Talk:Catalonia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Map needed

There should really be a map defining the area or region that roughly corresponds to Catalonia. It is all very well saying "northeastern Spain" to locate it, but that does not define borders. Could a map not be taken of Spain and altered in some way?

Bad English and historical inaccuracies

"Catalonia has had the oldest partliament of Europe nas now is in a full and hard discussion what is the place in Spain and Europe."

I lifted that sentance from this article and not only is the English of unclear quality but the sentance itself is inaccurate. Catalonia has not had (and does not have now) the oldest parliament in Europe. That title belongs to the Althing of Iceland. Catalonia may have the oldest parliament in Spain (and perhaps all of the Iberian peninsula), but not all of Europe.

USA history distorsion

To understand the kind of lies that are about Catalonian history only must to compare with how Bush call a 'freedom operation' the Irak's invasion. And to USA wiki editors too: must be a lot difficult to understand cultural oppresion because u haven't never been conquered. Please, make an effort.

>You're being totally subjective. Take science, history and objective information far from those map courses Owdki 12:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

> The 'Crown of Catalonia & Aragon" is nowadays a discusion theme. > to JMBel : Go to Lleida. Go to inner-north Girona. There are places, there are. > to Wllacer : i'm 80 km from France, and i had been very lot of times . I've had gone to Perpignan only to take a cooffe, and to Toulousse for a 2 dont-know-what-to-do days. If I say that catalan is closer to french than to castilian, it's with foundations, not because someone tells it to me or because it is writted in somewhere. "Hauries de sentir parlar català, i llavors entendries perque s'assembla". > 'Camps catalanuics' refers to the first time the toponim appears in registred history, not that it was catalan lands. > To Maurice27, lot of people of Occitania and Perpinyà told me that, and there are Senyeras everywhere (or not?). If u not, well, of course you are in your right. There are inclusive people too who don't want to speak spanish, only wants to understand French or Catalan, so i haven't lied. > Review the polonian - catalan connection, perhaps u get an idea that what happens. Or perhaps u didn't understand. > Pablo Picasso not was catalan, was andalus. And yes, Catalan Government (coverall Barcelona people) wants everybody to believe he was more catalan than nothing. U can see Picasso expositions' slogans with catalan-subliminal phrases like 'Picasso never has been gone from Barcelona' and things like that.Althought the main cultural manipulation comes from the Spanish side, there are from two sides, of course. > Educational faults : u haven't see the originals text I put and I erased. There were true educational faults to USA people and they 'my word is the last one' attitude. Now, more calmed, i'm a little sorried, but well, there are. > .... > And sure u yet thing i'm a nationalist...

>Denote that i'm not modifying the main article. Pls make it the most closer to the catalan' one. I'm only making sense here, because this is the discussion page and this is a very hot theme.

>Please to all foreign, coverall from USA, wiki editors: read first of all the >>native<< article for all European history ones, not only catalonian (see Falcata too, for example). Happens a thing like that, and not with nationalist shades.

>coso. dtordera@hotmail.com

Unconvincing excuses

As usual, these more recent postings betray hidden nationalist agendas.

The parallels between the development of the modern nations of Britain and Spain are actually rather apt in various ways. Both are "united" kingdoms, spurred into (arguably reluctant) historical unity by the most dominant component country/culture at the material time (England in Britain; Castile in Spain). The new "united" countries took a new name, in each case with origins in the Latin names for territorial designations under the Roman Empire: Britannia and Hispania. They also gave rise to new nationalities: British and Spanish. In neither case were the other component countries in the new kingdom simply absorbed or subsumed into the identity of the dominant country which instigated the union. Scotland did not become part of England, any more than Aragaon (or Catalonia) became part of Castile.

As a bit of pedantry, Cornwall is a part of England, isn't it? --Error 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thus, I can quite see how a Catalan, Galician or Basque might take exception to being called a "Castilian", but all are equally "Spanish". A Castilian is no more (or less) "Spanish" than a Catalan, Asturian or Andalusian.

By the same token, Scotsmen and Welshmen naturally resent being referred to as "Englishmen". Ironically, this often happens in Spain (and elsewhere in Europe), where it is habitual in common parlance to refer to Inglaterra or los ingleses when the intended reference is actually to the UK or to the British. Dare I say that I have even seen this usage in Catalan! However since England, Scotland and Wales are all part of the UK, nobody from Scotland or Wales (except possibly the most rabid separatist) would conceivably take issue with the description "British" to refer to an inhabitant/citizen of the "nation" as a whole. A Scotsman or Welshman is no less "British" than an Englishman.

Until the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, the inhabitants of the 26 "southern" Irish counties (which now form the Republic of Ireland) were part of the UK and thus "British" as matter of legal and political reality. However, this did not make them any less Irish: it just meant that they were "British" (rather than English) as well. If Northern Ireland ever leaves the UK to form part of a "united" Irish state, then its inhabitants will in the same way also cease to be "British": for the present, however, they are both Irish (albeit not citizens of the Republic of Ireland) and British (as citizens of the UK). Indeed, they are no less "Irish" because of it, just as the Basques who are French citizens are no less "Basque" than their counterparts who are Spanish citizens in the Basque Automonous Community within Spain.

Should the day ever come where the four Catalan provinces of Spain secede to form an independent state, then their inhabitants will doubtless cease to be "Spanish". Doubtless the citizens of the Rousillon will cease to be "French" should they choose (or be allowed) to join such a polity. Until then, can we please confine a factual article about the "Catalan Autonomous Community" to one which accords with present-day realities rather than the aspirational wish-fulfilment of some contributors.

Finally, the fact that Catalan is "official" (co-official, in fact) in Catalonia is a feeble answer to what is plainly a politically-motivated desire (by the same handful of editors) to relegate the "national" language of Spanish below the "regional" language of Catalan. The persistent attempt to dilute the status of Spanish by seeking to elevate the importance of the Aranese dialect (which has no co-official status, or any official status outside the Vale of Aran itself) completely gives the game away.

Likewise, manifestly contentious comments about the historic assertion of Catalan "national" identity have no place in a factual introduction. As anyone (not least contributors to this page) following the current controversy over the draft Estatut cannot fail to appreciate, the use of words such as "nation" and "nationality" are highly-charged and sensitive in the present political context. No doubt this is why some contributors are so determined to plant this particular flag in the introduction at all costs.

Please can we avoid polluting this admirable global project with trite partisan point-scoring. Otherwise, I fear that this page will end up like its Spanish-language counterpart: a useless information resource, bereft of credibility and fatally compromised by sectarian propaganda.

An Englishman

(A no less "anonymous" signature than the "names" chosen by other contributors, which are meaningless to anyone but them.)

Hello Englishman, I can understand your point of view, because we humans normally tend to understand new experiences according to our previous knowledge. It makes sense you try to draw similarities between United Kingdom and Kingdom of Spain. Personally, I do not feel able to talk about Scotland because I do not know Scottish situation enough to make any kind of judgment about this kind of national issues.

I'm Catalonian, and I'm used the political-national discussions regarding Catalonia. They are more frequent than you may even imagine in my country and I share friendship and kinship with people who may be regarded as either Catalan or Spanish nationalists. There are different ways of being Catalan or Spanish nationalists, and in some circumstances differences may be blur, specially since these denominations are used as a political weapons. They are both important ideas who would deserve a decent an article of their own.

As you have pointed at, and I did previously as well, Spain was formerly a geographic denomination to what is the Iberian Peninsula. As time happened it started to refer to a political entity which is current Kingdom of Spain, and which does not include politically or administratively-speaking Portugal or Andorra.

If we understand the historical ideas behind nation-state, Spain has come to acquire, in a cultural and political sense, mainly the Castile legacy (Castilian nationalist, moooore minoritary than Catalan ones consider this is a kind of cultural/historical robbery). The War of Spanish succession and different dictorships must also be considered in this historic-political evolution of Spain=Castile(+formerly Castile-annexed territories).

Nowadays, Spain or Spanish terms, apart from the purely concept of official citizenship, may be ambiguous terms in certain circumstances, not only from Catalan, Basque, erc. but also even in typically 'Castilian territories', and this is not only from militant non-Spanish nationalists.

One usual statement from some Spanish nationalist is regarding that they should not be regarded as nationalists. It makes no sense because Spanish nationalism it is not a kind of immutable dogma as it is not Catalan one. Surely, if there were not considerably strong counter-opposing nationalisms, this would make no sense, because it would be regarded as 'obvious' according to nation-state principles.

The whole point is that you seem to consider that Catalan culture, nationalism, or whatever is a kind of minoritary, radical. mindless attitude of some kind of possible Balkanic-like genocides like me. That's not true, as it is not true for Spanish one.

I suggest you to take a cheap flight from England and visit Catalonia (if you have not done before, or if you have done, do it again), read Catalonian media (you have plenty in Internet) from all the different point of views and know different Catalonian people. There is even a Wikipedia in Catalan language which is going to reach 20.000 articles soon!

I am schocked with your reaction against Aranese, I think it is a positive thing to reflect it as it happens in Switzerland entry. I see you do not value this kind of things. I tried to unblock current edition war infobox and I lament this kind of disproportionate reaction from yours... I may have erred with a proper order, for this reason, I asked other Wikipedians about their opinions.

Catalan toponyms (and Aranese ones in Val d'Aran) are the official and usual ones even speaking Spanish.

