This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
Italy, France, Andorra, Spain....they can be called either countries or states. So let's just use both, luckily enough we can use them interchangeably. Mountolivegroup using a loop of another pop group 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
True. Though if a compromise is to be reached, and you want to use both terms, I'd rather use "sovereign state" in the phrase and "country" as the label of the column. --the Dúnadan 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me, even though, if they can be used interchangeably, I dont get why you need it this way for a compromise to be reached...accusing others of political preferences is easy...
You may not know of our previous discussion regarding the use of "Spanish State" vs. "State" at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community). He opposed "Spanish State" based on political preferences, but accepted "State". Now he opposes the compromise we reached (i.e. "State"). So, no, I am not "accusing others" easily. But I will not take that light comment of yours as an accusation either. Peace.
May I also suggest changing Region for territories? If you disagree with that particular term, please feel free to change it back.
As Dunadan is starting again an egocentric little war with the denomination of these geographical/political areas I will only paste here how some articles in wikipedia do start:
Australia: The Commonwealth of Australia is a country...
Bangladesh: Bangladesh [...] officially the People's Republic of Bangladesh is a country in South Asia.
Belarus: Belarus [...] is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe.
Belgium: The Kingdom of Belgium is a country in northwest Europe.
Cambodia: The Kingdom of Cambodia [...] is a country in South East Asia
India: India [...], officially the Republic of India [...] is a country in South Asia.
Indonesia: The Republic of Indonesia [...] is a nation in Southeast Asia.
Israel: Israel [...] officially the State of Israel [...] is a country in Western Asia
Japan: Japan [...] is an island country in East Asia.
Pakistan: Pakistan [...] officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country located in South Asia
About Dunandan's oppinion "rv, not confusing to me, or to a Canadian, or Austrlian, or to dictionaries", let's see how some of those countries + UK and US are described:
Australia: The Commonwealth of Australia is a country in the southern hemisphere
Canada:Canada (IPA: /ˈkænədə/) is a country occupying most of northern North America
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain,[8] is a sovereign island country
United States: The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. The country is situated mostly in central North America
So, may I ask, if all featured articles about countries use the words country or nation, why does Dunadan feel in the right to impose his own oppinion?
8a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
8b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.
9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government
As Dunadan is the sole editor to keep adding the word state to define a country or nation (knowing very well the "government" meaning the word state has in english and that some editor have expressed the willingness to change it, I will again undo his edit. --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Maurice, did you bother to check a dictionary? I guess not. Let me cite a couple for you:
country, state, land, the territory occupied by a nation; [1]
state, nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic [idem]
a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. [3]
Handpicking the definition that suits you best doesn't work. And citing Wikipedia doesn't work either. Or have you bothered to check state? The definition therein given is not limited to the political institutions, as you want to imply, but to the territory as well.
The problem is not imposing an opinion. The problem is that you impose yours into a uniformity to your own political preferences. But what bothers me the most, having said in a previous discussion that you were fine with the word "State", now you show now respect for your own decision. You should portray diversity. Not everybody thinks like you, and you are not always right.
And Dunadan... About your comment "Please stop your reversions based on political preferences. Wikipedia is not yours" I ask you to consider the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
"Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute."
Well I gave 14 examples (of which 10 are featured articles) in the "common usage on an objective basis" to describe those political territories.
Has Dunadan given us any example of the "common usage on an objective basis" in wikipedia to refer to a Country or Nation as a State? NO, he hasn't! And I do Assume good faith... --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Aren't you comparing apples to oranges?
Naming conventions refer to... well... naming articles. Titles of articles. Not to content. We are not discussing about the title. We are discussing about using a phrase that contains "State". A phrase. Not the title. Please review the guidelines you are citing.
Your examples are of, well, countries. You can also include Spain. But of course, we are not defining a country here. We are using it in a phrase, a single phrase, interchangeably with "country". Like I said, diversity, not uniformity to a single "preference".
So, please, read the guidelines yourself. Probably you didn't, and that is why you misquote them. I am, of course, assuming good faith, ignoring your previous comments at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community).
Well... finally you admitted it... "Your examples are of, well, countries. You can also include Spain". Ok, from now on, Dunadan as given us permission to describe Spain as a country. --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above, carefully. Reading comprehension. Let me explain. I am including an article to your list of articles of countries. Spain, in the introduction is defined as a country. To say, alternatively, in other sections, that Spain is a "state" is also correct, not only in English, but constitutionally, since the constitution of Spain, your country, uses the term "State" and the term you hate the most "Spanish State" dozens of times, but only once does the term "country" appear - even in English translations. I hope you understand now, that we are talking about using a phrase with the word "state" along with "country". Both are right. Not uniformity. Diversity. Not about definitions. Not about titles of articles. Is it clear now? --the Dúnadan 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
My national constitution does not affect the way the international community describe countries/nations. and the common usage (it's a guideline) in wikipedia is to refer to them as countries. Accept you are not right! --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Maurice,
Can you point me to the guideline that says that in the content of the articles one should avoid using the word State? No, because there isn't one.
Can you point me to the guideline that says that common usage in Wikipedia (even though you compare apples to oranges) is more important that primary sources and WP:Verifiability (i.e. the constitution of Spain)? No, because there isn't one.
The only thing you've proven is:
You cannot abide by your own consensus and you recant on your own word. Having accepted State at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community), now you say it is not correct.
Because of your intransigent position, you oppose NPOV (i.e. diversity of opinions) to impose your own POV (i.e. national sentiment).
Please Maurice, let's take a break. Perhaps tomorrow you will review all the arguments we've presented so that you can rethink things over. Nobody argues against country. State is also fine. Both are fine. Both verifiable. Both correct. Do you get it now?
Cheers,
--the Dúnadan 23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh please... Quit that demagogy with me. It just doesn't work. If, like you say, I do mix apples with oranges, well in your case, you are unable to see and accept the big watermelon.
Again, quit insulting me ("your intransigent position"). I ask you again to reconsider the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith urgently.
I don't have again to point you the guideline that says that in the content of the articles one should avoid using the word State' because ALL the featured articles about countries use the word country or nation.
let's see the definitions in the very first line here in wikipedia:
Country: In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government.
Nation: A nation is a defined cultural and social community. Inasmuch as most members never meet each other, yet feel a common bond, it may be considered an imagined community.
State: A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area.[...] the word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems.
In casual usage, the terms "country," "nation," and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished: (and I love strictness as wikipedia demands)
Country denotes a geographical area. It suits perfectly 100% to the article
Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, origins, and history. However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law. It does not suit perfectly to the article.
State refers to the set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory. It does not suit at all in a strict usage
So I, as an editor, choose to use the word with a more common usage, a more suitable use in strict usage, with 0% ambiguity and the more common in international use.
Meanwhile, Dunadan choose the word with no usage at all in wikipedia to describe a country/nation, no suitability at all in a strict usage and with 100% ambiguity.
And that's not all, he keeps using as reference the Spanish Constitution usage of the word State, negliging that the template affects other countries like France, Italy and Andorra which, and that's sad, couldn't care less about how and why spaniards prefer the ambiguity of the word "state" to define their country. (nationalisms, regionalisms).
Again, in good faith, I have explained my point, I have given examples of the common usage in wikipedia, I have explained the reasons to choose "country" and not to choose "state" and a majority of users have expressed to be ok with my point.
I have done everything wikipedia ask users to be good editors. Let's see what is the next demagogic move by Dunadan in order to neglige (pasarse por el "arco del triunfo") all these facts.--MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concerns from both parts in this discussion. It is true that these terms have several possible usages and different people may have different preferences regarding how to use them. However, in this particular article the term country it is mainly used in the geographical, not political, sense (as long as the Catalan Countries are defined as a linguistical domain, not as a political entity). That's why I think the compromise solution proposed by Mountolive is very good: we keep the usage of country in the list of Andorra, Spain, France and Italy as Maurice likes, and we keep before "sovereign states" in Dunadan's style to make clear that they are not countries in the sense of Catalan Countries. Maybe in this way everybody can be happy, don't you think? ;) --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Maurice,
You continue to be intransigent in your position, and it is you who negliges [sic, whatever that means], the arguments of other well-intentioned users, as well as contradicting your own word and compromised position when you accepted the word "State" in a previous discussion. You yourself use derogatory comments like "Dúndan... staring an [...] egocentric little war" (and this is one of your "mild" statements) but then you pretend to "assume good faith", and demand others to treat you with utmost respect. Enough said about that.
You continue to compare apples to oranges. You bring articles of countries and guidelines of naming conventions. Yet, this is not an article of a "country" (in the sense, of course, in English, of a sovereign-state), but of a concept. Therefore, and to avoid confusion it is necessary to use the word "State", especially when the concept is called "Catalan Countries". Is Spain a Catalan country? No, it is a sovereign State that contains a territory that is included in the concept known as Catalan Countries. Crystal clear. In your insistence -and your personal dislike of the term, as you yourself said at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community)- you are actually bringing more confusion to the reader my mixing two valid connotations. English speakers, like myself, know perfectly well that State can also mean country or nation. And the dictionaries agree. Enough said about that.
You cannot cite Wikipedia to define terms. I've cited dictionaries that define terms. And the Spanish constitution. But it surprises me, that you, being French, or at least, fluent in French, are implying that the French do not use the word État to refer to the entire country. They do, and very much so, probably more than Spanish-speaking people do in Spain, even in the French constitution. [As a side note, the Italian constitution also uses the word Stato to refer to Italy].
You continue to ignore that you are not the "majority of users". Mountolive also expressed that both words are synonymous and accepted a compromise. (Kudos to Mountolive!) Cnoguera also agreed with the compromise. Therefore, you [alone] are not the majority.
The truth is that, as you've pointed out in countless debates, you dislike the term Estado, because of your political preferences and the purported connotation it carries, and oppose its inclusion not in the title, not in articles about countries, but in any paragraph whatsoever, especially those related to Catalonia. As I've proven, there is nothing wrong with the word, in English. Moreover, it brings diversity and NPOV.
