the sentence as it is, can be missunderstood. I must say when I read it, I didn't undersand what Mountolive wanted to say.

About this video, it's something again out of the scope of this discussion, just to generate tension. I've attended in Catalan school and many of the subjects I had, in a public school, were in Spanish (of course the Spanish one also). I won't discuss about this non-related topic of the article.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot that when something proves your point to be wrong, you suddenly all decide that it is a non-related topic... If we are talking about the generalitat addressing in both languages to the habitants, how come that a hidden-camera video proving the impossibility of a spanish parent to find a spanish education in spanish territory to his child, that the "catalan countries", which don' even exist as such are teached in school, the legal fines to commerces which don't have their names in catalan, lack of road signs in both languages (something that happens in euskadi, galicia, belgium...)two matters which correspond directly to the generalitat, suddenly becomes a "non-related topic"? So funny on your part. How can you still deny that spanish is completely negliged in favor of catalan. Gentlemen, a primary and absolute right of an habitant of Spain, which is to be allowed to receive an education in his own language, is completely impossible if you have to move to Catalonia because of work due to the Generalitat! 2-3 hours of spanish per week!!! Less than english!!! This fundamental right, is not garanteed in Catalonia... It isn't! How can you still be able to try to explain in wikipedia that the Generalitat defends both languages and that she adress the population in both languages? The very same conseller de cultura de Catalunya denies it! He clearly said that the education in Catalonia is purely in catalan!!! But of course, it is a "non-related topic" about the generalitat... --Maurice27 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Maurice,

Welcome again Maurice, it is good to see you in form but the discussion is not about if a spanish speaker citizen is treated like a catalan speaker one. Here the topic was if Generalitat addresses to the general population only in Catalan or preferentially in Catalan.

• I will reply only 1 point: As you know Maurice after basic education any child can speak both catalan and spanish. Today the debate is to introduce english from the first courses of basic education arriving to a trilingual situation. After that, as Xtv, I'm not going to reply other things out of the scope but I have my own opinion and sure that it is not necessary to support it using a sensationalist video made by Telemadrid with hidden-camera. -GillesV 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet another win for the "anti-catalan/imperialist/blaverist people"!!! As soon as they get their point completely destroyed, we get an "I'm not going to reply other things out of the scope"... Typical... BTW, I wouldn't call it a "sensationalist video made by Telemadrid with hidden-camera", but rather a graphical source. --Maurice27 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Maurice, seems that you're discussing again with yourself...but it is good to see that you consider that you're acting in a group of users. You're insisting on going out of the topic of what language uses Generalitat to address to the general population. I insist: Generalitat addresses to the people preferentially in Catalan but not only in Catalan so I insist that we should change that and I stated my reasons above.

About your video, I can explain why I called that as a sensationalist source. The reason is that it was a huge controversial video and I think that it is not a good source for wikipedia. I justify this with the following sources:

• Josep Piqué, from PP party, clearly not a catalanist politician in a non-catalanist political party, said that: it is not fair to insist on a supposed linguistic confrontation in Catalonia.
• The Culture official (Consejero de Cultura) of Madrid, from PP party, said that this graphical source that you're stating was not rigorous
• After Ciudadanos de Segunda some of Telemadrid employees created a political party insisting on the manipulation of that graphical source.
• The syndicate of workers of Telemadrid accused that TV Station of ignoring the right to the objective, truthful and plural information lots of times during the last years: in english , in spanish

So you can see that your "graphical source" is accused of being biased and not rigorous by many groups of people. --GillesV 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoaaaaa... You getting scared, buddy? :D "Manipulation"... Hehehe... Maybe saying that Antoni Gaudi was of catalan nationality as you stated here wasn't a manipulation then? Now, THAT was a manipulation... I know you're an expert at manipulating and twisting reality, but don't you dare to believe that we (wikipedians) are going to follow the same path. You may say everything you want as for the Board of Telemadrid, but I sincerely doubt that the same Board managed to, let's say "manipulate", the road signs without spanish, the teachers or principals in catalan schools denying the use of spanish, the shop owners saying that they are fined if using spanish or the very same father begging to be able to scholarize his child in a spanish speaking class in a spanish territory... That's why hidden cams are great, they can not be "manipulated". Was this Board of Telemadrid also able to "manipulate" the Conseller de Cultura de Catalunya speech? You may take this discussion as much as you want to a PP Vs. IU/PSOE/CIU/ERC... But the images are there... --Maurice27 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about how the Generalitat adresses to general population. This video has nothing to do with this sentence. Don't feed the troll, please.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No!!