One point that I agree, is that the removed sentence about national identity should be better placed in a proper context in the political section.

Well, that's enough text for today :), I am going to change current order to what has been discussed before. Please comment, if you consider, in previous section.

Best regards Toniher 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, Englishman: You are right in many aspects, but regarding languages: both Spanish and Catalan are co-official in Catalonia (according to Spanish Law). "Co-"official simply means they are both official. The situation is not, as you are implying, that Spanish is official and Catalan is co-official. The legal situation is: Spanish is official, Catalan is official. No language is "more official" than the other. however, in practice, in Catalonia, Catalan is much more used in official dealings (parliament, government, etc.). In the street, both languages are used. In this particular aspect, Spain is not comparable to British situation (where English is, although not official in the Spanish sense, the primary language in the whole of Britain). Marco Neves 03:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Englishman said Catalan is co-official, period. Your implication are only in your head.

--Catón 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Englishman said: "Finally, the fact that Catalan is "official" (co-official, in fact) in Catalonia is a feeble answer to what is plainly a politically-motivated desire (by the same handful of editors) to relegate the "national" language of Spanish below the "regional" language of Catalan." When he says "co-official, in fact" he is implying that there is a diference between the official and the co-official status, when such difference does not exist. And I really think, reading the following words ("national" vs. "regional" language), that he is implying Spanish is official and Catalan co-official. But even if I was wrong interpreting Englishman's words, please, read my own words as a clarification about the whole subject: both Catalan and Spanish are official (and, thus, co-official) in Catalonia, with no different status or importance (officially speaking of course, in society at large, the situation is much more complex). Hope I made myself clear. :) Marco Neves 02:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding the issue

For the suspicious among you, by "co-official" I meant no more than "equally" official. In other words, Spanish is no more or less official than Catalan, and Catalan is no more or less official than Spanish. That is the indisputable legal position at the present time. Equally indisputable is that Aranese has no co-official status in this sense, and indeed no official status outside the Vale of Aran itself.

The issue that that nobody has addressed is why in a factual article about what is presently a region of Spain, the "regional" language should take precedence over the "national" language. This is simply a matter of accepting the present reality, however unpalatable many Catalans (or Catalanists) may find it.

To answer the more personal imputations, I have spent many happy summers in Catalonia over the years, as well as in other regions of Spain. I am also well aware that Spanish nationalism, no less than Catalan nationalism, has its ugly, extreme and intolerant side. I believe it was Samuel Johnson (or possibly Oscar Wilde) who said that a patriot is a man who loves his country, whereas a nationalist is a man who hates everybody else's country. Speaking for myself, I find any form of nationalism which relies on the denigration of neighbouring peoples or cultures utterly repulsive. That goes for Spanish nationalists who denigrate the historic "nationalities" of Spain, as well as for Catalan nationalists who scorn the very idea that a Spanish identity can co-exist with a Catalan one. Dare I say that it also applies to that minority of Portuguese Spain-haters who are still stuck in the mindset of 1640.

I am well aware that some Catalans (in common with some Basques and Galicians) regard any form of identification with Spain or a common Spanish identity as some form of subjugation to a historic Castilian supremacism. While these arguments are all doubtless quite fascinating, my simple point is that they have no place here and should not infect this article.

An Englishman

It's a pleasure start talking more calmly. Well, let's center on the infobox. Please, just notice that even in Spanish wikipedia Catalan name is precedent! And it's the same in most of Wikipedia versions. We may speak if Aranese should be there if it is only official in a part of Catalonia. I do think it deserves being there, and being the third one is a sensible option. I change again ;) Toniher 16:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Englishman: I agree with you regarding the division of patriotism and nationalism. Being Portuguese, I have fought for many years against those Portuguese nationalists who think we are still fighting Castilians or that Spain wants to take back Portugal (which is ludicrous). I love to visit Spain and talk about it(I'm kind of a Spanish-related-issues freak among my friends). But I also think that Spanish and Portuguese people can be patriots without being nationalists. However, because of a little and subtle subversion of the word, any Catalan who identifies himself with Catalonia above Spain (which is a legitimate feeling) is labelled "nationalist". He can even love Spain, but to be Catalanist means, in Spain, to be nationalist. And so, people tend to think all Catalan "nationalists" are Spain-haters and narrow-minded, etc. (And, yes, I know there are lots of Spanish-haters in Catalonia, but mainstream Catalan "nationalism" is not like that, it is much closer to our definition of patriotism. Many so-called Catalan nationalists don't hate Spain and would be called patriots in any other situation.) By contrast, any Spaniard can easily abhor the very idea of Catalonia, etc. and calmly declare he is no nationalist. In my opinion, nationalism is in the eye of the beholder. But, let's move forward. I think in this case (as in the case of Québec, Aland Islands, etc.) the "regional" language is more used when speaking of the name of the region. Legally speaking, Catalan toponomy is the only one official throughtout the region (and, in some instances, in Balearic Islands): this is different from Basque Country, etc. So, an official document of the Basque Country can choose to use Vitoria OR Gazteiz, but, in Catalonia, Lérida is not officially used (only Lleida). (One bizarre fact not directly related to the question: The official name of the Balearic Islands in Catalan and in Spanish is Illes Balears. I realy think the Balearic Islands should use both names, but the fact is they use the Catalan one even in documents written in Spanish.)

From memory, the official form in any language is Vitoria-Gasteiz. In common life, Vitoria (or even Gasteiz) are used in Spanish and Gasteiz (very rarely Bitorixa) in Basque. --Error 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell, in Catalonia (and Balearic Islands), the "regional" name has legal precedence. This is not because I'm a "hidden" Catalan nationalist. And this does not change the fact that both Catalan and Spanish are official in Catalonia (in fact, I think the toponomy issue may be inconstitutional; but, for now, the Spanish law makes Catalan the only language that can be used in Catalonia regarding Catalan toponomy). Best regards, Marco Neves 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia is a precedent to avoid, not one to follow

To say that Spanish Wikipedia gives precedence to the Catalan name is disingenuous in the extreme. As I have commented before, the parallel page in Spanish Wikipedia has been blocked as the result of constant editing wars between Catalan "nationalists" and Spanish "unionists". It seems some people wish to achieve the same result here; namely, to sacrifice the article's credibility by making it a propaganda sheet for Catalan-language supremacy. Indulge in this somewhere else: God only knows there are plenty of other fora on the WWW.

A user of English Wikipedia should be left in no doubt, after consulting this article, that Catalonia is presently an autonomous region of Spain. Since any rational person would expect the "national" name to take precedence over the "regional" one, this should be reflected in the article. If or when Catalonia becomes an independent state with Catalan as the preferential language, I will be the first to advocate a change in the article to reflect the new status quo. However, until such time, please spare us this puerile point-scoring.

I have said all that needs to be said about Aranese. I see no reason why English Wikipedia should bestow on this mountain-dialect of Occitan/Gascon a status which even the Generalitat's website does not feel it necessary to accord.

That is true, Catalonia in spanish wikipedia is the perfect example of a spanish unionist article, biased and the worst, blocked. <-- --Completely agree with that point from an anonymous.GillesV 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) An Englishman

Dear Englishman: I'm perfectly rational, no Catalan nationalist and I'm not engaging in any point-scoring. I'm just asking you to read my previous comment. It would be normal to present a national language first. But, in Catalonia, toponomy has one official language, according to Spanish law - Catalan. It is informative and accurate to present Catalan name first. In UK, national language has precedence in all accounts. In Spain, regional languages are more legally important than in UK. In the case of Catalan toponomy, Catalan has precedence. Do I agree with this? It doesn't matter. It's a fact. Catalonia does not need to become independent. The fact that Catalan is the language of Catalan toponomy has nothing to do with politics. It's a legal fact of Spain. Let's discuss this without engaging in ad hominem attacks (I'm rational, thank you very much :). Best regards, Marco Neves 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Catalan diaspora/emigration

Perhaps I was merely unsuccessful in my search, but is there a page/section on Wikipedia dealing with Catalan emigrant communities (e.g. Puerto Rico or Cuba?) Thanks --Dpr 09:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. There is a very dubious stub at Catalan people that could use a real contributor. Right now it makes the dubious claims that "Native speakers of Catalan have an overall majority among the most famous Spaniards" and claims Pablo Picasso as a Catalan (or, I guess, if you read closely enough, just as a native speaker of the Catalan language, which may be true, since I imagine he was dual native). Also, once someone turns that into a half-decent article, then Catalans should redirect there rather than here. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Subliminal nationalist agendas

I am glad we can agree on what most most people would consider "normal" and "rational", irrespective of the local position. If by "toponym" you mean "place name" (I think it better to avoid unidiomatic latinisms in English), I have no problem with the existing text inasmuch as the Spanish names for "Lleida" and "Girona" should appear in brackets after the "official" names in Catalan which now take precedence at a national level throughout Spain.

However, political designations are not place-names, so our Portuguese friend's analogy is inapt. Since the "national" Constitution still takes juridical precedence over any of the "regional" autonomy statutes, the political name of the region (the legitimacy of which derives exclusively from the Spanish Constitution) should continue to take precedence in the national language over the regional variant. This is what any "rational" and informed user of English Wikipedia would expect, regardless of the convulsions which exercise nationalists and unionists in Spain (to the detriment of Spanish Wikipedia).