Cheers,
--the Dúnadan 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
todo lo que viene aqui de Cataluña es falso, Cataluña no es un pais, es una región de España y no hay mas que hablar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.179.175 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Mauricio, you forget to mention other articles such Wales, Scotland, where "country" is said for these, or Bavaria where "state" is used for it. The name of "Catalan Countries" is correct. --Joanot Martorell✉ 11:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not a forum, Mauricio. In other side, the correct translation is "Juanito", and I will be pleased if you prefer this form. Feel free. --Joanot Martorell✉ 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is widely accepted everywhere that Catalonia is a nation--Miquel Girones (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
That's the second time you changed the name of the article (here and here) in about 48 hours. Be warned that next time you decide to make that article name move without consensus and without following the guidelines for controversial moves explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves you will be reported. May this message and the one I will copy at your talk-page be the proof that you were warned of this disruptive behaviour of yours. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, can you both show me where's the consensus? The Dúnadan precissely noted you both were pushing an intransigent POV. You and Mountolive have moved the page without reached a consensus with The Dúnadan, so I've restored it to the stage before of the debate. So you shoud request the move first according Wikipedia:Requested moves, not me. A subject turned into controversial by you both it should to make a request on talk page. Cheers, Mauricio. --Joanot Martorell✉ 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For continuously moving the article's name without consensus and without folowing the steps explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves for controversial moves, you have been reported. here is the link. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not touching that move tab! But I do think the article would be better at Països Catalans rather than Catalan Countries. I think this is a classic example where we shouldn't translate what is a precise term in a foreign language (here, Catalan) into an imprecise term in English. The translation is accurate, of course, but it still loses meaning. Països Catalans means something more than just "Catalan-speaking regions", as you can see if you try to translate it into other languages: Países Catalanes is understandable in Spanish, but países catalanes would be meaningless; Pays Catalans is a good translation in French, but pays catalans refers to what many or most Catalans would call Catalunya Nord. We would never dream of translating Generalitat into English, nor do we translate Francophonie: why should we insist on translating the term Països Catalans? Physchim62(talk) 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you give external sources supporting your opinion?. Països Catalans is not being used in English to refer Catalan Countries. As a external source, the Catalan-speakers (or descendants of them) who live outside of the Catalan Countries in English-speakers countries call it "Catalan Countries" (such this link from California, USA). And if it's not enough for you, this other link of a institutional web made from the Departament of the Pyrynées-Orientales, in the version in English, also call it in the same way. --Joanot Martorell✉ 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the banning attitude of Mountolive and Mauricio, the page is now blocked. I've argued my editings here, but you both preferred not to discuss. Here is one more source about "Catalan Countries" term:
"The Catalan countries project (1931-1939)"
Arnau González Vilalta
In the evolution of Catalan nationalism, as much politician as cultural, the period of II Spanish Republic (1931-1939) was essential. The obtaining of the Statute of Autonomy (1931-1932) supposed the beginning of a stage of expansion in multiple aspects. One of them were the contacts with the Catalanists nuclei of the rest of the cultural space of Catalan language in which, at that time, it would begin to call Catalan Countries (Balearic Islands, Valencian Country, Andorra, Rosselló, to l'Alguer). On Those Collaborations between cultural organizations, political and particular parties Catalonia always will be the model to follow. The Increasing connections will be visualized on press, as well as on cultural celebrations, policy of parties and Constituent Courts. This evolution will be cut by the Franco victory in the Civil War in 1939.
If you don't know, "Catalan Sea" (also called sometimes as "Balearic Sea" if it reaches to Minorca) is one of the "minor seas" of the Mediterranean, such the "Alborán Sea". The image map is correct, and Maurice used it to change the name to Pyrynées-Orientales for the "Northern Catalonia" pushing his very personal POV. --Joanot Martorell✉ 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
And what is your reason to keep that "Catalan Sea" name, when the Balearic Sea is recognised by the International Hydrographic Organization (Catalan Sea isn't), or when Mediterranean sea is the logical option? Aren't you the one pushing your very personal POV? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You haven't given any source. The Spanish High Council on Scientific Research (CSIC) also uses the name of Catalan Sea. It's not personal anyway. It's also used by the Journal of Marine Systems. The Balearic Sea is a subsea inside of Catalan Sea, where only surrounds the Balearic Islands. The only personal thing here is your map changed with a lot of mistakens, such changing "Northern Catalonia" to "Pyrynées-Orientales".
According to that map you don't wanted to reveal from the International Hydrographic Organization, the Catalan Sea corresponds to the (c) where in Spain it's usually named as Catalan Sea. In the other side, the IHO is not inside the United Nations, but the International Maritime Organization is actually recognized. And another thing to say is that the list of seas from IHO was published in 1953 year so... it really needs an update. Meanwhile, the United Nations Enviroment Programme also uses the name of Catalan Sea (see). Finally, the Institut de Ciències del Mar, that belogs to CSIC, is also a member of the Intergovernamental Oceanographic Comission of the United Nations, where the borders of seas and subseas are defined actually. And, according to the sources given above fron the CSIC, it's named "Catalan Sea", so it's correct. --Joanot Martorell✉ 08:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I already said that you may be very well the Pope of Rome and you may have studied for decades marine geology. WE DON'T CARE! This is the ENGLISH wikipedia and so, YOU MUST use english Martorell, you keep lying, claiming false information and bringing links which just don't take us where or to what you claim.
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) for sure is part of the United nations on the contrary to what you claim. Let's talk about them:
"1.The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission established by resolution 2.31 adopted by the General Conference of Unesco (that's part of the UN) at its eleventh session, and in conformity with the recommenda tion of the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanic Research (Copenhagen 11- 16 July 1960) met for its first session in Paris at Unesco Headquarters from 19 to 27 October 1961" [4]
"2.By the end of the session, a total of 40 States had become members of the Commission. These are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, India, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet-Nam. [5]
3.Representatives and observers of the following intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations also attended the session: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Health Organization (WHO), Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), International Association of Physical Oceanography (IAPO), International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), Special Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), Permanent Association of Navigational Congresses. International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission." [6]
You may find its statutes here and its Rules of Procedures here.
Notice that the biggest Unions, Comittees, Asociations, Bureaux and Coucils related to Geodesy, Meteorology, Oceanography are present in this commision and that Spain (the country in which this Sea is "located" (international waters included) and that USA and UK (the most relevant english speaking countries in the world) are also members.
This said, this gentlemen decided that this sea in question, was to be named in ENGLISH Balearic Sea (Balear Sea, Iberian Sea)[7] with the following codes:
28 (c) using IHO 23-3rd: Limits of Oceans and Seas, Special Publication 23, 3rd Edition 1953, published by the International Hydrographic Organization. [A preliminary revision of SP 23, dated 1986, is widely cited on Internet websites.
B9 using ACIC M 49-1: Chart of Limits of Seas and Oceans, revised January 1958, published by the Aeronautical Chart and Information Center (ACIC), United States Air Force; note - ACIC is now part of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA).
8J using DIAM 65-18: Geopolitical Data Elements and Related Features, Data Standard No. 4, Defense Intelligence Agency Manual 65-18, December 1994, published by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
So, my dear martorell, let us IGNORE your original research of marine geology and let us IGNORE your lot of scientific literature about the Catalan Sea. Even if you are the Pope of Rome, here in wikipedia, we love references, we love facts and above all, we love the truth.
And the truth is, that in english, that sea is called Balearic Sea.
You use as references google scholars and other institutes which are either:
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"
The following convention on geographic names represents what Wikipedia actually does, and reflects lengthy discussion on the talk page. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it.
This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government.
In general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
Please remember that Google Scholar and Google Books are largely random selections out of the whole corpus of English writing. If the results could easily have arisen by chance (for example, if there are only half-a-dozen or so valid hits on all the alternatives combined), this is not a good indicator of widespread English usage.
Notice that a search in google scholars for Mediterranean Sea shows 408,000 results.
There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. So, Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority
And how does the "linguistic majority" reach a consensus? Pacta sunt servanda ("pacts must be respected"). International treaties under the International Law are there to guide us all, my dear Martorell. Not just "per què te es passis pel forro dels collons" (to ignore them). If they are signed, you, as an individual, must RESPECT THEM.
And the most known supranational organization, the UN, did a treaty on the sea naming matter. Let us please ignore if you believe that a reference from 50's and 60's "really needs an update". As far as I'm concerned, a law or a treaty does not have a date of lapsing. If the treaty is effective to this date, you must accept it, because it is an International agreement.
International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
So, my reference here above is far more respectable than your "google scholars" which can/may fail reach NPOV (if only in the naming). An International Agreement will NEVER.
United Nations view on the importance of Hydrography.[8] (Location: Home > Background)
On 23 December 2003 (that's not from the 50's and 60's anymore, right?), the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/58/240 on Oceans and Law of the Sea that dealt, in large part, with safety of navigation. In this resolution, the General Assembly:
Welcomes the work of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and its 14 Regional Hydrographic Commissions and encourages increased membership of the IHO by States, noting that organization’s capacity to provide technical assistance, facilitate training and identify potential funding sources for development or improvement of hydrographic services; and calls upon States and agencies to support the IHO trust fund and examine the possibility of partnerships with the private sector;
Invites IHO and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to continue efforts and to jointly adopt measures with a view to encouraging greater international cooperation and coordination for the transition to electronic nautical charts; and to increase the coverage of hydrographic information on a global basis, especially in areas of international navigation and ports and where there are vulnerable or protected marine areas;
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) (which you fail to accept, even if the International community does), and which is encouraged by the U.N, does have a publication section inside their site [9] (go to Home > Publications > IHO Download Section), and how funny, it has charts in it (Special Publications > Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953). Sheet maps 1, 2 and 3). Click on "Sheet 2" [10]. Again, you will see that it clearly states Balearic (Iberian) Sea. Even more, "your" subdivision of this sea as "Catalan Sea" is not even accepted nor mentioned.
Now, while you recover your breath, take a little advice. Inform yourself and read carefully the references you bring. You must be prepared to bite the dust when playing with the big boys.
Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion
I've just protected the article against editing and moving it. This is to give it a chilling effect. Can we start with the page move first? Is there someone who can point me to a consensus to keep it at "Països Catalans"? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, after having spent so many hours in this talk page just months ago, I dont have the stamina to go over the very same reasons once again just because one guy came with the same old POV. If again a plurality of users proved here their point for this article to be named Països Catalans, who would assure them that next time a Catalan nationalist comes with a different idea they wont be having to go through all the fuzz again? So, what is the point in discussing for days, then?
Anyway, if you are willing to, the reasons of a series of users including myself are in this talk page already. Just look at the first sections and you'll see a huge discussion split in no less than three different sections, more or less consecutive.
As for now, I can't see the point nor I have the energy to engage in that hell again. There's no bloody reason for so doing if nobody is going to protect whatever the results anyway, like it just has happened this time.
This is just so very disappointing. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it a democratic votation about wich POV should show in the article? According to WP:V you should give some kind of external source supporting somewhat "Països Catalans has no exonym in English". I understand that "non-existent" things can't be verified, but since I've given several sources that shows in English the name of "Catalan Countries", thisdemocratic sort of POV is not acceptable. But as it dislikes so you say it is not "reliable" for you, but, again, you are not giving any external reference or sources supporting this lack of trust claimed by you. Instead of it, you ban edits of mine at the very first chance.
