Talk:Catalonia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

About the order in which co-official languages are to be displayed

Since User:Xtv is once again trying to get me blocked I would like to remind him (and of course everybody else reading) that, there is ANY wikipedia guideline to state which language should go first. That said, some months ago, there was a consensus in which Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries (from which user Xtv is an active member and some other people agreed in that the name of the languages should be displayed in alternate order throughout the article (the order 3 lines below in the lead and in the infobox is different than the one in the first line of the lead paragraph) as to keep everybody happy (as both languages are co-official in this region).

If user Xtv is unable to follow the moves from his wikiproject he should remove his name from the members list.

If the anon user is reading this, he is invited to explain his opinion instead than vandalizing.

If either Xtv or the anon user are willing to break the consensus (probably one of the few we got in tha catalan related articles) they are invited to explain it here before vandalizing or reporting me without reason. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has 518 km of coastline on the Mediterranean and covers 23,259 km² of land with 4.8 million inhabitants (2005). Its borders largely reflect those of the historic Kingdom of Valencia. According to the Statute of Autonomy, Valencia is recognized as a nationality. The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory). The capital of the autonomous community is the city of Valencia.

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

I hope that this helps to prove my point about the consensus reached long ago. The order of the languages is consistently changed throughout the content of the articles about regions where both Catalan and Spanish are co-official. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 09:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Since Maurice27 is not able to bring the references to the supposed consensus -which actually I think that does not exist at all-, I ask you, WMC, to bring back the article to the original version. Thank you.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

So... I have no great interest in this issue, though I can see that some people care a great deal, unsurprisingly, language can be emotive. But I can provide some rules. Firstly, if you're going to clima a consensus for some version, you have to be able to back that up by refererence to that consensus. If you can't, you should stop talking about it and everyone else is entitled to ignore it. Second, edit comments like "re-arranged to standard order" are unhelpful and probably provocative, unless you are prepared to provide some reason as to why that order should be considered standard. Unless someone can provide a killer argument as to why the order should be X (which is unlikely or they would already have done so), what we need is some idea of how to resolve the dispute: either some kind of wiki policy, some governmental policy to follow, or failing that I'll just toss a coin William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Oops!! I didn't realise this was such an emotive issue. It's not as by making the edit I was trying to say one language was better or more important than the other. I simply changed the order in which languages are displayed on documentation and signage in Catalonia and that is the order they are displayed. Politics, politics, politics. Now I see why the EU, UN and so on, spend so much time and money deciding on seating arrangements of country figure heads. Oh how what we really need is for them to make the world a better place and for us to concentrate on improving this article as a whole. Well just my humble thoughts... 87.80.24.72 (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

@William M. Connolley: I am not very enthusiastic with the alphabetical order. It's too arbitrary. In this case, p.e., it could make that a language that is spoken by less than 0.1% of the population went in the first position. And it could reopen discussions about names (Aranese/Occitan, Catalan/Valencian, Spanish/Castillian...). I propose one of the 2 following solutions:

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

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

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

In theory, William M. Connolley had to help us resolving this problem, but it's already about one month since he came here for the last time, I've asked him help twice and he has ignored us. Therefore, I propose to ask some other help from admins.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

About the paragraph about politics being erased

I've been also accused of "unreasonable deletion of content" and wanting "to make a major change deleting one paragraph" by the same anon user and user:Xtv.

This is the one from the "legal status within Spain" section:

"The 1979 as well as the current Statute of Autonomy, approved in 2006, state that "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, which is its basic institutional law."[9].

The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the "Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality". While this Statute was approved by and sanctioned by both the Catalan and the Spanish parliaments, and later by referendum in Catalonia, it has been legally contested by the surrounding Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community,[10] as well as by the Partido Popular. The objections are based on various topics such as disputed cultural heritage but, especially, on the Statute's alleged breaches of the "solidarity between regions" principle enshrined by the Constitution in fiscal and educational matters. As of November 2008, the Constitutional Court of Spain is assessing the constitutionality of the challenged articles; its binding conclusion is expected for 2008."

And this is the one from the "History" section (which I erased):

Catalonia's second statute of autonomy, adopted by the Catalan government on 22 December 1979, officially recognized Catalonia as a nationality. Then, the amended version approved on 9 August 2006 has defined Catalonia as a nation in the preamble. The precise meaning of the term nation is ambiguous as to not conflict with the Spanish Constitution. The Statute of Autonomy also establishes that "Catalonia wishes to develop its political personality within the framework of a State which recognizes and respects the diversity of identities of the peoples of Spain". After the charter was first passed in the regional parliament, it was then edited in conjunction with the Cortes Generales (Spanish bicameral parliament). Except the Partido Popular, all the other political parties represented in the Catalan autonomous Parliament endorsed the final redaction of the statute, which was then approved by means of a referendum held in June 2006 in which 73.9% voted for the autonomy plan and 20.8% against it. The turnout was unprecedentedly low, at around 49% of the total census, which resulted in the highest abstention ever registered in Catalonia in a referendum.

Now, is it me or both paragraphs just claim the exactly same thing? They are redundant! So, in order to keep the article clean and willing to have an overall better article, I explained the move and deleted it. If anyone disagrees, they just have to make use of this talk-page instead than using futile and opportunists moves in order to get me blocked. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Warning to anonymous

There is an open report about edit warring in this article. If you continue reverting this page, you'll be blocked.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Clean Up of Article

I have added a Clean-up to the economy section of this page, which doesn't make much sense. Needs the attention of a native spaker. I may try and correct this, but it may be better for someone with a greater knowledge of the Catalonian economy. JosephLondon (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a "Autonomous Community". Catalonia is a nation, a country if you want, with 1.000 years of history. Nowadays its way of government is a "Autonomous Community", but only since 1980. The main law of Catalonia -really a spanish law approved in the spanish Parliament- says it very clear: ARTICLE 1. CATALONIA Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with this Estatut, which is its basic institutional law.

Wikipedia says Scotland and Wales, and England of course, are countries. Why Catalonia isn't it? Oriolandres (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

In the same way that wiki-articles referred to England, Great Britain, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, etc. are based on Encyclopædia Britannica, it's obvious that wiki-article of Catalonia must be based on Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (in English, Big Catalan Encyclopædia) and move all politic stuff to Politic's point, of course. I think it's the most respectful option to catalan people so I've done the appropiated changes. Crema (talk) 16:18, 4th January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.51.105 (talk)

I absolutely agree with Mauritius XXVII, Wikipedia must be based on facts, and saying that Catalonia is a nation or a country is false, as false as saying that Andalusia or Murcia are nations. By now, as for Catalunia, the fact is that we just can say that it is an Autonomus Communuty, as the rest of ACs in Spain, and if someone doesn't know what an Autonomus Community is, thats not a problem Oriolandres, anyone can look it up in Wikipedia. And don't talk about the most "respectful option", because then we should say that every AC in Spain is a country, to be respectful to everyone, since if we say that Catalonia is a nation or a country because of its past, why don't we say that Andalusia is a nation? During the muslim period and till the conquest of Granada, Al-Andalus was less spanish than Euskadi or Catalonia. If we want a unbiased Wikipedia, we cannot base an article on just the Big Catalan Encyclopædia, but also in other ones, and we cannot say something that isn't true only to "respect" some people. your.hand.in.mine (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Isn't Catalonia a nation? First notice I have. The status a society has (town, city, region, country, state, etc.) is decided by their people and their representation (politicians). Catalonia's Parlament decided that first Estatut article was "Catalonia is a nation", so YES, Catalonia is a nation. In the same way, this status is contempled by their Encyclopædia. Who do you think you are to decide what a comunity is against its own decision? Crema (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.51.105 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

dear god, are we still on this? The legal status section clearly articulates the complex legal maze of what Catalonia is or isn't in Spanish law. It is agreed by all the current area of territory governed by the Generalitat is an autononmous community, the rest is POV.

boynamedsue.208.51.23.195 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Listen, sonny. I've been brawling in the mud about this for nigh on 4 years, don't send me soft volleys like that one.

"The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality."

The preamble is not legislative but descriptive, and the term "nation" was not, therefore, adopted into law.

If we look at the text:

"El Parlament de Catalunya, recollint el sentiment i la voluntat de la ciutadania de Catalunya, ha definit Catalunya com a nació d'una manera àmpliament majoritària. La Constitució espanyola, en l'article segon, reconeix la realitat nacional de Catalunya com a nacionalitat."

This does not state that Catalunya is a Nation, it states that "El parlament de Catalunya" has defined Catalonia as a nation. Even if if the Preamble had legal validity, all it does is state that 2 different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive)opinions as to the "National status" of Catalonia exist.

The text which created the AC of Catalonia (and which has legislative value), the constitution, states that Catalonia is "nationality". However, that term is meaningless in English when used to describe an entity such as the Catalan Autononmous Community, so we explain the factual case in the "legal status" section, and leave the term "Autonomous Community" in the intro.

208.51.23.195 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC) boynamedsue

Excuse me, but I find such a politic intention in affirming the national status of Catalonia than in denying it. The obsession of denying it is also a political point of view. In Spain, any recognition of the identity of the catalan people is denied in prevention of further paths to independence. It is a role the spanish nationalists play and it is a fact it is suffered in Catalonia. We all know it. Catalonia is a country as Scotland is a country. That does not mean that Catalonia is independent from Spain, in fact it is administrated as a autonomous region, as it does not mean Scotland is independent from the United Kingdom. In any case, the obsession of some of you of eliminating any reference to it only pictures your politica prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.139.38 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad english

English in this article is suffering seriously. I quote an example: "Actually the government of la Generalitat de Catalunya are developing a new type of administation that will agroup comarques and will substitute the provinces. Actually are called àmbit funcional territorial but with a new law will be called vegueries, there are seven àmbits (Àmbit metropolità de Barcelona, Camp de Tarragona, Alt Pirineu i Aran, Comarques Centrals, Comarques gironines and Ponent). That seven àmbits are define by the regional plan of Catalonia (in Catalan, Pla territorial general de Catalunya).[2][3]" "Actually" in english does not mean "at the moment" as "actualmente" does in spanish. The correct word would be "currently". Also the verb "agroup" does not exist in english as far as i can tell. Also syntax is suffering. Please take the time to revise the text or I can do it when I find some time. Schizophonix (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Flag of Catalonia

I think that there are some problems with that sentence: "The flag of Catalonia or Senyera (flag in Catalan), is a vexillological symbol based on the coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon, which consists of four red stripes on a golden background. It is an official symbol since the Statute of Catalonia of 1932." The flag was an heraldic emblem of Counts of Barcelona before being in the Crown of Aragon.--Vilar 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The map

Carles, noticing your last edit, I just want to point you that each and every other article about CCAA has the vectorial map (just take a look yourself). If we want to keep some equality and sense around wikipedia, the correct thing is to leave the other one. there is no real reasons for this article to be the exemption. My thoughts only. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Maurice, I beg to disagree. At least the maps for the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands have also been changed today (see [1] and [2]) to this kind of Spain-centered map. So the situation is not like you seem to describe: the map in Catalonia article being a unique strange singularity to be corrected with respect to a long well-established tradition in all the remaining communities. No. The fact is that just now some people propose this new solution. We can discuss it, of course. My initial point is that I prefer the maps those communities have had for a long time because they are more globally-minded and show their position not only inside Spain, but also in a European context. --Carles Noguera (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I've enjoyed them a lot, thanks! :) Good to see that you are open to a proposal that would solve both of our concern at once. As regards to the maps, this seems to completely feasible. I am checking that those files already exist: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. (you see the pattern). So homogeneity is not really a problem. --Carles Noguera (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Carles. Long time no see.

I wanted to make you reconsider your position about keeping the european centered maps. For almost one year(?), you have been defending those maps against (quite a lot now) changes by multiple editors to the one used in the rest of CCAA related articles. We already discussed this matter long time ago (uniformity in wikipedia articles, the country being more important than the continent...).

You know I don't agree with your position, but for the sake of both of us I left your option. But now, you should admit that your opinion is probably a minority.