Finally, and for the final time (so far as I am concerned), I will reiterate that Aranese has no official status outside the Val d'Aran itself. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to attempt to accord this dialect any co-official status with either Catalan or Spanish . I notice that one of the more avid habitual Catalanist editors has yet again sought to disparage the official Spanish name for the autonomous community by placing it in a smaller-font italics alongside Aranese. It is difficult to believe that such persistence is neutral and uninfected by point-scoring nationalist bias.

An Englishman (bored with parochial pettiness)

P.S. Can you please take the trouble to observe the convention of entering any reponses as separate entries (rather than merely "editing" mine).

Toponym

Unless I'm very mistaken, a toponym is the adjectival form of a placename. While "toponym" is a bit Latinate, "adjectival form of placename" is really clumsy, and adjectival is just as Latinate as toponym. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the question of political name (cont.)

Dear Englishman:

I didn’t know the convention about opening a new topic for every single answer. And I really think it makes the table of contents irrelevant and the whole page unorganised. But I will respect your option.

Sorry for the Latinism, but the fact is toponym is an English word — I’ve checked an English dictionary — just like “parochialism”, which is also a Latinism.

Regarding place names, I accept that my example was confusing. Now, let’s concentrate on the “political names” argument.

You mention Spanish Constitution, which has precedence over Autonomy Statutes. You’re right: it has precedence. But Spanish Constitution says that ‘’castellano’’ is official throughout Spain and the other Spanish languages (‘’otras lenguas españolas’’) are official in their own regions. It says nothing about precedence in each one of the regions. (Don’t extrapolate saying that “national” language has obvious precedence: in Spain, nothing of this kind is ever obvious, even if, for an Englishman, it should be.) Catalan Autonomy Statute, which is a Spanish National Law called “ley orgánica”, with quasi-constitutional value and superior to ordinary Spanish law), calls Catalan “proper”. Do I agree with this? I would be more comfortable with complete equality, but that’s what the (Spanish) Law says. This adjective (‘proper’) has little impact on reality, besides giving Catalan a sort of “ceremonial” precedence. So, in a nutshell, in Catalonia, both political names are official, but the Catalan name has a sort of “ceremonial” precedence, since is in the language the Spanish Law calls “proper” to Catalonia (in no other place can we infer any kind of precedence between both languages, regarding Catalonia).

Now, if, despite these legal technicalities, Spanish were the most-used language in Catalonia, I would be most happy to use Spanish first, for the sake of accuracy. But, in Catalan political circles (the street is another matter), Catalan is used almost exclusively (even PP representatives — the only national party present in Catalonia, which completely against any kind of Catalan nationalism — speak in Catalan when in the Catalan parliament). So, legal arguments and political arguments are in favour of giving a ‘’certain’’ precedence to Catalan regarding political names in Catalonia (the recent change reducing the size of the Spanish name was, I completely agree, silly and an example of not-quite-so-subliminal nationalism).

Englishmen should expect accuracy in Wikipedia, not confirmation of all general suppositions they previously held. Let’s try a “mental experiment” (like Einstein): suppose all Englishmen thought Algarve was a Portuguese autonomous region (which is something any reasonable person in England could think): should I, as a Portuguese, let that wrong piece of information stand? So, the fact that reasonable people in England think something is right does not make it automatically right (nor wrong, for that matter). Please, note that the strength of Wikipedia is that people who like and understand each and every topic input their specific knowledge in order to build a common knowledge repository to the benefit of all. And, please, don’t accuse other people of parochialism and, at the same time, imply that Wikipedia in English is “property” of native English-speaking people (you always speak about the expectations of English users): it belongs to everyone that are able to contribute, just like every other Wikipedia. The fact that so many Catalans (and Spaniards in general) contribute makes these articles much more worthy of Englishmen’s attention, since they can give “inside” information, so to speak (these articles become also prone to political discussions, but this is not the case: we are speaking about a rather settled question).

Keep in mind that this is considered a non-question by a majority of contributors (or so I guess, since you’re the only one reverting something no one usually complains about) and since you are trying to implement a polemical change (which you have the right to do), you should present arguments and keep attacks aside. I would like to exchange ideas calmly and without ad hominem attacks. (By the way, don't try to convince me I have a subliminal nationalist agenda; I rather dislike nationalism and I love everything Spanish, including Catalonia.) Let’s keep accusations of pettiness and parochialism aside and focus on the arguments. Even if this is (and it sure is!) a petty question for most people.

Best regards,

Marco Neves 11:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you previously said: "A user of English Wikipedia should be left in no doubt, after consulting this article, that Catalonia is presently an autonomous region of Spain." The fact that Catalan comes first does not imply (at least for me) that Catalonia is not an autonomous region of Spain. It is an autonomous region and will probably be one for many years to come. This has nothing to do with languages: a country can have different official languages and different status assigned to those languages in different parts of its national territory. I hope no one will infer political status from the order languages appear in the side table. But even if someone gets confused, the beginning of the article will clarify matters.

Toponymical side-issue

I did not say that "toponym" was not an English word, merely that it was an unidiomatic Latinism. Strictly speaking, in English usage a "toponym" is a place name derived from a topographical feature (e.g. "Tras-os-Montes"). A desire for accuracy is thus another reason why "place name" is preferable (as well as being better understood by virtue of using words in common use). By contrast, "parochial" is a word in everyday use, notwithstanding its Latin origins. In fact, the word originates from the Greek word paroikia (meaning 'temporary stay').

As a general rule, the more idiomatic English word is the (usually shorter) one with a Germanic root rather than the (usually longer) Latinate equivalent; e.g. "start" and "end" are idiomatic: "commence" and "terminate" are not (even though they are undoubtedly English words). While an understandable tendency among those whose mother tongue is a Romance language, the use of unidiomatic Latinate words in place of simpler and more idiomatic ones is apt to lessen rather than increase understanding.

As to the issue in hand, my position is simply to apply a criterion of common sense which would be universally understood by Wikipedia users with no axe to grind; namely, that the national takes precedence over the regional in this context. Neither the Spanish Consititution nor the present Autonomy Statute accords Catalan any form of precedence over Castilian, which is no doubt why our Portuguese friend, unable to point to any juridical basis in favour of Catalan's 'official' precedence, is driven to invoke the wholly novel concept of "ceremonial" precedence.

I am well aware that within Catalonia (and its public institutions in particular), Catalan is routinely given precedence over Castilian. However, since English-language Wikipedia is a global endeavour (rather than a publication by the Generalitat or some other Catalan institution), I see no reason why it should defer to local sensibilities which are neither universally shared nor accepted.

Finally, I do not recall making "ad hominem" (or personal) "attacks" on any particular contributor. My "attacks", if they can sensibly be so described, relate exclusively to the partisan point-scoring which clearly underpins a lot of the editing on this page. As far as I am concerned, it is neither here nor there that most of these edits appear to come from a handful of contributors whose chosen "identifiers" indicate names of Catalan origin. In short, my concern is with the content of the article and the integrity of the project (rather than with the political or cultural predilections of any particular contributor).

An Englishman

Hello Englishman. I have the impression we are having byzantine discussions here. I do not know what you understand by common sense, and it's better not to invoke it, because sometimes it might tend to be the less common of the senses. It does not matter the political, national or regional musings about, any person that lands Catalonia can easily check all what we are talking about. I could understand your position 30 or 40 years ago (during Francoist regime), but not know; I suppose you have visited Catalonia more recently, don't you? What I cannot understand is why Aranese presence is so offensive? I personally appreciate this kind of annotations, let's say in Switzerland, India, Scotland or any other places where there could be minoritary languages, even if they are not official (which is not the case for Aranese, which is currently official in Val d'Aran and might be in the whole territory in the future). Do you suggest that most English-speaking people do not want to know this kind of enriching things. I do not think so... Toniher 23:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cont.

Dear Englishman,

I would consider "parochialism" and "subliminal nationalistic agenda" as ad hominem attacks (since I don't consider myself to be parochial or a nationalist and I don't like being called that), but, once again, it's your opinion and I respect that. (And sorry to have said "parochialism" was a Latinate word. I was wrong. I mean it.)

I agree Wikipedia is global. That's why I didn't agree with your argument regarding what Englishmen would expect. The fact that Wikipedia is global (and not just for English native speakers) is where Wikipedia's strength lies.

I did not invent cerimonial precedence. "Proper" is the word used by the Statute. If the word has any meaning at all, it is that: cerimonial. That was what I was saying. And, in reality, Catalan does have de facto precedence: despite Catalonia having two languages, officially speaking the form "Catalunya" is used much more often that "Cataluña". Paraphrasing you, the national does not take precedence over the regional in this context. (This is not saying I agree with that fact. It's just that: a fact.) So, the order Spanish-Catalan is not accurate, is quite misleading and reinforces previous misconceptions many international users of Wikipedia have.

Well, I guess such a large discussion on such a petty subject is kind of time-consuming and, therefore, I will try to abstain myself for any further participation. However, I would advise Englishman to let "common-sense" aside and to accept that appearences, globally speaking, can be deceiving. National language precedence in Catalonia is exactly what a foreigner would expect and is exactly what he would learn, by experience, to be not true. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the subject.

