Wikipedia

Talk:Catalan Countries/Archive 4

< Talk:Catalan Countries
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Wee Curry Monster in topic Obstinately reverting corrections
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Request for comment: Opening sentence

Latest comment: 6 years ago81 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
On a sheer count of numbers, we are left with an equal support for both versions 1 and 3. I would like to note here that version 3 was not part of the original RFC but was added later by Asqueladd. That will not however alter the result of this RFC. There are also 2 votes supporting version 1 which ask for slight modifications to the version. However, no discussion has been made on those proposals. My closure here is based on my determination of the consensus and I have considered not only the !Votes but also the rationale given for each. Analyzing the discussion in favour of version 3, most participants (not naming anyone) have repeated the rationale provided by others or given their personal opinion. Further, the same could be said to be true for those supporting version 1 to a certain extent. However, some participants have provided well-sourced rationales in support of version 1 and based their !vote on policy and guidelines. Thus, to me, the consensus is in a favour of version 1 as proposed in the original RFC. The lead sentence should thus read "Catalan Countries refers to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken." according to the consensus established in the long drawn RFC below. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Should the opening sentence read:
(1) "Catalan Countries refers to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken", or
(2) "Catalan Countries is a term used by some sectors of Catalan nationalism referring to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken"?
Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(3) "'Catalan Countries is a term used to refer to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken" or The term "'Catalan Countries refers to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken"

Survey

  • Support version 1: a neutral statement of fact. The use of the term by Catalan nationalists, and the dislike of it by others, is clearly stated in the second paragraph of the lead, so there is no need to introduce a bias in the opening sentence. "Catalan Countries" is used repeatedly in a British publication, Historical Dictionary of the Catalans, written by Helena Bufferty, an Englishwoman, and Elisenda Marcer, a Catalan, and edited by Jon Woronoff, an American. It's also found in The Welsh Language: A History, by a Welsh writer, and in Frommer's Guide. There is no evidence that Joan Martí i Castell (Rovira i Virgili University), Creu Casas (Institute of Catalan Studies), Joan Albert López i Bustins (PhD student in geography, University of Barcelona), Clare Mar-Molinero (University of Southampton), Juan Cobarrubias (Seton Hall University), or Josep Llobera (Goldsmiths, University of London) belong(ed) to any "sector of Catalan nationalism". Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 1 modified per WP:REFERS. Regardless of what any of us thinks of the term, the people who use it or their motivations, the first sentence should simply – per WP:BEGIN – "tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". We go on later to describe where, when and how the term has been used and the different opinions about the concept. So: "The Catalan Countries (...) are those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken.": Noyster (talk), 11:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3 because it is more precise then 1, and 2 is poorly worded and confusing Seraphim System (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 1 is clear, concise and it flows. The latter two versions are not as good as the first version when it comes to conciseness and the flow of the sentence.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 2: No serious source outside circles of the more fundamentalist elements of Catalan Nationalism consider the "Catalan Countries" as an actual reality. I don´t see the difference with Greater Hungary with redirects to Hungarian irredentism. The term is highly controversial within the territories it purports to encompass (notably Valencia and Balearic islands) and this NPOV BBC Source best describes the term. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20345071 I would request supporters of Version 1 and 3 to present a non-Catalan nationalist credible source supporting the definition. For now we just have the BBC.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3As per below discussions and consensus building.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 1 Summoned by Legobot. Version 1 does it for me. Despite Asilah1981's assertion above, I found dozens of sources that refer to 'Catalan Countries' without mentioning nationalism. Jschnur (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Jschnur Could you back that assertion with a source? I have not found a single one (excluding blogs) which is not either discussing Catalan Nationalism or (more commonly) published by a Catalan nationalist organization or associated think tank. This RfC was premature, btw. Solid arguments and sources need to be provided, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_process.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
See my post at the top of this section. I have provided links to nine sources (actual books written in English) which refer to the Catalan Countries in contexts as diverse as language, marine biology, rainfall and cuisine. All but the Welsh book and the Frommer's guide were written by people at respected academic institutions – three by people at British universities – and none of them was published by "a Catalan nationalist organization or associated think tank". Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
ResponseScolaire, that is the best you can do? A thesis by an obscure Phd student in a Catalan University discussing rainfall, a treatise by a Catalan Nationalist and passing use of the sentence in a cook book (out of dozens and dozens of entries)? Any of us involved in this discussion and who perform a google search can surely see that it only exists within the realm of the more extreme (expansionist) form of pro-independence Catalan nationalism - It is largely restricted to those URL ending in ".cat" which exists to promote this cause and politically activist outlets such as Catalanmonitor.org or ambindependencia.acp.cat. Were you to find as a reputable and mainstream' source (e.g. an international newspaper like the Financial Times, The Economist, The Guardian... anything really) outside the nationalist ecosystem which uses the term in the way you want it to be defined and the rest of us would be satisfied. The thing is they don't. They are largely aligned with the BBC definition, precisely because it is a highly contested, controversial term which is not used outside the scope of political activism.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3: This seems slightly preferable over version 1, since it offers an appropriately neutral nomenclature. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3: Per my comment below at threaded discussion [1] (tl;dr: per how sources present the term which also happens to be coherent with the content and focus of the article).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 1: Version 3 would be a weaker alternative choice, since the wording of Version 1 is more succinct. Version 2 is not neutral, since it is based on the perspective of another form of nationalism that doesn't recognize that Catalan countries even exist. The suggestion for Version 2 is not a sustainable argument IMHO, since neutral third parties use the term ie it isn't restricted to "Catalan nationalists". WCMemail 14:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 1: It's neutral enough and more concise, and technically means the same thing as what Version 3 states. I'd also recommend replacing "those" with "the", otherwise it doesn't sound very natural. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Invalid RfC The RfC is framed in terms of style rather than sources supporting the statement (which directly contradict it) thus misleading editors on the nature of the dispute. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you point me to the section of WP:RFC that says that RfCs must be "framed in terms of sources supporting a statement"? The RfC question (though neutrally phrased) is whether the opening sentence should be a simple statement of what the subject is, or a POV interpretation of it. Participants are well able to evaluate both the sources in the article and the nine sources I have linked to above showing the use of the term by reputable authors not known as Catalan nationalists, in various contexts other than Catalan nationalism. Also, as you well know, the use of the term by Catalan nationalists is described both in the lead and throughout the article; this is not an attempt to hide it. Please don't think that putting "Invalid RfC" in bold entitles you to ingnore the eventual result. Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3: Given that Catalan Countries is a proper noun/term of art, I think it is helpful to the reader to remind him/her that it should be capitalized when written. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • None. Based on the above discussion, I understand that Version 1 is not true, because it presents a POV concept as a universally accepted term. Version 2 is not neutral ("Catalan nationalism") and contradicts to WP:Weasel ("some sector"). Version 3a contradicts to WP:Weasel (by whom is this term used?). Version 3b is the same as Version 1. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3: I support this version as best for all the reasons others stated in favor of this version. Horst59 (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 1. "Those" might also be unnecessary. The mention of nationalism further down in the lede is sufficient; to have it in the lede is likely undue. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Close: We can close this, have come to a compromise on the lead. Ideally this article should redirect to "Catalan-speaking territories" in which the (imaginary and POV) concept of Catalan Countries can have its section. But this can be discussed down the line in a separate RfC. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
We need an outside close. It's very close between v1 and v3. It's usual to place a request at WP:ANRFC either when the template expires after 30 days, which would be 13 May, or when nobody has !voted for seven days, which as of now would be 12 May. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok Well I guess I go for Version 3, since its true that V2 would be repetitive.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Well I recommend that you strike your !vote for version 2 then, since it's not permitted to !vote twice. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Version 3 Summoned by Legobot. As long as it is clearly stated in the article that this term is a highly politicized and that is only used by some Nationalistic Catalan sectors. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As the 30 days is up, I have requested a close at WP:ANRFC. --Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