Hello British, American, Australian, Canadian and all the people who speak English and consult this article:

This article this writing by Catalan nationalists and does not mark the true situation of Catalonia and Spain.

A greeting from Spain: Jluisrs

Oeee, oe, oe, oooeee, oooeee, oeee :D (I should censor myself...) --Maurice27 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Jluisrs. I live in Catalonia and the article is a quite moderate and balanced view of both historical facts, culture, and current situation. The article is reliable. --jofframes 17:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jluisrs. I live in Catalonia and the article is a moderateless and unbalanced view of both historical facts, cultures, and current situation. Refer for example to the spanish education in Catalonia and official languages (trying to find a school spanish based, oficial language, is impossible). But it's better than ca:Comunitat autònoma de Catalunya. If you search en:Euskadi you'll find "Basque Country (autonomous community)". But here nationalist minds work hard trying to expand their credo (always far from the science method, the truth and the objectivity). I hope you find a coherent way to explain concepts, in a global structural meaning. And sorry, this is my first wikipedia comment: I'm a newby!!!! Thanks! Owdki 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Really? I find the article in Catalan far better: the section on political structure describes the institutions of government with its responsibilities and functions, the administrative divisions section is comprehensive and updated and includes the four types of divisions in place (provinces, comarques, vegeuries and municipalities) which are not even mentioned here, the section on Economics is far more comprehensive and referenced (not to mention the ca:Economia de Catalunya) as well as the demographics section (and ca:Demografia de Catalunya). Finally, the article in Catalan includes sections on Culture, Sports, Etymology, Geography and Climate, and Science and Technology (all referenced), sections that do not even exist here.

Most of the arguments against the "neutrality" or "quality" of this article refer exclusively to the "legal status" or the statutory denomination of "nationality" and to the use of Catalan in public schools, while they ignore the rest. The article in Catalan cites the facts (i.e. the Statute of Autonomy says this and that; education is in this language and that language) and does not try to qualify or give an interpretation of whether those facts are "good" or "bad". Here, people have tried to give opinions and interpretations to [dis]qualify references (i.e. "we cannot use the term nationality" even if it is constitutional, or "the [purported] exclusive use of Catalan is wrong/right"). Unless these opinions come from reputable sources and are referenced (i.e. "the Constitutional Court ruled that x or y in the Statute of Autonomy is in violation of the Constitution"), an article that avoids personal opinions is in better shape.

--the Dúnadan 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Owdki, saying that "nationalist minds" are writing here to expand "their credo" is not exactly my idea of the sort of analysis that someone who defends "the scientific method, truth, and objectivity" would do, so excuse me but you will need better arguments next time. --jofframes 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

>>>Sincerely thanks for your "indexation", the Dúnadan. I'll try to contribute with something (jofframes, you no need better arguments because you'd read the surface, not the content, following "the natural baseness of human nature" as Schopenhauer says).

I don't wanna waste my time arguing with you (or wasting your time), but we know that the language is a trap. We can use the Catalan article to show the "method" used here too.

Well, I am not particularly interested in your natural baseness, I am just sticking to arguments based upon facts here. And BTW, your giving up simply shows that you lack arguments. --jofframes 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the Dúnadan, just following your structure we find in the first section:

-"the section on political structure"

"La norma institucional bàsica de Catalunya és l'Estatut d'Autonomia. D'acord amb aquest, l'autogovern de Catalunya s'organitza políticament en la Generalitat de Catalunya. La Generalitat de Catalunya està formada per diverses institucions de govern..."

We can play to find the truth:

"La norma institucional bàsica del GOVERN de Catalunya és l'Estatut d'Autonomia..." And, where is the upper rule, the CONSTITUTION? Missing? Why is that?

You can deduce it form the official explanation about political organization (Generalitat de Catalunya), which could be used entirely in the article:

"Catalunya és una Comunitat Autònoma que exerceix el seu autogovern d'acord amb la Constitució i amb l'Estatut d'autonomia de Catalunya, que és la seva norma institucional bàsica. La Generalitat de Catalunya és el sistema institucional en què s'organitza políticament l'autogovern, i integra el Parlament, el President i el Govern."

It shows how the article is a malicious reduction and adaptation, clumsily worked by nationalist minds. It's far from truth or reality: picture if we begin to argue about the Gencat "official version".

So the same here, the english version. I think that it needs to be analyzed urgently by the administrators.