Warm regards (once again, I mean it),

Your Portuguese friend (has you've called me) :) Marco Neves 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to say that "the national" ("Englishman" appears to use nation only in the sense of sovereign state) "takes precedence over the regional" (which in this case appears to refer to any culture that does not have full state sovereignty). Certainly that is not simply "common sense". It is a politically charged view. The fact that it is dominant in many countries—or at least in the politically dominant regions of those countries—does not make it apolitical. In your own country, I imagine that plenty of the Scottish and Welsh, and certainly of the Northern Irish Catholics, would disagree with you on this point. I live in the U.S. The most obvious semi-autonomous quasi-national entities here are the Native American nations, or tribes, depending on who you are talking to. We have increasingly moved over the last generation or two towards calling them by their own names (e.g. Lakota, Inuit, Aleut, none of which were words in common use 50 years ago) rather than by their historic English-language names (Sioux, Eskimo). I don't think this is contrary to common sense. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Entry on official censorship to be added?

I think the "Current political issues" should be updated with the censorship law that was voted in Catalonia and came into effect on Januray 3, 2006. Obviously, nationalists will immediately erase such an addition but at least the English-speaking world should be aware of the fact that the first and only European Union region to establish political censorship of the media is Catalonia.

It might surprise many people, but the most dangerous parts of the proposed new Catalan statutes are not the ones in relation with the national identity of Catalonia, but the ones establishing a Communist-like control of society and economy by the Generalitat. All major industries will be state-controlled and media (print, TV and electronic) will be subject to excruciating limitations. If the statutes are voted, Catlonia in 2010 will look more than Poland in the 1970's rather than a free-market, liberal country of the European Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.35.166.225 (talk • contribs) 9 Jan 2006.

Can you point at an account of this that you would consider to be from a reliable source? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This unsigning editor tries to spread biased information, ...with some funny assertions. Everybody interested in the project of new Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (approved by 120 of the 135 deputies of the Parliament) can read an english version here: [ http://www.gencat.net/nouestatut/docs/estatut_english.pdf]. Our unsigning friend should think that all these deputies (representing around 90% of democratic votes) are crazy! --Joan sense nick 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the unsigning editor is confusing two issues. First, censorship. The Catalan government has given sanctionary and quasi-judicial powers to a governmental entity known as the Consell de l'Audiovisual de Catalunya, or Catalonia Audiovisual Counicil, which is under the direct control of the Parliament of Catalonia. Its explicit mandate is to verify that what the audiovisual (television and radio) media in Catalonia say is "truthful". Sanctions such as fines and the revoking of transmission licenses are now within its capabilities. Of course, the issue here is not that such an organism exists, but that it attempts to define what is "truthful", and has teeth to make sure everybody stays in line. Moreover, it is scary since it's an political entity under government direction. COPE Radio in particular has grown weary of the possibilities this new law could open, and this has prompted nine journalists to write and sign a manifesto explaning in great detail their position against the CAC for the European Parliament to take action in what they see as the most flagrant attempt at official censorship in the Union's history. This manifesto has been signed as well by more than half a million people in Spain, with identification numbers, in what has become by far the largest petition ever in the history of the European Parliament (the largest one before only had 15,000 signers). It has been pointed out by some in the Spanish media that this manifesto has more signatures than Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya had votes in the last election (which were, by the way, their best results ever since the Transition), yet news of it are largely ignored inside Spain (let alone Catalonia!).

About the regulatory aspects of the proposed new Statute, it is plain to see in the link provided by Joan sense nick that it is highly regulatory of almost every conceivable aspect of life. I am scared since I've become enamored of Catalonia, and part of my love for her is that I still recognize it as the traditionally more liberal, freer, part of the Spanish Kingdom. As a Puerto Rican, I take great pride in my homeland's strong Catalan heritage (there's even a town here called "Barceloneta"; many people have Catalan surnames, sometimes even full Catalan names, yet they don't know, such as Eulalia or Laia; we drink cava and call it "cava"; we make Bacardí and Serrallés rums, the Casals Festival is here, and a long etc.).

I know it is solely the Catalan people's choice. But saying that the new Statute is hyper-regulatory is simply stating the obvious. The unsigned was too sensationalistic, but the fact remains that Catalans will lose personal and economic freedoms if this proposal, strictly as approved by the Catalan Parliament, ever turns into organic law.

Regards, User:Mankawabi 9:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the new Staute proposal (it's a proposal!) is hyper-regulatory. I'm not an expert in law. Two reasons can explain this, in my opinion: 1) In order to have a great consensus the debate last some 18 months, with 4 political parties involved. 2) The current Statute have been often cut out by Spanish general laws since 1977, and the proposal tries to block its jurisdiction from future general laws cuts.

Mankawabi, I invite you to visit your old homeland. You will see that we enjoy the liberal way of life that once "enamored" you... Don't give much credit to some sensacionalistic media, or to radical nationalists (Spanish or Catalan). Come visit us, feel the (real) life in the streets: I'm sure that you come back again! Regards, --Joan sense nick 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Mankawabi's remarks, both about CAC and Statute.--Catón 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)--195.149.215.221 16:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Partit Popular

Okay, I know Repùblica Popular is "People's Republic" in English, but I wonder whether this should be "People's Party" in English. I mean, it's a "populist" and hence centrist (perhaps center-right) party, while "people's party," suggests ... something different. "Popular Party" doesn't make much sense in English, but perhaps that's a good thing in this case (as it at least does have the odd connotations of "People's Party." "Populist Party" might be more on the mark, but it's really less a translation than an explanation. I mean, the "Partido Radical" in Argentina is usually given as the "Radical Party," as odd as that is in English (particularly when it's more like the Grassroots Party, that's the "radix" they're getting at). So I'm on .... Popular Party for the Partit Popular/Partido Popular. It's literal, perhaps too literal, but no more literal than so many other glosses of organizational names. Blondlieut 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I would lean toward Populist Party. Popular in Spanish can mean either "popular" or "populist" in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I agree with you regarding the translation of popular. However, for what it's worth, I would note that the Partido Popular Democratico in Puerto Rico is invariably translated as the Popular Democratic Party in English, even when they're out of power. Blondlieut 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Name of the region

Similar to my edits on the main Spain page, IMO, this name should only have the official name of Catalunya, which is the Catalan spelling. It is the SOLE official name of the region, although when writing in the Castilian language, you would write "Cataluña," just as you would in any language conforming the proper noun to your language. However, this is not such an instance.

And to say that the only official language of Catalonia is Catalan is plainly false. It is Catalan AND Spanish. This is not a POV, this is established fact.

Eboracum 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

anarchist history

Catalonia has a rather rich anarchist heritage, does it not? Ie. George Orwell wrote fondly of Catalonia in his book Homage to Catalonia for this very reason. Yet this article doesn't seem to mention the period where anarchism was dominant in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. In fact, this barely mentions the Spanish Civil War, in which I suspect the Fascists were deeply suspicious and paranoid of Catalonian culture and tradition. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't particularly a history article. I think that is decently covered at History of Catalonia; you might want to have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Move" debate

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Catalonia (autonomous community) → Catalonia Rationale: Catalonia is the name of the country, and the label expected to found. No disambiguation is required: there are not usual mistakes with any other geographic entity. Catalonia has been the title of the page since its creation in 2002, and was moved two weeks ago by editor User:Domino theory without any previous discussion. [Proposed by User:Joan sense nick]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - I agree with Joan sense nick, Catalonia is a nation, the article should have its name. Afonso Silva 00:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support unless the original editor provides a compelling rationale. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The article was moved on April 5 by [User:Djln]. See comment below. -- Domino theory 08:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as per nom.--Aldux 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Smells of POV otherwise. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I disapprove the recent edition renaming this article to "Catalonia (autonomous community). Catalonia is the name of the country (the region, the area, the autonomous comunity, whatever you prefer), and the label expected to found. No disambiguation is required: there are not usual mistakes with any other geographic entity. Catalonia has been the title of the page since its creation in 2002, and was moved two weeks ago by editor [User:Domino theory] without any previous discussion. My requested move: [1] --Joan sense nick 23:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved on April 5 by User:Djln in order to turn "Catalonia" into a disambiguation page. What I did was to move the disambiguation to "Catalonia (disambiguation)" and redirect "Catalonia" to the proper article. Apparently the effort hasn't been recognized, but seeing it used to villainize for what someone else did just feels absurd.

Even if Catalonia (disambiguation) has since been deleted, it is still possible to observe the edit history for Talk:Catalonia (disambiguation). -- Domino theory 08:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit history of Talk:Catalonia (disambiguation): 
(cur) (last)  06:44, April 30, 2006 Domino theory m (moved Talk:Catalonia to Talk:Catalonia (disambiguation)) 
(cur) (last)  16:50, April 5, 2006 Djln (moved Talk:Catalonia to Talk:Catalonia (autonomous community): disambiguation)

Domino theory: I would like to apologize to you if you felt my words inappropriated: as you can see, my english is not very good. It was not my intention to villainize anybody!. I have not seen (it wasn't that easy) the full edit history of the article. I appreciate your effort in solve this little muddle. --Joan sense nick 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vegueries

Hello!

According to the Statute of Catalonia, now Catalonia isn't divided on provinces, but in vegueries, a new territorial unit. The seven vegueries do not correspond to the old four provinces. This is a major change because none of the seven vegueries (Alt Pirineu [High Pyrinees], Girona, Ponent [Roughly "West"], Tarragona, Terres de l'Ebre [Lands of the Ebre], Barcelona and Catalunya Central [Central Catalonia]) has an article of its own, and I wanted to discuss this subject before making any changes.