Tell me what you think. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Carles, all the autonomies of Spain have the same map. I understand that you are independentist but this it is not motive for including a map where you cannot see the whole country. I am sorry, but it isn't logical to include a map different to the rest. Diplomatiko (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I'm restoring the regular map (the one which all the other articles use). There's no reason to use another map: NUTS maps don't offer an enough clear sight of a country subdivision location. Furthermore, this (and sometimes the Valencian Community one, for obvious reasons...) is the only country subdivision article in the entire Wikipedia where they're used. Icallbs (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Icallbs. Thanks for your comments. But, have you bothered to read the discussion above where I showed that your concerns on homogeneity in Spanish regions entries are compatible with my concerns for globality for non-Spanish readers? Please take a look at it. On the other hand, let me remind that prior to changing a disputed content, you should reach consensus, not the other way around as you have done know (see [9]). Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an outside observer who has occasionally reverted the wilder changes here ... I get confused exactly which map is which now, but FWIW I think the map should be clear in showing both where Catalonia is within Spain, and also where it is in the context of the wider European area. I'm not sure this version - the current one as I write - does that. It's too close-up, in the main part. I personally prefer the one here, which I think was put together more recently. If you look for example at ones in respect of the UK, eg for Wales or Scotland, they're even more "global" in perspective. In addition, there should ultimately be consistency across all the Spanish region/nation articles. N-HH talk/edits 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

this version is clearly the most desirable one. It has what all of us find important on a map. But we do lack of all the other maps for the rest of the Autonomous Communities. If someone knows how to add the small european map on the rest of them (and willing to), the problem is solved. I already tried to some days ago, but to manipulate svg's is beyond my comprehension... ;) --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia definition must me corrected

We must differentiate between geographic and politics definition. Catalonia is a shit of geographical area comprising actual Catalan Community in Spain and Cerdanya which actually is the french department of Pyrinèes Oriental. If there is any reference to Catalonia as a nation, it must cover all Catalonia and not merely the Catalan Community of Spain. Both populations consider theirselves Catalans sharing the same Catalan language, (even it is not considered an official language in France because political assumptions) whith respect for each political nationality, french or spanish.

The definition must be considered as follows:

Catalonia Community covers an area of 32,114 km² and has an official population of 7,210,508[1]. It borders Cerdanya in France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, the Valencian Community to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east (580 km coastline). Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Aranese.

I understand that the separatist ideas of some french and spanish nationalism against the European Union cultural heritage must be erradicated if we want the wikipedia project to progress.

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. There is another concept for the whole catalan-speaking territories and it is Catalan Countries.

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

I struggle to believe that Perpignan in France should only be counted as "Catalan speaking". They fly the Catalan flag, it's historically and cultural strongly Catalan, and the Rugby League team (which should also be mentioned and linked in the article) is called Catalan Dragons. In Catalan the area is called Northern Catalonia.

I'm sure this is a controversial issue whatever is included in the article, but ignoring Northern Catalonia in the article completely strikes me as a whitewash and not a neutral POV. Davini994 (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is hijacked by some editors near to spanish unionist positions. I do agree with you that not speaking about the Catalan nation and what and where is North Catalonia is simply a failure of reflecting the Catalan reality. If the article is only speaking about the autonomous community then it should be called 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalan vs. Catalonian

Most of the article uses the word "Catalan" as an English demonym adjective in almost all cases. The article even states in the infobox itself that the English demonym is "Catalan". However, the section on popular culture uses the demonym "Catalonian". Which is correct, if any? Either the references to "Catalonian" need to be changed to "Catalan" or, alternatively, "Catalonian" should be recognised as a possible demonym. Madeinsane (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. 'Catalonian' is incorrect, or at least not as correct as 'Catalan'. I've removed the former from the article. That said, the entire section on popular culture needs clearing up. It is very badly written and might also be split to a new page. Any thoughts? --Tomclarke (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Goth-Alania > Catalonia

"...the name of the Spanish province Catalonia, which is but a slight deformation of Goth-Alania, "province of the Goths and Alans"..." (from Alans, Encyclopaedia Iranica) http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f8/v1f8a013.html Böri (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

--This is not true at all, just a fantasy theory, the name Catalonia probably comes from Gothalunda/Gothland > Catalunya or from Castelans(people who lives in castles)> Castelunya > Catalunya --79.159.194.238 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a nation, anyway?

If you seek the answer to this question in ordinary English dictionaries, you’ll find entries like this:

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory (Oxford New American Dictionary)

or

... 1 a body of people associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own (Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary)

or

... 2 a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc. (Collins English Dictionary)

So are Wikipedia editors entitled to describe Catalonia as a nation? On the basis of the foregoing, clearly they are. And what about the Spanish Constitutional Court? Well, neither they nor any other institution or legislature have any business to dictate English usage. Many editors (particularly some who are not native English speakers) have failed to take account of this fact. When the term “nation” is used in the context of Catalonia’s legal status, we need to make it quite clear in what sense it’s being used.

Let me hasten to add that the foregoing mustn’t be taken to imply that I’m supporting a Catalanist position here: that would be to fall into exactly the sort of confusion between linguistic usage and legal definition that I'm criticizing.

AdeMiami (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The first definition of nation would relate to to "Catalan people" rather than the current administrative division of Spain. There is an article on that topic so it might be valid over there, but as a native English speaker, I can say that linguistically speaking your source does not support the idea that the autonomous community of Catalonia is a nation.

A nation in English is either a nation state, or a people, Catalonia (AC) does not fulfill either of those requisites. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, you should read more carefully the definitions of the term Nation. Boynamedsue, the Catalonia definition for nation is both. And you know they have their territory, their language, their history, and, of course, a community of people. Linguistically speaking, that source supports the idea that Catalonia is a nation. Despite you doesn't like it.

I would like to ask you a question: Why are you so amusing about the Catalan people, about their history, about their language? Do you hate them? --Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.156.217 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you think I'm amusing Frank, but I certainly don't hate anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the definitions above do not apply to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, which is the topic of this article. The autonomous community of Catalonia is not an "aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory", though one could make an argument that the Catalan people were. It is an administrative division of the Spanish state.

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Look, this back and forth edit warring isn't really helping anything. You guys need to discuss it here. As an outsider with no stake in this, could I clarify a few points and ask people to follow them up below? There seem to be three main issues here -

Nation/region/nationality etc in the lead, post court case

Per the above section, I don't think anyone can argue against the idea Catalonia is a "nation" in the broadest sense of the word - in the same way that is is also a "region", and "area" or whatever, as well as more formally an "Autonomous Community". The Spanish Constitutional Court ruling would also seem - according to the Telegraph piece being cited - to have now more formally confirmed/accepted the use of the term "nation" in the latest Statute of Autonomy. However, it seems that they are saying that precisely because it is simply a vague cultural term that does not have a "legal value" or constitutional implications - ie it's accurate, but not that significant. The issue at stake is what to highlight and prioritise in the lead, and I'm not sure that simply sourcing to the Telegraph piece helps. That article also describes Catalonia as a "region", and it's not clear on what basis one term is being preferred here over any other. It seems to me that using more formally defined terminology, where the terms wiki-link to pages about terms as they are used in a Spanish context - ie as in this version - would be better.

I don't think this formula would work, because the list of Spain's "constituent historical nationalities" has never been laid out and, in any event, it would open a can of worms. One million pounds for those who try (and succeed on) it: would Navarre be part of the Basque nation? Is there a constituent nationality called Castile? If that's so, would Andalusia be part of it (it was part of Castile's Crown, after all..)? Etc, etc.

Nor can we accept, as some editor has pretended, that all of Spain's autonomous regions are nationalities. Madrid is an autonomous region, but neither a nation nor a nationality. The same goes for, let's say, Extremadura, Cantabria or Murcia. I'm sorry for being so blunt on the matter, but some of Spain's autonomous regions are nations whereas others are just that: regions. And we all know who's who on this.

The points are:

(a) Catalonia's Autonomy Charter describes it as a nation (whether this is legally binding is of no importance: this is Wikipedia, not a constitutionalists' forum). This term ('nation') was sanctioned by (a) Catalonia's Parliament, (b) Spain's Parliament and (c) Catalonia's people in a referendum.

(b) Spain's Constitutional Court has sanctioned its use (again: whether this is legally binding is of no importance: this is Wikipedia, not a constitutionalists' forum).

(c) Countless English-language sources (and this is English Wikipedia, by the way) describe Catalonia as a nation. Those sources (for instance, The Daily Telegraph) can't be accused of any sort of nationalist leaning. Quite the contrary, as the Irish experience shows to us.

Andreas Balart (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Order of languages

Is there a formal, agreed view in the real world of which of Catalan and Spanish is the "main" language, eg by virtue of official recognition as such within Catalonia and/or Spain as a whole, or are there official figures that reveal one language is more commonly spoken as a first language in Catalonia than the other? If so, the order should just follow that. If not, or there's no clear answer on those criteria, how about going by alphabetical order, ie Catalan first (although it would be slightly odd to apply this across all languages and put Aranese right at the top)?

Parliament

It seems kind of obvious to me that the Parliament field in the infobox should refer to the Catalan parliament and link to that page, not to the national Spanish parliament. See Scotland for example.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, if they help. There's plenty else that needs improving with the rest of the article, and genuine vandalism seems to slip by unnoticed while all this gets edit warred over. --N-HH talk/edits 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear N-HH,

If anything this point demostrates the sort of people who've hijacked and taken over this article over the last months and years, masquerading their byass as consensus: they were actually so byassed that they deleted any reference to Catalonia's Parliament on Catalonia's infobox. It beggars belief.

We can put it down to a whole set of prejudices. Otherwise, it is rather difficult to understand this behaviour.

For too many months, I've been watching over it. But enough is enough.

Andreas Balart (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain high court rules against "nation" term

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100710/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_catalan_charter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No credit shoud be paid to anonymous vandalist comments

Eva Grossjean (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about speaking from the facts, not only from part of the political POV or from the legal POV (legal but not moral as the decisions of Spanish Constitutional Court are more than discussed). Anyone at Catalonia knows a significant part of the people living there feels that part of Spain as a nation with right of self-governing and any source considered trustable should reflect that. Any editor not trusting this can search about the Catalan display on this 11th July and will see that spanish high court is simply applying a centralist POV. BR anonymous. 95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a nation (at least legally) but a historical nationality.

Spain's Constitutional Court accepts the definition as nation for Catalonia but has no legal value. For legal purposes is still considered a historical nationality and in any case should not be included within the framework of political status. Catalonia is only an autonomous region of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain's constitutional Court is not the only POV ,and obviously is an interested POV. It is internationally accepted that part of the Catalan population feels Catalonia as a nation. It is a case very similar to Quebec so no such debate makes sense. The spanish constituional court is just an interested part in the conflict.95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia the only valid POV is the legal POV, and in Spain the Constituctional Court's decissions are definitives. If Wikipedia doesn't respect that, a lot of other articles must be corrected. Scotland, for example, is only a historical country of United Kingdom or is a nation? I am Spanish but I respect the Catalan nationalism, as it has perfect historical foundations, and I think they are a nation, of course, but include social or personal POV in a section intended to the political situation, whatever it is, for better or for worse, is not encyclopedic. Special:Contributions/Arkarull (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arkarull, the decission about nation/nationality is not any personal POV but it's sufficently backed up by legal texts. The Constitutional Court has ruled that the term 'nation' stands on Catalonia's autonomy charter's preamble, which, by the way, doubles as an organical law of the Spanish State (ie. passed by both Congress and Senate).

Whether or not this has legal consequences (it has not, according to the Court) is of no importance to Wikipedia. The point here is that the law (Spanish as well as Catalan) describes Catalonia as a nation. And all we do here in WP is to describe things.

Now: the Spanish Constitution does also acknowlege that Spain is made up of regions and nationalities. The fact that no list has been made as to which territories qualify as regions and which ones as nationalities doesn't mean that we all know who's who here: Is Catalonia a nationality? For sure. Is La Rioja a nationality? Of course not.

Finally, once we've accepted the 'nationality' terms as experessed in the Spanish Constitution, a purely linguistic point kicks into: 'nationality' implies the existence of a 'nation'. As Wikipedia states:

Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state. Nationality can be acquired by being born within the jurisdiction of a state, by inheriting it from parents, or by a process of naturalization. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

Therefore, if we accept the Constitutional existence of nationalities, it automatically derives in the existence of nations.

Eva Grossjean (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Eva, we both agree in that for us Catalonia is a Nation. But I think thar for legal purposes is not a clear idea:

Artículo 2 de la Constitución Española: La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas. (Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution: The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible homeland of all Spanish, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of nationalities and regions which comprise and solidarity among them.)

Therefore, the Constitution accepts the existence of "nationalities", but aggregated into a single Nation, the Spanish. As a result, the Constitutional Court ruled that the designation as a nation that does the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (2006) in its preamble has no legal validity. Wikipedia's article fornationalitynot worth me because, as one librarian of this encyclopedia said to me once, Wikipedia is not Wikipedia's reference.

In any case, this debate is sterile because the article has already been corrected by someone, replacing "nation" with "nationality." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nations are not defined solely by Constitutions, mon cher Arkarull.