"The territories where the Catalan language is spoken" was the wording used up until September 2016. On 16 September 2016 the "nationalist" gloss was added for the first time. There was never a time when this was not disputed, and there were almost 100 edits and reverts over the next three and a half months, as well as a ton of discussion, mostly acrimonious, on the talk page (see above). On 3 January this year, I changed back to the "refers to those territories where the Catalan language...is spoken" wording. This version was stable for a further three and a half months until yesterday when the "some sectors of Catalan nationalism" wording was reintroduced. This is not going to be resolved by another round of "discussion" with a small number of partisan editors each not hearing what the other is saying. It needs to be dealt with by an RfC with an unambiguous outcome. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the content/nature/scope of the article (borders meta-historiography, deals mainly with its "dimensions"[sic], etimology, et al), I think there is a better (3rd) way to encapsulate it: Catalan Countries is a term used to refer to... (instead of PP.CC refers to). The inclusion of "term" is not gratuitous, but coherent with the content and line of the article (and itself used by reliable sourcesthe term Catalan Countries refers to)*. Yet I think the lead fails to inform adequatedly about the ambiguity of it, but that's another discussion.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
To not include the HUGE body of academia which present Catalan Countries/Països Catalans with quotation marks/cursive/et al, which we cannot replicate here due to the policy on squarequotes, but that nonetheless strongly suggest the meta-historiographical approach on the topic (more input in the term than the territory itself, which again bodes well with the content). "Second, references to the territory of Catalonia are contested. A substantial number of people refers to the so called Països Catalans (Catalan Countries) including Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands and territories across the Pyrenees on the French side of the border.[2]--Asqueladd (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Mistakes being stable for a long period are not a valid argument. It is a gross error and, more importantly, the definition is unsourced or not supported by existing sources. We need a source which claims the term is "Commonly used to refer to these territories". Really? Commonly used by who? Have you googled the term? The result is actually sad. It is simply not used outside Catalan nationalism (and not even by all of it for that matter) and certainly not outside Catalonia / Spain in any credible source. I will eventually have to include relevant tags if an appropriate source is not provided for this version.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There are three inline citations in the first paragraph of the lead. Adding tags would just be disruptive. "Commonly used" doesn't mean that people are talking about it in bars and cafés around the world; it just means that Catalonia+Valencia+Balearics is a more common geographical referent than Catalonia+Valencia+Balearics+Franja+Roussillon+Andorra+Alghero. Scolaire (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes and all three sources are articles/books on Catalan Nationalism and the terms7concepts it uses in its discourse (i.e. like Greater Hungary or Greater Morocco). Hence the current version is sheer fantasy as well as NPOV.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire, let me try to explain again. The point of contention is whether "Catalan Countries" are 1) a concept / term or whether they are 2) a tangible reality. The overwhelming majority (I would say the totality) of credible sources see it as a concept to the point that, as Asqueladd mentions, they are often put in quotes and used to define a nationalist/irredentist discourse. If the article was called "Catalan-speaking territories" then perhaps the political charge of the term would be lost and it would be ok to describe it as you do (even if Valencians would still object to the idea that they speak Catalan). But that is not the case and neutral sources do not support your definition which focuses on an inexistent reality rather than the concept. There is that issue and that of sourcing. We need at least one proper credible source which is absent for Version 1. I provided one for Version 2 (BBC), and Version 3 would cut it although the rest of the lead clearly points to Version 2 being the most accurate.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The RfC question is whether the words "by some sectors of Catalan nationalism" should be included in the first sentence, not whether "Catalan Countries" is/are a concept or a tangible reality. Version 3 addresses the "term" question, and I would be happy with that, although it is not my first choice. Version 2, which is against WP:NPOV, is unacceptable to me, and doesn't have the support of any other participant as of now. As for "definition", all three versions use the same wording to define the countries: "those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken". If the BBC web page is a source for the definition in one version, it is a source for the definition in all of them. By the way, I like the way you sneer at me for citing "an obscure Phd student". At least I know the student's name, and who his supervisor was. Do you know who wrote the piece for the BBC website, or can you tell me why he/she is a more reliable source than the several academics that I cited? Scolaire (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

parenthesis and some explanations to scolaire

Scolaire I would like to point something out. I think you are drawing parallelisms with your native Ireland. You probably think our position is the equivalent of denying Ireland or the Irish people exist, on the grounds that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, hence your strong position on this matter. Ireland and the Irish people are a factual reality, they existed before the British and, way things are going, they will exist after the British. The issue of identity in Spain is much more complex and it is nothing to do with Ireland's simple history of subjugation, colonization and partition. There is a reason why this concept is controversial within the "Catalan countries" and is not a mainstream term internationally. It is controversial to native Valencians who are not (like in Northern Ireland) an implanted religious minority - although Catalan settlers did bring their language to this region when it was conquered by the Kingdom of Aragon. Commonalities exist but there are just as many or more unique distinctions. To Valencians it is as offensive as it would be for Andalusians or the Canary Islands or Mexicans to be called "the Castilian Countries" - I don't think it would be appreciated if people in Madrid started using that expression. Valencian identity was not "created" by Spain to divide and rule a "Catalan Nation", it has been omnipresent and consistently distinct from the Catalans throughout history. I think discussing this more deeply rather than us going on about the absence of sources supporting your definition might be more helpful and likely for us to come to an agreement. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not drawing any parallel whatsoever with Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Then I'm afraid I simply don't understand your position.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of Catalan Countries in non-partisan sources

I have gone through all 16 pages of Google Search for Catalan Countries, and so far the only definitions I have found from non-nationalist or credible international sources are the following:

  • His concern, at first comically surprising, is perhaps more understandable seeing the ideological collapse, or transformation, of Artur Mas towards the CUP, which signed their "radical democracy" document "from the Catalan countries" (Paisos Catalans), the utopian vision Catalan separatists hold of a Greater Catalonia.(THESPAINREPORT) https://www.thespainreport.com/articles/472-151113005813-artur-mas-s-toughest-challenge
  • Variants are also spoken in the region of Valencia to the south, and on the Balearic islands, leading many Catalan nationalists to regard all three regions- as well as the traditionally Catalan-speaking Roussillon region of France - as forming the "Catalan Countries". (BBC)http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20345071

Asilah1981 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What do sources provided by Scolaire say Catalan Countries is? i.e. what should go in the lead?