This example shows the method. It's waste our time with Eristical Dialectic. Don't believe the hype.Thanks for your patience! --Owdki 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho... whoaaaaaa... Just felt in love... Couldn't have explained it better. I sincerely hope admins will take actions against these "History à la carte" & political pamphlets pseudo-editors who keep quoting the catalan wikipedia. --Maurice27 20:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess, Owdki and/or Maurice27 that yes it makes no sense to argue when you yourself are resorting to direct attacks and ad hominem arguments -and please consider this your first warning (or n-th warning in the case of Maurice27) of a fellow editor, before asking an administrator to intervene. If you are truly new to this Wikipedia, then please read WP:Etiquette. As for reading the surface, why didn't you comment on the rest of the sections of :ca? Speaking of which, Maurice27, I am not citing (did I ever do that?) the Catalan Wikipedia as a valid source. I compared both and concluded that the Catalan article is far more complete (comprehensive, I think I said) which does not mean perfect, but simply better. --the Dúnadan 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

>>>I've tried to behave reasonably and calmly, but your "warning" attitude seems to me COACTION (what can I do now? heeeelp!!!). Please, explain before warning anybody where's my ad hominem or ex concessis argument, except inside Schopenhauer quote meaning: you hadn't get it, oi?

1. Schopenhauer quote (related to jofframes argument in the discussion, totally Eristical)

2. Schopenhauer's Eristical Dialectic: ad hominem or ex concessis (stratagem XVI).

It's hilarious: obviously you hadn't read or understood my comment (as you can see we are talking about Eristical Dialectic, about the method itself).

You asks "why didn't you comment on the rest of the sections of :ca?" You're being Eristical as jofframes: I want to show the method, not analyze the entire content. That's your work as a good administrator (you have now the information and you'll know what to do as the responsable person).

I'd be very grateful if you get deep inside my explanation about the catalan article (the real reason we are here arguing). Please, don't omit it: otherwise you'll be Eristical again omiting the real arguments and putting the bold in the ad hominem excuse. Forgive me if I fail in my first attempt to contribute. Thanks for the WP:Etiquette link: yes, I'm very new and it's very helpful! Regards, and thanks for the "warning" (I'll get it as a polite welcome from one :ca administrator, peace out brotha)! I'm learning a lot, and I know I'm no perfect! --Owdki 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will indeed explain my warning, by quoting your comments:

• " the article is a malicious reduction and adaptation, clumsily worked by nationalist minds..."
• "...nationalist minds work hard trying to expand their credo..."

I might not know a lot about Shopenhauer, but here in Wikipedia we discuss content not method. If the content needs to be corrected, it will be corrected because it is wrong and an equally valid content argument disproves it. Content is usually not corrected by making a call on method or motif (i.e. nationalistic minds...). As such, we can discuss, one by one those sentences that need correction if you appeal to an argumentation of the content itself and not to the "clumsy... malicious work... by nationalist minds...". That is a personal attack towards other editors.

I hope I have been clearer this time.

--the Dúnadan 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

>>>Thanks a lot, the Dúnadan. It's very clear, but I don't understand how can be 'ad hominem' something 'ad abstractam' ("nationalist minds", no hominem, no personal, no explicit person, etc.).

Now i'll be clear too using the same example:

-"the section on political structure"

"La norma institucional bàsica de Catalunya és l'Estatut d'Autonomia. D'acord amb aquest, l'autogovern de Catalunya s'organitza políticament en la Generalitat de Catalunya. La Generalitat de Catalunya està formada per diverses institucions de govern..."

"La norma institucional bàsica del GOVERN de Catalunya és l'Estatut d'Autonomia..." Where is the upper rule, the CONSTITUTION? Missing? Why is that?

We can deduce it form the official explanation about political organization (Generalitat de Catalunya), which could be used entirely in the article:

"Catalunya és una Comunitat Autònoma que exerceix el seu autogovern d'acord amb la Constitució i amb l'Estatut d'autonomia de Catalunya, que és la seva norma institucional bàsica. La Generalitat de Catalunya és el sistema institucional en què s'organitza políticament l'autogovern, i integra el Parlament, el President i el Govern."

It's time to talk about contents (and still method). Does need this be corrected because it's wrong? --Owdki 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Owkdi, this is a discussion page, not a talk page and it is for discussing the content of en:Catalonia. It is not for political comments, not for speaking about the catalan wikipedia and obviously not for making personal attacks to other editors. Maurice contribution, as you will see as usual, is totally out of the scope and ignoring WP:NPA. Owkdi just adress to ca:http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussió:Comunitat_autònoma_de_Catalunya if you want to discuss the content of the catalan article or to Dúnadan talk page if you want to chat with him.--GillesV 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GillesV! You came to the rescue! I totally agree with you. But rather than to continue the discussion (I already have the answer to my question) I prefer become a member of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries like you and the Dúnadan. I'll try to help you with this big amount of pending work (and try to contribute here too, sure) Shimmy shimmy ya!!! --Owdki 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One day I just signed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_Countries and introduced the template of the wikiproject in my user page but I don't know if to become a member is only doing this because I don't know about wikiprojects. --GillesV 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