What should be done in this case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatoshiMiwa (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.

Do they cross province boundaries? If so, what about postal codes? --Error 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GDP

The article says the GDP = 2.5%. 2.5% of what? In what year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.77.181.208 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2006.

Language

Do we have understands/reads/speaks/writes statistics on Spanish in Catalonia? I'd imagine that they are close to 100%, but that should probably be explicit. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you that is not like that if you move your ass somehow away from the Barcelon area. My grand parents do not speak Castilian (nover to be named Spanish since that is a historical mistake. How come to call a language Spanish if Spain is just a place where four nations exest. Castilian is one of them, but only one of them. Would you call British the English language???). So what I was saying, if pelple understand and can somehow (because mine is pretty bad) speak castilian, that is because of all the pressure the castilinas are getting the catalans galicians and basque undergo all through the media. And, please, do not say what you are saying in such a way that seems to say: you catalans are just cstilians. That really makes me angry and wish these bastards (that is how I call them) die. oups, I'll say pass away and that wil sould much better. anyway, not be here in my place. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.37.17.161 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2006.

Despite your tone, if in fact the statistics would not be close to 100%, then that is all the more reason why they ought to be explicit in the article.

I said "Spanish" because this is the English-language Wikipedia, and in English the language is called "Spanish". I am fully aware that in Spain it would be referred to as castellano, but in English we would say "Castilian" only if we intended, for example, to distinguish it from Andalusian or New World Spanish. When you are writing/speaking in Catalan, do you avoid saying Alemanya because most Germans are not actually Allemanni? I'm sure not: you use the word your language uses.

I am by no means saying that Catalans are Castilians, and if you look at my edits you can easily see that I have repeatedly objected to people who have attempted to lump the Catalans in with the Spanish. But linguistic ability is another question than nationality.

Since you bring up the question of my own experience: I have been several places in Catalunya outside of Barcelona, and to the best of my memory I've never met a Catalan who couldn't understand Castilian/Spanish, and only one (pretty far out in the mountains) who could not express himself in the language at least as well as I could (which is to say, barely short of real fluency). I don't know how representative my experience is: I ought to be able to look at this article and find out, no? If we are giving statistics on knowledge of Catalan and Aranese, we should give statistics on knowledge of Spanish, or, if you will, "Castilian". - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even after the inmersión lingüística process, I would say the figures are well over 90%, Nonetheless, it is hard to find statistics for political reasons. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Traveling in the Barcelona area and over to Lleida, I have noticed that older people (who were schooled under Franco) speak Castillian very well. They were required to learn it in school and spoke it for many years in public. After his death when Catalan was being taught in schools, people tended to develop better skills in Catalan. The people I know who are under 30-35 don't speak Castillian nearly as well as you would expect and the teenagers that I know struggle a lot with the language. It is really a second language to many of them.

Catalonia a nationality?

Methinks there is an error here, but since the subject of "nationality" appears to be sensitive in this article, I'll run it by the rest of you:

Second paragraph of article: "Catalonia was officially recognised as a nationality in the Catalan Statute of Autonomy enacted in 1979 pursuant to the Spanish Constitution of 1978."

Surely this should be one of the following:

• "Catalan was officially recognised as a nationality..."
• "Catalonia was officially recognised as a nation..."
• "Catalonia was officially recognised as an autonomous community..."

As I read (admittedly in a quick glance) the 1979 statute, the status asserted and recognized was "autonomous community". See: http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/preambul.htm

Will someone more knowledgeable than I please correct this. Thanks.

Nationality, in Spanish legal system, is basically an euphemism of nation so this may not conflict with the definition of Spanish nation as the only one in the Spanish Kingdom according to Spanish Constitution. Some Autonomous Communities, apart from Catalonia, are also referred as nationalities. In the newly approved Statute, Catalonia is recognized as a nation in a non-legal part of the document, so this does not conflict with Spanish Constitution. Some feared that Catalonia being regarded as actually a nation in a legal document may ease international acceptance for its right to self-determination. For that reason, in order to avoid this, that reference was removed from the legal part of the Statute draft.

Of course, nation is rather a complex and politically charged term. For instance, Catalan independentists rarely regard the Spanish Autonommous Community of Catalonia as the territory of their nation, but the whole Principality, or more normally, the whole Catalan Countries. Toniher 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with Toniher here. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from memory, the Constitution talks about "nacionalidades y regiones" not specifiying their number, name, extension nor location. --Error 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To complicate things even more, now we have Realidad Nacional as a step further over Nacionalidad but shy of calling itself Nación. I'm obviously talking about Andalusia's reformed Estatuto (see Andalusian nationalism for references). E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just copyedited the article, but as the article says that the August reforms gave Catalonia status as a nation, I used the word nation. That may need to be corrected. As a note, the independentists weren't mentioned, and the VCB pic botched the table formatting, so I removed the picture for now until the table gets done properly and the group gets mentioned -- they're obviously important, but the casual reader has no idea why, especially since the article says Catalonia is an autonomous government (or its own nation). MSJapan 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The only legal definition of Catalonia is the current Statute of Autonomy:

"In reflection of the feelings and the wishes of the citizens of Catalonia, the Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation by an ample majority. The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality." (end of the Preambule, see the full english version: [[2]])

This text "in exercise of the inalienable right of Catalonia to self-government" was proposed by the Catalan Parliament, approved by the Constitutional Committee of the Congress of Deputies of Spain and ratified by the people of Catalonia in referendum in 2006. --Joan sense nick 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Crown of Catalonia & Aragon

There are a lot of historical mistakes in this article. Please review it deeper.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.

COMPLETE NONSENSE!!!! The Crown of Catalonia never existed. I quote: " The union of the territories of the Kingdom of Aragon and the County of Barcelona was brought by the 1137 marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona and Petronila of Aragon. The resulting new kingdom came to be known as the Crown of Aragón. The son of Ramón Berenguer IV and Petronila, Alfonso II, inherited both the titles of King of Aragón and Count of Barcelona, in a style that would be maintained by all its successors to the crown. Thus, this union was made while respecting the existing institutions and parliaments of both territories." --> See:"Crown of Aragon"'s history chapter

There was never a known title such as "King of Catalonia". As always, for many catalans, politics are far more important than contrasted history facts. Maurice27 21:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Language

Catalan was a language before Spanish, like Catalonia was a nation before Spain. The first remark of the word 'Catalan' is in the battle of 'Camps Catalàunics', when roman empire descendents defeat the huns in the lands of Catalonia. The first remarks of Catalan Nation (like independent regions of France in Middle Ages : Comtat de Girona, el Roselló, Comtat de Barcelona, Balears, etc...under a common name of Crown of Catalonia & Aragon) are parallel to the rise of the Al-Andalus, the time of the Reigns of Taifas (arab), etc... To resume. Catalonia was a nation (and Catalan his language) while the rest of Peninsula Iberica were under control of the Arabs (except Asturias, and the Basque Country). La Marca Hispànica (remarck the tilde) where a strategic military band (<---not the best word) to prevent the arabs go north. The Reconquist (the military expulsion of the arabs of the Peninsula Iberica (excuse me my english again, pls)) beguns in Girona. The catalan and french languages are more similar than catalan and spanish.

Im asking to Wikipedist to investigue deep in this themes, because there a lot of historical errors that had been covered by "oficial" Spanish history, not only in internet, but here, in Catalonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.

I usually never answer to anonymous posters. But this, and others from the same IP deserve a strong

answer, as they show serious educational flaws:

• The Catalaunic Fields are near Chalons sur Saone, in northern central France. Hundreds of kms. away from nothing ever has been Catalan even in the widest sense. See Battle of Chalons
• Read the article History of Catalonia for a minimal knowledge of Middle Age Catalonia. One of the things you'll know there is that the first attestation of the term "Catalan" (in Latin) is from the XII century
• The historical evolution of the counties of the Hispanic March has nothing to do with your comment. The Balearic islands, for obvious reasons -wasn't reconquered till the XIII century- was never part of it.
• If Gerona wasn't reconquered by the Franks until 785 (see above reference), how could the Reconquista start there, if the Battle of Covadonga is usually dated 718-724, and by Gerona' date the Kingdom of Asturias border was already on the Duero river?
• See the Catalan Language page. Besides the complex status and relationships between the western Latin languages; and an almost geographical imposibility, no philologist asserts that catalan is closer to normative French than to Spanish (ever been in Paris?). If you'd said with Occitan, there are a lot of scholars that would agree with you, and probably me too.
• Somewhere else, you state that Catalan is older than Spanish. Saying that a language is older than other is usually nonsense, even more when both are derived from the same source (Latin) and almost for sure evolved in parallel. The first extant witness of Catalan and Castillian are roughly contemporaneous (IX/X century)

--Wllacer 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Wllacer, all of them are based in compiling information.

First of all, I would like to add an answer to the remark of "Catalan Nation (like independent regions of France in Middle Ages : Comtat de Girona, el Roselló, Comtat de Barcelona, Balears, etc...under a common name of Crown of Catalonia & Aragon)", as (talk suggests. This is all (and please forget me) rubbish!!!!

