Talk:Catalan counties

Timeline

Suggest the overlapping dates between page 1 and 2 of Timeline be corrected to remove the confusing discepancies. Tiddy (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging

I added the merge article tag because this article deals with the same area dealt with in the Hispanic Marches. Besides, I think the whole issue of calling this area the "Catalan Counties" and the general tone of the article is very un-NPOV. Dr Benway 08:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It does not deal with the same area at all, but only a part of it. As the article states, "The various counties roughly defined what came to be known as the Principality of Catalonia". This is sufficient justification, in my view, for the term "Catalan counties". Most segments of the Marca Hispanica do not correspond to later or existing territorial entities.

What would happen to the content of this article in a "merge"? What about that pretty timeline someone has spent so long building? Would you expand it to include the rest of the Marca Hispanica? If so, how would you make it fit horizontally?

Certainly, there are aspects of both articles that could be improved, including the provision of internal links between them.AdeMiami 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Ade ;). Maybe I didn't explain myself properly there. I think the timeline is great and the links to all the counties should definately be kept. Maybe the timeline could be included in all the links to each of the counties, and these links incorporated into the Hispanic Marches article? As a matter of historical veracity, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your point of view of the Catalan Counties, mainly because I think there was not such thing as "Catalan Counties" in the Carolingian Hispanic Marches. In any case, I also think that the differences between these "Catalan Counties" and the rest of the Hispanic Marches, if we move away from current political issues and refer to this strictly in historical terms, is in my opinion virtually non existant and are already dealt with in the article on the Hispanic Marches, the County of Barcelona, etc. I really find this article misleading in historical terms, and that's why I think it should be merged, basically. It's as if I opened up an article headed "Spanish Provinces of Roman Hispania", and talked about roman administration in Betica, Carthaginensis, Tarraconensis and Gallaecia, leaving out Lusitania because in the future it would become Portugal and not Spain and hence establishing a difference. Cheers ;) Dr Benway 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. This article does not deal with an area, but with political divisions. Yes they had territoriality, but they were more than that, they were also royal offices and public functions. Also, the area covered by each is not quite the same, since it is debatable whether or not Pallars and anything to the west were "Catalan" counties or within Catalonia, but at least Pallars and Ribagorza were part of the Marca Hispanica and possibly the Navarre as well (though it may have been part of the Duchy of Gascony).
2. I don't know what is POV about it at all. Can you explain?

Of course both articles could be greatly improved and that timeline (lifted ca.wikipedia) needs to be Anglicised, but the merger is not necessary if both articles are kept on topic. Srnec 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Srnec. Sure, I agree with you, it deals with a set of political divisions, but my only point is that these "political divisions" and functions you mention are in my opinion, and in the light of this article, no different from the other Marcher counties, and therefore I don't think they warrant a separate section based merely on location. The fact that these counties were the kernel of the future Catalonia is mentioned in the Hispanic Marches, and I really don't think this fact merits a separate article. In fact, I think this article does not mention anything not covered by the article on the Hispanic Marches or the County of Barcelona/Principality of Barcelona. And, as you say, debating wether these counties are "Catalan" or not is subject to them being in Catalonia, which historically in that moment in time did not exist in any way as far as I know (that's what I find non-NPOV, btw). Those are my reasons to merge this and not mislead or confuse readers, giving links to all the counties but not grouping them together here because in my opinion there is no historical point in doing so. Cheers :) Dr Benway 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think we can reasonably begin speaking of Catalonia with the Reconquista efforts of the Carolingians or at the latest with the loss of royal authority in that region in the late ninth century. I think separate articles on the individual counties/marcher lordship, the Principality of Catalonia, and the Marca Hispanica (which is the Latin term, by the way) makes sense. I don't have a serious problem with the merger as long as some serious editing improves the Marca article at the same time so that the useful list and as yet unconverted timeline are not marginalised. I think I will look into accomplishing the merger in an intelligent way, making sure that the concept of "Catalan" and of "march" are clarified with respect to the state of the region under the Carolingians. By the way, I think that this articles serves the purpose of distinguishing a region which was definitely part of the Hispanic march and which developed into Catalonia within a century from a region which may never have been part of the march and which took a quite different path within a generation (Kingdom of Navarre). In short, I don't think it's quite as arbitrary as you do. Cheers, indeed! Srnec 05:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Srnec :) Hmmm... I understand what you mean *nods* You see, I would say we wouldn't be able to talk about "Catalonia" until there was a written reference to it somewhere (which as far as I know doesn't happen up till the 12th century). However, as a region it would stand to reason that most of the neighbouring lands under christian rule and outside the Carolingian sphere of influence would probably feel similar and akin to each other... But still, I'd be looking for a solid source for such a claim, even if it meant, as it so often does in history, that we have to ignore the most plausible yet unproven explanation. But in any case, if you want/need any help, please don't hesitate to give me a nudge. Like you, I think the timeline is brilliant work and I think it would be a shame to see it lost. I'm sure we can integrate this outlook into the Hispanic Marches article, improving it and making sure none of the perspectives you want to convey are lost. It's only that the concept of nationalities as we understand them today are so very different to the way they were understood back then that any fast and easy reference to any modern nationality sets off my alarm, and I know we probably won't agree on any of the definitions or time-references :P But then again, I guess that if we can find a mid-point where we can both navigate we could get a very neutral result, no? :D Cheers again! :) Dr Benway 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes. I suppose I was not thinking of the term "Catalan" as referring to any nation/nationailty but merely refering to the political/cultural region called Catalonia, which certainly has etymological antecedente preceding the 12th century. To restrict us to the period after the first preserved documentation of what was by then a clearly understood and common enough word is to leave us moderns at a disadvantage when describing the region called Catalonia from the beginning of its distinctness (from the regions around it) in the 8th/9th century. I am not saying that the term Catalan in reference to nationalism is of any use until at least the eleventh/twelfth century. Wilfred the Hairy ruled Catalonia, he was not a Catalan in any sense like the Catalans of the High or Late Middle Ages. Srnec 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, gotcha :) Dr Benway 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the Merge Tag

After some more research, and to my surprise, I've actually come across the term "Catalan Marches" a few times in reliable sources. I'm therefore removing the Merge tag, since that's the reason I put it up in the first place. So as far as what I was arguing for, I was wrong :P Case rested. :) Cheers! Dr Benway 07:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. The issue is a bit confused when you start to ask where Pallars and Ribagorza fit. Srnec 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalan counties. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917225019/http://www.tvcatalunya.com/historiesdecatalunya/cronologia/cron102833931.htm to http://www.tvcatalunya.com/historiesdecatalunya/cronologia/cron102833931.htm

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) 02:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)