If that was the case, the USA could never be considered a nation, since a definition of the United States as a nation is nowhere to be seen in there. And yet, they are a nation--and what a nation, by the way!

Britain, on the other hand, does not even have a written Constitution to back her nationhood. And yet, it is another nation.

As I wrote before in this forum, some people mix 'statehood' with 'nationhood'. Gross mistake: sometimes they might coincide, but some other times they might not.

This legalistic insistence on the Spanish Constitution demonstrates, if anything, a large degree of intellectual laziness.

xxx 81.39.12.15 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, my condescending friend, but I guess you'll understand that I defends the rights of a country, in this case mine, to be judge by its own rules. So, as you agree that in Spain some territories are called Autonomous Comunities, while in USA they call States as well as relevant laws stipulate, when their functions are almost identical, we can also accept that the political and legal definitions are framed in Spanish constitutional frameworks that set Spanish as the only Nation, not excluding the existence of nationalities. You can consider this stupid, centralist or incoherent, but it is what it is. And it is says by one of the few Spanish, born in Madrid, who consider Catalonia a nation. But I also differentiate between what I think and what is legally OK, that's what fits in this discussion. And I differentiate clearly between state and nation, thanks. Furthermore, I believe that you can defend yours opinions without resorting to insult.

And sorry for my poor English. It's probably my "large degree of intellectual laziness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mon cher Arkarull,

It is not an insult, it's just a depiction. Using the Spanish Constitution as the holy graal, the only source of description of an otherwise lively, diverse country it's empoverishing and, yes, intellectually lazy (Spaniards, having suffered long centuries of Inquisition and even longer centuries of narrow-minded Catholicism are particulatly prone to this sort of mechanical, one-sided reasoning. I feel really sorry for you, mon cher ami, for having missed the benefits of the Protestant Reformation).

Nations are not defined by Constitutions--at least not only by Constitutions. If that was the case, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom would qualify as such, as there's no mention about their nationhood in their Constitutions (or non-Constitutions, such as in the British case).

You can copy/paste as many articles of your Constitution as you like, mon chéri. Your argument simply does not hold water. Constitutionalists do not make or break nations, nor judges. It's the people who make them by enbodying them. Catalonia's nationhood, in that regard, is out of the question.

Please, be so kind so as to provide more solid lines of argument in order to deny Catalonia's nationhood. Any qualified source (please, no Constitutional scarecrows) will be warmly welcome.

Eva Grossjean (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Eva. I will not go into your game. In any case you should know that sociology has evolved a bit since Weber. It's amazing how in one paragraph you have insulted Spain, the Spanish, the Catholic tradition, and so on. You should review a little the History before returning to the topics of the Inquisition and the innate stupidity transmitted through Catholicism. I will repeat it again to see if you can assimilate without insulting even if you disagree:

• I believe strongly that Catalonia is a nation in its own right.
• I do not disapprove the inclusion in the article the conflict nation-no nation, I support that and not go any opinion, and of course they are present nationalist claims as Catalonia has a long historical journey as an independent nation.
• But I have to accept that Catalonia, today, like it or not, is part of Spain, and LEGALLY, the only valid laws are the spanish ones, are laws adopted by the Congress of Deputies, the Catalan Parliament or constitutional requirements. Do you want to get in a philosophical, sociological and political discussion about the right to be a nation of Catalonia? Isn't necessary. We would agree, although it seems you do not read my messages because you repeat that I do not believe this reality. But one thing is what you or I believe and the truth is other one. I think the death penalty is unfair and out of any right, but I accept that if I go to Texas and commit a particular crime will be sentenced to death penalty. Put that in Texas there is no death penalty because there are groups against, even if for me they are right, it would be illogical.
• I'd tried to talk with you with respect. I can be wrong, but to prove you must present something more than insults and condescension. Of course I love my country, like you love yours I supossed, but that doesn't mean that I'm not capable of assimilating other realities.
• Surprise! I am Spanish and I'm not stupid! You'll be surprised, but this is a beautiful country, with very good people and a great History. And also great professionals, scientists and intellectuals. I invite you to visit us and know our history to prevent fall in outdated clichés.
• Finally. I'm not your mon chéri. Although these chocolates are very good. If you're not going to bring nothing but insults I ask you to stop posting messages and let a more polite and fruitful discussion. Don't forget that I have started this not to impose my vision, when I could have deleted the term "nation" in the article simply.--Arkarull (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Arkarull, with all due respect, I think you taking things too personally: let it go.. either Eva will tire herself or else get blocked. Marianu Raxoi (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue. This edit, among other things, has restored both the "Catalonia is a nationality" phrasing to the first sentence, and also replaced the previous long-standing map, which provided some sense of where Catalonia actually is, and whose format is used in all the other autonomous community pages (which also include a coat of arms, also removed by that edit and previous ones). The problem with the former change is, as has been pointed out several times in several places, that the sources currently cited for "nationality" do not support the claim, and that anyway the phrasing does not make sense in English, even if it works as a strict translation of "nacionalidad". The word is sometimes used in English language sources, but in inverted commas, for that reason, eg here. Im going to revert those aspects of the changes, so that it simply refers to Calatonia's formal and official status as an "autonomous community". Please then, can you lot discuss here whether it should in addition talk about nations, regions or nationalities or whatever, with proper and accurate referencing where appropriate (even though these are usually avoided in the lead)

One fuller, more detailed alternative that suggests itself is something along the lines of "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities". The details of the tensions between centre and regions, the "nation" issue and the latest court case can all be covered further down the article. Thanks, in advance and hope ... N-HH talk/edits 17:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

GDP figures are wrong.

Oops, no they are not, I misread the total population.1812ahill (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About the order of the languages and other stuff

There's a consensus on how the languages are displayed: alternating order. If you look at this article, you can find "Catalan>Spanish" in the infobox and all through the article, and "Spanish>Catalan" in the infobox and all through the article. I think it's the better order we can agree, but there's another version (the one who Andreas, Eva and others revert to often) which has only "Catalan>Spanish". I think it's obvious the first option is better than this one, as it's clearly more neutral. Again, the most logical option (and most used on Wikipedia) would be by percentage of speakers in Catalonia, so it'd be Spanish>Catalan>Aranese. Some users have complained about this version and I honestly respect it, so again I think the best order is the alternating one.

Also, the "National" in "National symbols of Catalonia" was introduced by Andreas Balart in 372097193 with no explanation, and I think it's controversial and not very appropiate to put it there because of the next issue.

About the "nationality" part, as discussed above in this very talk page, it's unreferenced (even Jimbo Wales has said so, before being reverted by Andreas as a vandal (!!), controversial (the Constitutional Court which has ruled "nation" has no value). Also, there's a problem about "Catalonia is a nationality", because that makes no sense whatsoever in English. "Nationality" in English =/= "Nacionalidad" in Spanish, due to the peculiar situation of this term in Spain. Icallbs (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Sorry Icallbs , not my intention increparte, but the Catalan language has been banned several times by Spanish law. The last time was with the Franco regime (1939-1975), this situation seriously endangered the Catalan language and its number of speakers, as the Catalan was removed from schools, media, books and any official statement, relegated only the informal conversation, almost clandestine. The fact that this situation is quite close in time and, therefore, the current situation arising from a failure to come so bad, should make us raise our awareness of the issue. So I think the way you propose to treat the order of the languages is simple and naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.65.74 (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP is not the place to rewrite injustices. Yes, the page should document the substantive issues and history around language in Catalonia, as it does in the main body. The issue here is a bit more simple than that, about how to order the languages when briefly listing them, in a way that reflects the current reality/predominance, given that people are always going to read something into how that is done. In that respect, Icallbs, I don't quite see what you mean about "alternating order" - as far as I can tell, your edit leaves Spanish first in every instance. My thoughts about language and other points, and some proposed solutions, are in the threads above. Which no one really bothered to respond to while you were all editing your preferred versions back and forth in their entirety ... N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents as food for thought, as I will most likely not participate in subsequent debates due to lack of time. First, regarding the order of the languages, it really doesn't matter which comes first (and one could argue endlessly as to why Catalan or Spanish should come first). But, I do argue for consistency, in which case, if you stick to Spanish>Catalan (or vice versa), this order should be kept throughout the article, instead of alternating. It is more encyclopedic, and less confusing. This is not an issue about neutrality. It is simply an issue of style.

Now, regarding "nationality", I disagree with Icallbs. "Nationality" does make sense in English, and it is indeed extensively used. I would advocate for its use in the introduction based on the following points:

• Unlike the controversial word "nation", "nationality" is the legal definition for Catalonia, within that same section of the Statute which does have -pardon my translation- "judicial value" (valor jurídico).[10]. Moreover, the term, "nationality" is fully constitutional and was supported by the Constitutional Court in its latest ruling. There is nothing controversial about a fully constitutional term.
• In English, the word "nationality" does convey the same meaning as it does in Spanish. [11], and its used not only to refer to the Spanish nationalities, but to the nationalities within other countries as well.
• It has been used in non-Spanish, non-Catalan Academic literature in English to refer specifically to the nationalities of Spain (e.g. Federalism and the Balance of Power in European States (2006) from the OECD, or Institutions of Modern Spain, by the Cambridge University Press, some results amongst many that a simple query in Google Books or Google Scholar would produce, with or without quotations (i.e. the "inverted commas", as they have been referred to above).
• The term "nationality" is even used by the Encyclopedia Britannica when referring to Catalonia in the main article of Spain (requires subscription, but let me quote, just one sentence: " [...] 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. "

To me, if reputable academic sources have no issues with the term "nationality" (in English) and being the word chosen by the Spanish Parliament in 1978 and being a constitutional term, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It is fully referenced in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Last but not least, other autonomous communities that usually receive less attention (for whatever reason) have used the word "nationality" in their introductory paragraphs (e.g. Galicia, the Valencian Community) without any controversy.

Ahh, as a PS, the Constitutional Court upheld the term "national symbols of Catalonia" (8th article) as fully constitutional, in the sense (I quote), "of their condition of symbols of a nationality constituted as an autonomous community in exercise of the right acknowledged and guaranteed by the 2nd article of the Spanish Constitution [...] they are, in sum, the symbols of a nationality without any pretension [...] of contradiction to the symbols of the Spanish Nation". Later on, the resolution also adds that the 8th article is "constitutional" (conforme a la constitución) interpreted in the sense that the said term is exclusively referring in its meaning and use, to the symbols of Catalonia "defined as a nationality" and integrated into the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation".[12]. Ergo I don't see a problem with using "national symbols", when the term itself has been declared constitutional. But of course, you cannot avoid using this term without also making reference to the definition of Catalonia as a nationality, so we are back to square one.

And as a final side note (a second PS), I noted that someone said that the functions of the states of the USA and the autonomous communities in Spain are almost identical. Not true, precisely because the former is a federation and the latter is not. In a federation powers are transferred from the states to the federation and anything not explicitly transferred (i.e. collectively transferred as written in the constitution) is a prerogative of the individual states. In centralized (or partially decentralized) countries, (the so called "regional-States") it is the central government that transfers powers to the constituent entities (e.g. the autonomous communities), and anything not explicitly transferred pertains to the central government. While in some areas (i.e. education, transportation, etc.) both the states of the USA and the autonomous communities of Spain exercise their jurisdiction in similar ways, the central government of Spain retains the power to enhance or remove any powers, and to intervene if necessary. That is why, in spite of being "one of the most decentralized countries in Europe", Spain still cannot be classified as a federation.

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

On the nationality issue, sorry, a minor point perhaps, but it really does not make clear sense in basic English to describe a place as a nationality. Nationality as an English word strictly and usually means the condition of coming from a specific nation - ie, if you are from [the nation of] France, your nationality is French. Catalan/Catalonian would be a nationality, Catalonia itself would not. As noted previously, the point is that the concept of nacionalidad as used in Spain in this context does not appear to translate directly, and most media sources used inverted commas (sic) as quote marks around "nationality", eg the Irish Times, the Economist (which says the description is "ambiguous"), the Guardian (which also notes the description as being "confusing") etc. Of the three sources cited above in a bid to show it can be used normally in this way, two - Britannica and the the Institutions of Spain book - also use inverted commas. The suggested Google books search and Google Scholar search also tend to bring up examples either of the word up most often in quote marks, or of it being attached to Catalan, not Catalonia. Anyway, I'm not arguing against its use - in fact I think it should be included in some way, as the official designation - I'm just saying that there is an issue as to how exactly the description phrased. N-HH talk/edits 06:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing demonym with nationality. Based on "common usage" the term might sound weird in English (as a native English speaker myself)- but I must add that also in Spanish! (Specially so for Spanish speakers outside Spain). I would agree with the Economist that it is an ambiguous term. In fact, it was a carefully chosen word by the Spanish Parliament, precisely to avoid the word "nations" (reserved for Spain as whole only) while granting some regions some sort of distinction in that regard. Moreover, the ambiguity itself was chosen purposely. You can read a lot about this, from the Official Publications of the Congress of Deputies here or a brief summary here, especially the list of the "interpretations" of this term, according to the fathers of the constitution itself. Note that none of the definitions refer to a territory, but to communities (i.e. people). Because of this, the administrative entities were to be called "autonomous communities", instead of "autonomous regions", which was the term chosen in the 1931 constitution, even though "community" does not refer to a territory either.