Scolaire, you are shooting yourself in the foot by presenting sources which actually contradict 100% your own position. Now perhaps is the time to take this to Dispute Resolution. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop this guerrilla-type edit-warring at Catalan Countries. There is currently a Request for comment in progress as to whether the first sentence of the article should say that "Catalan Countries" is only used by Catalan nationalists. As of now, only one contributor – you – has voted in favour. There is at this moment a clear and unambiguous consensus against it. If there is a rush of votes in favour of the addition before the RfC is closed, then the sentence will be changed in due course. Until then, edit-warring to replace your wording is not only against the spirit of RfCs, it is totally against consensus as well.
The term "Catalan Countries" – whether or not it is used exclusively by Catalan nationalists, and whether or not it is enclosed in scare quotes – may be used (i.e. sometimes is used) in a narrower sense for Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands. That is all that the first part of the second sentence of the lead says. It makes no comment on the nature or validity or morality of the term that may be used for those three territories. Your preferred wording, "It encompasses the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands", "It includes the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands" or "used for the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands" says the same, except it is more ambiguous, saying it is those three regions, but it also includes the others (Roussilon, Andorra etc.) The three sources you linked to verify the fact that it may be used for those three, a fact that you don't appear to dispute. So where's the problem?
Meanwhile, You have avoided commenting on the nine sources that I listed at the top of the RfC. How many, and which, authors of those books, articles and theses can be shown to not only be Catalan nationalists, but to belong to "a certain sector" of Catalan nationalism? How many, and which, used "Catalan Countries" in a way that obviously espoused Catalan nationalism and Catalan expansionism? I repeat, the majority of those authors are respected academics, some belonging to British universities, and some are not Catalan at all. If the term is verifiably used by reliable sources in a way that doesn't promote Catalan nationalism by people who are not Catalan nationalist activists, then it is verifiably not used only by Catalan nationalists, never mind "some sectors" of them. One sentence by one anonymous hack on the BBC website does not trump multiple academic sources.
Also, please stop using tendentious comments like "You gotta be kidding me. How long did you think it would take before someone actually read the source" and "you are shooting yourself in the foot". I have never shown less than total respect for you and I don't see why I should not be respected in turn.
Finally, I have already taken this to dispute resolution. A request for comment is a part of dispute resolution. The DRN would not accept a request while this in progress. I sincerely hope that, having expressed the desire for dispute resolution, you will accept the outcome of this RfC, and I will ask you again to stop edit-warring while it is in progress. Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
You have not provided sources which support your definition. You have, however provided 3 sources which claim that Catalan Countries is an imaginary concept restricted to Catalan Nationalism. I suggest you are coherent and reconsider your position. And RfCs are not a vote by drive-by editors. Of course I will take this further. I remind you removing tags without a valid reason is against wikipedia policy.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Equally adding tags to make a WP:POINT, when they are inappropriate is also disruptive. We have guidelines that suggest you don't use tags disruptively and there are editors who've been surprised at ending up with a block as they thought tag bombing an article to make a point was a bullet proof way to be disruptive. The fact you are in a minority of one and others having reviewed the same sources came to a radically different conclusion to your claims is of course germane to that. You should back off before you find yourself at ANI again, there is more than enough diffs here to result in a long block for disruption. WCMemail 15:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
WCM I suggest you stick to Gibraltar, Falklands and other such articles where the British Empire direly needs you and stop tracking my edits as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. Involving yourself out of personal dislike for another editor is also disruptive and can also lead to long term bans as you have been subject to in the past, so please save yourself your threats.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am simply a contributor to this RFC and was one of the original contributors to this article back in 2004 when I edited as an IP editor. That wasn't a threat but well intentioned advice you would do well to consider, stop edit warring and respect the RFC process. WCMemail 12:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I also note you can't respect my request to stop pinging, please do so. WCMemail 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatever, just don't remove the tag. Sources are needed to support contentious statements in a lead.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
And as Scolaire plus a whole load of uninvolved editors have told you, it is sourced. And BTW the lead is generally not sourced, since it reflects content in the actual article. It really is time you dropped the stick and backed away from the pile of dust that was once a dead equine. WCMemail 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just copy pasted the content of the sources which do NOT support the sentence. The RFC is framed in terms of style which is invalid, no one has actually said that the statement is sourced, they just argued it sounds better stylistically.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I always strive to comment on content but on this occasion it isn't warranted. I would suggest you think a moment, I'm aware of 5 or more RFC you've started on Gibraltar related topics. Its a fact, that like here, all of those went against your position. Let that sink in for a moment. You are constantly in opposition to community consensus. Even your regular supporter disagrees with you here. Time to drop the stick. WCMemail 07:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Erm actually they weren't, WCM. Most were in favor of my position - including the one where you wanted to rewrite the whole thing according to your POV, remember? As well as the numerous ANIs whereby you and Inaki tried to get me banned.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Let's take it from the top. The sentence that you are tagging says, up to the point where the references are: "In terms of territorial extent, it (Catalan Countries) may be used for the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands". It is followed by three refs – two books and a news item – that use "Catalan Countries" specifically in terms of those three territories (and not Roussillon etc.). Yes, all three sources use the term in the context of Catalan nationalist aspirations, but since that sentence does not say that they are used outside the context of Catalan nationalist aspirations, you cannot say that the sentence fails verification on those grounds. What you are doing, because you have repeatedly been asked not to revert to the disputed version the first sentence during the RfC, is pretending that those three citations in the second sentence were meant as citations for the first sentence, or rather, for the absence of a certain phrase about Catalan nationalists from the first sentence. They were not. Therefore edit-warring to replace that inappropriate tag is tendentious editing. Similarly, posting "Invalid RfC" in the survey section looks very like a statement that you are not going to accept the outcome, whatever it is. This is also covered by WP:TENDENTIOUS in the section, "One who never accepts independent input". Scolaire (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire the failed verification refers to the prior two sentence, which are unsourced/failed verification. Surely you understand it does not refer only to the immediately preceding one. The lead should clearly state that Catalan Countries is a concept not a reality and it is very restricted in use. This article reminds me of a comedian I once saw on TV in Turkey pretending to be a weatherman showing the map of "Turkey" i.e. the Ottoman Empire. It is outright ridiculous. As I mentioned (Greater Hungary (political concept) redirects to Hungarian irredentism. We just DON'T HAVE THE SOURCES to support your current definition of this imaginary concept which misleads the reader. Asilah1981 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Asilah, you cannot say that a ref refers to a sentence prior to the one it is in. It is outright ridiculous. You are admitting that your addition of inappropriate tags to the second sentence is edit-warring over the first sentence by proxy. That is disruptive. Don't. Scolaire (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well its either that or citation required tag in the first sentence. Its not disruptive, its a fact.Asilah1981 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll tell you what: I'll reword the second sentence to reflect the fact that the more restricted territorial definition is used by Catalan nationalists, and I'll add a citation to the first sentence – Frommer's complies with WP:RS. Now will you please stop your guerrilla war and let the RfC take its course? Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is an improvement, although to be honest, the linguistic version of the term is barely used in sources available. I mean, its like the "linguistic version" of Greater Hungary". Sure, Hungarian is spoken in Transylvania, and sure, you will find some Hungarian nationalist sources using the term in a "linguistic" sense, but it still doesn't cut it when it is not a normalized internationally used term. Do you understand what I mean?Asilah1981 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I think you underestimate the genuine sense of cultural affinity felt in these territories. Look at the Fundació Ramon Llull, for instance. This is run by national, regional or local governments in all the territories. You couldn't imagine a similar affinity between Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and Slovakia. The parallel with Hungarian irredentism is flawed, in my opinion. A more obvious comparison for me would be Latin America. This term was coined by imperialists (French, not Spanish), and it has its critics, but you don't see that up front in the article. The opening sentence just says it is the places where Romance languages are predominant. Try not to get so hung up on Google hits, by the way. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE don't say anything about Google hits. Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Just one remark. I agree that the concept of Greater Hungary is not a good parallel: it is a concept primarily based on history, independently of language. Greater Hungary is more similar to the concept of Spain. I think the concept of Greater Romania (the 19th-century irredentist claim to create a "national state" incorporating the "historical regions" where Romanian is spoken) is a better parallel to the concept of Catalan Countries. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, Greater Romania is compared to Greater Hungary in the lead of that article, and it's essentially the same thing: a large nation state that was once larger and wants to be again. Yes, it "would incorporate all Romanian speakers", but not – at least as far as I can tell from the article – on the basis of a shared culture. There's no equivalent in that article of the writings of Joan Fuster, for example. As this article states, Fuster and others who promoted the concept of the Catalan Countries were Valencian. Here is a New York Times article about the city of Alghero in Sardinia and its Catalan identity. Here (an archive page, unfortunately) is a web page of the government of Balearic Islands, written by the then Minister of Education and Culture, talking of the importance of Catalan culture in the Balearic Islands, "together with other territories with which we share the Catalan language" (here is another page on the same site that actually uses the phrase "Catalan Countries"). There is no hint of irredentism in these, no sense that Barcelona should be the centre of a Catalan nation state. They are the Catalan Countries themselves celebrating their Catalan (in a cultural/linguistic sense) identity. Scolaire (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The concept of Greater Romania was also promoted by Transylvanians, Moldovans, Bukovinans (that is ethnic Romanians from these regions) ... in the late 19th century, after the union of Wallachia and Moldavia into Romania. Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire, yes I see what you mean, but this is what it may seem to you from the outside. But you have to understand the millions of tax payer money the Catalan government pumps into these foundations and organizations, most of whose members are affiliated to the Catalan party ERC (e.g. Carod Rovira or Josep Bargallo). It is a fiction. They are not local or have local following of any interest and more often than not viewed with suspicion in the rest of the so-called "Catalan Countries". I think that comparing it to Latin America, is rather naive. The concept of Latin America is not contested within Latin America. No Latin American denies he is Latin American, and most are proud of being so. But the majority of Valencians do not consider themselves part of this outside imposition. It is a failed and extremely expensive attempt at nation building by the current Catalan government, and even within Catalonia it is criticized as a pointless waste of money by many. The Catalan Countries only exists within the realm of ideologically based public funding - hence the aversion it produces in Valencia particularly, but also as far as Alghero where these very organizations have been accused of colonialism and are increasingly unwelcome: Here is the source in Catalan: http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/71523/exalcalde/alguer/acusa/omnium/generalitat/colonialisme.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Another Catalan source discussing the concept:
The Països Catalans concept generates controversy, even in the complex biosphere of independence. As an example, the debate that this afternoon has been held at the Catalan University of Estiu en Prada, the academic temple of independence. Representatives from the Valencià, Catalunya Nord, Catalunya and Illas have debated the connection between these communities and the shared future they should aspire to.
And Joan Becat, from the Institut d'Estudis Catalans and based in Perpinyà, has proposed that in the Catalan sovereignty process Catalan organized a "congress of catalanofía". The anthropologist Marta Rovira, president of the Fundació Congrés de Cultura Catalana, has made it clear that the Països Catalans "is not a consolidated fact, it is a project but without a project there will be no reality, because it does not have a state of its own and instead Two states against it".
"It is clearly a common commercial area that can be explained as a region of Europe with specific needs, which can share the demand for infrastructure and as a cultural area of ​​creativity," he emphasized.
In any case, for Rovira, responsible for memorizing the Congrés de Cultura Catalana, the first great post-Franco act of claiming the Catalan Països, the "great challenge is to make the Valencià Country feel comfortable with this concept." "Yes, be called Països Catalans or have another name," he said collecting the glove of Victor Labrado.
This is from Catalan newspaper La Vanguardia. http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20160817/403996049804/paisos-catalans-prada-cambio-nombre.htmlAsilah1981 (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we just agree to disagree then, and say that the current wording is the best compromise we can get between your view and mine? Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes ok. Tbh the lead contains enough info for me to be satisfied now.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion continued at Administrators' noticeboard --Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Per WP:closure review, any request to review the closure should be made to me. If I have genuinely missed a valid point, I will consider rewriting the closure or altogether overturn my close. However, if any involved editor tries to revert my close directly, I'll take the matter to WP:ANI or WP:AN ass necessary. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Then please reconsider your closure and summarize it as no consensus, which is what is was, ommitting your personal judgment on the matter of who you personally think is right. That way won't have to take it to WP:closure review. Gracias. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone else close this RfC? An admin ideally or someone who can neutrally summarize the result of the RfC without incorporating his/her view on the matter?Asilah1981 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this the view of other participants as well? I have no problem closing it as no consensus. As a matter of fact, my closure statement above was based on the minor consensus formed at the rfc and not my personal opinion. Note that I don't count !votes to decide consensus but rather go through each !vote and weigh in the rationale for each. I still believe that there was a consensus for version 1. However, if some other editors also express their view, it'll be really helpful. (tldr - Given that one participant thanked me for the closure and you're against it. I want to see what some others think as well). Yashovardhan (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought you made a quite reasonable close, it was clear your reasoning was policy based and not based on counting votes. It was neutral and I don't see any personal opinion; your comments reflected the comments in the RFC. I think Asilah is likely to refer to a RFC close I reverted, which was made by a none admin, after the RFC had been running for a short period of time. WCMemail 14:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Wee Curry Monster. Since, Asilah1981 seems adamant in not letting my close statement stay above, I have taken the matter to WP:ANI. See this thread. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yashovardhan This is evidently not the view of WCM who has been hounding me on various articles for over a year, and only participated in this RfC because it involved me. :-) But it is the view of any reasonable person, yes. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Coming a little late to the party, but I want to thank Yashovardhan for a textbook close. He noted that the majority of the !votes on both sides were of the "I like it" or "I don't like it" or "per other editor" variety, but that some of the arguments for version 1 were reasoned, sourced and policy-based. That is precisely how consensus is supposed to be determined. I wish that Asilah would stop telling other people that they don't know how to do things when he has never taken the trouble to find out for himself what the policy actually is. Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse close:--@Asilah1981:--That was a very good close.Even if the closure was bad, closure-reversion worked on the lines--I don't like this-is hardly the way to go.But, then again, if you consider yourself to be the representative of all reasonable persons on en.wiki, that's.......Winged Blades Godric 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • When I use the word "consensus" I tend to go by the dictionary definition, which is not half or more than half disagreeing with the "consensus" position on the grounds of... Im not sure exactly. Its funny WCM is agreeing on this since he quite recently reverted an RfC close because he thought the editor was not qualified enough to do so. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If you bothered to read the link sent to you by EdJohnston, I had good policy based reasons for contesting that RfC close, it was done by a none admin, it was done very early (the RfC did not have time to run) and it was raised at WP:AN. The RfC close was over turned because the correct procedure to contest it was followed and I didn't try to force matters by revert warring. You just don't get it. WCMemail 17:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No. It was done after months of silence on the RfC and this RfC has also been closed by an non-admin. You just didn't like the outcome. In any case, a consensus had pretty much been reached on this topic. This faulty closure has simply re-sparked the argument.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Look at this Administrator's Noticeboard filing. I have taken the matter about undiscussed reverting of this closure there. Expecting a response from Asilah1981 there as well. Also, is this a formal Closure review? Since there was not really a proper reason stated for one. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I gave my response. Frankly, it is not worth discussing.Asilah1981 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Northern Catalonia in the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Asqueladd, thank you for rewording the reference to Northern Catalonia in the lead. My main reason for deleting the previous version was that it was clunky, as I said in my edit summary. Your wording is much cleaner. If you think it is important I'm happy for it to remain. I have just used the three refs from the previous paragraph; I hope that suits you. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you for linking Archive 3, too. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think a formula going by the scope of blahblahblah can encompass 1,2,3 as well as also 3 & 4 would be better.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
As an alternative, we could streamline it to say "Politically, it involves a pan-nationalist project to unite the Catalan-speaking territories of Spain and France, often in the context of Catalan independence." The 1, 2 and 3 have already been stated in the previous paragraph. We really only need to make the point that nobody has proposed to annex Andorra. I would also suggest that those refs be moved down into the body of the article, where the referenced content already is. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No response, so I'm going ahead and doing it. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Catalan Countries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Change name to Catalan-speaking territories or edit Lede to define as ideology/concept