Don't say "honestly" because you aren't being honest, Mountolive. Your attitude (together with User:Maurice27), again, and again, mainly from Valencian Community article is banning all editings from Catalan-speaker users, since a lot, many lot of times. There are also a very HUGHE debates in Valencian Community, but it never was taken care by you. You also go ahead pushing you ideological POV in all Valencian and Catalan related articles. --Joanot Martorell✉ 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) PD: Sorry because of my bad English.
Mountolive, if you feel you are getting exhausted and that you'd only be repeating your arguments then please relax and let others discuss the issue.
Joanot, I am sure if you refrain from personalizing the debate things would become much more easier to be sorted out. Comment on content and not on contributors please.
Could someone please summarize briefly the situation (was there any real consensus, when, etc...)? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will try it later. --Joanot Martorell✉ 13:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's is quite a long text to read, but here it goes... (link 1 and link 2). I consider it is really necessary to fully read both links in order to get an idea of the controversy.
At the end of link 2 section, we can read:
"But please note that I am not trying to convince you to rename the article back to Catalan Countries (I did not start this thread of discussion) so please let's end this discussion. As long as the article is truly NPOV, I'm happy with the compromise. --the Dúnadan 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)"
"Cool, if you don't want to change the name then we have consensus.[...]Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)"
May this be the proof that user Martorell lies accusing Mountolive and myself of defending this article to stay as "Països Catalans" without a consensus being reached in the past. His only point to support this move (Not having reached a consensus) is false.
I quote him:
"It's a restoration of the name used until this user and User:Mountolive turned it into controversial. But both they moved the page, altough a consensus was not reached about the title page. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)"
The move (the renaming to "Països Catalans") was proposed on the talk page.
The move was dicussed for a long time and by many users.
Both "sides" brought references
Both "sides" finally reached a consensus in naming the article as "Països Catalans" (as proven by the above link on the talk page)
In my humble opinion, Martorell's attitude towards other editors in wikipedia is becoming dangerous. Not only he doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines before making a major change in an article, but he even lies to the admins accusing other editors with falsities. A consensus was reached!. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Maurice. I'll be reading all that in full tomorrow as it is too late now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I insist that it didn't reached a consensus, since three of users from one side (and now me, the fourth), expressed their disappointing (again and again). Wich was the reaction from them both? Not to discuss, and adopt an intransigent POV. I've seen the references given by them supporting leaving it as "Països Catalans". But, again, it's only opinion and primary research aboust linguistics, politics and the gender of angels or whatever. There isn't discussing about the usage of "Catalan Country", they only make opinions about if it's applicable or not according to their personal opinions when it's shouldnt be accepted according to WP:NOR.
The only thing that should be taken in care is about the usage of the term to refer to Catalan Countries in English. New references were given, my editings were explained here without any response from the M&M tandem, but wich was the reaction from them? Do not discuss, do not want to assume good faith, and revert-banning my editions (and from any Catalan-speaker wipikedian). And if it isn't enough yet, I've asked for the consensus, and altough they would be able to show me where is it, as they are doing with you, Faissal, they preferred not to say anything and force it into a loud-crying to admins, to make me the troll-beast apparently. They make conflict interessedly. They are not honest, they are pushing a sectarian POV.
A exemple of it, Mauricio changed the image map of the Catalan Countries, in order of the followin reasons:
He dislikes that it appears "Catalan Sea", altough it's correct. It's one of the sub-seas of the Mediterranean.
He dislikes that Northern Catalonia is captioned instead of the name of Pyrynées-Orientales. The latter is not correct because Northern Catalonia doesn't not include the Occitan comarca of Fenolleda and, so, it's not the same borders of the French department. Altough of it, it's about the Catalan Countries, and names used by Catalan-speakers should be focused in this article.
He dislikes the form of "Valencian Country" that is being used by Catalan-speakers (as the title from Catalan Wikipedia is ca:País Valencià) and, specially, from those people that assumes the conception of Catalan Countries. It's backed by he latter external reference given above by me, "The Catalan Country project" also uses "Valencian Country" form in English.
But M&M also revert these edits, instead reverting only editings related to the subject under dispute, about the term of "Catalan Country". Consensus are not binding-POVS. And neither are should used to ban other users to provide new references and new improvements. And neither to bring incorrect and biaised information. It should be used to engage discussion and not to make fake victimism. --Joanot Martorell✉ 13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Apology: Please bear with me... I've had a very busy day in real-life. I promise to deal with this before the end of the week-end. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about your time. This problem exists from more than two years, so if you answer one or two weeks more later there's no problem. At least for me. --Joanot Martorell✉ 11:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
My intervention here has been purely administrative and I'd have no reason to make it otherwise. For this reason, I'd urge the parties to follow one of the following non-binding ways to sort the move issue out:
keep discussing while avoiding personalization of the issue;
request a third party opinion. You've been heavily involved and there are less chances that you'd reach a compromise if you abstain from presenting this case to third and neutral opinions. I've read through the old and recent discussions but I prefer not to state my view since it would be just one more view instead of many --unless you'd ask for it of course;
Dont get me wrong (in written, things tend to sound a bit over-the-top, but that is not my intention). There's so much more you can do for this article than just blocking it in a particular version (which isnt the one gathering the most consensus at this point) and remind people over here a few guidelines.
You may see it differently, but I think you could also
refer this article yourself to people who could help us, rather than relying in ourselves doing it (not the least because, as an admin. you are supposed to know wikipedia's corridors better)
unblock the current disputed version, which, regardless of the commendable good intentions, it's becoming endorsed by the sole fact of being the one displayed, whether we like it or not. Blocking is the easiest part, but if you really want to help to solve this once for all, you will have to invest time here and get mud in your hands yourself or, alternatively, get someone willing to. Otherwise, you will only bring partial justice here, which, sometimes, is the biggest of the injustices MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
FayssalF, I support Mountolive's opinion. You could be of great help. I would also ask you to present us your opinion (even if it's only one more, it could help if we ask for mediation later). The problems in the article argued by Martorell had been discussed for years and until he arrived a week ago, the article had been quite stable for months. We are not talking about a multiple users discussion, but about one user wanting to bypass the consensus reached by all in order to get his own POV reflected in the article by force, resulting in the article being protected to other peaceful editors. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be glad to assist all the parties in reaching a compromise. For a start, the protection of the article is meant to reach that goal. Leaving it unprotected would only have led to blocking users edit warring and that would include most of the users editing lately. Note that some other administrators would have applied the no entitlement rule instead. Because of those two main reasons I am not willing to un-protect the page until I see some kind of assurance that you are ready for a stable solution.
Policy
even if there were some consensus, the policy states that consensus can change;
My notes as an administrator
Martorrel original move edit is within policy. Please refer to the chart at the right. I'd still —as this is a collaborative project— not agree with the way Martorrel did it (etiquette - just a minute after a 3 line comment at the talk page) but we can never assert it has violated any policy. However, his second page move with the content reverts before it were very disruptive. Marking his edits here and here as minor are very misleading as well. The rest of edit warring by all of you is disruptive as well. I preferred protection of the article (to encourage discussions) than sanctioning or warning users because that would just be unhelpful;
My protection is within policy. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus.
My opinion
I fail to see a previous clear consensus per se. What I have seen is a kind of non-interest in going on with discussions as there has been some calm reigning over discussions for a couple of months. But that is only my opinion;
Most editors —if not all— agree that the article refers to a concept and that it doesn't have any legal entity. I haven't noted any objection to that so far. In my opinion, if that is a 100% fact then edit warring over the title is just lame.
Article titles serve for one purpose (not many)... They serve to help english readers to easily recognize articles or find what they are looking for... Not all english readers know that the Spanish language name is 'Castellano' or 'Castilian' but most readers know that it is called 'Spanish langauge'. Note that this is not merely my opinion but that is written in Wikipedia:Naming conventions which is not a guideline anymore. I am including it here and not at the policy section above because it is still something relative (an example is Perestroika);
Now, let's see how to move this forward:
The article gets back to its stable version before the page move by Martorrel (that goes with the flowchart above) and come here seek a compormise (an RfC could help though you have to mediatise it to get as many editors as possible to participate);
I have doubts that a compromise would be reached at this page so I'd suggest you go for the 3O. It is very easy to find third party and neutral users —WikiProjects such as Europe, Politics, Spain, Catalonia, Countries, etc... You can cross-post a call for third parties opinions,
If that doesn't work, try the mediation. People there are very skilful and may help you overcome your status-quo. Make sure that no arbitration would help you since ArbCom cannot rule on content. However, they may just sanction rules' violators and refer the case to a WikiProject (seen the case of the Ireland-related naming case?) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal of FayssalF because I'm tired to meet always M&M in all the disputes related to Catalan Countries articles (such as Valencian Community, Valencian, and etcetera), and because of the intransigent POV of both them forces these articles to become controversial artificially. As they are very persistent users, they meet every moment with different other Catalan-speaker users with another POV who finally decide not to continue struggling (like User:Dúnadan, User:Casaforra, User:espencat, User:Xtv, myself, and some others users more). I'm not personalizing, I'm telling a fact. Since these disputes exist, the list of members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries stopped increasing since June 2008. So, for me, a third party opinion could bring new airs, and it would be very fine.
One thing to add about the Catalan Countries concept. This is not illegal. In the constitution of the Institut d'Estudis Catalans there exists in Spanish laws a decree that explains this entity covers an area called concretely as "Países Catalanes", in Spanish. Obviously, this refers to a cultural concept, but not to politics.
And finally, if I only could give few lines to the talk page it's because my skillness of English language is not good enough and I can't contribute such as native or advanced English-speaker. And in adding to this handicap for me, as this is very hard to work because of disruptions, lack of respect and intransigent POV (such the Spanish Inquisition), I can't contribute so well. Altough of it, there were several users with very good usage of English, and they finally decided not to contribute anymore because of M&M sectarian struggling. --Joanot Martorell✉ 07:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments seem interesting, but those are tasks that Martorell has to undertake by himself if he is decided in changing the name of the article and the map, as he is the one who unilaterally changed them. If we are to be fair, the article should be taken back to the previous version before Martorell changed it and then, it is his job to follow all these necessary steps you explained to us in order to reach a new consensus.
IMHO, a consensus was already reached, probably not a "clear consensus per se", but the editors reached an understanding which led to the longer period of stability of this article until Martorell arrived.
Now, make no mistakes, I really appreciate your good intentions in this mediation but I would like you to undertand my point. I will try to explain myself:
You are "making clear" that it is now Mountolive or myself duty to look for third party opinions, mediators etc.. if wanting to change the version back to what it was before. Martorell is not going to move a single finger as the version now portrayed is the one he made.
Now, let's imagine that none of us 3 participate in this "new consensus"... In some days/weeks time some admin will presumably unblock the article. Since Martorell attitude (even if not technically breaking any guideline, hasn't strictly followed etiquette and was "very disruptive" (your words Fayssall)), hasn't been "penalized" or warned, what prevents me to act in the same way changing the name again?