bird hunting

that section needs some work Soyseñorsnibbles 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

you could also mention about bullfighting being forbidden, along other animal-related shows, if you want to be more generalistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.67.155 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose this section should be removed: it's about a proposal of the parlament that didn't success... not important enough to be in the main article of Catalonia, I think...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I'd go further and very much shorten (even remove completely?) the "etymology" section (I just can't get the point of so much attention on unverifiable hypothesis, not only here, but everywhere where there may be an "etymology" section).

A significant shortening of the "language" section should be done, for, by giving such a big relevance to "Catalan (language)" here in this article is actually messing up two articles, "Catalonia" and "Catalan (language)" (an usual approach from Catalan nationalists, by the way).

Reversely, all important sections like Economy or Demographics do need enlargement. Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 14:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bird hunting subsection removed. Still, in my opinion, there is still quite some work to be done per my comments above...given my so-called "suspect" quality for you, I think you guys in the "Catalan speaking countries" project have some ground to experiment with here. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology: I think we could creat an article about etymology of Catalonia, and leave in this article (not as a section, just as a comment) the most accepted theory and make a link to the new article.

Language: perhaps it is true that Catalan section is a bit too long. I think it is normal to give an importance to the language in this article, but perhaps not so much. However, these days I have no time to discuss (as you might have already noticed). So I can not participate in a constructive dialog to improve this section. Perhaps in one or two months... Regards and I hope I can contribute again soon.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

unless it is very clear and undisputed, I am not for "etymology" sections whatsoever, neither here nor anywhere, because, when it comes to etymologies, you can claim one thing and its opposite and still be fine, so I dont see the use of such a thing, especially when there is so much work to be done in more important areas. I'd just remove it, but if you think it's a best option to create a new article for that, that's fine.

Yes, the Catalan language section "is a bit too long" indeed ;)

Most of it clearly belongs to Catalan language article, not to Catalonia's article. The way Catalan language it is overstated here is a bit over-the-top and, for sure, not really neutral. To be honest, I'd reduce it to the minimal, something like "Catalan, Spanish (ok, ok, and Aranese, too ;) are the languages spoken". If you think twice, this is perfectly fine, also should be for a nationalist POV. But I guess this is not how you guys see it (and if someone felt offended by how I see it, please, just spare the outcry here and now, because I am not going to edit like that...unless you agreed, but I know already that is probably not an option...).

Anyway, I will be reminding you of this in one or two months ;)

In the meantime, have a good one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Prohibition of Catalan

Just for clarification. It is impossible for us to use the term "prohibition" to describe the limiting of social function suffered by Catalan during Franco's dictatorship. It was banned form advertising and official use, but speaking Catalan in public was not banned, nor was publishing in Catalan.

The Catalan wiki has a good chronolgy. BNS

http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuci%C3%B3_del_catal%C3%A0

---

I don't know how the 'legal' things where set-up and whether it was specifically prohibited or not. But I know what my grandfather & father lived and I think it would be truthful something like: 'some people in catalonia that lived those facts assure speaking catalonian in public could bring you serious touble. Thus is quite difficult to know with certainty how far catalonian was prosecuted'

or sthg like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.67.155 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Not prohibited? What about the prohibition oft catalan in all schools? Newspapers? Signs? Commerce? Public service? Cinema? Even yur NAMES had to be changed, catalan names were not allowed! What about the prohibition to use catalan according to the new telegraph laws? And could you please mention any book published in catalan (and published IN Spain) before the Seventies? 84.115.146.119 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Prohibition means that its use is not permitted. Catalan could be Spoken freely in informal contexts and in commerce.

Its written use in telegraphy, advertising and all public sector contexts was prohibited, as you, and the article, state. This does not amount to prohibition, however.

There was a two-year hiatus in publishing, from the fall of BCN to the first publications by the rabidly francoist monks of Montserrat. I suggest you look at second-hand bookshops in Catalonia, they are full of Catalan books published in Gerona and BCN during the 50s and 60s. The older stuff is more concentrated in the hands of private collectors, given its rarity.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.241.227 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Examples can be found by googling but I'll give you: El vent de garbí (Josep Pla, Editorial Selecata, Barcelona 1949) as a starter.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.241.227 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 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) 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

County vs Principality

So historically, as one can read in the Principality of Catalonia article, that name comes from the first king of Aragon which changed from Count of Barcelona (because it was never a principality of its own, they were many counties later conquered by/aggregated to the County of Barcelona) to "Princeps"... and there comes a new History: now there was a Principality of Catalonia.