Latest comment: 6 years ago39 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
parties agreed can be dealt with another way since lede is main point of discussion
.
  • Rename/Support "Catalan countries" is a highly politicized and controversial name which is used in most English and Spanish language sources as "so-called Catalan countries" - normally referring to Catalan political expansionism. It is highly controversial in most areas it purports to include and its use is avoided even by many Catalan nationalists to avoid alienating its neighbors. As such it is a POV term. I don't think the article should be deleted but title should at least be NPOV. There is no such thing as Catalan countries except as an irredentist political project which is extremely unpopular everywhere outside Catalonia. However, there are territories where Catalan is spoken - this is a reality. The only sources which use it without a qualifier (which implies it is controversial) are those under the orbit of the Catalan independence movement. So rename as per WP:NPOV.Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. This fails the simple google-test - "Catalan country"/"Catalan countries" has a hit count of 10-100+ times larger than "Catalan territory" or "Catalan territories" (in normal google, in google books, google news, and scholar). OP is perhaps confused between Country and Sovereign state. Note that we refer on-wiki to the sub-parts of the UK as Countries of the United Kingdom (and Scottish attempts of independence have been as contentious in recent past).Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTCENSORED. Icewhiz hits the nail on the head, just because it offends certain sensitivities does not mean Wikipedia should be censored. WCMemail 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply: Google-count does not address the WP:POV issue. The WP:NOTCENSORED argument is not even worth addressing. Not ONE credible English-language source uses this term without a qualifier specifically stating it is a POV concept pushed by Catalan nationalists. All sources in Google-count are simply referring to ideology of most extremist Catalan nationalists or directly quoting them. Please find us one single source in the English-language media or academia (by that I mean not from organizations or institutes funded by Catalonia's nationalist/secessionist government) which uses the term without qualifiers or quotation marks, or specifically linking it to Catalan-nationalist irredentism and I will agree with you. There simply are none. WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABILITY and evidently, WP:FRINGE Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Some recent use in news - [3], [4], [5], [6]. Again - country and even less so countries does not say an independent state(s). You'll be more persuasive if you can show a COMMONNAME here that is accepted by outside sources - if there is one - I'll be easy to flip.Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Ok Icewhiz that was a miserably failed attempt at trying to find reliable sources: Source 1 is an interview on Skynews with a pro-independence Catalan woman who is quoted as saying she "would like to live in a Catalan country" (presumably an independent Catalonia), Source 2: is Euronews referring to a campaign in France to rename Rousillon as Pays Catalan ("The Catalan country") Source 3: The only you provided which refers to it as a reality is an opinion piece by activist-journalist Creede Newton on Al Jazeera (questionable at best) Source 4 is a news piece on The Independent discussing extremist organization Arran's attacks on tourists and is literally quoting their statements on their desire to liberate the Catalan countries. Either you are being sloppy or dishonest. I'm assuming sloppy. Please find serious RELIABLE sources using this fringe concept as a reality. e.g. BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Economist... ANYTHING! You are literally proving my point. Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
          • I would also point to the two articles Pan-Germanism (presented as an ideology - not a reality - there is no Greater Germany article) and to List of territorial entities where German is an official language. We must not conflate a (dangerous) ideology with a factual reality. Icewhiz the example you give of Countries of the United Kingdom does not make sense. They are countries and they are part of the United Kingdom. What is done here is more akin to calling Scotland or Wales "English countries", not just POV but actively supporting an expansionist ideology by a fringe minority of Catalans. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
            • I was sloppy - I picked recent gNews hits. but what is being used? This is a Irredentism claim to begin with, used presumably by those who refer to "some greater Catalonia" (if you are pro united Spain, one would assume you'd just use the province names or north-eastern Spain, and not attribute to Catalonia any greater territorial extent than the actual present day province). I don't see use of territories in this context almost at all (and if you were trying to take the Palestinian territories as inspiration - the etymology there harks back to occupied territories - with occupied replaced with Palestinian - I don't think there is a similar etymology here, and usage does not support this).Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
              • I'm not saying there is a more widely used alternative name: Germans are evidently really touchy about having a WP:COMMONNAME use for Germanophone countries/territories due to their Nazi past so Wikipedia has gone for the long-winded name of List of territorial entities where German is an official language (let's see how many google hits that gets!). There is an article named English-speaking world (oddly not one for French-speaking world), but calling it English countries would be a bit too much, don't you think? I don't think the Americans would like to be referred to as being an English country anymore than the Valencians enjoy being referred to as a Catalan country. And yes, (on a personal note) you know I'm against Catalan independence - not against a legal referendum, and certainly not against self-rule, but I'm not being a POV-warrior in this case. This is a real problem. Paisos Catalans is a deeply political and divisive term as the article content itself shows. The name + article lead matter-of-factually claims Valencia is "Catalan" when Valencians feel an aversion to be referred to as such, to the point they refuse to call their language Catalan (yes, it is Catalan). The article is taking sides with a minority view - which undoubtedly has been promoted from Catalan institutions over the past few years with public funds. Note: I do think the concept of "Catalan countries" should have a prominent place in this article. I just don't think the article itself should be named as such. We could also have a separate article on the ideology/concept of Paisos Catalans as well, which would be fine, so long as it is clearly discussing the ideological concept, not the territorial/linguistic reality. I hope you agree that, in this case, I am being reasonable according to Wikipedia's internal logic and rules. I concede that I may have made basic mistakes with my 1st article on Wikipedia but I did end up up agreeing with User:Asqueladd's explanations of why my article should be deleted. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename per WP:FRINGE. Even among Catalonian nationalists this is considered a fringe ideology let alone the rest of the world. Fails basic reliability: it is ideological fiction presented as fact in the article. There is no such thing as Catalan Countries, only a fringe pan-Catalan irredentist ideology. Either rename or change the article is written.Ariasju (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is about the concept of the "Catalan Countries" or "Països Catalans". It's not a general article about Catalonia, Valencia, Majorca, Andorra and other Catalan-speaking countries, which an article named "Catalan-speaking territories" would be expected to be. Until very recently the first sentence said, "Catalan Countries...refers to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken", and I have reverted to that now. It was agreed in this Request for Comment in April-May this year. I will quote from my contribution to that RfC: "Catalan Countries" is used repeatedly in a British publication, Historical Dictionary of the Catalans, written by Helena Bufferty, an Englishwoman, and Elisenda Marcer, a Catalan, and edited by Jon Woronoff, an American. It's also found in The Welsh Language: A History, by a Welsh writer, and in Frommer's Guide. There is no evidence that Joan Martí i Castell (Rovira i Virgili University), Creu Casas (Institute of Catalan Studies), Joan Albert López i Bustins (PhD student in geography, University of Barcelona), Clare Mar-Molinero (University of Southampton), Juan Cobarrubias (Seton Hall University), or Josep Llobera (Goldsmiths, University of London) belong(ed) to any "sector of Catalan nationalism" [a phrase that was proposed to be added to the opening sentence]. It is a commonly enough used term to merit an article saying what it is, and the title should be the common term used in sources. Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply:Interesting, Scolaire. I see you have been very involved in similar discussions here in the past and I can only be surprised by your sudden low standards for WP:RELIABILITY when it comes to defending nationalist discourse. Qui et veu i qui t'ha vist as we say in Catalan. :-) Your need to dive into the depths of the internet for sources to justify this article describing the Catalan Countries as a tangible reality rather than an ideology only reinforces my point. Let's look at your sources: Source 1 is basically an overtly sympathetic guide to Catalan nationalist movements and Pan-Catalanism with a detailed account of the marginal or defunct political organizations which have supported the concept outside Catalonia in the past. Source 2: Is a sentence in a Guide to Barcelona written by an unknown expat "Peter Stone" living in Barcelona. (Really?) Source 3 is a lengthy historical discussion on Catalan nation-building by an academic from an openly pro-independence Catalan Rovira i Virgili University (Rovira i Virgili was an early Catalan nationalist who called on "erasing" Catalan history for the sake of the cause). It is basically a defense of pan-catalanism by a Catalan nationalist ("the Catalan countries, threatened as they were by the policies of centralist governments, which did their utmost to further their division, p.62), Source 4: One of hundreds of PhD thesis (in this case in meteorology) put online as standard practice by Barcelona University. Not quite a reliable or notable source but it must have given this student a thrill to use the word "Catalan countries" in the title of his Phd thesis. Source 5: Is a book by Clar Mar-Molinero, who does seem to mention the Catalan countries as a "reality" in p40 of her book on language and nationalism. But her book since her book is about nationalism and language, this is my point: it is a nationalist concept. Source 6: A book on types of moss in the Iberian peninsula by the private Institute for Catalan Studies created by the Catalan Nationalist government in 2001. Is the Catalan government really leveraging moss to further the Catalan Countries cause??? Source 7 An international colloquium on language planning in Quebec which Quebecer linguist Lorne Laforge quotes (and misspells the surname of) pro-independence Catalan writer Josep Vallverdu who quite typically describes "Castilian oppression of the Catalan countries following the war of Spanish Succession". Note Vallverdu recently received a prize from Òmnium Cultural which has spearheaded the recent Spanish constitutional crisis. Source 8: Is literally saying that the concept of "Catalan countries" lost credence in nationalist Catalan leadership except for small groups within ERC. A statement which is exactly my point but certainly needs updating, particularly with you running the show on this article! Jokes aside, the very fact that you need to delve into the depths of the pro-independence universe to find a sentence or paragraph to support an implied historical reality of the Catalan Countries rather than just another irredentist ideology should be proof enough that we are dealing with serious WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV issues. Either rename or totally re-write the lead so that the article describes the equivalent of the ideology of Pan-Germanism or the reality of the List of territorial entities where German is an official language. We cannot conflate the two.Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I began by saying, "This article is about the concept of the "Catalan Countries". I said nothing about "tangible reality". I provided nine reliable sources – books written by academic (many outside Catalonia, some not Catalan) and/or published by reputable publishers that use the term "Catalan Countries". I found them by doing a Google search; I wouldn't even know how to go about "delving into the depths of the pro-independence universe". That the concept is tied in with Catalan nationalism is adequately explained in the article, but the sources show that it can also be used in a non-political way, in talking about e.g. mosses, meteorology and cooking. Ranting against the sources because you don't like what they say does not alter their value as reliable, published, English-language sources. That's what we use on Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply Sure, that's why Wikipedia has no wikipedia article for Greater Germany (or Großdeutschland), even though it has 7 million hits on Google - it redirects to the German Question. Exactly how Wikipedia works...As I have demonstrated, your sources using them "in a normal way" are neither reliable nor non-political. Those for Catalan-speaking territories, however, on major news outlets, international organizations and by the Catalan government itself, are.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The OP asserts that the term is used in most English and Spanish language sources as "so-called Catalan countries". Googling "so-called Catalan countries" initially told me it had 14,500 hits, but in fact there were only four pages of ten results each, i.e. 40 results in total, the great majority of which are sites that take their content from Wikipedia. None of the remaining pages use "so-called" in the sense of "bogus", but rather in the sense of "which are called by the name of". Book examples are Catalonia in Spain, Mediterranean Paradiplomacies, and Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models (in the acknowledgements, hardly the place you'd put a derogatory reference!). Examples of articles are "The Catalan Connection: Constructing the Catalan Countries through Architecture, 1950s-1980s", which uses "so-called" in the abstract but not in the title, and "Social context and key success factors of Catalan independence movement", which uses "so-called" at the start, but uses "Catalan Countries" several times more without the qualifier. It's a classic example of stating opinion as fact, on the assumption that people will take your word for it. Scolaire (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply: This is clutching at straws Scolaire. If we are going to write an article on the so-called Catalan countries and mention them 20 times. We don't need to write "so-called" beyond the first time. Would look weird stylistically speaking. Its like the "so-called Islamic State", same idea. Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sonrisas1: - what is missing in your whole line of argument here so far is a proposed alternative term that meets WP:COMMONNAME. You won't convinced the convinced. But for those of us who are !voting due to the RfC showing up on various lists - that's the real decider. When dealing with irredentist notions, often the terms are used and coined by irredentists, and if that's the case we use them here. If this area of "Greater Catalonia" is referred to by some other established term, you should clearly point out what that term is in English and present evidence that the use of it is widespread.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposals Icewhiz Greater Catalonia would be massively POV (As I do also see now Catalan supremacism had POV/SYNTH issues). Greater Catalonia is equally ridiculous and the other side of the spectrum in terms of trying to be controversial. I see two reasonable options: One calling it Catalan-speaking territories which is widely used by, for example, the BBC [7], The Express [8], Al Jazeera [9], The Guardian [10], CatalanNews [11], the European Union [12], the Herald Tribune [13] and then the hundreds of other academic and non-academic sources which use this term in a normalized, non-politicized way, including Barcelona university [14] and the Catalan government itself [15]. The other option is to rewrite the lead and make it similar to the Spanish wiki or Pan-Germanism, define it as "an ambiguous concept which may have ideological, political or cultural meanings" rather than defining it as an actual existing territory. Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI,Icewhiz Spanish language Wikipedia (which is pretty neutral on matters of Spanish identity politics since there are plenty of experienced pro Catalan, Basque etc. independence editors on it), tackles the lead of Catalan Countries with the following definition:
"Catalan Countries (in Catalan Països Catalans) is an ambiguous term, which may refer, in linguistic and cultural terms, to those territories where Catalan is spoken, or well in terms of politics and sociology, to a national project which would encompass both territories of the Catalan linguistic domain and, often, other territories where Catalan is not traditionally used.
This could be a second sub-optimal way of dealing with the WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABILITY issues.Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Països Catalans is a political concept, and fairly notable. PP.CC. is a key element on Catalan nationalism, and deserves an article of its own. PP.CC. cannot be reduced to simply 'Catalan-speaking territories' as the term is linked to a certain political project. --Soman (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Reply:Soman The fact that it is a political concept and an element of Catalan nationalism is exactly my point! It is not defined as such in the lead. Please read the discussion.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
So, edit the lede? For example, the flag should be in the infobox. --Soman (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
SomanI would be content with something on the lines of the proposed text above for Lede (based on Spanish wiki). As I mentioned it would resolve most issues flagged here. I'm changing title of RfC to include that option.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
No, es.wiki intro is no good. A better option is to state something like "Catalan Countries (Catalan: Països Catalans) is a proposed country in Europe, unifying all Catalan-speaking areas. The territories claimed as parts of the Catalan Countries include areas under Spanish, French, Andorran and Italian administrations. Some Catalan nationalist groups work to establish a Catalan Countries state, but this is not a universal feature of Catalan nationalism." --Soman (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Whoa! Can we have refs for all of that? Who is currently proposing it as a country in Europe? Who is claiming Andorra or Alghero? What groups are currently working to establish a Catalan Countries state? The article (and the lead) currently state verifiable facts. This is pure fantasy! Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point we had six !votes on a single proposal: a page move. We now apparently have two alternative proposals. Can anybody tell me how that's supposed to work? Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose while many inhabitants of Valenca and the Balearics do not identify as Catalan, that doesn't change the clear existence and relevance of Paisos Catalans as a political concept. --Calthinus (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Are you serious? 98% of your edits on Wikipedia are about Catalan independence and you claim ignorance about this? Popular Unity Candidacy / Arran (organization) and Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya were all actively working for the political unity of the "Paisos Catalans" as an independent republic. The liberation of the Catalan countries is in the Statutes of the CUP and ERC has regional federations in all "Catalan countries". Even though they get few votes outside Catalonia. they make a lot of noise. Calthinus, Soman: Then we agree that the Lede has to change and define it as a political concept/ideology not a territorial/cultural reality (which creates the WP:FRINGE issue)? You both vote oppose to changing the title, what is your vote on changing the Lede?Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please stop personalising this. I'm not "claiming ignorance" about anything, I'm discussing the issue in a civil manner. Please try to do the same. I asked for sources (= reliable, third-party sources, preferably in English), that describe in detail how CUP, Arran or ERC are working for the political unity of the Catalan Countries as an independent republic. I've been looking for these sources for a year, and a lot of people have shouted at me, but nobody has shown me the sources.
(2) If you're now accepting that there is a consensus against renaming, can you close this RfC and open a new one on the lead? This re-factored RfC can only create confusion. An RfC should have a single, clear question. Scolaire (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire I am not against the existence of this article under its current name. I am against the misrepresentation of what Paisos Catalans is. But I'm convinced that if I create an article called "Catalan-speaking territories" you will immediately call it a WP:POVFORK and try to get it deleted on an AfD. I don't want to waste hours of my time but two separate articles are required. Before that, this article has to stop misrepresenting reality and pretending a fringe ideology is a political, historical or cultural reality.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire If you are honestly unaware of this fact, then I apologize. But its just hard to believe that you don't know this. If the language barrier is such a massive impediment for you to grasp the basics of the topic at hand, you shouldn't be editing these articles at all! Its on the level of saying you need a source to prove UKIP was in favour of Brexit because "it is sheer fantasy". Here you are: page 3 "Principles": http://www.esquerra.cat/documents/fulleto-esquerra-ang.pdf Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I asked you to stop personalising this. Apologizing and then sneering at the fact that I don't have fluent Spanish is uncivil in the extreme. If you persist I will report you at AN/I. In the meantime I will ask you to strike through that sneer by putting a <s> before it and a </s> after it. Scolaire (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not a sneer nor a jibe Scolaire. It is a serious concern for me. 95% of credible sources on this topic are in Spanish or Catalan. As I just wrote on your talk page, you have to make a minimum effort to overcome language barriers. There are resources for it on the internet: Just google translate - it works just fine and takes 30 seconds of your time. What worries me is not that you don't speak Spanish or Catalan, it is that you dismiss sources off-hand which you don't want to contradict your POV rather than taking the time to read them. Fortunately, I found a source for you in English. What if I hadn't been able to? We would be arguing here eternally on this topic.Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It was a sneer. "If the language barrier is such a massive impediment for you to grasp the basics of the topic at hand, you shouldn't be editing these articles at all!" is not a simple or civil expression of concern about my language skills. In any case, you're wrong. I didn't say that Spanish or Catalan sources are unacceptable to me because I can't be bothered to read them; I said that English-language sources would be nice, seeing as this is English Wikipedia. I have read through Google Translate translations of many, many Spanish and Catalan sources. They haven't answered my questions any better than the English ones. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for removing the tag. Will you now consider my suggestion that you close this RfC and start a new discussion in a new thread where we can arrive at a consensus on the lead through civil discussion? Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire Yes ok. But I'm giving Wikipedia a break for today. I'll open a new RfC. Please send me a message in my talk page (or on yours which I will follow) explaining to me how. I don't know how to do so.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Sonrisas1 Responding to your ping, no, I disagree with you, the lede is fine. In its current form, it adheres well to WP:NPOV with statements like The Catalan Countries do not correspond to any present or past political or administrative unit, though most of the area belonged to the Crown of Aragon in the Middle Ages. Parts of Valencia (Spanish) and Catalonia (Occitan) are not Catalan-speaking.... The "Catalan Countries" have been at the centre of both cultural and political projects since the late 19th century. Its mainly cultural dimension became increasingly politically charged by the late 1960s and early 1970s, as Francoism began to die out in Spain, and what had been a cultural term restricted to connoisseurs of Catalan philology became a divisive issue during the Spanish Transition period, most acrimoniously in Valencia during the 1980s. ... The term "Catalan Countries" is itself controversial, and even pro-Catalan Valencian nationalists avoid using it.[9]. --Calthinus (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fixing Lede