What moral right could an admin have to prevent me in doing so?
I just want you to understand that the logical thing to do is to get back to the previous version, and then, Martorell is the one who will have to look for third opinions and mediations in those wikiprojects, just as Moutolive did in the past when he asked to rename the article to "països catalans" in the talk-page. Why are we allowing to Martorell to act differently now?
This article is taged in the talk page as "controversial". the tag reads: This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
So, resuming, Martorell bypasses all guidelines and makes a mayor change in this article like changing it's name without following the steps described by the tag. He commits a 3RR imposing his change when reverted. He escapes unwarned and unblocked. And now, you ask us to follow those guidelines and steps that Martorell didn't in order to get the old version? Excuse me Fayssal, but I sincerely found this terribly unfair.
The map was not included in the consensus, but changed with a lot of mistakens made by you. --Joanot Martorell✉ 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
In fact, that is exactly what I explicitly said. Please refer to my the first point in the [Now, let's see how to move this forward] section above. I've just been waiting for the parties' comments and have their opinions so we won't have this kind of problem again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I missed that very and important line. If the article gets back to the previous version and if is Martorell's duty to start a third opinion debate, I won't have any problem. I support you on this fayssal. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to everyone for all this calm discussion. I hope you work out your differences as discussed above. Please feel free to involve me anytime you need help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The Exclusion of Aragon and other parts of the former Kingdom of Aragon.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why is it that the catalan national movement excludes historical parts of the former Kingdom of Aragon from being part in the Catalan Countries? For example: The autonomous community of Aragon is excluded from being part of the Catalan countries even though the two have shared historical connections through the Crown of Aragon. --Oren neu dag (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the language. Aragonese (other than those living in the adjacent areas to Catalonia) do not speak Catalan, while the Catalan nationalist movement is certainly based on the language. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
On "crusades"
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
After this bold edit and its surprising summary, I would like to make some general comments:
This article has a very long history. It is the result of the collaborative effort of many editors with different perspectives on the matter that managed, through a very long discussion as witnessed by this talk page and its archives, to reach a solid consensus. This makes it probably a nice example of the outcomes of neutral point of view policies (see WP:NPOV).
Consensus is not immutable. Any article may always be further improved and any consensus further revised (more details at Wikipedia:Consensus). Nevertheless, prudence dictates a careful approach to an article which bears such a long history of discussion and consensus with it. Bold constructive edits should be always welcome (see Wikipedia:Be bold), but when they find some reasonable opposition one should open a discussion rather than engaging in an edit war.
And, about this particular series of bold edits, I want to make the following points:
The definition in this source refers to the territories where Catalan is nowadays spoken. So, why should we write this definition in the past ("territories where it WAS spoken")?
The extension of the concept to the whole political entities where Catalan has some official status was already explicitly explained in the lead paragraph. This addition is clearly redundant.
The hints to the associated political controversy are already developed in extenso in a subsequent section of the article. The lead should stay at the general level, as polisemy and further details on each particular meaning are discusssed afterwards.
I agree with Carles. --the Dúnadan 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It'll be pretty hard for you to disagree with your alter ego/comrade Cnoguera. Anyway, I've said like a million times I'm not willing to discuss (ATTENTION: METAPHOR INCOMING) Creationism with creationists. If you want to try whether you're lucky enough to get your propaganda here, just call an administrator and I'll state my arguments. --Taraborn (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Propaganda or not... They are willing to discuss... If you were smart, you would discuss. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Maurice. If Taraborn's point is so unstoppable, then discussing it should not be a problem, because truth, in the end, prevails (well, oughtta...). So far, he has to still realise about how wikipedia works. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Attesting some objective points
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The writing of this article is not exactly neutral, but lightly biased against the concept it discusses. It emphasizes the conflictive aspects of the question, as if there were not a mass behind it. –and there is. It even seems to imply that the political concept of the Catalan Countries unilaterally stems from Catalonia proper to (or against) the other Catalan-speaking regions. This is not true, because:
a) the political concept of the Catalan Countries has and has always had proponents from (and inside) every one of the territories concerned. As an average it is more present outside Catalonia proper than inside it. In particular, the autonomous institutions of Catalonia proper, alongside the leading political parties there, are not supporters of the Catalan Countries at all, and usually have a penchant to ignore the rest of the Catalan-speaking territories –in fact, all those parties, from the instauration of the new Spanish regime on, abruptly broke with their already timid concept of the Catalan Countries (or with the Catalan Countries altogether) and have silently repressed it (not to tell promoted it) since then.
b) the political concept of the Catalan Countries has always been a national concept which seeks plain equality for all the parts within. By the way, what we may call “Pancatalanism” (or patriotism of the Catalan Countries) has always been a democratic, progressive and modernizing movement –as Catalanism in general--, not a reactionary or authoritarian one. At any rate, as the community of (the same) language and culture in a compact territory with the same historical origins and a deep socioeconomic interrelation is the objective basis of the argued nation, it is difficult to discern which kind of “dominance” could any of the parts exert over the others.
Therefore, one may accept the political concept of the Catalan Countries or else refuse it –but to treat it as being, so to say, “imperialist”, is just a crude distortion of real facts, both historically and nowadays. As a matter of fact, both in Catalonia proper as elsewhere in the Catalan Countries, there are those who accuse Catalan Countries of being an “imperialist” moneuvre from Catalonia proper, but they are simply lying (often consciously) –they are not usually “defenders” of these or those regional peculiarities (against a presumptive “Catalan imperialism”), but typically hardcore Spanish nationalists who also refuse the Catalan language and culture as being an “imposition” in the very same territory of this language and culture.
One last thing. The citation from a Catalan writer dubbing “inconvenient” the concept of Catalan Countries and “attesting” it (is it not an opinion?) counter-productive, is out of context as it tends to suggest to the reader this must be a usual opinion “even” in many Catalan intellectuals. In reality it is the personal opinion of Valentí Puig, a right-wing ultraliberal which is little representative of Catalan intelligentsia, as he is more sympathetic to anti-Catalan Spaniolism than to any kind of autochthonous national identification.
I insist: I'm no trying to convince nobody on the existence of the Catalan Countries as a nation, or not --I'm just trying to clarify some objective points, precisely in the name of "neutrality".
--Joan Rocaguinard (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe it is not exactly neutral, I don't know, but I can assure that it is the result of several years of discussion by people coming from quite different points of view and there is a strong consensus for the current version. However, as said above, no consensus is immutable. So if you feel that the article needs a further improvement you should better make yourself precise about exactly which parts of the text you think should be changed, how should they read and why. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I’ll study that and maybe try to make calibrated proposes. Anyway, the mean point would be to clearly state that:
the controversy about the Catalan Countries has nothing to do with tensions between territories, but moves around national projects (that’s the core of the question). It’s the usual kind of problems which arise in every argued nation without a state, for instance with people defending the own language, culture, etc., of this territory, and members of the same community referring all their fidelity to the State-sponsored language, culture and national feeling, etc.
the political concept of the Catalan Countries as being a nation has nothing to do with any “attempt by a Catalonia proper centered nationalism to lay a hegemonic claim” to the rest of Catalan speaking territories, because: a) the concept is not sponsored “by Catalonia proper”, but by private supporters which goal is the national unity of all the territories, not the hegemony of anyone of them; b) there are supporters of the Catalan Countries all through the territory (and not mainly in Catalonia proper) ; c) there is not, neither has been, any kind of official support to the political conception of the Catalan Countries coming from the governing institutions of Catalonia proper, neither from its leading parties.
For instance, it is an error to say: “This confrontation between politicians from Catalonia and Valencia very much diminished in severity during the course of the late 1980s (...)”. That's simply not true: the confrontation was inside the Valencian Country –the politicians from Catalonia proper were looking other way.
Those cited are the mean points I should like to see reflected in the article, though I’m not prepared in this precise moment to propose a concret rewriting.
I am interested to hear whatever proposals you may have. This article would benefit from fresh air by other users. Maybe Taraborn will come back with a different approach and you seem the type with whom one can discuss things in a civil way.
The only thing I ask you please is that, whatever changes you may want to have in the text, please implement them incrementally, illustrating them as good as possible here at the talk page, and then, if they make it, bring them to the main text. This is so much better than including a few different things all at once (like sometimes users have tried, and failed to). That way the discussion can be kept both focused and productive.
As Cnoguera said, this is not by any means the kind of article which no one cared about until the most recent user came to find it (if the concept itself enjoyed even half popularity as its wikipedia article, many would be just happy). The current wording is not a random one, but, actually, the result of quite intrincated (ok, nasty sometimes) discussions. Welcome. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"map" of the so-called Catalan Countries
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The article states that the concept refers to the territories where Catalan is spoken, whereas the map shows places where that language has never been spoken. Someone should correct this. --Belchman (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to this possible wider usage of the expression in this paragraph of the lead: "The Països Catalans do not have any legal entity nor is there any universal territorial definition of the scope covered by this concept. It may refer strictly to the territories in which the different varieties of Catalan are traditionally spoken, or it may be extended to the entire political entities in which Catalan has some official status, in spite of the fact that those entities include areas where Catalan is not spoken (the map to the right covers this latter usage)." --Carles Noguera (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I am totally agree with Carles Noguera.--Miquel Girones (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
On so referenced "Catalonian race
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems a NPOV violation to generalize from a quote from an opuscle by the fascistoid and racist groupuscle 'Nosaltres Sols' (='We alone') from the 1930s, that the cultural idea of Catalan speaking countries "would have relationship with National Socialism because they claim the "Catalonian race" as referenced by [11]. Please, reword paragraph in article appropriately and cite primary sources.Perique des Palottes (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Map
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The dark grey areas, it says, are Catalan-speaking. Does that mean majority and the light grey areas mixed? Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In the light grey areas Catalan may be spoken as a second language, or by immigrants, but never as mother tongue by local people. It's simply not part of the Catalan-speaking-area. -Jotamar (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I think that should be in the article, as there is no mention I could find. Rothorpe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reminder
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.--83.50.70.61 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Split
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I request to split the linguistic and political concept of the "Països Catalans". In the Valencian Country there are still people who aren't used to the political meaning of this term. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 11:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever is related to the language should be in Catalan language, not here. I assume that this page only deals with the political/cultural concept. --Jotamar (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Map of Iberia over time .gif
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think this map animation is misleading and politically biased by starting in the year 1000. The insinuation is that somehow Arabic/Mozarabic was indigenous for most of the peninsula, which is not the case. The animation should start at least from the time of Vandals and Goths. PametUGlavu (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
That should be dealt with in Commons, rather than here. --Jotamar (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Pro-Spanish?