I quote: "The title of Count of Barcelona was, through much of its history, merged with that of King of Aragón, but before that it referred to the count of the city and its surrounding countryside. It was a Carolingian creation. After Charlemagne conquered a strip of Iberia north of the Ebro it was inevitably partitioned into counties with one count (usually holding several counties) being appointed margrave of the Marca Hispanica, or Spanish March (more rarely, Catalonia). These margraves were often the counts of Barcelona, who thus obtained a certain de facto primacy over the other counts by virtue of their possession of so many counties in the region. The counts, like all vassals throughout the Empire, attempted to establish their own dynasties in hereditary rule over their provinces and in this the counts of Barcelona were very successful: so much so that, by the beginning of the second millennium, they were recognising Navarrese suzerainty[...]" See List of Counts of Barcelona's preamble.

It is interesting to add the following lines from the same wikipage mentioned just over this line: "Nominated [earlier] counts of Barcelona were Frankish vassals. Nominated by the emperor then the king of France, to whom they were feudatories (801-987)". Only during the brief time from 987 (when the count of Barcelona did not recognise french king Hugh Capet and his new dynasty) to 1137, (when Ramon Berenguer IV el Sant (the Saint) (1131-1162), married Petronila of Aragón establishing the dynastic union of the County of barcelona with the Kingdom of Aragón, forming the Crown of Aragón) , could we say that the County of Barcelona was De facto independent. But let's not forget that it was not until 1258, by the Treaty of Corbeil, that the king of France did not relinquished his feudal overlordship over the counties of the Principality of Catalonia to the king of Aragón James I of Aragon, leaving this De facto independence worthless to become a De jure direct transition from french vassalage to aragonese vassalage.

In Aragonese history, Ramon Berenguer IV's dynasty is called the House of Barcelona.

A later king of Aragón from the House of Barcelona, Ferdinand II of Aragon (the Catholic) (1479-1516), married Isabella of Castile, and thus united Spain to become King of Spain.

changing of subject, I would like to say, that all of those who speak about the age of Catalan, should read the Occitan language and Gascon language wikipages. The separation of Catalan from Occitan is largely politically (rather than linguistically) motivated.

I quote: "The exclusion of Catalan from the Occitan sphere, although Catalan is a language closely related to Occitan, is justified because there has been a conscience of it being different to Occitan since the later Middle Ages (IMHO this means not earlier than XV century) and the elaboration (Ausbau) processes of Catalan and Occitan (including Gascon) have been quite distinct (only) since the 20th Century. --> See Occitan language "Debates concerning linguistic classification and orthography" chapter

I quote again, this time from the french Occitan wikipage: "À un stade ancien, le catalan et l'occitan ne pouvaient pas être catégoriquement différenciés. Les poètes catalans écrivirent en occitan jusqu'au XIVe siècle. Le premier écrivain qui écrivit toute son œuvre en catalan, ainsi qu'en occitan, fut le Valencien Ausiàs March.

La différenciation s’est effectuée vers le milieu du XIIIe siècle sur des critères essentiellements politico-géographiques. Ce n’est qu’en 1934 que les intellectuels catalans ont fini par proclamer solennellement que le catalan était distinct de l’occitan[6]."

I translate: "At an early stage, Catalan and Occitan could not categorically be differentiated. Catalan poets wrote in Occitan until the XIV century. The first writer who wrote it's work in Catalan, like in Occitan, was the Valencian Ausiàs March. Differentiation was carried out about the middle of XIII century essentially on political-geographical criteria. It is only in 1934 that catalan intellectuals ended up proclaiming solemnly that the Catalan was distinct from the Occitan--> See Occitan french wikipage, Chapter "Les différences entre l’occitan et le catalan"

This said, I would like to ask people to instruct themselfs before posting such nonsenses Maurice27 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinand II he wasn't from House of Barcelona, he was from House of Trastámara, a castilian house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquard2 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Talking about this topic... Did you know that the Aragon Kingdom was like USA. I mean, the "nations" that were in that kingdom were independent from each other, the only thing that they had toghether was the KING. Every country had his army, political institucions, and all the other things. So a lot of times you can see Valencian Kingdom, Comptats Catalans,...etc.

Llanguadoc - Rossillon

When the PSOE (socialist)& ERC (nacionalist) wins the elections in Catalonia in 2001 or 2002 (dont remember exactly), French goverment get afraid and very fast change the name of that Region. There was manifestations importants in France (not in Spain) for this 'hide of roots'. If you go to that part of France, you will see that there people feels more catalan than in Barcelona.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.

More OCCITAN than in Barcelona should be better Maurice27 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing page

Hello. I have edited the evidence of catalan language in l'Alguer, in Italy, and the presence of the Almogavers in Greece. The expansion of Catalans, not only trading, but also military i think must be exposed, but i don't know the details.Thanks a lot.Excusme my english, isn't my natal language. It is catalan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.

Editing page

I have edited the page but my changes have been deleted. In Middle Ages catalans were the former rulers of the Mediterranean. Please consult Crown of Aragon in Wikipedia to know the real conquests of Catalunya in times of the Crown of Aragon. Thanks a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.

Too unionist biased article

I edited some parts that I think that are very spanish unionist biased. It is not the problem of english readers of wiki that editors can't be objective. There was a link of libertaddigital.com please, be serious. This is an encyclopedia not a game. I hope that my edits aren't followed by lots of unionist putting "The spanish autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain) that has no international recognizement is a REGION which capital is Barcelona, the second largest city of Spain, near the Mediterranean sea, a sea which borders with the north-east of Spain that is the spanish autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain)". Hope people is more serious.

I agree up to a point with this idea but it is not biased up to that point, Despite that I edited some points and I think now it is more neutral. --83.45.130.186 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is more neutral now but it could be better without the use of subjective links of internet newspapers related with politic parties. --GillesV 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just read my answer below... Maurice27 23:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous use of a libertaddigital article

All people knows that libertaddigital is not neutral , less the article that Maurice27 is using: http://www.libertaddigital.com/noticias/noticia_1276295348.html and I cannot understand how a wiki admin can allow the use of a link like that. It is really annoying and strange. There are lots of sources that speak about the fines without attacking catalan institutions, catalan people and withouth comparing that with the Basque country , a complete different problem.--GillesV 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh i was complaining but now I must say that Asterion made a GOOD edition...it was not to ignore the fact but that libertaddigital article was not objective. --GillesV 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The actual El Mundo article was difficult to find as the www.elmundo.es website search engine behaves quite erratically. Then I realised you need to select "Printed edition" in order to access the paper edition.

Another thing that needs improving now is the replacing/addition of alternative references in English. Most of the current ones are either in Catalan or Spanish and this is the English wikipedia indeed. Regards, Asterion^talk 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank Asterion for the search in El Mundo. (An article I was unable to find). But, after reading both articles, I still can't see or find any proven fact to describe the article by Libertaddigital.com as partidist or subjective. All that the article does is to quote "la Agencia Catalana del Consumo" words (the pro-catalan side), and to quote "La Fundación DENAES" words (the pro-spanish side). Not in a single moment does the journalist expose his/her own criteria on the subject, then, the OBJECTIVE writing of the actual facts by LibertadDigital.com is PROVEN, making this article completely worth for use in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I would like GillesV to show where does the Journalist/Article "attack catalan institutions, catalan people [...]comparing ["them"] with the Basque country". (something the article CLEARLY quotes as "La Fundación DENAES words").

The fact IS THAT this article quotes both sides in a confrontation, (one of them to be against the prohibition by a small commerce in Barcelona to label all their articles only in spanish, while the catalan law indicates all articles have to be labelled in AT LEAST in Catalan.

GillesV considers LibertadDigital.com to be a NON-neutral press... I would like him to explain why is the "AVUI" newspaper so oftenly quoted and linked in the catalan Vikipedia, being this newspaper publicly and openly partidist of left-wing catalan nationalism

Thankfully, Spain has become in late years a DEMOCRACY where FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF PRESS are something normal. The problem begins when people like GillesV believe that their own criteria and opinion should prevail over the other's, giving them the moral right to erase, criticize and censure other's opinion... But, that's another story... Maurice27 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously any person with knowledge of Spanish press knows what type of press is libertaddigital. The freedom of speech is not to say any stupid thing. I agree with the freedom of press, I thing that radical people needs his media to express his ideas but i don't think Wiki should use references of sensasionalist sources.If you cannot accept the type of press that is libertaddigital it is not my problem. GillesV 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and Diari Avui, I can agree that is a Catalan nationalist press but ¿¿¿left-winged??? Oh , here we can see you have never read Avui, Avui is near Convergència i Unió never left-winged :S

That's wrong. the newspaper Avui is closer to Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya rather to Convergència i Unió. Others newsparper like La Vanguardia is closer to Convergència i Unió, and El Periódico (other newspaper) is closer to Partit Socialista de Catalunya. As I can see you don't known nothing about newspapers in Catalunya. --Jacquard2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquard2 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, still you are unable to explain the reasons for you to censore and erase it. You haven't prove it to be subjective. You still haven't explain where does the journalist attack catalan institutions and PEOPLE. You still haven't made the point to explain the reasons for you to erase it. And I'm telling you I am pretty interested in knowing them.