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No change to the lead at this time. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire, I let you start off. The issue I have with the LEDE is relatively small and requires minimal changes. It does not require an RfC at this stage. What is your opinion based on what we have discussed till now?Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we start by addressing the "fringe theory" question? WP:FRINGE tells us that a fringe theory is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It goes on to say that "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." So what exactly is the fringe theory that this article promotes, or makes appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is?
  • That the territories named in the second sentence exist? Hardly. All of them verifiably exist, and each has its own article.
  • That some people refer to those territories as the "Catalan Countries"? Again, this is verifiable. There are multiple sources, and no "mainstream view" denies that some people call them that.
  • That these people are right to call them "Catalan Countries"? The article doesn't say that they are. It only reports the fact that they do.
  • That the "Catalan Countries" form a political entity? The article doesn't say that they do.
  • That the "Catalan Countries" ought to form a political entity? The article doesn't say that they ought. It does say that some people would like them to. It also says that a lot of other people disagree.
  • That the Autonomous Community of Catalonia has or ought to have control over the "Catalan Countries"? The article doesn't even hint at such a thing, except in the negative, when it says that "outside Catalonia...it is viewed as an expression of Catalan expansionism."
So what is the fringe theory? And is this fringe theory promoted only in the lead, or in the article body as well? If in the lead only, how is it promoted there? In order to address your issue, I need to have a clear idea of what your issue is. Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire The content of the article I think is more or less fine. What I think is problematic is the first couple of sentences. I think there are two ways to go about the Lede of this article and the current one is too similar to Celtic nations, which is inherently non-ideological. If we want a thoroughly non-ideological, purely cultural/linguistic article it would be best to have a non-controversial name for the article focusing on the cultural and linguistic similarity between these regions (hence my original request for name change). In the long run, it will bring stability. No angry Spaniard/Valencian/Majorcan will ever come to this article saying the Catalan-speaking territories don't exist. They do and they will be fine with it. You have to understand the political context/subtext of the term Paisos Catalans - it is extremely charged politically - because the term is leveraged as a political project within Spain. It is a term which cannot be used "innocently". I honestly favored splitting in two separate articles or having paisos catalans being a large section of this article. If not, then give more prominence to it being an ideological concept in the Lede/first sentence. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there are two ways to go about the Lede of this article and the current one is too similar to Celtic nations, which is inherently non-ideological. Forgive me, but that is effectively saying "the current lead is too NPOV; it should lean towards the view that this is an expansionist or irredentist concept." The lead clearly states – and more than once – that the term is used by Catalan nationalists. It is neither necessary nor desirable to state it again in the first or second sentence. That was the clear outcome of this Request for Comment in April-May this year. Out of 15 !votes, only one, the editor who had added the wording, agreed with its addition, and even he changed his !vote when he saw what way the wind was blowing. Several contributors stated that that wording was not neutral. Everything else you say is opinion. I respectfully disagree, as do others. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire Yes, that is my point. "Catalan countries" is an POV name per se because it is a political concept which claims that other parts of Spain/Europe are "Catalan". Not Catalan/Valencian-speaking but actually Catalan. Its not like Celtic nations - celtic does not impose supremacy of one "nation" over the rest. Its more like calling Celtic Nations "Scottish nations" or "Irish nations". Do you get my point? Valencians have a distinct culture and history and, unlike Catalonia, were a kingdom in their own right, both before and after Catalan was spoken in that area. I didn't know you already had a discussion on this, I think it was perhaps not explained properly. The idea is that the Lede should describe the content and name of the article. Sentence number 1 geographically describes the Catalan-speaking territories. It doesn't describe the idea of "Catalan countries" which is essentially a minority political aspiration. That is why Spanish Wikipedia description "an ambiguous term..." is more coherent with both body and naming of article. Then again: If we renamed to "Catalan-speaking territories" none of these issues would exist... We wouldn't even have to discuss the political controversy in the Lede at all! Like this, the article Lede should follow the name. Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you may have misread what I said. I said that you were effectively saying "the current lead is too NPOV", i.e. too neutral, and that it needs to be more biased. I have taken what you say on board, but it is a personal view based on personal experience, and it doesn't allow for anybody else having a different view. As for I think it was perhaps not explained properly, your view was argued at considerable length, and in virtually the exact same terms as yours, by a (now retired) user in the RfC, so contributors had all the facts at their disposal when they !voted. If you want to see further discussion, see here, here and here. Those discussions were all on the talk page at the time the RfC was running, yet the outcome was as it was. I take it you do agree with WP:CONSENSUS? --Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I see Scolaire. I will look at those discussions. What is your conclusion then? Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, my conclusion is that the first sentence of lead is the best and most neutral that we can achieve, given the extensive discussions and the RfC. The kind of edit you propose would be against consensus. The political aspect, including the fact that the term itself is controversial, is adequately covered in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok its too small an issue to continue arguing over. I'll bow out of this discussion but that was my honest feedback for improving article stability.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obstinately reverting corrections