On the other hand one could also argue that the word "nation" refers to a people who inhabit a territory, and not the territory itself regardless of who inhabits it. In fact, nation implies a people not a territory. But we all agree that Spain is a nation. And also a State. And also a territory. By extension, the same applies to "nationality", based on the definitions provided here and of course, in conjunction with the definitions of "nationality" according to the fathers of the Spanish constitution, and in conjunction with the many secondary publications (like the OECD) that use the term, with and without quotations. But it really doesn't matter. Whether nationality can be applied to a region or not, in English or Spanish, the ambiguity was chosen purposely, and, for good or for bad, it is the constitutional (and statutory) term to refer to Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Andalusia, and others recently. As to how to phrase it, I would simply quote the Statute of Autonomy, "Catalonia, as a nationality [of Spain], is constituted as an autonomous community ...."

(PS: I believe that for the most part, quotation marks are used to represent exact language, not necessarily to convey that the term does not make sense. In fact, within the same articles you cite above, the term "nation" is also written in quotation marks. Quotation marks are also used when designating or referring to something specifically, just like I did with the term "nation" in this sentence).

--the Dúnadan 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see in anything in the dictionary definitions or the comparison with the word demonym that alter my fairly firm view about what the word nationality means and how it is used in English, and that an area - as opposed to the people who might mostly live in that area - cannot strictly constitute a "nationality". Community, also, is I agree slightly odd used in that respect, and "autonomous region" would work better, but nonetheless the word is sometimes used - as nation often is but nationality is not - to broadly designate both the people living in a place or connected to it, and by extension or otherwise the place itself. As for quote marks/inverted commas, they are used to convey all sorts of things of course, from mockery to simple quotation - it's only my assumption here that they are used with "nationality", yes, to say "this is a direct quote of the word used", but equally at the same time to say precisely, "it's not a mistake, even though it looks like it". Kind of like using a [sic] in similar contexts. Anyway, this is all but pedantry of course on my part and somewhat subjective. As you say, the point is that these are the terms used in respect of Spain and its constituent parts, all as part of quite a delicate balancing act. A phrasing that inserts the words "designated as [a nationality/autonomous community]" might help better frame the slight oddness of the terms to English readers' eyes. Or, my proposed wording above "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities". Anyway, there's three options as starting points between the two of us. I'm not sure I can be bothered to edit the article myself, as any slightly more subtle changes tend to get swept away in the revert wars. Maybe once that stops .. N-HH talk/edits 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

to Icallbs. I would like to know why Spanish>Catalan is more neutral! I think that if you want to used in some things Spanish>catalan is ok. But in the toponimia it has to be Catalan>Spanish because the only oficial toponimia is in catalan. So it has to be in English>Oficial>Others = English>Catalan>Spanish (E/Aranese/S for aranese municipalities), that would be the real neutral order. The oficial name of the CA is Catalunya, also it is used in spanish, Cataluña, but the oficial one is Catalunya. I don't understand why all you are doing that changes and saying that is "neutral" when in Catalonia in catalan or in spanish we wrote mostly the toponimia in catalan. I would like to say that it would be better to anyone edit for somedays that article before we arrive to a consensous, because it can't be that one people do a thing and then some other change it. --Vilar 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Either alternative is going to seem loaded to one side or the other, and I'm not sure what the solution is for the language issue. I do agree that there should not be any extensive changes more generally until such changes are agreed. I know some people don't like the current version, but just constantly reverting wholesale back and forth doesn't help either side. Even if you get your favourite version up there, someone else will just send it back in a few hours. If there's an issue with, for example, the use of the coat of arms, explain it here, and if you make sense, maybe it can be taken out. Or if you think something should be added, or switched around, the same process can apply. Starting from where we are, hopefully things can be sorted out bit by bit, as we seem to be starting to do above. There's a whole bunch of copyediting and tidying up that needs to be done as well. So I wouldn't say no changes at all, but can we just be a bit more cautious in adding stuff and also avoid kneejerk reverting?

And on the latter point, I note that a couple of the small changes I made recently - including adding the number of seats in the parliament to the infobox - have just been reverted without decent explanation. As for the names (Montilla, and the Seu D'Urgell) I had simply shortened them to the names their actual WP pages carry, which one would assume was the most common name. The English version of the official Generalitat website uses Jose Montilla, and it's the most common version seen in the UK media. The official site has the airport as Pyrenees Airport-la Seu d'Urgell, while a scout around travel sites usually just reveals La Seu D'Urgell on its own. So, either way, probably not "Pirineus - " etc. As for the brief note about regions/nationalities in the lead that was also taken out by another editor - yes, there's a wikilink to the full autonomous communities page, but that doesn't mean there can't be a brief five-odd word concise explanation of the term here. It's an odd expression, unfamiliar to most English readers, and including the note also goes some way towards being a compromise with those who want something that goes much further. The informaiton was entirely accurate, and I don't see the harm in having it. There's also been a discussion about it above, which the reverter didn't deign to contribute to before reverting. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 00:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

About the airport, I have change it because it's actual comercial name since june of 2010 is Pirineus - la Seu d'Urgell, also used Pirineus-Andorra. You can find as "la Seu d'Urgell" because it have been its name since 1982, and in the local area we know that airport as "la Seu d'Urgell", but I think that we may use the comercial one, no? In the web you have put there is an error it says "Pyrenees Airport-La Seu d'Urgell" while in the Aeroports de Catalunya site says Pirineus - la Seu d'Urgell Airport.--Vilar 07:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks as if the site seems to flit between the two then. Pyrenees is of course the more usual English spelling when the word crops up in most contexts. But having said that, I know nothing about the airport, so defer to local knowledge that "Pirineus - la Seu d'Urgell" may be the official name. I guess either the most common name or the official name is OK, but I'd say the former is better, and preferred according to policy, at least for the main article title (see WP:COMMONNAME). If the main WP page on the airport is at simply La Seu D'Urgell, there's no need to add detail and make a piped link when naming and wikilinking the airport on another page. We may as well be consistent. Anyway, a minor point. I was more bothered by the other reversions, which weren't yours of course. N-HH talk/edits 12:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I change it to the former one but I added that:

• La Seu d'Urgell Airport (LEU) {Montferrer/Castellbó/La Seu d'Urgell} (also know as Pirineus - la Seu d'Urgell or Pirineus-Andorra).

What do you think?--Vilar 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking some days to reply back. Like I said before, I wasn't sure if I'd had the time to follow up on this debate. Regarding your proposal, "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities", the only issue that I have with it is that it doesn't specify what Catalonia is (a region or a nationality). The Spanish constitution does differentiate between the two as do the Statutes of Autonomy of those nationalities. In fact, during the transition to democracy, the "nationalities", (Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia), were to be granted autonomy through a simplified, almost automatic process, whereas the regions if the wish to constitute autonomous communities, they had to follow up a longer more complicated process and fulfill specific requirements. Eventually all regions did, and a couple chose to describe themselves as "nationalities" as well (like Andalusia and Valencia). The distinction does matter in Spanish politics.

As a side note, not all autonomous communities represent [historic] regions or nationalities, only some do. Madrid, for example, belonged to the region of Castile (la Mancha), but was constituted as a separate autonomous community "in the nation's interest".

--the Dúnadan 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Airport seems fine to me - like I say, not a huge thing anyway. As for the regions/nationalities, that's now a moot point, as someone has unsurprisingly just removed it anyway. I'm aware of the distinction between the "nationalities" and [simple] "regions", and understand its significance, but to be honest wasn't sure where exactly these things are laid out. My understanding was that the constitution talks more generally about the two things, but doesn't assign either description to specific places itself - that's done by the individual regions themselves in their own statutes of autonomy. Hence why I used a vaguer wording. I thought as well that a more generalist wording would help avoid edit warring about who exactly says what about what Catalonia actually "is", and also that someone else might tweak/improve it if necessary. Whereas, like I say, it's just been wiped out altogether. It seems, as is often the case, that those trying to actually think through content and move forward constructively expend their energies waffling on the talk page, while others just get on and do what they like with the article. Oh well. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ps: on the airports section, I'm a bit confused by the stuff in squiggly brackets after the basic names for all of them. It looks like a failed attempt to include a template. I suspect they should just go, unless there's some secret information being imparted there that's going over my head ..

I don't understand too, I think that some of them are alternative names or municipalities; for example, Barcelona Airport it is in El Prat de Llobregat. And Reus Airport is in Constantí and Reus municipalities, but it puts "Costa Daurada" that's why I understand that can be an alternative name, I supose that is an AENA thing, so we can erase it.--Vilar 14:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

True, the constitution simply states that the Spanish Nation is integrated by nationalities and regions and guarantees their right to autonomy (art. 2), by the process laid down on articles 143 to 158. Bear in mind that the constitution was written prior to the establishment of the autonomous communities; in fact articles 143 to 158 simply outline the process whereby the nationalities and regions could accede to autonomy, should they wish to do so, but, arguably, apart from the nationalities, it did not foresee which or how many would be created. [i.e. Cantabria and La Rioja were considered part of Castile at one point; plus the Congress reserved the right to concede autonomy to other entities other than the regions and nationalities]. Hence, the constitution, like the US constitution with respect to states and territories, does not provide a list or description to specific places. But that does not mean that there is any ambiguity as to the status of Catalonia (anymore than the status of California, even if its status is not stated in the US constitution): it is statutorily and constitutionally (per the wording of the latest ruling) a "nationality". That should not produce any edit warring, and if it does, it can only be classified as vandalism (as it goes against primary sources). I understand that saying that Catalonia is a nation is indeed controversial and cannot be put into the introduction, but this is not the case when it comes to the word "nationality". And I agree with you, it would be far better if other users would participate in the debate. --the Dúnadan 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is necessary for effect of brevity but also preciseness to have a person who speaks both Catalan and Spanish contribute to this article (This is a link with plenty of information that this article has omitted but I believe is relevant and which is substantiated http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623). The psychological process of an individual living within the territory of Catalonia has to be included. Otherwise, the article becomes redundant and in the event of Catalonia becoming an independent free state more difficult to modify. The majority of people in Catalonia do not think of themselves as Spanish but rather as Catalans, specifically during this economic turmoil that Europe is going through and there are plenty of studies that reveal this to be the case. There are also many articles of propaganda from both the Spanish and the Catalan side and these needs to be whittled out for more objective sources. However the article should demonstrate the emotions of the Spanish people towards Catalans in that they have distain for Catalan existence and use racial jokes on a daily basis in reference to Catalans. They insist the language of Catalan not to be spoken in any other parts of Spain, and the Spanish parliament refuse to allow the Catalan language to be spoken within its walls. In a recent newspaper poll by the Spanish population excluding Catalonia, 78% of people supported military action against Catalonia if it proposed independence. This may be because the current government inside Catalonia is a pro-independent party which has a majority of 86% support and because of the current economic climate where Spain is on the verge of requiring an EU/IMF bailout. This has caused fear in the Spanish people as Catalonia is the wealthiest regions that provide support for Spain’s economy. The Spanish government are currently attempting to pass legislation that will reverse much of the powers Catalans have currently whereby the Spanish government insist Spanish should be the only language taught in Catalan schools. These repressions are what need to be discussed in the article.

When one thinks of Spain, one could construe it as being akin to an empire just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were all part of the Soviet Union (as was Russia) until they separated in 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until the break up in the 90’s. When one looks further at the remarks of the politicians in Spain on Catalonia and her citizens, they will clearly see identical policies as those held previously by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. One may construe they are different in that Spain function by democracy but is it really a democracy when the voice of a people is overwhelmed by the voices of others external regions that are only interested in a communities wealth and thereby prevent that community seeking to promote the independence of their language, culture, and traditions. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and one may have argued during the existence of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that the people of the breakaway republics were in fact Soviets and Yugoslavs but these people would not have accepted that and if one was to say to these people that they are still Soviets and Yugoslavs, these people would not like it as they fought for their independence for years, just as the Catalans have being doing against Spain. It would be disrespectful to minimize people so crudely that it would be similar to calling Irish people British.