I believe all this explains what type of wikipedia contributor you are... The type that, as I said before, believe that their own criteria and opinion should prevail over the other's, giving them the moral right to erase, criticize and censure other's opinion, specially if they smell pro-spanish or pro-french (not even anti-catalan). Maurice27 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite I don't like the style at all at least 'El Mundo' article forgets DENAES part, and obviously it is not good to say the things that says only one radical part and not the other like Libertad Digital using his (if you don't like sensationalist say it peculiar) style. Moreover I think that DENAES position is totally irrelevant because it is not a politic party or an important organization in Spain, it is only a radical wing of PP [3] or [4] .--GillesV 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, you are not proving any reason to erase the article! Maurice27 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proving competences gaining by the Generalitat since 1932 after erasing by GillesV

By GillesV request, who erased my comments about The generalitat de Catalunya having more powers/competences transfered by the spanish government in present day than during the spanish second civil war, without even informing himself. Even more when the actual article in wikipedia, already explains it.

I quote: "The historical region has gradually achieved a greater degree of autonomy since 1979. The Generalitat holds exclusive jurisdiction, ->[many of which were not held in 1932 statute]<- (this was my contribution), in various matters of culture, environment, communications, transportation, commerce, public safety and local governments but shares jurisdiction with the Spanish government in education, health and justice [12]. Catalonia has its own police force, the Mossos d'Esquadra, which is currently in process of taking over most of the role within Catalonia of Spanish nationwide police forces Guardia Civil and Policia Nacional"--> See: Catalonia, Catalan self-government section

(BTW, maybe reading those FACTS from your own government webpage (AKA gencat.cat), will you believe me.

I link:

1-Beginnings of the autonomous regime, 1918-1932

2-The republican Government of Catalonia, 1931-1939

3-Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006 Title IV. Powers (articles 110-173)

This is the second time (at least that I know) that GillesV erases/censors my contributions to Wikipedia without explaining the reasons for it, or by just lacking of a verification on his part before doing it.

In both cases, I have myself proven the veracity and certainty of my contributions.

I kindly ask for moderators/administrators to advise him against personal attacks and to survey his future contributions to this marvellous project. Maurice27 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--First, Generalitat is not my own Government. May be Jose Montilla can say that...and ZP for the administrations in Spain.

--Second, I think you're having an obsession and seeing ghosts, I have not said it is false, I reverted it following two reasons (and you can use my disc.page to ask me that) : First reason: You put that comment in an edition saying that you were improving the english of the article (13:06, 28 January 2007 Maurice27 (Talk | contribs) (→Catalan self-government - Improved overall english use in this section (i.e. a "conclusion" is a latinism, while in english is most commonly thought of as the last paragraph in an essay))), you have not said that you were introducing info about competences of Generalitat. Second reason, it was a comment without any reference or background

--Third: Your contribution from my point of view is really good now, now it is not a comment in ( ). It is structured.

--Fourth: I think that your comments are not following the wiki policy.

--And 5th , if you don't agree with me normally the best politic is one that says 'Don't feed the troll'. I think that it is what I'm going to do with you :) GillesV

Cleanup

Long, run-on sentences in some of this article have become so confusing that it is impossible to edit. Here's an example:

Identifiably Catalan culture developed in the Middle Ages under the hegemony of a number of Counts throughout those lands. The counts of Barcelona were Frankish vassals. Nominated by the emperor then the king of France, to whom they were feudatories (801-987). Only from 987 (when the count of Barcelona did not recognise french king Hugh Capet and his new dynasty) to 1137, (when Ramon Berenguer IV el Sant (the Saint) (1131-1162), married Petronila of Aragón (to whom he was king consort) establishing the dynastic union of the County of Barcelona with the Kingdom of Aragón or Crown of Aragón), could we say that the County of Barcelona was de facto independent. Anyway, it was not until 1258, by the Treaty of Corbeil, that the king of France did not relinquished his feudal overlordship over the counties of the Principality of Catalonia to the king of Aragón James I, leaving this de facto independence valueless to become a de jure direct transition from French vassalage to Aragonese vassalage.

The third "sentence" is but a piece of a sentence. Editorial comments in the grammatical first person are improperly included in the fourth sentence. The fifth sentence is an ungrammatical double-negative that makes no sense at all to me. This paragraph and others badly needs a cleanup. Pollinator 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

This paragraph is one of my contributions. Not being a native english speaker, I sometimes try to put much information in one single sentence without the proper writing skills of a native speaker. Please, feel free to arrange this paragraph the way you think it would be less confusing. I would try to clean it myself. Maurice27 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Constitutions and Nationalities

This statement in article is wrong: Catalonia is an Autonomous Community of Spain, with the status of historical region in the Constitution of Spain

Spanish Constitution says:

The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.

But there is no mention about which are those nationalities. It's one of the proposed Constitution's reforms. Although Catalonia is accepted by Spanish political parties and mass media as a historical nationality (or region), Spanish Constitution doesn't give any special status to Catalonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Basque Country Article

Perhaps will be good to separate, like in 'Basque Country' article, what is the 'Catalonia (autonomus comunity)' and 'Catalonia (historical territories)'. This can be a very good way to determine what is the actual status of Catalonia (in the autonomous comunity one) despite cultural factors, and the history and all influence of catalan culture and nation (in the historical one). So, the first one can talk about only about the OFFICIAL Catalonia (it is, like an autonomous comunity) and in the other one about the problems of Catalonian Nation (like covered history, desplacement of Catalan, etc...) and corrobored History.

I think this would be a pretty good solution: Having an article called Autonomous Community of Catalonia speaking only about the politics concerned in this part of Spain, and then one article called "Catalonia" speaking about the historico-cultural territory.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This issue was widely discussed before (see above). If you are willing to reopen the debate to get to a new consensual version, I guess the first step is to make a new poll. --theDúnadan 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So it should be a poll of a double renaming: Catalonia to Autonomous Community of Catalonia and Principality of Catalonia to Catalonia...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you must also include the rationale behind opening the poll again, especially for non-Catalan users who might not fully understand the issue. --theDúnadan 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Changes

• It's said that the Treaty of Corbeil makes a transition from French to Aragonese vassalage. I've always heard that the French relinquish his feudal overlordship over the Count of Barcelona, not to the king of Aragon (well, it was the same, but I mean the institution. Now, looking arround, I only find theat simply he relinquished his overlordship. Over nobody. I think you should add the reference telling explicitelly the Aragonese vassalage. Otherwise, I think this sentece should be modified or taken out.
• Also there is the discussion about if Catalonia was the leading part of the Crown of Aragon or not. It's a fact that during this period Catalonia was de leading part, as also that some centuries later they were in a great crisis and the leading part then was Valencia. I don't see why can't we say that in this period actually they were.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I already linked to the proper article where it is explained... please see Treaty of Corbeil (1258). There you will read that the statement in catalonia's article is correct. Louis IX renounced to the counties called the "principality of Catalonia" and James I renounced claims on a lot of territories which now are part of France. France and Aragon simply exchanged territories. Your statement of the french king relinquishing to "nobody" is just not correct. They changed overlordships.

About Catalonia being the leading part it can't just be proved. Only because sailors where Catalan? Their captains? As far as I know, Roger de Flor (believe to be one of the greatest catalan conquerors) was german mercenary, not even catalan. Even his "compañía catalana" had lots of aragonese sailors onboard. Who gave the money to pay the ships? Under which flag did they sail? Why Catalonia first was the leading part and then valencia? What facts are given to say that? It is like comparing in the castilian reconquista to be first Asturias, then Leon the leading part, then, castile, then Andalusia. That is just wrong, it was always the crown of castile to be the leading part. regards, Maurice27 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• So then, whom was representing James in this territory? Was he acting as the King of Aragon or as the Count of Barcelona? I'm pretty sure that in the Treaty says: James, king of Aragon, count of Barcelona, etc... So then, it was the person, not the institution. And he was not a vassail of himself. So, the Count of Barcelona didn't have to serve any vassalage to the Aragonese one. If you don't find any good external reference that shows exactly that, I think we have to omit the "Aragonese vasallage" sentence.
• Is not enough the fact that the Cancelleria Reial was in Barcelona (and not in Zaragoza nor in Valencia) to show that Catalonia was the leading part?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Look Xtv, you seem reasonable. The Treaty of Corbeil explains VERY WELL what happened. If you don't want to see what IS... too bad. re-read your quote: "So, the Count of Barcelona didn't have to serve any vassalage to the Aragonese one". It was the same person!!!! And if you read what Ramon Berenger IV stated during his marriage to Petronila, you will see that he "declined" the title of Count of Barcelona in favor of that the King of Aragon for HIS HEIRS. This means that all his descendents had to be KING OF ARAGON BEFORE COUNTS OF BARCELONA. Then any of them could accept territories as counts rather than Kings, NEVER!!!!. Just accept it, those territories where given to the King of Aragon, not to the count of Barcelona. Therefore, there was a direct transition from french to aragonese vassallage. Again, Juan Carlos I has this same title "count of Barcelona"... and of course he his first KING, than Count... well, same for James I. Elisabeth II has also many "count" titles among hers... And she is always refered as Queen, never as Countless (or whatever way a female count is said in english). The treaty of corbeil is a perfect reference to the paragraph in Catalonia's article. PERIOD. And no, the fact that the Cancelleria Reial was in Barcelona is not enough to be the leading part; the "Palau dels Reis de Mallorca " is in Perpignan and that does not mean the Balears where the rulers of the French Riviera. Regards, Maurice27 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I used the fact that is the same person both the King and the Count to show you there was no vassalage. As I said before, Charles the V, Emperor of the Holy Roman German Empire and King of Spain, with your theory Spain was German during this period (obviously the Emperor title is much more important than the King) but however you are telling me also that at 1516 Spain already exists... Please, the order of the title has nothing to do. And if I request a external source, you can not take it out till you put a source.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Using adjective of "Aragonese vasallage" is not correct, but to the King of Aragon. But we should take in count that before the dinastic union agreement between Kingdom of Aragon and Catalonia, the Catalan Counties were already under the vassallage of Count of Barcelona, a title never "renounced", altough this title has less rank than King of Aragon. Latter, the vassallage of Catalonia will go under the Sovereign Sir of Catalonia, a new title according to the Catalan Constitutions. The King of Aragon and the Count of Barcelona are the same person, but the vassallage was bacause he's Count of Barcelona, not because he's King of Aragon. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) PD: Maurice27 said: the "Palau dels Reis de Mallorca " is in Perpignan and that does not mean the Balears where the rulers of the French Riviera... it's nonsense. French Riviera didn't exist in XIV century. It means that Perpinyà was the most important city of the Kingdom of Majorca, and the Rosselló was the most important territory belonged to this Kingdom.