Latest comment: 7 years ago63 comments7 people in discussion
This recent edition to the article presents the Catalan Countries in a negative light from a Spanish nationalist perspective. It is copied directly from the Spanish wikipedia.
of course there are strong political connotations that deserve some mention in the introduction, but these could be better elaborated further on in the article. It makes no sense that the introduction is three paragraphs of obscure and biased text.
The concept is not clearly defined. fundamentally, Catalan Countries = Catalan-speaking territories.
yes, the geographical limits are not clearly defined
it's an extra-official term. indeed, the spanish constitution explicitly forbids valencia, catalonia and the balearics from federating with each other.
yes, the term is extremely polarizing and is opposed by many. but i wouldn't go as far as making uncited claims about valencians, overall, opposing the term. it's pro-catalan valencians who coined the term and who use it the most. and, as far as i know, anti-catalan conservatives lost the autonomous government to Valencian nationlists a year and a half ago.
some oppose the political union but will still use the term because there's simply no other concept to define the Catalan-speaking territories as a whole. most use it in a strictly cultural sense. some still call for a political union, but most nationalists will use it in a romantic way - they don't actually think that a political union is realistic or achievable in the near future.
Catalan Countries should be defined in the same way as Francophonie and Hispanidad, which are, themselves, contested political projects too. Of course I have my own bias, but it makes no sense that an anti-Catalan gets to write the article on the Catalan Countries either. I suggest that non-Spanish citizens come up with a solution. --Quico mm (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The article on Pan-Celticism should provide a fine example: the territories are scattered across different sovereign states and have no legal standing of their own, but it primarily refers to a linguistic phenomenon. pan-celtic sentiment can vary from the republic of ireland, to northern ireland, or scotland, which has quite a strong independence movement. this is less the case in wales but you still wouldn't say that the welsh, in general, are anti-celtic. some people can support cultural pan-celticism whilst still feel happy within the uk. the introduction is succint and doesn't go on to talk about IRA terrorists. --Quico mm (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2016 (UTCs)
Except that it is not. Pan-Catalanism is not like pan-celticism and is widely rejected in most regions claimed by this largely political movement. It is fundamentally political in nature. Even as a cultural community it is widely rejected outside Catalonia It is a concept closer to Greater Morocco or Greater Hungary than any of the examples provided.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record: The Spanish Constitution does not explicitly forbid the federation of Valencia, Catalonia and the Balearics. They are not special snowflakes. The Article 145 is a tad more general. About the rest, well. I am aware of the trend of wanting to avoid political connotations in the ledes of articles dealing with pan-nationalism constructs. I don't know for what purpose, but I don't think it is the way to go at all. I don't see the similarities between the wikipedia entries for Hispanidad and Francophonie neither the point the editor is bringing. autonomous government to Valencian nationlists a year and a half ago As far as I know PSOE is governing in the autonomous community. Until criticism towards the entry drop the vague self-victimising tone and the anti-catalan labeling of editors positive dialogue can hardly be conducted regardless the text can be improved.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Quico mm Compromis, a coalition of parties which includes Valencian nationalists, is itself the minority coalition partner of PSOE in the Valencian government. Compromis itself does not use the term paisos catalans for fear of antagonising the Valencian population. So when even Valencian nationalists acknowledge this fact, I don't see why you don't. Nationalists in Catalonia sometimes seem to live in a fantasy world. The term is generally rejected in Valencia. The rejection of the term is such that in a 2004 survey 65% of the population reject the fact that it is the same language (note that it is the same language).Asilah1981 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Even though the lead does not contain any false statement that I'm aware of, its general tone sounds hostile to the PPCC concept, so I think the wording should be changed to appear more neutral. --Jotamar (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Most of the things i've written before are left unaddressed. but just to follow up on some derailing remarks... Greater Hungary and Morocco are expansionist projects based upon pre-existing sovereign states, I don't see how that is more comparable to the Catalan Countries than pan-Celticism. either way, it's worth insisting:
I'm not arguing that all Valencians are pan-Catalanists, I'm just pointing out unattributed information. There is an uncited generalization about Valencians opposing the "Catalan Countries" (the term in itself? a wider sense of speech community? a political federation? doesn't the first sentence on the lead say that it's an "ambiguous" term anyway? who opposes it? all Valencians? some Valencians?). that sentence is false in its vagueness. the term obviously exists because there is some degree of usage and adherence in each of the territories and that is very well documented.
this is an article written by pro-Spanish editors that presents a topic of Catalan nationalism from an anti-Catalan perspective. Someone intervene please! By the way, I'm not Catalan myself, I'm Valencian. I don't see how that's relevant anyway, I only pointed out some very specific and obvious editorial flaws. What are you? Castillian? Most likely. Do you even speak Catalan? --Quico mm (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of the territories the purports to unite, the concept only enjoys significant support in the region of Catalonia. Elsewhere, particularly in Valencia, it is widely viewed with hostility as an expression of Catalan cultural and political expansionism. THIS IS FALSE. This is the anti-Catalanist discourse that the right-wing opposition parties Partido Popular and Ciudadanos promote in Valencia. It is inaccurate because pan-Catalanism is much more central to debates surrounding Valencian nationalism whilst it's more of a secondary aspect to Catalan nationalism. I'd say fears of Catalonia invading Valencia are as minoritarian as support for a pan-Catalanist state independent from Spain, if not more. either way there's no way to know because that sentence is UNCITED. --Quico mm (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I've made a few changes in the lead. I feel they make the text sound more neutral. --Jotamar (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add my opinions about the lead and some conceptss>:
The lead information is poor and it's still biased.
The term "Catalan Countries" (home of the Catalan nation or Catalan-speaking nations) could also mean a confederation of three or more states.
While the same term could be controversial for Catalanophobics, it is more imprecise as we don't know yet which type of union (/political association) it means (unitary/monocentric vs [con]federal/pluricentric). The usage of the term Catalan Countries (in plural) suggests it is pluricentric, however this hasn't been fully applied in modern times (I think). Nevertheless and despite this terminology problem, the main and most important meaning of "Catalan Countries" is cultural and geolinguistic.
The term "Valencian Community" does not match with the concept of the Catalan Countries as it is a non-democratic term created in Madrid and does not correspond with any of the written records used by Fuster, Sanchis, Guia, etc. (thus I suggest to substitute Valencian Community by Valencian Country hereinafter). — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 09:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Very well, I get it is due to the following "points" according to you.
Home of the catalan nation?.... Home?? Do you really start a serious enciclopedic entry with "The Catalan Countries are the home of the Catalan nation". Lol. A confederation? Utter bollocks. At least say project of confederation, which is not incompatible with independent state. Feel free to add the nuances of every proposal for this construct in the body of the article. With reliable third party sources, that's it.
a) The political project is only rejected for "catalanophobes"? Cool story, bro. b) Back to point 2.
Non-democratic term created in Madrid? Cry me a fucking river. More like most common term by far going by usage in English sources. Despite I am aroused by pseudo-gramscian nationalists trying to impose their own ethnocultural hegemony, my advice is don't go trying to right some great wrong around here. This is not the place to portray the reality as you want it to be, but about how it is.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You're being extremely offensive with your language. I suggest you to avoid using that type of terminology and try to speak proper English. And well, I have my right to put my feelings on my profile page, and I'm not deluded nor crazy. I'm quite sane and sensible. This is my feeling and the feeling of my entire family, who descend from Cathalan repopulators and speak a different language than your native language. We also have a different culture and customs.
I haven't suggested that entry but if you say so I'm up for it.
It is rejected by them, and perhaps by other Castilian ethnocentric people
It's a non-democratic and imposed term. Have you seen the video issued by Compromís about the term País Valencià (Valencian Country)?
This article is far from being neutral and real so I'm entitle to say my opinion as well as to support User:Quico mm's views who's also a native Valencian citizen like me. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 11:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about your medieval ancestry (zilch, really). I might bruise the feelings of ethno-centrists, but I think I am stating the obvious. My level of English can be improved but it is good enough to make my point, thanks. I suggest you to stop using Wikipedia as a tool to push your ideas. You are entitled to think you live in a three-state confederation but you are mixing desires with reality. If those are your feelings, very well, kudos for portraying your feelings as reality in your user page, but it is becoming glaringly obvious you are editing here in order to push those feelings into the main space. I couldn't care less about the origin of the term Valencian Community in regards of the naming of that territory (neither should you) but about the usage in the English language.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Jɑuмe Let's see: Not wanting to be Catalan when you are not Catalan, not wanting to have anything to do with the political project of Greater Catalonia (or "Catalan Countries" whatever they want to call it) and not wanting the region of Catalonia to meddle in local affairs or take over your own identity is not "Catalanophobic". It's simply a political stance of not accepting this political project or imposed identity when you have your own identity thank-you-very-much. Just as Western Sahara does not want to be part of Morocco even though they also speak a dialect of western Arabic. The term is controversial because the majority of the populations of the Balearics, Valencia and Alghero do not accept it. It has a wide support 'within' Catalonia but not outside it, as is the case for all expansionist or irredentist projects. They are supported by the expansionist entity but are not very popular in the communities they aim to take over. There is no doubt this term is controversial outside Catalonia. There is no doubt it is very controversial in the target communities (Valencia, Balearics etc...). Nothing more to add.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
By proper English I meant by not using derogatory terms...
As a Castilian ethnocentric who you seem to be (by your pushing attitude and your previous assertion) it's obvious you don't care about us... And yes, I can feel there's still a strange and backward essence from the past in Spain that wants to absorb us and perhaps annihilate our nation (with corruption and recentralization), but that has to stop.