One needs to ask important questions such as, why do Spanish people fear people ruling their own destiny as it states in democracy? Why do Spanish people insist on oppressing a people and their language and culture? How can Spanish People dispute the evidence that is available? Catalans have a different Language, different culture, and different traditions which are usually considered to mean different country. It is so obvious that Catalans are different people, as well as the Galician’s are, and of course the Basques (who’s language is believed to be one of the most ancient in the World and where linguists have been unable to place it within a linguistic family). This may be due to Spanish people’s fears in the current economic climate whereby they realize if Catalonia was to proclaim their independence, then the Spanish way of life would disappear and they will have to become responsible overnight whereby they must find other resources that will make them economically viable which they don’t currently have. However, if one was to ask a person from Catalonia what is their nationality, their cognitive state would proclaim more often than not, they speak different, ergo they think different. They are Catalan and not Spanish.

Nevertheless, I am not from Catalonia but rather Ireland and therefore I am a conscientious observer who has the luxury to see situations from the outside. My wife is from Barcelona and therefore whom thinks of herself as Catalan and my best friends are from the southern Spanish cities and whom think of themselves as Spanish. I have heard and seen the arguments from both sides of the divide (i.e the Catalan people and the Spanish people whom do not live in Catalonia) and I have read up on the issue and this formulated my decision. As long as I have a mind and a freedom to make decisions, I will continue to do so regardless what others may think or do, however many Catalans don’t have that luxury and they depend on articles like this to be as accurate as possible so that people around the World can see what their life is like and the plights they may endure. It is all well and good to quote this is a encyclopedia but then one must remember part of an encyclopedia is to tell the reality of a people within their confines. A link that may well return this article to an equilibrium can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia coat of arms

Here are some heraldic and/or vexillological sources: Source 1, Source 2. Cadenas, A.A. and Cadenas, V. : Heraldica de las comunidades autonomas y de las capitales de provincia. Hidalguia, Madrid, 1985.159 p. ISBN 84-00-0604-7.

Another one: Societat Catalana de Genealogia... Escut de Catalunya/Coat of Arms of Catalonia --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"the linguistic balance"

The following sentence has an embedded POV. This is not only a NPOV policy problem. If you don't share the POV (or aren't sure what it is), you can't understand the meaning of the sentence:

Between 1990 and 2010, more than a quarter million immigrants from Latin America, North Africa, Asia and eastern Europe have settled in Catalonia further upsetting the language balance.

This could mean that there is a linguistic balance between Castillian Spanish and Catalan which would be upset by more people speaking Castillian. It could also mean there is a linguistic balance towards mutually intelligible languages being spoken, which is upset by all these non-Spanish speakers coming in. In either case, it would help to: (1) chuck the phrase linguistic balance and specify which speaking groups are expanding and which are contracting; (2) treat Spanish-speaking immigrants from Latin America differently; (3) explain which local languages immigrants learn (or to what extent they learn neither). Cheers! --Carwil (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography/Geology

The article is lacking a geographic and geologic section describing the geomorphology of Catalonia.Xufanc (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ABOUT SURVEYS AND REFERENDUM

2 important facts about the surveys and referendum are missing. First, it mentions the survey where the separatist option won, but doesn't state that this was an exception, in a special context, and that the ones before showed the separatist option supported by not more than 20 % voters. Also, and even more important, the separatist referenda were won with percentages over 90 %, but participation was ridiculous, 20 % or less, and experts point out that separatist are presumed to have voted massively, while non-separatists would have paid little atention, so those referenda were considered a separatist defeat rather than a victory--88.3.243.255 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but please note that not all experts agree with this. Political Spanish experts have this theory while some others think differently. Others think that it was still the separatist victory as "non-active" separatists did not come to vote (thus, people who would rather become independent, but don't feel so strong about it). So, we should just state all the facts and let the reader judge, not give them a Centralist POV like you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.74.132 (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Economy

So, I've read the economy part of the article and see how it is compared to Basque Country and Madrid. Isn't this misgiving the reader somewhat? I believe that Madrid and Basque Country's economical state should be stated, don't you think? The Basque Country pays no taxes to the Spanish state and Madrid is the capital. Yes, Madrid is more debatable, but consider how all trains must go through Madrid, and many enterprises have put their headquarters in Madrid. In addition, as the capital, it gains a considerable amount of the taxes others pay while Catalonia doesn't gain money but rather loses it with taxes. We should at least mention these details, even in the brief description, so people don't get the wrong idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.74.132 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Catalonian independentism

Which is the need to put that photo to the "independentism support" in the Administrative_and_territorial_division? It has already been explained in "politics" that there nationalist and independentist in Catalonia, the photo isn't important, in fact, it gives a completely wrong figure of the independentism in Catalonia, these information was taken from a non-binding and not-official referendum, only the 20% gave their vote. Real surveys have been made and in every one the people choose to stay in Spain over independence (see Catalan_independentism).

That gives a completely wrong image of Catalonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Living001 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Catalan independentism is the social movement involving more people in Catalonia. Votes in the referendum at Barcelona were more than the ones received by political parties that are leading the council (PSC and CIU) . 20% of votes of the total census voting in favour of a referendum that is forbidden by spanish courts and that has no legal effects is highly relevant.–--95.61.18.160 (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The social movement involving more people in Catalonia? Do you really believe what are you saying? Take a look to the surveys from the page Catalan independentism in Catalan (maybe you will like more that page) Independentisme_català :

• First photo: independentismo català, to be a comunidad autonoma is the most preferred choice, then a federal state and far lower to be an independent state.

Also take a look to Independentismo Catalán, surveys:

• First survey: in favour of independence: 31.7 % in favour, 51.3% against
• Second survey: Independence 24.5% , federal state 31.9%, comunidad autonoma 33.2%

Even in the feeling about the country: The people feel by far so catalan as spanish,with 42.7%

So once again, that photo is highly irrelevant. --Living001 (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That sources are surveys, answering a survey is NOT a social movement. Which other social movement in Catalonia involved more people than independentism during the last years? No one from a neutral POV can say independentism is "irrelevant" in Catalonia. Just searching about the topic you can notice it is highly commented. 95.61.18.160 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Crown of Aragon

There is a picture in this article that depicts a map of the medieval kingdoms of Aragon and Castille. The picture also shows what seems to be the current borders of the Basque Country. Does this make any sense? I mean, if this picture is trying to show which kingdoms existed in the Peninsula during the Middle Age, why is it there the Basque Country, which was not a kingdom, but part of Castille? However, Navarra was actually an independent kingdom, which is not shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.235.216 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. The problem is that the caption has been tinkered with, so that it no longer makes sense. AdeMiami (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

the territorial divions and a very big lie

hello,

i suggest make in the territorial divisions a clarification: put in the caption: lines: division from central governmrnt of spain colour: division for the government of catalonia ,because anyone does't know than there are two divisions, it could be messy

other thing: the last discussion article says than independentism is irrelevant basing in a polls. these polls are complete false. I live in catalonia, and I'm catalan and these polls never exist. there are a real polls asking: would you lke catalonia as an independent country in the un and ue? these polls were made on a lot of cities, and there was a very great victory of yes. I think than independentism and a senyera photo are necessay in this page for know the real desire of catalan people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.134.15 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

On a 20% turnout, where opponents of independence boycotted the poll. There are two pro-independence parties, they get about 18% of the vote between them. The opinion polls are reputable, and sourced. 109.100.77.96 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (boynamedsue)

It is false that the feedback has been made in many cities. Were made in small towns and most census refused to participate. The accusations are baseless boycott.

I think it is necessary for effect of brevity but also preciseness to have a person who speaks both Catalan and Spanish contribute to this article (This is a link with plenty of information that this article has omitted but I believe is relevant and which is substantiated http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623). The psychological process of an individual living within the territory of Catalonia has to be included. Otherwise, the article becomes redundant and in the event of Catalonia becoming an independent free state more difficult to modify. The majority of people in Catalonia do not think of themselves as Spanish but rather as Catalans, specifically during this economic turmoil that Europe is going through and there are plenty of studies that reveal this to be the case. There are also many articles of propaganda from both the Spanish and the Catalan side and these needs to be whittled out for more objective sources. However the article should demonstrate the emotions of the Spanish people towards Catalans in that they have distain for Catalan existence and use racial jokes on a daily basis in reference to Catalans. They insist the language of Catalan not to be spoken in any other parts of Spain, and the Spanish parliament refuse to allow the Catalan language to be spoken within its walls. In a recent newspaper poll by the Spanish population excluding Catalonia, 78% of people supported military action against Catalonia if it proposed independence. This may be because the current government inside Catalonia is a pro-independent party which has a majority of 86% support and because of the current economic climate where Spain is on the verge of requiring an EU/IMF bailout. This has caused fear in the Spanish people as Catalonia is the wealthiest regions that provide support for Spain’s economy. The Spanish government are currently attempting to pass legislation that will reverse much of the powers Catalans have currently whereby the Spanish government insist Spanish should be the only language taught in Catalan schools. These repressions are what need to be discussed in the article.

When one thinks of Spain, one could construe it as being akin to an empire just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were all part of the Soviet Union (as was Russia) until they separated in 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until the break up in the 90’s. When one looks further at the remarks of the politicians in Spain on Catalonia and her citizens, they will clearly see identical policies as those held previously by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. One may construe they are different in that Spain function by democracy but is it really a democracy when the voice of a people is overwhelmed by the voices of others external regions that are only interested in a communities wealth and thereby prevent that community seeking to promote the independence of their language, culture, and traditions. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and one may have argued during the existence of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that the people of the breakaway republics were in fact Soviets and Yugoslavs but these people would not have accepted that and if one was to say to these people that they are still Soviets and Yugoslavs, these people would not like it as they fought for their independence for years, just as the Catalans have being doing against Spain. It would be disrespectful to minimize people so crudely that it would be similar to calling Irish people British.

One needs to ask important questions such as, why do Spanish people fear people ruling their own destiny as it states in democracy? Why do Spanish people insist on oppressing a people and their language and culture? How can Spanish People dispute the evidence that is available? Catalans have a different Language, different culture, and different traditions which are usually considered to mean different country. It is so obvious that Catalans are different people, as well as the Galician’s are, and of course the Basques (who’s language is believed to be one of the most ancient in the World and where linguists have been unable to place it within a linguistic family). This may be due to Spanish people’s fears in the current economic climate whereby they realize if Catalonia was to proclaim their independence, then the Spanish way of life would disappear and they will have to become responsible overnight whereby they must find other resources that will make them economically viable which they don’t currently have. However, if one was to ask a person from Catalonia what is their nationality, their cognitive state would proclaim more often than not, they speak different, ergo they think different. They are Catalan and not Spanish.

Nevertheless, I am not from Catalonia but rather Ireland and therefore I am a conscientious observer who has the luxury to see situations from the outside. My wife is from Barcelona and therefore whom thinks of herself as Catalan and my best friends are from the southern Spanish cities and whom think of themselves as Spanish. I have heard and seen the arguments from both sides of the divide (i.e the Catalan people and the Spanish people whom do not live in Catalonia) and I have read up on the issue and this formulated my decision. As long as I have a mind and a freedom to make decisions, I will continue to do so regardless what others may think or do, however many Catalans don’t have that luxury and they depend on articles like this to be as accurate as possible so that people around the World can see what their life is like and the plights they may endure. It is all well and good to quote this is a encyclopedia but then one must remember part of an encyclopedia is to tell the reality of a people within their confines. A link that may well return this article to an equilibrium can be found here http://www.slideshare.net/catamunt/catalonia-and-the-catalan-countries-8052623. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.164.155 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We do have quite a few native Catalan and Spanish speaking editors on these pages,some of whom share your political views, and they often contribute. But the content of the page is quite ferociously monitored to avoid people of nationalist or non-nationalist beliefs from skewing it towards their viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with holding the views you do about Catalonia, but wikipedia needs to present only the facts about a topic, not speculation and opinion.

Having said that, if you think anything is missing, or there is bias in the article, please alter it, as long as you have a good source for the new information. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

nationality

Given the difference in meaning between "nationality" and "nacionalitat" / "nacionalidad", I've removed nationality from the opening para, the situation is explained in a later paragraph, and in the English Speaking world, the Spanish term is meaningless/misleading without context.

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Given another user insists on putting nationality in the opening paragraph, I have put the term in quotes, as appears later in the text, to show it is not an error but a translation. ("Scotland is a nationality", "Canada is a nationality" would get changed pretty quick...) Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, please discuss changes on this word when editing, there is a very long history of debate on this, which led to the whole constitutional mularkey being put in its own section because the open para was about 2000 words. Unless all other regions of Spain have their constitutional status in first para it seems a bit POV here to include it.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not oppose the use of quotations.