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Twice I have corrected the caption to the map. It reads 'Catalan-speaking area in dark grey; light grey corresponds to non-Catalan sections of otherwise Catalan-speaking administrative divisions)'. This is completely incorrect. Unfortunately, over much of the area covered by the map, Catalan is now a minority language. In Roussillon, which is shown on the map as Catalan-speaking, just 1% of the population speak Catalan socially and only 8.5% regard it as their native language, as set out in the Catalan Language article in great detail, with sources. I accordingly corrected the caption to read 'Traditionally Catalan-Speaking area....'.

My edit has been reversed twice. The second time by someone who has done over 21,000 edits. This is not the first time that I have run across people who are clearly obsessed with controlling a particular article, and willing to revert any edit, whatever it's merit, just to 'defend the territory' as it were, with no thought whatsoever to promoting learning.

If this continues, Wikipedia will be progressively destroyed. Is there anyone reading this who cares? Or should I just give up? If Wikipedia is to go down the drain anyway, why bother.

If you hear me, please speak up.

Nakashchit (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Nakashchit (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What is your proposal Nakashchit?Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i propose that 'Catalan-speaking areas simply added the word 'traditionally' to the sentence 'Catalan-speaking area in dark grey; light grey corresponds to non-Catalan sections of otherwise Catalan-speaking administrative divisions' be replaced by 'Traditionally Catalan-speaking area in dark grey; light grey corresponds to non-Catalan sections of otherwise traditionally Catalan-speaking administrative divisions'. This could be rendered more concisely but I will be content if the error is corrected. Nakashchit (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Although El Carxe is not "traditionally" Catalan-speaking. It became Catalan speaking in the late 19th/early 20th century due to immigration from Valencia and is no longer Catalan speaking. Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, some Catalan is still spoken in all of the dark grey areas. If I'm wrong, there should be a (suitably sourced) paragraph in the article to explain the true situation. Adding "traditional" to the image caption suggests that there is not now any Catalan spoken there, which is at odds with what the article currently says. In my opinion, the caption is already too long and involved, and adding more qualifiers doesn't improve it. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I assume some people in the Carxe must still speak some dialect of Valencian. Its population numbers in the hundreds, it is practically uninhabited now, which makes it strange that over a million euros have been spent on promoting Catalan in the area.Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the caption for grammar, which was becoming ever more appalling. I didn't bother to reply to the first comment here, if you come here accusing other edits of WP:OWN I see that as a declaration of bad faith. I have no interest in the topic other than writing a neutral encyclopedia. I'm still waiting to see evidence that backs up the personal opinion of the originator and will oppose changes till I do. WCMemail 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with those changes. "Catalan-speaking" should have a hyphen, whether alone or as part of "non-Catalan-speaking". Changing "otherwise Catalan-speaking administrative divisions" to "otherwise Catalan administrative divisions" is completely wrong. They are Spanish administrative divisions, not Catalan administrative divisions. On the attitude of the OP, I am in complete agreement with you. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The other question is, do we need all the verbiage at all. It seems to me that the version that was there until September was clear enough. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire Oh ok so you agree with me on this?Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Scolaire's proposal. The coloring of the map is self-evident. Doesn't require such a complex explanation so old version is fine.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK I'll revert it back to before all the editing started. WCMemail 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catalan_Countries/Archive_4&oldid=1187313457"