I'm not pushing those feelings because I'm democratic, that's why I'm speaking here, and I'm pretty calm :)
And yeah, of course I care about the non-democratic term (Valencian Community) that was used to suppress our identity, however I've learned to live with its existence and I don't replace it by Valencian Country unless it's required by an article's content (after all it [Valencian Country] is the modern conception of the Kingdom of Valencian according to our law)... But have you learned to live with the existence of the Valencian Country? I don't think you have by your attempts to supress it. And well... We know this page is an article about the Catalan Countries, and the Valencian Country is one of them (whether you like this terminology or not, you should respect it as it is a valid term, and you should know well this is the term used in our documents) — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 13:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Catalanophobia is going against the Catalan Countries (like the PP), and that's what you're doing. And yeah, Catalanophobia is what the PP has done in the past 20 years, from stealing money from the Valencians and making us going bankrupt to suppress all links with Catalonia (e.g. TV3 signals), and not creating the Mediterranean corridor, but creating high speed stations in Castilian or Galician villages with 20 inhabitants... Diminish the name of the Valencian Country, etc. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 13:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you want I also speak about the Valencian budget and the plundering? — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 13:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Jɑuмe I don't know if this last edit was for me or for Asqueladd but these political rants are more appropriate for Facebook or Twitter or some other social media. Not Wikipedia. I remind you the Partido Popular is a party which is particularly strong in Valencia, it is voted by Valencians and composed of Valencians. No one else is to blame but Valencians. Certainly not these evil "Castilians" you keep referring to and seem to want to blame for Valencia's problems. I understand Valencia's issues and model of economic development may make you want to be Catalan, but that is not the case for the majority of the population of your region, who still find the term "Catalan Countries" somewhere in the continuum between "controversial" and "offensive".Asilah1981 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Catalan too, as they are my ancestors. I also have family in Catalonia. The PP is not strong now in Valencian, they're not even in power. And btw one of the parties in the current government coalition has issued a video to contest the usage of the non democratic and imposed term (Valencian Community). — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you stop calling us region too, it is very offensive. Catalan Countries is neither controversial nor offensive. If it is for you, you probably are catalanophobic. And it's proved by the way you call us region. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's the video from Compromís-Bloc Jove [12]. It explains the usage of Valencian Community is anti-democratic and promotes the term "Valencian Country" — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I clearly doubt you two are from Valencia and know anything about our country and language, i think you're imposters like Quico mm said — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Jɑuмe The term "region" is not controversial in Valencia, as you know full well. No one cares what its called as long as its not called anything related to Catalans. And in the rest of Spain no one gives a flying fuck how Valencians decide to call their region. Compromis is a coalition of parties (only some of which have Catalanist tendencies). Together they obtained 18% of the vote. Partido Popular obtained 27%, the PSOE obtained 21%, Ciudadanos obtained 12%, Podemos 11%. From this it is clear that your views represent the minority of a minority of the Valencian people. A youtube video by some random dude is not a source. Please provide proper sources. Put up or shut up.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't have education, let me tell you that... Compromis is a Valencian nationalist party (see Bloc Nacionalista Valencià) and is pancatalanist as it supports an association with the rest of Catalan-speaking territories. It is not a random dude, the video has a label from Compromís.
AFAIK there is a left wing coalition in the government (PSPV [Socialist Party of the Valencian Country]-Compromís-Podem). The rest of sources you can find it in Fuster's, Sanchís, Guia, and many authors, including the Valencian statute of autonomy, all the public Valencian universities and hundreds of public and private institutions . — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you trying to laugh at me by your recent edit on the article? 14:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Jɑuмe I am not trying to laugh at you although I do find your views laughable. The leader of Compromis does not even dare use the term "Catalan Countries" in Public as she states here [1]. So even your Valencian Nationalist Party (its not a Valencian nationalist party, it focuses mainly on fighting corruption and a social agenda) accept the term is controversial. And you don't??? Give me a break man. Just give up. Share your supremacist garbage on social media. Just leave wikipedia alone. A majority of Valencians think Catalan isn't even the same language as Valencian, as sourced in the article. Your dream of Greater Catalonia is doomed to failure quite simply because Valencians are not Catalan and they don't want to be Catalan. Just accept it and move on. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Its not my party... anyway the bloc nacionalista uses the term and has exhibited flags in public [13]... However my point is not to remove any controversial aspect about this article but to move it to a different section or to the last paragraph on the lede. Also my point includes using the term Valencian Country (backed by many sectors, incl. the supporters and creators of the Catalan Countries as a concept), remove all the biased explanations on the lead & the article (like the creation of one state) and starting with a sentence that avoids the term "controversial" and focus on the cultural, linguistic and geographic aspects of the term.
And well... I'm far from being supremacist, but I support my roots especially when someone is not being fair... regarding the garbage of Spain as you call it, I'll share it any time, as it's way too corrupt
Btw, Euskal Herria doesnt have this kind of problem, so the same should be applied here . — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
That is because the concept of Euskal Herria is implicitely and/or explicitly accepted by the Spanish constitution which specifically allows for Navarra and Euskadi to merge should they so decide. There is a political consensus accepting its legitimacy within Spain and it has widespread support on both sides of the Navarrese-Basque border. Euskal Herria is a concept also based on the ethnic reality of basques, which no one denies. Yes, there is a political party in Navarra which opposes the merger and believes that Navarra has a distinct identity (UPN), however they will not go as far as denying the Navarrese belong to the Basque ethnicity (at least partly) or wider cultural sphere, even if southern Navarra is perhaps more Castilian than it is Basque. No one in Spain will honestly deny that someone from, say, Zugarramurdi is Basque. The situation is different with "Catalan Countries". Valencians do not accept their language to be Catalan (they don't call it so), they don't consider their identity to be Catalan, they are perhaps the most fiercely anti-catalan region in Spain and they reject belonging to any form of wider cultural or political community. While the President of Madrid calls for launching Catalan language public schools in Madrid, in Valencia, Catalan TV being broadcast locally is a matter of controversy. If I go around a Catalan-speaking area of Valencia referring to their language as Catalan, they will be offended. If I refer to their history or traditions as Catalan, they will be offended. Go tell a Valencian that the Fallas are a tradition of the Catalan countries, or that Paella belongs to the Catalan cuisine. Lets see what they say. This is a fact. As much as you would like to change this reality, this is the reality you live in.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, in the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and Navarre, the union of those territories is not only rejected by UNP, but also by PP[14] and Citizens[15] (the latter also rejects the Basque economic agreement[16] which has been advantageous and positive for the modern Basque society). PSOE is ambiguous in this matter, although it supports more a differenciated identity.
As far as I am concerned and although there is no mention to it (like in the Basque case), the Spanish Constitution does not prohibit a union of the Catalan Countries into one (nation-)state, but forbids the federation (horizontal cooperation) of territories, which I don't support for going against the essence of the Catalan Countries and the former organisation of the Crown of Aragon.
You're speaking about the Catalanophobic policies used by the PP in the last two decades: Denial of the Catalan-Valencian linguistic unity, suppression of the Catalan-Valencian links, usage of the term region, etc. - these views are, according to most experts and official positions—such as the AVL among many—not the reality. IMO these denial views and conceptions you're talking about are just like saying the Valencian people think the earth is flat when it is not (so does it mean they're right? Obviously not!), and while I agree a high percentage of Valencians have been convinced by wrong and hatred (Catalonophobic) ideas, I don't agree this percentage is high or substantial everywhere in the Valencian Country as you're trying to explain. Furthermore, I would like to mention that between the denials there are two types of Valencians, i.e. those who support the recognition of the Valencian nation (differentiated from the Catalan nation) and those who support a single-Spanish nation. Your views as by the way of speaking seem the later and seem you just want to confuse other readers and users...
To end, I'll add some facts about the supporters of the Catalan linguistic unity (and the Catalan Countries):
Most of them support an association or cooperation with the other territories where Catalan is spoken (see Compromís policies)[17][18]
They support the recognition of the Catalan and Valencian nations[19] Some groups also seek the recognition of the Balearic Islands as a nation.
A majority of the society of Catalonia support the creation of a Catalan State (i.e. for Catalonia, not for the Catalan Countries). The creation of a Valencian State has less support.
Minority groups may support the creation of a single Catalan state (for all the Catalan Countries), but this is far from being a univocal idea
They support further devolution and the creation of (different) economic agreements with Spain.
They use the name of the modern conception of the Kingdom of Valencian (i.e. Valencian Country) and contest the usage of the non-democratic term Valencian Community.[20] — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow. I don't know what language unity has to do here. You have the entry about the Catalan language in order to deal about it. As far as I know nobody here is denying catalan and valencian are essentially the same language. This is not supposed to be a crappy fork of Catalan language. The rest of your points are a bunch of non sequiturs and WP:OSE. And while I don't fully agree with Asilah in the premises I agree the EH entry is not an example to follow (mostly because it is not a particularly commendable article to take as example). And for the upteenth time: learn to deal with the name "Valencian Community". You'd better start writing it again and again in the blackboard ala Bart Simpson or something like it.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Read more carefully and you'll understand my answers. I was speaking about the past Catalanophobic policies in the Valencian Country... and yes, I deal with that name, however as it is an imposed name and this name does not match with the conception of the Catalan Countries (with the Valencian Country being one of them) I don't agree it should be everywhere, especially if we could use a more neutral, general and non offensive name like "Valencia", the term used in all the writings about the Catalan Countries ("Valencian Country") or both.
You should understand the real facts (about this article's issues) and don't try to come up with non sensible excuses or explanations to avoid to improve this page, therefore I don't agree with your arguments.
I don't think I need to do that, and don't really watch The Simpsons...
This article can speak about the aim of a possible cultural, linguistic and/or political federation/association of the Catalan-speaking territories. An independent state sounds more unitarian to me, and we all know Andorra is (already) a state, Catalonia wants to be one, and some groups in the Valencian Country and the Balearics may also want one in their respective territories.
Regarding the POV tag you're not entitled to remove it (until we solve the neutrality problem)... — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
What "facts"? Frankly, I don't speak bullshit, my dear. I am not sure you understand English. A sovereign state is a sovereign state. Mexico is a federation and is a sovereign state, Switzerland is a federation (nominally a confederation) and is a sovereign state. And so on. It has nothing to do with the level of decentralization.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Read the title of this section and its content. And read properly what I say. And btw I don't know what you eat but your language is terrible.
A sole sovereign and independent state is a minority or alternative view, there aren't many Catalans or Valencians that want Andorra (an independent Catalan Country) to lose neither their sovereignty nor their "independence". To me the current lead sounds ambiguous and as I said before could you stop removing my labels and edit warring about the generic name for the Valencian Country. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 12:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Eureka. You've just found the political meaning of Països Catalans is espoused by a minority outside from Catalonia. Now, why don't you stop being fickle about the supposed ambiguity of the term "independent state" (LOL?) because it sounds too "unitarian" to your ears? (LOL).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You keep edit warring about the same. As I said we can use the general name "Valencia" or even "Valencian Country" (like in the video of Compromís, the labels of many Valencian institutions or the documents about the Catalan Countries). Moreover you're not giving valid answers that contest my proposals, and you're being too pushy about this topic. Do you have any problem against our culture?