I fail to see why including a statutory definition is a bit POV ("a bit of a point of view").

I do remember that a special section, "Legal status within Spain" was created specifically to address this issue. Can you please refer me to the discussion and agreement on its deletion? (I have looked into the archives but could not find it)

-- dúnadan : let's talk 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All this happened while I wasn't looking either, so I don't know why the legal status section vanished. I've nothing against including the legal term "nationality", and it's still there later on in "Statutes of autonomy". I just don't think the opening paragraph is the best place for it, as it reads a bit like someone wants everyone to know that Catalonia is not just another region. A new "legal status within Spain" section closer to the top, containing the "statutes of autonomy" text, and some possible expansion (though perhaps not too much, because God knows, we both know far more than the average person will ever need to about these things), would meet with no objection from me.

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you see the lede is not the best place to include the legal status of any given territory, check the Basque Country (autonomous community), Galicia, etc. 88.19.44.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

territory or region

I've changed back recent edits referring to Cat and P.V. as Spanish territories, instead of regions. The term territory is usually used to describe regions outside of the main government of the nation, like the British Overseas Territories, or areas not enjoying full political rights within the nation (as in the US), I suspect that this is a bit of POV pushing.

If anyone wants to change this, please revert individually rather than simply undoing my changes, as I have also had to put back UK spellings. Wiki policy is that British spellings are acceptable, and the first ones used in the article should remain (or at least it was).

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one question: why do you use the term of "territory" and not the correct one as "nation": What's Catalonia for the writer of this article: an Spanish territory or region or a "nation" in Spain? User: Casablanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.210.131 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In English parlance Catalonia is a region, in Spanish law it is a Nationality, which has a meaning in English which is not applicable to a territory. In the non-legally binding preamble to its statute of autonomy, it is a nation. In the opening paragraph we used the term "autonomous community" because it describes the current situation without POV.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Constitution

This paragraph is wrong: In the Spanish Constitution of 1978 Catalonia, along with the Basque Country and Galicia, was defined as a "nationality". The same constitution gave Catalonia the automatic right to autonomy, which resulted in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1979.

The word "Catalonia" does not appear even once in the Spanish constitution (only the Basque Country and Navarre are explicitly mentioned due to the historic charters - "fueros"). The only mentions to "nationalities" can be found in Article 2: "it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all". That's it. Period. Original text in English can be found in the official website of the Spanish Government: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/C511DC05-40C5-4739-8AB6-FA3CEE3B4F28/0/Constitucion_EN.pdf

--85.57.223.75 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia's statutes of autonomy, approved by referendum and the Spanish government, use the meaningless term "nationality".

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As always, you are wrong. The preamble (even in the version cut by the spanish Constitutional Court) says perfectly clear that Catalonia is defined as a nation.--Galazan (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The preamble is not a legislative document, it has no prescriptive value in law and so does not affect the legal status of Catalonia. That's the only way it got through the Spanish parliament, as you know

BNS

208.51.23.195 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The concept of word "nation" is not linked to law but dictionaries, as you know, so the prescriptive value is an insignificant matter. The important fact is the will of Catalan people to considerate themselves as a nation (acording to the meaning of the word), and the Catalan Parliament aproved it in 2005. After that if our neighbors change laws to avoid the legal value, the real fact will not be changed. And furthermore it's important to know that at least in the preamble is recorded this fact.--Galazan (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many Catalan and non-Catalan spaniards do not consider Catalonia to be a nation, so to state Catalonia is a nation is a POV. Nothing wrong with it, but it shouldn't be in a wikipedia article.

Boynamedsue (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A statement shared by 90% of the Catalan Parliament for you is only a POV, although it is recorded in legal documents. But "many Catalans" (who??) don't, as you said without references. Interesting way of being objective.--Galazan (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Galazan. Something that has only 90% support is by definition a POV, unless it is legislated to the contrary, which is not the case with the N word, as its position in the preamble of the estatut is not considered to have legal value. As for Catalans who don't believe Catalunya is a nation, go to Hospitalet and throw a brick, you'll probably hit two of them. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rv Boynamedsue editions. Could you be more careful? The Spanish constitution says "NATIONALITIES and REGIONS of Spain".

Article 2 [National Unity, Regional Autonomy]

"The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions which make it up and the solidarity among all of them."

The term "nationality" might be meaningless for you, and difficult to explain to English speakers, but it is not in Spain. "Nationality" is used in Spanish politics to avoid the more controversial term "nation" (which appears in the preamble of the new Catalan Statute of Autonomy). Since conservatives in Spain never agreed with Spain being a plurinational state, the more neutral term "nationality" was chosen in the Spanish Constitution. Thus, nationality is a consensual and legal term, rather than a "meaningless term", and as such, it should appear in the Spanish autonomous that are recognized as nationalities.

About your previous comments, a territory is not an outter area of a country, from where do you get this (mis)information?! A territory is a "land" (either dependent or independent), Catalonia, is a region, territory, land, community, area, and legally named an "autonomous community", with the status of "Nationality", dependent of Spain. The Spanish Constitution doesn't mention Catalonia is a region, or Spain is only made up of regions. The Constitution says Spain is made up of "Nationalities and Regions", and Catalonia is one of those nationalities, whether you like it or not, whether it sounds odd in English or not. What term shall we use instead? the so controversial term in Spain "nation"? We should just mention what the law says, and it says "nationalities". 83.46.23.210 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Look in a English dictionary and see what nationality means. In wikipedia it is:

"Membership of a nation or sovereign state, usually determined by their citizenship, but sometimes by ethnicity or place of residence, or based on their sense of national identity."

By ths definition, Catalonia, England, Spain, the UK and Australia can't be nationalities. Catalonia is a "nacionalidad" or a "nacionalitat". Something completely different from a "nationality".

As for territory "Yorkshire is a territory", "England is a territory", "Munster is a territory", "Alaska is a territory"... Sorry no, "territory" in those contexts is inaccurate, imprecise and misleading. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your intentions here. Do you pretend to avoid the constitutional and legal term "nacionalidad", because it doesn't mean the same in English? Have you seen any translation of the Spanish Constitution into English? Why do they translate the Spanish new (political) meaning of "nacionalidad" into nationality? Because there is no other way to "translate" a consensual term which is meant to avoid other controversial terms in Spain.

Naming Catalonia as a territory may be innacurate (not incorrect!), but also as a "region" (no where says Catalonia is a region, so this term is also imprecise) since Catalonia is ONLY (officially) an "Autonomous Community" with the status of nacionalidad/nacionalitat. Yorkshire is a county, England a country, Munster a province, Alaska a state and Catalonia just an autonomous community. 88.19.44.247 (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I heartily concur with Boynamedsue's observations. The fact is that this article is (supposed to be) in English, but it (and others on topics related to Spain, its ACs, its languages, etc.) is being invaded by a creeping tide of Spanglish that perverts the meaning of key terms. What the Spanish or Catalan (or Basque, or whatever) courts and legislature decide things should be called is applicable only to the Spanish, Catalan or Basque languages, etc., and can't be regarded as constraining the vocabulary used in English. By way of example I'm putting the term nacionalidad in Spanish in the lead.AdeMiami (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Spain has created a conceptual and linguistic innovation "nacionalidad=region with a different historical background which does not quite amount to nationhood" does not mean that this meaning is transfered into English simpñy because the word "nationality" is cognate with "nacionalidad". Any reasonably educated English person seeing the sentence "Catalonia is a nationality" will say "no it's not, it can't be" and assume it is an error on the part of the writer.

For that reason, if the word "nationality" appears in the lead, it must be in inverted commas to indicate to the reader "yes, we know this isn't correct English, but it's not a mistake. If you want to know more follow this link."

I like the idea of using the Spanish word directly, but the problem with that is that some users of a catalanist persuasion will consider this to be unacceptable for various reasons, and it's probably more stress than it's worth to do so. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Territory, I do think that the word territory carries a slight implication of exclusion from the main body of the state, but I've nothing against it being used occasionally. However, before my initial complaint, another user had changed almost every "region" and "AC" in the text to territory, which to my ear gave it a POV feel. A couple of territories in the text are fine by me, but not to the exclusion of all other terms, especially the more accurate "Autonomous Community".

Boynamedsue (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree using italics and commas, shall we apply the same convention on other articles, such as the Basque Country, Galicia, etc? 88.19.44.247 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Andalucia and the Canary Islands, yes I think that's a very good idea.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BNS you confuses the meaning of word "nation" with the word "state". Please read the definitions and their examples in the oficial Cambridge Dictionary. You make a mistake if you link an encyclopedia about knowledge with laws about political pacts between political parties. I'm not saying to write "Catalonia is a european state", of course not!, I'm just defending it's a "nation", and this fact is accepted by the general majority of Catalan people.--Galazan (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Gal, personally I don't see the word nation as particularly important, after all it's just a word that has no empirical reality. But it's clear that according to wikipedia's standards of verifiability, Catalonia isn't a nation. Probably the majority of Catalans consider Catalonia to be a nación/naciò. Probably a minority don't, along with a majority of Spaniards (including Catalans). But until it is legally defined as such, or the majority of sources internationally state that it is, it can't be called this in wikipedia, though of course these POVs can be reported.

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again with this subject? Please review the archives. The term "nationality" in English (along with "historical nationality") is used in Britannica and OECD publications, just to name a few. Whether they are forcing a translation into English or not, that is not our position to say (that would be POV). There are reputable sources using it. We can use them. I believe there was an agreement (to which I subscribe) to use them either in quotations or in italics.-- dúnadan : let's talk 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are maybe right, the Britannica article (Catalonia, Region (Spain)), uses the phrase "historic region" in the lead, something I'd have no problem seeing here. However, the rest is behind a pay wall, so I can-t see the quote you are refering to. When it uses "nationality" does it say "Catalonia is a nationality" or "Catalonia is refered to as/has the legal status in Spain of/ a nationality"?

The OECD report on Catalonia uses the term "Autonomous Region" in its opening lines. Again, no problem. Catalonia is clearly an (excessively) autonomous region. No English language source I have ever seen uses "nationality" in its primary description of catalonia, though I'm sure you will find isolated examples of "Catalonia is a nationality" (usually written by non-native speakers) or more commonly "the Spanish constitution defines Catalonia as a nationality". To put it in the lead seems to me to be giving undue weight, but I'm happy to compromise with users desperate to get as close as possible to the opening sentence "Catalonia is, was, and always will be a nation."

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boynamedsue. Some comments, some of which we both have discussed, but anyways:

• Catalonia is an autonomous region. No doubt about it. It is also, under Spanish jurisprudence, a "nationality" (I'm happy to use quotations, as agreed on long time ago). You are right, the constitution does not explicitly define any autonomous community as a nationality, but simply states that the Spanish indivisible nation is integrated by "regions and nationalities". The Statutes of Autonomy of some communities are the ones that choose to define themselves either as a region, historical region, nationality, or historical nationality. Some Statutes of Autonomy, when defining the community as a nationality -like Valencia-explicitly state that (I paraphrase) in recognition of the right to autonomy granted by Spanish constitution to "regions and nationalities" (i.e. the same 2nd article of the constitution), said community, a nationality, chooses to become an autonomous community. Yet, to be as close as we can to the letter of the constitution, I agree, we should not say "the constitution defines Catalonia as a nationality" because it doesn't. It is the Statute of Autonomy that does. I edited the sentence accordingly, and added a reference.
• Here is the link, and text to Britannica:"The constitution classifies the possible autonomous communities into two groups, each of which has a different route to recognition and a different level of power and responsibility. 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. " I[13]. You should be able to open the link, but if not, maybe your public library (I don't know where you live) might have access to the full content of Britannica online. There are other sources, which I've cited before, by the OECD that do use the word nationality in reference to Catalonia. Here is one, by Michael Keating [14].
• The definition of "nationality" appears in the opening paragraph of the the articles of Galicia, the Valencian Community, the Basque Country (to my knowledge), but it has not caused any arguments there.
• Finally, I oppose the use of the term "nation" to define Catalonia in the opening paragraph.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 17:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia. A part of a nation without state.

I edited a article of Wikipedia about Catalonia. Like fuc*** catalan=nazi

Catalonia (the actually Autonomous Community of Catalonia) is a part of a nation without state. This nation isn't Spain. This nation is known as "the Catalan Countries" and Catalonia form part of that. The Catalan Nation hasn't got a state. The Catalan Countries are distributed in Spain and France. I observed that in the article about Catalonia there wasn't this information so I added that.