The funny thing is that the name only existed during the life of Ramon Berenguer IV as a king of Aragon... and then disappeared, so how come can it be a historical territory now??? I would naturally accept County of Barcelona, but never Principality of Catalonia, that is just unbelievable.

And another fact, it was part of the Crown of Aragon for four centuries before joining Castilla. And it was a County only for a little more than one century. Which term should be used? And don't tell me it is because the Crown of Aragon is bigger, because the County was also bigger than current Catalonia, you can see it in the Treaty of Corbeil article, where some counties from the northern part of the County of Barcelona became french.

Gallando (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gallando. Welcome!

Check this:

• "Quoniam per iniquum principem et sine veritate et sine iustitia periit omni tempore terra et habitatores eius; propterea nos, sepedicti principes Raimundus et Almodis, consilio et auxilio nostrorum nobilium virorum decernimus atque mandamus ut omnes principes qui in hoc principatu nobis sunt successuri habeant onini tempore sinceram et perfectam fidem et veram loquutionem" [26]

Just in a simple search I've found it. In 1064 (Ramon Berenguer I), principatu was the name given to the three counties: Barcelonia, Gironia and Ausonia (=D). It proves that principality was used before Ramon Berenguer IV. But officially they was Counts... ??? I don't understand it. And there are things for discussion. I'm very surprised because there are no sources there o_O. Just a diffuse "The principality was formed (...) during the reconquista (...)". This is extreme sport! So we need references!

Hey, Xtv, please review the Wikipedia consensus process flowchart. A comment in the talk explaining things always helps. Can we put here an ad warning about the controversial topics and RFAR? I don't know how to do it. --Call me Elmo ^{Sesame Street} 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a consensus can change, of course. But the way to change it is not modifying the article and then find new consensus but first reading old talks and then discuss new arguments why should we change the current version and, if a new consensus is reached, it can be surely changed. But the change was made by a newbie who is not award of all the discussions that concern every sentence of this articles. So, it is better (s)he reads it first and then we discuss.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 05:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. What about placing a warning ad? I don't want my experience for anybody else. Warning with big-animated-colorful typography (I'm exagerating) might spare controversies, and disgustos to newcomers (any expert on templates slang-code here?). --Call me Elmo ^{Sesame Street} 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This recent addition as well as by all the surrounding autonomous communities (Aragon, the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands) which have also contested its dispositions, totalling seven contestants against this Statute of Autonomy. was speedily removed as a part of a larger edit. I am not following that close this article, therefore I'm not sure if this was discussed previously, but, in the face of it, it looks to me like it's interesting info and should be salvaged. • Mountolive ^{J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher} 10:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this fact can be included but then, I think it should be rewritten. As it was before, it said: it has been contested by PP, then explains the reasons and then explains that it has been contested also by other parts. Perhaps it would be better to explain that it has been contested by A, B, C and D because of bla bla bla. Then it should be said that all 7 "recursos" will be studied together by the Constitutional Tribunal, and finally give a better source than the given one (I do not say that the content of this source is not ok, but the source itself it is not so well known. I think there can be found better ones). Then, after the Constitutional Tribunal decides about this matter, I would simplify complitely all the section (not delete, but simplify).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. I dont see a problem in the source, though. It is convenient because it puts all three neighbouring territories in one article, instead of having to look for one article per each AC. Being "Hoy" a regional newspaper, I think is perfectly quotable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an anon removing this piece There is significant nationalist sentiment among a major proportion of the population of Catalonia, often manifested as a desire for independence from Spain, or at least for increased autonomy I just reverted him, Xtv did, too, if only because he is not explaining why.

Still, his edit has called my attention on this excerpt. Indeed, it sounds plagued of weasel words (significant, major, often) and, what is worse, it is confusing, since it mixes independentism with further autonomy, and those are not the same. We should work on that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to neutralize it a bit. Feel free to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Climate / geography

This page is very interesting, but I'd like to see some information on the climate and geographical features of Catalonia, or at least some links to this.

Chris Williams 80.201.53.113 (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status with Spain

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

From Britannica: [27]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template:Criticism-section "Legal Status within Spain"

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)

• 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)

Removal of Veracity1 contributions

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

More about references

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)

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)

detaching

I wholeheartedly support Xtv's idea (as expressed here [28]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

Source needs to say what it is cited as saying

diff: [29] 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)

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)

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)

To Maurice27

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)

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)

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)

[ 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)

Legal status with Spain

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)

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)

structure

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

etimology

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 [30] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

<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)