Being unitarian could be an option for some, but this is not the only view about the Catalan Countries (which ironically is a term in plural). I think I've already gave you too many explanations, and can see you're running out of excuses... why are you mentioning my grandmother? — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 13:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No. The version prior to the conflict had Valencian Community in it. You are the one edit-warring in the issue. Why you keep insisting in it when "Valencian Community" is the "precise", "unambiguous" and "most used in English sources" term in order to refer to that autonomous community? Because you don't like it and because it bruises your feelings. Well, nobody could care less!!!--Asqueladd (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC) The perception of "sovereign state" as something unequivocally "unitarian" is mostly in your head, not in the crude reality awaiting you out there.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really tbh... As I said before I can cope with it, however this is not a democratic name and it is not the name used in all the records about the Catalan Countries. And yeh, "Valencian Community" is more popular because it has been promoted by certain (perhaps antagonist) groups... However "Valencian Country" or simply "Valencia" are also valid designations supported by numerous institutions. and well, as I mentioned in my previous talks these names have legitimacy and could be used when required (i.e. by the context of an article, section, etc.) — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree, it could also mean an intergovernmental association or a supranational union — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Random section break
The article could do with more citations. For instance: "Elsewhere, particularly in the autonomous community of Valencia, it is widely viewed with hostility as an expression of Catalan cultural and political expansionism". Now, I tried Google and Google Books with a number of different search terms, but I didn't come up with a single result for this. It's a very strong statement to have no citation. There is a ref at the end of the sentence, but it's a ref for the statement that "a majority of its population considers Valencian to be a different language to Catalan." To say that the one implies the other would be synthesis, which is not allowed per WP:NOR. The same goes for a lot of what's being said in the discussion above, on both sides. It's not enough just to state that this is offensive to Valencians or that is offensive to Catalans. We need reliable, published secondary sources. And English-language sources would be good, too. If a thing is significant enough, there should be some mention of it in foreign-language media. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you Scolaire. Moreover the term Catalan Countries is more about a union than creating a single independent state, therefore the statements Asqueladd are trying to push are not correct and relevant for the introduction (first sentence) of this article. — Jɑuмe(dis-me)
I kind of agree with Scolaire. The article could do with more citations. I do not agree with JaumeR nor with his use of the word Moreover.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's the reality Asqueladd. There's not just one Catalan-speaking entity and the aim of it is not just to create one single independent state as I've been trying to explain you with all my into above. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 10:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's the reality MrJaume. Nobody (but maybe you, having just introduced a "country" infobox in the article...) is implying that. Using academic sources in order to give a precise definition of the "national project" of the Països Catalans, is not that. Dear Jaume.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not the reality and I'm reluctant you know what the Catalan Countries are with the info you're providing and deleting. The country infobox is also used with the European Union (which is not a country), so we can use it here. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 10:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you by any chance trying to say the EU and the Catalan Countries are homologous constructs? Dear, you are a goldmine.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really trying to compare us with anything and I never said they're "homologous", however as we're several countries (Andorra, Valencian Country, etc.) and the EU or Commonwealth too, and these articles display the country infobox, we also can. Personally I think the Catalan political project might not be far from the reality of those unions.. and please stop calling me dear, you don't even know me. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 11:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
So you are inserting it on the basis of what you think that political project (according to you, "your" political project) might be in the future? Again, you are a goldmine. --Asqueladd (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Whether an only single nation-state and country (which is not really the reality of the "Catalan Countries") or a union of countries, the latest is the most correct definition according to the nationalisms of the Catalan Countries and many political parties. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 11:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I am becoming tired of dealing with nothing but non-sequiturs. I don't know according to whom. Not according to secondary sources. Can you revert back to the stable version before you started introducing content while simultaneously not making any sense in the talk page.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid but I can't revert it to a worse version that defines the Catalan Countries as just one Catalan-speaking country (and nation). They are not non sequiturs, as they respond to your trials to remove the info and data I provided on the main page. Also and besides the sources I provided here and on this article, there are other/more sources that prove my statement. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 14:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course you can. And reach consensus here. The article wasn't as you imply. It was about presenting the term as the name for the places where catalan is spoken and as a political project to create an independent state out of those territories seceding from Spain and France. As secondary sources do. I have provided you with secondary sources. You can't take the purpose of seceding from sovereign states from those who endorse the term (as sourced with secondary sources), away from the definition.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion it is not possible to reach a consensus with wrong and misleading information and intervenients, unless users like you or Asilah (who I think had been blocked) change or other users with a more positive and honest view intervene.
Again the previous introduction was wrong as it excludes other nationalisms from the Catalan Countries. Btw the previous version didn't have a source, then you added an alternative source after I added some sources and started editing it... Therefore I think it's not very positive to change it to a previous bad status. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 17:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Those are your opinions. Not enough to change without consensus. I suggest you enumerate the changes you want to introduce one by one here before the change is committed. Arcillaroja (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so you both agree with me (at least "kinda"). I'm changing the sentence I referred to to something that is verifiable, and less emotive. There's a similar problem with a lot of the other stuff.
The phrase "umbrella term" is problematic. I've looked at a few sources – English, Spanish and Catalan – and none of them says it means anything more than the areas where Catalan, or a variant thereof, is spoken. Yes there are cultural and political dialogues, but that doesn't mean there are two separate meanings.
"A political project" is another one. There very obviously are several "political projects": one in the 1930s, one in the 70s and 80s, and at least two today – Asqueladd's independence and Jaume's federation – both of which are verifiable by reference to reliable sources. That is very well explained in the "Different meanings" section, and it should be reflected in the lead. Edit-warring to change the lead to one or other version, and shouting each other down on the talk page, doesn't help to make the article encyclopaedic.
"The exact geographical delimitation is somewhat ambiguous". Again, I'm not seeing that in the sources. Here, here, here and here are four books which have no trouble in unambiguously delimiting the Catalan Countries. True, they give differing numbers of places, but that doesn't make it ambiguous; it means that it can have a broader or narrower delimitation, which is not the same thing. More importantly, none of them says it "was originally applied strictly to the Catalan-speaking areas". They're all happy to name Valencia, in its entirety.
"Controversial" or "controversy" occurs ten times in the article, and isn't sourced once! What does it add to the article? I can't see that it adds anything. People disagree, sometimes strongly? That's in the article, so adding the word "controversial" is gilding the lily. In particular, adding it in the first sentence – whether as a footnote or not - has the effect of telling readers what they should think before they read any further, which is against WP:NPOV.
Addressing these issues would go a long way to making the article more informative. Incidentally, I am not a fan of the country infobox. The Catalan Countries are not a current or a former entity, so it is misleading, and the tiny splodge on the world map look silly to me. Scolaire (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Asilah1981 would like to explain why he immediately reverted me. "Break flow in the paragraph" is not an explanation: the paragraph flowed just fine, and in any case it wouldn't justify restoring content that was unsourced and unencyclopaedic. Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire, I agree with your comments. The only thing which I would like to keep is the designation of "Controversial term". The very nature of the concept is in it self strongly controversial as seen constantly in the media nowadays. The term in itself implies the existence of a theoretical cultural and perhaps political irredentist union among territories where the Catalan language is or was spoken by the majority of the population. And this, is in itself very controversial, because it's not clear which are the territories that meet the criteria, if it should be called Catalan or Valencian what is spoken there, if it was spoken by the majority and when... Really, the discussion seems never ending. So in my opinion the whole thing seems very controversial. Arcillaroja (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's still a question of verifiablility. Is there a reliable source that says the term is controversial, as opposed to the concept of political or linguistic unity? If such a source can be found, it would still be better to say "the term itself is controversial" after the term has been explained, rather than start the article with "Catalan Countries is a controversial term". Scolaire (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Scolaire You are coming late to this discussion. There are a billion sources. It being controversial is its most salient feature and is considered unacceptable outside Catalonia proper, something like Greater Morocco not being considered cool in Algeria. Or Greater Hungary being controversial in Romania. It is not used in the press. It is not considered acceptable in Valencia or the Balearics. You have come late to this topic. We even have a link with an interview with the (pro-Catalan) Valencian nationalist party saying she doesn't dare say it in public for fear of offending her constituency. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I've pulled these changes and revert back to the stable edition. Hope it helps in any way. Merry Christmas to everyone.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Asilah1981: I'm not sure what the significance of "you are coming late to this discussion" is. If it means I'm in ignorance of what was said and done, I'm not. I went through every diff on the article, and every post on the talk page, before commenting. Now, I didn't ask for a billion sources. I asked – and it's only Wikipedia policy – that statements in the article are referenced by one reliable source each. I've cited four English-language books, by reputable authors. They have diverse views on the "Catalan Countries", but none of them says that "it being controversial is its most salient feature". If you can produce a good source that says exactly that, then it can go in. If not, then it can't. Likewise any comparison with Algeria or Romania. As for Mònica Oltra, I presume that this is the link you're talking about. But (if Google Translate has done right by me) she didn't say "she doesn't dare say it in public for fear of offending her constituency", she said she doesn't use it in public so as not to give ammunition to the PP. She also said she doesn't think of herself as a nationalist! The article also says that her party recognises the Señera, the Catalan language, and the "unity of the language". Some of that might go in the body of the article, provided it wasn't slanted to make it appear it says more than it does, but it doesn't belong in the lead. So, to repeat: Is there a reliable source that says the term is controversial, as opposed to the concept of political or linguistic unity? If such a source can be found, it would still be better to say "the term itself is controversial" after the term has been explained, rather than start the article with "Catalan Countries is a controversial term".