So, I can't understand why Wikipedia deleted my revision of the article. I want an explanation and, if is necessary, start a discussion about the topic.

Thanks.

--Comasblog (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the reason is that wikipedia only reflects facts rather than opinions. Obviously, many Catalans feel the way you do, and many don't. What wikipedia does is report the current legal status quo, otherwise it'd just be a war of people who think as you do saying one thing, then people who disagree saying another.

Regards

Boynamedsue (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD's of Catalonia articles and suggestion

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (see today's AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Catalonia's regional GDP and GDP per capita

This entry appears to materially over-state Catalonia's GDP. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, the correct figure for 2008 is €200,9bn (as opposed to €216.9bn in the entry), and the correct per-capita figure is €27,627 (as opposed to €30,700).

Since the national GDP/C is €23,858, the effect is to approximately double the degree to which Catalan prosperity exceeds national prosperity.

Source: http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft35%2Fp010&file=inebase&L=1

Note that IdesCat, which is apparently the regional statistics bureau, gives a different (higher) figure. This is apparently based on their own re-calculation of Catalonia's GDP. However they also quote the national GDP/C as above, and it's not clear to me that the two approaches are comparable. Maybe someone with economics skillz could take a look?

Anyway, the figure they give for 2008 (€29,160) doesn't match the one in the entry either.

http://www.idescat.cat/pub/?id=aec&n=356&lang=en

Also, one of the two sources (CIDEM, currently ref #47) appears to no longer exist as a serious website; it is now a "directory" advertises things like hair treatment products. Suggest it is removed as a reference.

I have not made these changes because I am totally new to Wikipedia editing and don't want to mess it up. Can someone with more gravitas please check and change?

168.168.33.250 (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Publishing in Catalan continued throughout the dictatorship." DID IT INDEED?

Wikipedia should not let such bland statements go uncontested.

According to historian Josep M. Figueres, in the collective book "El català en els mitjans de communicació: situació actual i perspectives", published by the Societat Catalana de Comunicació in 2002, in 1933 (that is, before the Civil War) the production of books in Catalan amounted to 20% of all book production in Spain. The Franco regime reduced the presence of catalan in publishing production till it almost disappeared completely. In the latter years of the dictatorship there was a slight recovery of books in Catalan, but in 1976 they amounted to only 4% of all book production in Spain.

Source: http://books.google.es/books?id=-olo_0YaRfQC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=llibres+publicats+en+catal%C3%A0+franquisme&source=bl&ots=7nQS1gC3wM&sig=9lh7K-74HdM4M0D3I06HHM17Hoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0WuMT8nWMpGKhQfYsY3SCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=llibres%20publicats%20en%20catal%C3%A0%20franquisme&f=false

p. 22 ISBN 84-7283-620-7

Censorship is a second important issue left out here.

In Pelai Pagès i Blanch (ed.)'s book "Franquisme i repressió: la repressió franquista als països catalans (1939-1975)" (València: Universitat de València, 2004), the chapter by lawyer and sociolinguistic Francesc Vallverdú "Testimonis de repressió i censura", (pp. 181-188), is perfectly clear and well illustrated about the level of censorship exercised, in different ways, throughout the first 25 years of the Franco regime.

Source: http://books.google.es/books?id=OWDyyyaL7dMC&pg=PA182&dq=censura+llibres+publicats+en+catal%C3%A0+franquisme&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zm2MT5PHCcXQhAfRs_DSCQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

ISBN 84-370-5924-0

In conclusion,

Would the editors like a short text? If so, let me know m_strubell@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrubell (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Publications in Catalan continued in Spain throughout the '40s. There was a source in Catalan linked stating this, but it's been removed. It shows a low level of publishing to the late '40s then a gradual increase. This more than justifies the statement that publishing in Catalan continued throughout the dictatorship. Though walking round a Catalan second hand bookship would be enough to prove this.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here's a non-wikiable, but decent source showing a crash in the number of Spanish books at the same time Catalan was reduced to a couple of books per year, and detailing its recovery at the same time as Catalan publishing boomed. http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2008/02/19/quantitative-analysis-by-language-of-barcelona-publications-in-british-library-integrated-catalogue-1900-1960/

Mstrubell has given important sources which explain the catalan production books almost disappeared because of the censorship. As I reported some times in this discussion your biased point of view affects the reliability of the article. I support a modification in Mstrubell's terms.--Galazan (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it clearly didn't nearly disappear, unless we are referring to the early 40's, when very little was published in Spain at all.

109.100.68.15 (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Really no people speak catalonian, imposed in schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Girona/Gerona

Hello, I would like to correct the spelling of the province of Girona, as an English translation is Gerona. Girona is its name in Catalan. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalu%C3%B1a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.80.92 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerona is a correct name. Like you put carrer d'Aragó while the correct & official name is Aragón — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Arcillaroja (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is less what is "Catalan" – or "Spanish" – or what is a "correct" or better "translation" into English from either language, but simply what is the standard, or most common, rendering of the word in other serious English-language sources. My assumption would be that this is Girona, and brief research around the internet would appear to confirm this. Sometimes of course there's little apparent logic in consistency in how this pans out when it comes to one place or the next one. N-HH talk/edits 22:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm no expert in the subject but I'm catalan and I'm quite surprised there's no reference to Catharism here (since it's the most common etymological explanation here). Even in Catharism article you can find a reference to Catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism and the "Catar Launia" theory makes so much more sense than most of the ones appearing here. I'm asking some friends in the field to provide richer references, but wanted to make note of it just in case someone overlooked it.Thabeat (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

last elections

The article says, "In the November 25, 2012 Catalan parliamentary election, sovereigntist parties supporting a secession referendum gathered 59.01% of the votes and hold 87 of the 135 seats in the Catalan Parliament. Parties supporting independence from the rest of Spain obtained 49.12% of the votes and a majority of 74 seats." Sorry but how could this be possible since the sum of 59.01% and 49.12% is over 100? 31.4.243.81 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Gregory Durnovo

Easy. The 49% refer to those who want independence. The 59% includes them - and other who want the issue decided by referendum. It is NOT pro-independence v anti-indepndence. (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

Referendum and lead

Could we settle this once and for all? While I broadly agree that this should be in the lead in some form or other – I think it's a significant enough point not to be an undue or recentism issue and it doesn't have to be mentioned in such a way that it reads as taking sides – the way we actually describe the situation probably needs some review. I haven't been following the ins and outs of this recently, but I'm not sure it's accurate any longer to say, for example, that a "referendum on independence" will be taking place, and relying on a year-old news report probably isn't ideal either. Equally, just taking it out entirely with edit summaries such as "damp squib" or "NNPOV" isn't very helpful. N-HH talk/edits 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding based on the sources is that the Catalan government still intends for the referendum to go on. Whether the Spanish government approves or will recognize the result is a separate question. I don't object to adding some sort of clarification on the Spanish government's position on the matter. TDL (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

But it's not just about the Spanish government's position in response, it's about what any referendum was or is actually about to start with. The AFP piece on the Japan Times site you've linked to explicitly refers to a "self-determination" referendum and notes that Mas "avoids using the word 'independence'". Arguably this is all semantics, but we need to be clear. N-HH talk/edits 21:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a matter of semantics since the definition of "self-determination" is "the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their own state and choose their own government." To me I think "self-determination" just obscures the issue, however it's probably not a bad idea for this article to follow the lead of the article title: Catalonian self-determination referendum. Discussion on the common name for the referendum should take place there. TDL (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To continue the semantics for a second though, the phrase "a referendum on independence from Spain in 2014" suggests that the vote will be, explicitly, asking people to say "yes" or "no" to independence. As the main article suggests, as does my understanding of the current position, the question may be a bit vaguer than that and it may be more of a consultation about the options. Also there is, it would appear, no date set yet for it. As I say, a more recent source would also be better. N-HH talk/edits 09:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that the statement "a referendum on independence from Spain" necessarily implies an unambiguous, legally binding, yes/no question on whether to secede. Even if, as has been suggested, the referendum contained three options ("retain the status quo; to create a separate state but with some sort of federal connection with Spain, or to become independent.") and it is only a consultation it would still be valid to refer to it as a referendum on independence. However, I'm certainly open to alternative wording if you'd like to suggest something. RS use similar phrasing even with all the uncertainties over the question/legality: "vote on independence", "referendum it plans to secede from Spain", "referendum on independence", "referendum on independence".

You want sources more recent than the Japan Times source from a few weeks ago? This from today says "Artur Mas, the Catalonia region's president, is planning to hold a referendum on independence in 2014 despite the staunch opposition of Spain's government, which calls the move illegal." This, from 2 weeks ago, says "The Catalan regional parliament has approved a motion calling for a referendum on independence from Spain." Yes, as far as I'm aware no date has been fixed yet, though I'm not quite sure what the relevance of that is to this discussion. The plan is still 2014: "He has since reaffirmed 2014 as the target". TDL (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I made a slight, arguably slightly woolly, tweak to the wording just prior to the extensive historical additions to the lead. The point about sources was that they ought to be being used in the article, rather than the now year-old Guardian piece; my edit switched it for a piece from the Economist from last month. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ban on the Catalan language" in the 18th century

The repeated recent bid to suggest in the lead that Catalan was banned outright rather than simply in official use now has a purported source. However, I looked around before reverting the first bid to change the scope of the wording here. I could not find any evidence that any of the Nueva Planta decrees banned people from speaking or writing in Catalan. The source provided doesn't either: what it says is "a series of measures .. imposed the use of Spanish in public life". It doesn't even mention a ban on Catalan at all, let alone an all-encompassing one. N-HH talk/edits 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead and languages

These two edits have a) added "nation" so that we now have three different descriptions of what Catalonia "is" in the very first sentence and b) switched the order of languages in two places so that Spanish comes after Occitan/Aranese. Unfortunately editing on this page seems to be more about scoring political/nationalist points than actually presenting the average reader with clear information.

• On the first point, we now have a confused and lengthy jumble. The previous version, which only had two, ie "autonomous" community and "nationality" was not perfect but I don't see that adding a third is an improvement.
• On the latter, do we really need four alternative, foreign-language names for Catalonia anyway in the lead, which is just yet more clutter? And if we are going to have them, I'm not sure it's helpful to suggest that Spanish is the third language after Aranese, or to do the same thing when listing the languages in the second paragraph.

I would just revert the latest changes but I think a slightly more comprehensive agreement and settlement is needed. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the first point. The source doesn't even seem to back up the claim. What the preamble of the statute actually says:

"In reflection of the feelings and the wishes of the citizens of Catalonia, 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. "

The preamble uses the same word as the first article ("nationality"), so I don't see the point in mentioning it twice. (Acknowledging that the Parliament of Catalonia has declared themselves a "nation" is not the same thing as declaring them a "nation".) I've reverted this part of the change. TDL (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be better to simply avoid all these various official and semi-official terms in the very first sentence. "Autonomous community" and "nationality" translate oddly into English in this context and of course Catalonia, for better or worse, is usually referred to in English-language sources using the much broader word "region". The details of the terminology, history and politics can come later. How about something like the following:

Catalonia (English: /kætəˈloʊniə/, /kætəˈloʊnjə/; Catalan: Catalunya [kətəˈɫuɲə] or [kataˈluɲa]; Spanish: Cataluña [kataˈluɲa]) is an autonomous region in the northeast of Spain. It comprises the larger part of the territory of the former Principality of Catalonia, with the remainder of the historic Catalan region now part of southern France. Catalonia borders France and Andorra to the north and the Mediterranean Sea to the east. The neighbouring Spanish regions of Aragon and the Valencian Community lie to the west and south respectively. The official languages are Catalan, Spanish and the Aranese variant of Occitan; Catalan Sign Language is also officially recognised.

Catalonia is divided into four provinces: Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, and Tarragona. Its capital and largest city is Barcelona, the second largest city in Spain after Madrid, and the center of one of the largest metropolitan areas in Europe. Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² and has an official population of 7,535,251. Under the terms of the Spanish constitution, Catalonia is usually designated formally as a "historic nationality" within the nation of Spain, with the administrative status of an "autonomous community", while Catalonia's own 2006 Statute of Autonomy acknowledges the Catalan parliament's decision to define it as "a nation". The Catalan government intends to hold a referendum on independence from Spain in 2014.

The current wording is all there more or less but it just shifts it around a bit (and tries to deal with the issues re language proliferation and language order). N-HH talk/edits 09:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is mostly reasonable, however I'd argue that we should retain the "autonomous community" link, rather than the "autonomous region" link, in the first sentence. This article is primarily about the first level administrative division of Spain, so I think it is important to make that clear early. The fact that it is a "special" autonomous community, in that it has been designated a nationality and such, can be relegated to the second paragraph. TDL (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought that link would sit better with the specific reference to "autonomous community" when referring to its "administrative status" in the second paragraph. Linking "autonomous region" to the nationalities and regions page means we get to link to both pages (and as a more general description I thought it should link to a more general page). Anyway, that's a minor point of course. I'll wait and see if anyone else has any other views on the suggestion as a whole. To me it seems the obvious way to simply state the position in normal language; but there's no point in it if it's just going to generate edit warring from those with more investment in the topic than most of us have. Beyond that, it could probably do with filling out – it's quite a small lead for a big article and otherwise it'll be dominated by the political stuff. N-HH talk/edits 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, just my two cents. This has been argued extensively before, but I don't find it odd to use the terms "autonomous community" or "nationality" in English. Perhaps in simple elementary school English they may be confusing, but not in a serious encyclopedic text; and they have been used as such in many Academic papers. Moreover, in Spain, the terms "region" and "community" refer to two different things. The Spanish State is integrated by "nationalities and regions" (please note that the modifier "historical" is not used in the constitution) all of which are constituted as "autonomous communities". Catalonia is a "nationality" while Castile-La Mancha is a "region", yet both are "autonomous communities". Calling Catalonia an "autonomous region" will not only be juridically incorrect, but it will cause more confusion, especially if we link the term to nationalities and regions of Spain! (Is Catalonia then a "region" or a "nationality" of Spain then?).

I prefer the original introductory sentence - it had remained stable and out of controversy for quite a while - "Catalonia in an autonomous community [linking to autonomous communities of Spain] recognized as a nationality [linking to nationalities and regions of Spain] of Spain.

On a separate topic, the Catalan government does not intend to hold a referendum on independence in 2014... at least somewhat. The party in government and its political ally have yet to agree on what exactly to ask and on when they want to hold it. Esquerra demands that it be held in 2014 -but they are nor part of the government-, some in CiU agree while other prefer not to set a date. And it remains to be seen whether the Spanish government will allow it and whether it will be a non-binding enquire (consulta) or binding plebiscite. In any case, the Catalan government wants to gather as much support as possible only on the "right to decide" for now, and if the referendum is held in 2014, they have yet to say whether they will ask for a vote for independence or not. I believe this sentence, along with a better explanation should rather be located in the "Politics" section not in the introductory paragraph.

-- dúnadan : let's talk 18:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to avoid the use of more technical terms – which genuinely do read oddly to English ears, especially to anyone not familiar with the translations of constitutional terms – in the opening sentence. WP is a generalist encyclopedia and I don't think it's wrong to use terms on the basis of their more general meaning. "Region" is almost certainly the most common term found in non-legalistic English-language sources for Catalonia and the other parts of Spain and the one that carries the most immediate clarity for a general reader. I take on board your other comments; as for the referendum, AFAICT that sentence relies on and accurately reflects, albeit maybe a bit simplistically, what the cited Guardian article says (which may be incorrect of course or not reflect the current position). Maybe that should be tweaked to reflect what you say (which the article also notes) about the exact question not being clear. N-HH talk/edits 13:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

But this article isn't about the "region" known as Catalonia. That's discussed at Països Catalans. The primary focus of this article is the first level administrative division of Spain, so I think it is important to state that in the first sentence. It would be quite strange if Texas didn't say it was a US state, Victoria (Australia) didn't say it was an Australian state, Amazonas (Brazilian state) didn't say it was a state of Brazil, etc in the first sentence as this is (arguably) the most important thing about the subject. I agree that the term "autonomous community" is probably unfamiliar to most readers, but that's why we have a wikilink. Also, I agree with Dúnadan that calling it a "autonomous region" confuses it with an "autonomous community" that is a "region". TDL (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it very much is about the "region" known as "Catalonia". As I said, the standard English language term "region" is most probably the most common primary description used for Catalonia in English language sources, and when it is used it very definitely does not mean the wider Catalan area. See, for example, the BBC, the OECD, Rough Guides, most dictionaries and Britannica. Even those sources that do refer to "autonomous community", like Britannica, often prioritise the Spanish term over its English translation, precisely because it is a little odd and unfamiliar. Fair enough, we can make a choice to use the more technical terms, and translate and wikilink them – and I'm not wholly against doing that – but we don't have to and it does seem to run counter to standard practice elsewhere. Btw I think the comparison with the use of "state" in a US context fails on two counts: first, because as well as being the formal term it is also the usual term used for US divisions in a way that "autonomous community" is not necessarily for Spanish ones and secondly, because, as acknowledged, the term "state" more generally is familiar and understood in a way that "autonomous community", and "nationality" when used to refer to a place, are not. N-HH talk/edits 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like my examples using "state", there are many others which are equally unfamiliar: autonomous republic, oblast, autonomous province or canton all of which are used in the first sentence of the respective articles. As far as I can see, it is standard practice to mention the administrative status. Just because Spain has funny names for the subdivisions, doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. And we shouldn't avoid using accurate terms, just because inaccurate terms are sometimes used in their place. Formally, Catalonia is a "nationality" and not a "region" so calling it such would just add to the confusion. TDL (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with other terms in other contexts is a slightly theoretical side-point really (although, as with state, I would argue that "canton", "autonomous province" and even "oblast" are found more often in real-world sources looking at the relevant contexts than "autonomous community" or "nationality" are; the problem with the latter two is not only that they might be initially unclear to the average reader but that, as simple/standard English words or phrases, they actually suggest something else altogether). And the issue is less what WP does on similar pages but what other sources do in respect of Catalonia and other parts of Spain. The key but simple point I was making was: what term is usually found used for Catalonia? And the fairly clear conclusion must be that "region" is the usual term used here in other sources. We can't really get away from that and I would ask what makes us special in that regard that we do it differently. Also of course my suggestion doesn't exclude the more formal terms, it just doesn't prioritise them, instead in fact placing them where a bit more explanation can be given about what they mean. Anyway, as I say, I'm happy to accept that I haven't convinced people. N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a Native English speaker, I don't think the term "autonomous community" is confusing, and I don't need a serious encyclopedia to dumb terms down for me. It should help me learn, and as editors we should do our best to counter any systemic bias and offer a global perspective. Regardless, I just hope my point was understood: 'region' has a very specific meaning in Spanish jurisprudence - in the dychotomy of 'regions' and 'nationalities' - in which Catalonia is not a region. It will be more confusing to say Catalonia is a region and a nationality, and then linking the latter term to an article that says that Catalonia cannot be both. -- dúnadan : let's talk 23:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well those used to the terms will be used to them of course. The point is that, at first glance, to the average reader I suspect the term "autonomous community" brings in images of some kind of hippy commune. People can learn what legalistic or technical terms mean without jargon or technical terms being the very first things that are thrown at them – as I said just above, the proposal does not exclude the terms, it just places them later on, where of course more space can be given to actually explaining them (and resolving any confusion re "region"). As for "dumbing down", that's as cheap and inaccurate a shot as my describing the current wording as pompous and pretentious would be. I'm specifically suggesting we follow what dictionaries, the media and other serious written sources use as the primary, initial term in standard English to describe and identify Catalonia, as the links I provided showed. Are they all dumbed down too? N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, "dumbing down" may not have been the right choice of words and because of it my message might not have been properly conveyed. The standard of an encyclopedia is not the same as the standard of a news outlet or a newspaper. Encyclopedias, and the Wikipedia, don't necessarily shy away of complex terms in other disciplines like biology or physics, and I don't see the point of doing it with regards to geography/politics. Moreover, electronic encyclopedias have the advantage of hyperlinks-- the definition of a term is just a click away! And I don't particularly think that that the average reader trying to learn more about Catalonia (or Madrid for that matter), would ever think of a hippy commune even if s/he doesn't fully understand the concept.

I can provide many serious sources that use one or the other term. Perhaps not a serious test, but the option <<"autonomous community" Catalonia>> produces more hits than <<"autonomous region" Catalonia>>, especially so when restricting the results to "Books" -- which, after all should be our parameter, as opposed to general media. My only point here is that "autonomous community" is not that obscure or foreign.

But to me -- and I do know that I am repeating myself -- it boils down the possible misuse of the word 'region'. In trying to make it more understandable -- arguably -- to the average reader, we end up calling Catalonia what it is not in Spanish jurisprudence, only to later explain what we actually meant, e.g. Catalonia is a region, but not really. That causes more confusion, IMHO.

By the way, I don't think this discussion pertains exclusively to Catalonia. (Perhaps this article is more 'popular' than those of other autonomous communities and that is why these discussions about 'nationalities', 'communities' and 'regions' always start here, and never in Andalusia, Galicia or even the Basque Country-- and I find the lead of the latter much more controversial, even if sourced). Wouldn't this point be brought up instead in Talk:autonomous communities of Spain, Talk:Spain, or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain?

-- dúnadan : let's talk 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My review of the other pages was one thing that led me to believe my bid to make changes here was probably a lost cause – pretty much all of them use "autonomous community" in the opening sentence and, as you say, whatever happens we would need consistency and some kind of centralised agreement. I'd still rather follow what dictionaries, media (and serious media at that – the Economist etc) and other reference works seem to be more than happy with as a primary description, and I'm certainly not suggesting losing the technical language altogether, but there you go. N-HH talk/edits

Other suggestions welcome

Even if my proposal above is going to be knocked on the head, something needs to be done with the first sentence:

• Catalonia (English /kætəˈloʊniə/, /kætəˈloʊnjə/; Catalan: Catalunya [kətəˈɫuɲə] or [kataˈluɲa]; Occitan: Catalonha [kataˈluɲɔ]; Spanish: Cataluña [kataˈluɲa]; French: Catalogne) is an autonomous community of Spain, officially recognized as a nationality by the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia

It's drowning in jargon and legalese unknown to the English language – as well as an overlong list of alternative, non-English, names – and offers no clarity, in anything approaching plain words, as to what Catalonia is. As the links I provided above show, no other published source offers such a confusing and unclear definition of this place in its opening sentence. N-HH talk/edits 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A few people have tried to wipe out the "an officially recognized nationality" recently, eg here, since reverted. While such edits are not helpful in themselves, and probably have as much to do with politics as anything else, I can't help but be slightly sympathetic. "Officially" recognized, as if it is a universally acknowledged fact, by who? How, in standard English, can a place be a "nationality" anyway? Yes, I know it's a term of art in this context and is wikilinked, but it still reads oddly as plain English in the introductory sentence of a generalist encyclopedia entry. No one's yet dealt satisfactorily with that problem. N-HH talk/edits 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively for years. I disagree; "nationality" does not sound odd, and plenty of serious Academic publications in English use the term. As with the term "community", Wikipedia should not shy away of complex terms for the sake of providing information in "simple English". And, as with the term "community", I'd rather have this discussed in Talk:Nationalities and regions of Spain or in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain. I am always surprised that the "nationality" debate always comes up in this article, but never in, say Canary Islands, the Valencian Community, the Balearic Islands, Aragon, Andalusia, Galicia, or the Basque Country.

While I would not eliminate the term, perhaps we can find a way to present it differently. How about this:

Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain comprising four provinces: Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona. Catalonia borders France and Andorra to the north, the Mediterranean sea to the east, and the Spanish autonomous communities of Aragon and Valencia to the west and south respectively. Its capital is Barcelona, the second largest city in Spain, and the centre of one of the largest metropolitan areas in Europe. The official languages of Catalonia are Catalan, Spanish and Occitan. In Spanish legislation, Catalonia is designated a "nationality" of Spain.

Hmm perhaps not perfect, but a starting point?

-- dúnadan : let's talk 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but as it seems I keep having to point out, the simple fact is that it does sound odd in standard English. Nationality is a noun that refers to the state of belonging to a particular nation. It cannot, in ordinary English, be used to describe a nation, place or region itself. That really is not up for debate. The point is, surely, that it is a rough and imprecise translation of the Spanish term "nacionalidad" and is used here in a specific, technical context. That's fine, and I'm not in favour of eliminating it either, but the issue needs to be acknowledged in the text, eg by using quote marks around it, as you suggest and as other English language sources do. As noted, it also needs to be clear who uses the term and it what context, as opposed to vague allusions to its "official recognition"; given that, I'm fine with your suggestion. As for the other pages, I can't say. They're not on my watchlist and I suspect they are more often looked at, in terms of editing, by people who haven't thought too much about the language/terminology problem from a purely English-language perspective but are more focused on a Spanish-political one. N-HH talk/edits 22:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)