@Asqueladd: Your addition might be useful, but it would go in the body of the article. It's not suitable for the lead. Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scolaire: Not a problem as far as I am concerned. It was a tentative edit.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that could be worked in. Again, I don't need billions of sources, or even a dozen more. It's only a question of referencing statements in the article. That's all I'm concerned with here. Scolaire (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
And since you haven't addressed my edit of today, I am restoring it. Three editors out of three (before you rejoined the discussion) said they agreed with me, so it is a consensus edit. Scolaire (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Scolaire TBD. I think Wikipedia slow down next couple of days.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Neutral articles
I suggest to create the following redirects and disambiguation pages, which could link to this page (currently regarded as controversial by anti-Catalan and Castilian-ethnocentrics groups) or to a totally neutral article/section (purely based on linguistics):
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Països Catalans → Catalan Countries – This is the English Wikipedia--I have never seen or heard "Països Catalans" in an English source. Unlike, "El Paso" or "El Salvador" which are geographic regions which are never translated into English, "Catalan Countries" is a much more common term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the page would need to be moved.--Dk1919 (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Edits to the lead
Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion
The holiday is over, and there hasn't been any objection to the points I made above, apart from the argument for keeping the word "controversial". I've re-written the lead to make it informative, and also for flow, and to remove the words and phrases I identified as problematic. I believe it is neutral, and I would ask editors to discuss any issues they have with it here, rather than simply revert. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If the lead fails to adress the difference between the Catalan linguistic domain and what this thing may encompass and also if the first pararagraph fails to deal with the dual nature of the term in the first lines a worsening of the article is indeed happening (particularly as the body of the article is not dealing mainly with the geographical extension of the Catalan language, which btw is probably better dealt with in Catalan language). Despite some minor positives like removing the term controversial from the definition (which I think is ok, as long as it is explained later) and the toning down of terms such as "wide hostility" I don't see a net positive for this version, neither I have seen most of the changes implicitly agreed above.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia article. Its purpose is to inform, not instruct. Readers come here to find out what the Catalan Countries are, not what "the term" is or whether it's liked or not. The lead was failing to inform on what they are. My edit was the first to say that it commonly refers to Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands. All earlier edits allowed the impression that it meant absorbing Andorra and annexing Alghero. So the opening paragraph now states clearly for readers what "Catalan Countries" means. It doesn't "deal with the dual nature of the term" because, as I said above, the term doesn't have a dual nature, per multiple reliable sources. The second paragraph describes the two aspects of discourse on the Catalan Countries: linguistic/cultural and political. It doesn't stress the linguistic/cultural aspect any more than the article body does. As regards implicit agreement, I made a number of arguments above, none of which was challenged. That implies agreement. Scolaire (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is there to inform, indeed. Who have said otherwise? The lead fails to inform of the extent of the territory where Catalan is spoken. The lead fails to adress with the content of the body (per WP:LEAD) and that is not "to instruct". The first paragraph stresses more the linguistic aspect more than the article body does (only deals with the former).--Asqueladd (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
First off, the first paragraph doesn't stress any aspect of the Catalan Countries; it defines "Catalan Countries" in the terms in which it is defined in every source I've seen, then lists the territories that it includes, and ends with the sentence about correspondence with current and historical entities. Dealing with the extent of the territory where Catalan is spoken, it seems to me, would be stressing the linguistic aspect, but I would not have a problem with adding a short sentence to do that. As for the article body, I see a) "different meanings" (I'm inclined to change the heading and the opening words for reasons already stated, but otherwise there is no conflict with the lead), b) component territories, c) cultural dimension, d) political dimension and e) origin of the phrase, all of which are dealt with in my version of the lead. I fail to see how the previous version reflects the body any better. Bear in mind that most of the old lead is still there; I've just changed the order of the sentences for better flow and to better reflect the article body. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not see a problem with the first paragraph mentioning all the "meanings" of this, including the political project(s) (even in a different statement) instead of dealing only with the linguistic meaning and leaving the political meaning only at the end of the lead. So I see a worsening there. In the other hand, now the article states: Politically, it involves a pan-nationalist project to unite the regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearics, often in the context of Catalan independence, which is fine, but barring a source I do not see why the Roussillon has been excluded from there. Again I fail to see why the most used name in English sources (and the less ambiguous) denomination for the autonomous community comprised by the province of Alicante, Valencia and Castellón has been hidden from the lead. I know it would satisfy Jaume but for the purpose of precision, clarity and english usage I see a worsening indeed.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't know what you mean by "all the meanings". In the cultural sense, "Catalan Countries" means the areas where Catalan is spoken. In the political sense, "Catalan Countries" means the areas where Catalan is spoken. That's the only definition I've seen anywhere. To say it "means" a political project is wrong. It is used within a number of political projects, but that is not the same thing. As I said above, none of the sources I've looked at – English, Spanish or Catalan – says it means a political project, or indeed that it means anything other than the areas where Catalan, or a variant thereof, is spoken. That is how it should be defined in the first paragraph.
I can't shake the feeling that what you're actually saying is that you like the first sentence as it was, because it so admirably expresses your point of view. It seems to me also that there's a subtext: the English Wikipedia article should say the same as the Spanish Wikipedia article. That format of first sentence, however, was only introduced three months ago and there has never been a time since then that it has not been disputed. As far as I can tell, it has never had more than a couple of adherents. Even on Spanish Wikipedia, its addition was relatively recent, and generated a heated discussion on the talk page (which you know, because you took part). So the edit itself is controversial, and therefore best left out. My edit does not ignore the political aspect or the controversy; it's all there.
You say, "barring a source I do not see why the Roussillon has been excluded". But that's backwards. The sources I've seen say Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearics; it would require reliable secondary sources, given due weight, to include Roussillon. Even then, it would need to be thoroughly covered in the article body to merit a mention in the lead. And you say that "Valencian Community" is "the most used name in English sources". Not in any of the sources I've read. All of them just said "Valencia" (except one which said "Valencian country"). Your comment of "it would satisfy Jaume" suggests to me that your own motives are not purely encyclopaedic. Scolaire (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Haha, you are not presuming good faith. I get Valencian Community is the most used term in sources for that territory as that is the way the articled is titled after (aside from the fact that it is unambigous). I am certainly against hiding that name because Jaume "thinks it is an undemocratic term imposed from Madrid" (which I indeed would go as far as saying it is a pristine un-encyclopaedic motive, don't you agree?). Is that a purely un-encyclopaedic motive, Scolaire?--Asqueladd (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith, then. But Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The books, news stories etc. I've seen just say "Valencia". And in this article, it's clear from the context (and stated at the start) that it's the region that is referred to, not the province or the city. Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair then. I'll go forward 'bout the other bit of what the political project encompasses: "Así, generalmente, cuando se habla de los Països Catalans a nivel político, como un proyecto de futuro, se hace referencia a la unión hipotética y futura de la Comunidad Autónoma de Catalunya, la Comunidad Valenciana, la Comunidad Autónoma de las Islas Baleares y del Departamento de Pyrénees Orientales (Catalunya Nord)." Thus, generally, when PPCC are dealt at a political scope, as a future project, a hypothetic and future union of the autonomous community of Catalonia, the Valencian Community, the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands and the Deparment of Pyrénées-Orientales (Northern Catalonia) is being referred to.[1]--Asqueladd (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Indeed I can't shake the feeling I have had this same discussion (on far more nuanced arguments, tbf) elsewhere, if that is what you mean. Anyways, if you looked further into the es:wiki discussion, after several and "caustic" discussions we surprisingly reached a nice approximate consensus among several users with initially divergent stances on how to deal with the lead (even a with a SPA account sockpupetting and sabotaging around!).
Okay, so now we have something concrete for the political project: a hypothetical future union. Should that not go in at the start of the Political dimension section, rather than (again!) a statement that "the term" is controversial? Bearing in mind that, while we're discussing the lead, we should be looking at improving the article generally, and that the lead should summarise what is in the article. And this author includes Pyrénées-Orientales. So far, so good. But on the other hand there's this from ABC – one of Spain's "papers of record". It only has Catalonia, Valencia and the Baleares, not Roussillon. So which which do we go by – an academic study or a political platform? What are the corresponding politicians/parties saying in Catalonia, in the Baleares? Is there a corresponding party in Roussillon? Is there a nationalist or separatist movement there at all? These are the things the article should be telling us. When you think about it, it's a strange article that deals at length with people's reactions, without saying what they're reacting to. If the article was properly researched and written, we wouldn't have to keep sticking extra bits in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it is not easy to pull a precise definition of the political project, but you were the one oversimpliying, not me. ;) Another one: The CUP has the independence of Catalonia+Balearics+Rousillon+Valencian Community+La Franja as ideological axis.[1]--Asqueladd (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC) PS: As far as I am concerned, the "controversial" does not need to go in the first paragraph at all, but in a later paragraph explaining why it is controversial, at least as far as the political meaning is concerned (yeah, you can't shake the feeling you have already seen that stance elsewhere by a certain user at a certain wikipedia ;P) I just defend you should mention the term has a political meaning in the 1st paragraph (even if in a different sentence).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
We are going in circles here. What you have produced is a couple of pointers as to what the political project involves. It is not the "political" meaning of "Catalan Countries". "Catalan Countries" still has the one meaning, which you have described as "Catalonia+Balearics+Rousillon+Valencian Community+La Franja". The definition of "Catalan Countries" in the first sentence is not "the linguistic meaning"; it is the geographical definition, which happens to define it in terms of where the language is spoken. One of the sources you cited in this edit has Josep Antoni Duran Lleida defining the "Catalan Countries" as "the territories of Catalunya, Comunidad Valenciana, Baleares and other areas with the same linguistic ties", at the same time as saying it shouldn't be used because it is politically sensitive. So in politics it means "areas with linguistic ties", just as it does anywhere else. Until you produce a source explicitly stating that "Catalan Countries" has two distinct and different meanings, the article cannot say that. And since the cultural and political aspects are both independent of the geographical definition, they both properly belong in the second paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. If there are sources that say PPCC are a political project (have in mind the political aspect is well covered in the body) the lead can say so (The PPCC also are a political project or the likes) in the first paragraph. For all your self-confidence in the ONLY TRUE MEANING, you also have sources describing it as an ambiguous concept too, just sayin'...--Asqueladd (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
But do they say that? I read your first source as saying "When we talk of the Catalan Countries at a political level...". What are the Catalan Countries? Not "the political level", because you cannot talk of a political level at a political level. No, the Catalan Countries, they tell us, are "the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, the Valencian Community, the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands and the Department of Pyrénees Orientales (Catalunya Nord)." The second source talks of "the extension of this demand for independence in other areas previously considered to have formed part of the institutional, linguistic or cultural ambit called the Catalan Countries". Not the "political equivalent of the linguistically defined areas called the Catalan Countries", still less "the political meaning, the second of two different meanings of Catalan Countries". I still have not seen it described anywhere as "an ambiguous concept". They differ in how many or which areas are included in the political project(s) around the Catalan Coutries, but not in what the Catalan Countries are. It's not a case of "one true meaning", but of the only meaning that has been offered. I repeat, until you produce a source explicitly stating that "Catalan Countries" has two distinct and different meanings, the article cannot say that. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
(A mistake on my keyboard caused me to save an edit with a rubbish edit summary. It should have read "the first three (Catalonia, Valencia & the Baleares) are stated party policy as of 2016; the other (Roussillon) is just a mention in an academic journal – all are referenced in the Political dimension section.) Scolaire (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
So now. I get that for you, when it comes to weighting, bringing primary sources is better than bringing secondary sources that actually weigh (generally) a plurality of meanings? LOL... Well you have another secondary source backing up that the mention of Roussillin in the program of ERC in 2016 [21] aside from Rousillon and La Franja in the political program of the CUP I have already presented you. But well, for some reason I cannot begin to understand you think the default political proposal is three autonomous communities and you don't move from there (even refractarily rejecting secondary sources as "mention in academic journal". In the other hand, if all the provided sources additionally to:'
In consequence, a new concept arose: that of Països Catalans, i.e., ‘Catalan Countries’.It was not unambiguous: some interpreted it as a fundamentally cultural notion, whereas to others Països Catalans was the name of the genuine nation of the Valencian people, and even a project for a future nation-state.
Durante los años 60 del siglo pasado se utilizó -por primera vez- el término Països Catalans para referirse a un proyecto nacional que integraba a todos los territorios de habla catalana.[22] Fuster gave a political meaning to the coronym Paisos Catalans.[23]se concretó como proyecto político en la década de los 50
Are not ok to say. The term has been used to refer to a political/national project, has a national meaning or whatever you deem adequate, in the first paragraph (again, given the actual content of the body), nor no evidence of the world can move you from the political project is mostly a straightforward union of 3 autonomous communities and not multiple/undefined/variable/imprecise/ambiguous/non univocal, I am beginning to think this discussion with you this is a waste of time. Sorry.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