On the Charles V point, I'm not quite sure, as I don't have time to inform myself, but I think they never talk about Spanish or german territories but of "Habsburgs Possessions", see [[5]]. The ones Charles could keep were inherited by Phillip II (only King of Spain). The Holy roman empire was splitted among him and his ¿brother/uncle?. On the other hand History never talks of "House of Barcelona possesions"... Only County of Barcelona first, and then Crown of Aragon. About the vassals, How can say that in the middle ages, the territories (and their people) were not vassals of their king? I repeat myself: "if you read what Ramon Berenger IV stated during his marriage to Petronila, you will see that he "declined" the title of Count of Barcelona in favor of that the King of Aragon for HIS HEIRS. This means that all his descendents had to be KING OF ARAGON BEFORE COUNTS OF BARCELONA. Then any of them couldn't take territories as counts rather than Kings". Then, if Ramon Berenger IV 's heirs HAD TO BE kings of Aragon, then, when his ¿grandson? James I gained control of the territories known as principality of Catalonia (which were vassals of the kingdom of France), He did it as KING of ARAGON, not Count of Barcelona. He was obliged! He couldn't do in other way! As King! That's it! Why? because his grandfather DECLINED the title of Count of Barcelona in favor of that the King of Aragon for HIS HEIRS. I'm not inventing it, read the article. James I was the ruler of Catalonia before that, but in the same time, that made him vassal of the King of France. To revert that irony, the treaty of Corbeil was signed. Oh, a little fact more... Do you know who was the ruler of the principality of catalonia? Yes... the PRINCEPS... And who was the PRINCEPS.... Exactly!... The King of Aragon!. Do you like programing?,

IF ruler of catalonia = PRINCEPS = King of Aragon

THEN people of Catalonia = vassals of the King of Aragon.

You could ask for other sources, but I'm giving you FACTS! Now it's your turn to give me your sources to be in disagreement with me. Prove me that James I took those territories as Count of Barcelona. But you won't be able, I'm sorry.

We already had this talk in the list of catalan people. Read the Ramon Berenger IV statement, and then, accept that James I could have never take those territories as Count of Barcelona, as his first title was always the one of KING OF ARAGON. Maurice27 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Joanot, while not exactly correct (it is only the eastearn part) most people call French Riviera to ALL the mediterranean coast of France. And as far as I'm concerned, the Mediterranean Sea was formed during the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic rifting of the African and Eurasian plates. So, your quote: "French Riviera didn't exist in XIV century" is just... How to define it... ¿¿¿DUMB??? Maurice27 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikietiquette, I will complain a protest because of your uncivil attitude. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, do it! But don't forget to mention your fabulous quote: "it's nonsense. French Riviera didn't exist in XIV century". You will Rock the place! Maurice27 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maurice you are looking agressive and you're not helping your point of view. WP is not a valid source and I think Joanot and xtv are nearer to a neutral point of view. --GillesV 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I really can't understand how can you call a neutral point of view calling James I "count of Barcelona" instead than "king of Aragon"... That's not "neutral". Maurice27 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He was just both. King title is higher degree as Count, but this doesen't mean more than this. A King can be independent or can be vassail of a Emperor. A Count also, can be vassaill or not.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Last rv

You said that the King of Aragon was a vassail of the King of France, but the King of Aragon vas vassail of nobody. The Count of Barcelona was the vassail of the French King, not the King of Aragon (it's the same person, but not juridicaly, and here we are talking about the juridical facts).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he was, before the treaty!!!!!!!! That's the ONE, the ONLY and the SPECIFIC reason for the Treaty of Corbeil to be signed... Because a King could not be vassail of another King.

Since the count of Barcelona (a title which meant to be a vassail of the King of France) was also the King of Aragon, it could not be at the same time King and vassail of another King. The king of France did not relinquish his feudal overlordship over the counties of the Principality of Catalonia untill this same Treaty was signed. Officially, the Principality of Catalonia was STILL part of France as a sattellite county even if it was already incorporated to the Crown of Aragon since Ramon Berenger IV. The Principality of Catalonia was part of two crowns (France ("owner") and Aragon ("ruler")) at the same time. Any change had been made when Ramon Berenger IV "upgraded" (I don't know the correct term in english) himself from Count(of Barcelona) to King (of Aragon). As the counties forming the principality of Catalonia were still vassails ("owned") of the King of France and, at the same time, ruled by another King (the King of Aragon), something had to be done.

The Treaty was signed for various reasons:

1. France relinquished overlordship over the principality, giving a de jure "liberation" to James I of being "another king's vassail".
2. James I renounced claims in "Southern France"in exchange of all this territories that were now "officially and de jure" his. (French untill then, even if he was already the ruler).
3. To definitively separate the House of Barcelona-Aragon from the politics of "today's" southern France
4. To allow the transfer of Provence from Aragon to the House of Valois (same case as the principality of Catalonia but on the other side).

I really hope this solves and makes clear the necessity of the signing of this treaty; why it was signed; it's reasons and it's consecuences. A direct de jure transition from French to Aragonese possesion (vassallage in middle ages). James I became the ruler (which it already was) and the de jure owner of the principality of Catalonia for the first time. I also hope it makes clear the fact of James I being a count and a King at the same time (even juridicaly! BTW What makes you think juridicaly it is not the same person?). From that point on, "Catalonia" was fully under the King of Aragon's guidance. I'm correct when saying King of Aragon and not Count of Barcelona, Ramon Berenger IV, when marrying Petronila de Aragon, did APOSTATIZE (gave up or renounce his position) as the Count in favor of that the King for his heirs. ("Su hijo, Alfonso II de Aragón y I de Cataluña, iniciará la serie de reyes de ambos territorios, pasando a segundo término el título de conde de Barcelona. see [[6]]). His heirs are always refered first as Kings of Aragon than Counts of Barcelona (See the titles of each of their articles Alfonso II of Aragon, Peter II of Aragon, James I of Aragon, Peter III of Aragon, Alfonso III of Aragon, James II of Aragon, Alfonso IV of Aragon...), being ALL OF THEM called monarchs and not counts. I think my points are proven and therefore I will include again the "treaty of Corbeil" section. Maurice27 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Maurice it's obvious you're a Spanish unionist. You're becoming quite histeric, just leave the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.54.93.26 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

totally agree with that...maurice it is obvious where you are defending for example the use of a libertaddigital article in the past. Now don't try to say you are neutral —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.42.96.193 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish unionist ?, I would say Maurice comments are more Pro-Aragon than Pro-Spain, also I can not say that your comments against Maurice opinions are neutral at all since they are supporting current Catalonian nationalism .

Environmentalism

The phrase "awareness of environmental problems" is biased. 'Awareness' like 'reform' is a standard positive-bias word. 'Problems' are not elaborated and only readers that agree that environmentalism is a valid ideology can nod knowingly.

---

In my opinion the "Environmental policy" section is more based on cliches about southern Europe than reality. I suggest that the opening sentence is removed from the section: "Awareness of environmental problems tends to be much lower in Catalonia (and in Spain as a whole) than in northern Europe". Additionally, data about dioxide carbon emissions and ageing nuclear stations should have references or be removed. 62.58.106.42 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Economy of Catalonia

The GDP of Catalonia as of 2005 is $207.206 billion (€157,124 billion). The GDP of Denmark is $187.9 billion. However the 'Economy' entry for Catalonia is almost inexistent. I'm aware that Catalonia is not a state like Denmark is, nevertheless a 9-line entry with half of it dedicated to detail facts like animal husbandry is not less than a joke. Could someone detail the long comercial and industrial tradition of Catalonia and its hazardous history? 62.58.106.42 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. The present Economy section would be laughable if the matter wasn't rather serious. All those energies used in getting the notes and explaining in detail Aranese etc may want to work improving this section as well. Mountolive | Talk 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Folks, the article (I must admit unsurprisingly) is at times too focused in linguistic usages. They do deserve their own lot indeed, but they are over represented here. I don't dare to compress some of those sections myself, because I know it may cause some stir and public outcry here.

But some "authorized" user should do so. Just compress it a bit and reduce a bit the linguistic stress. That is just my advice to make the article look more neat. Mountolive | Talk 05:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. the multi-party-language header on top of the main table (only caló is missed: why?...hey! I'm being ironic here! you don't have to go for it! :P) is particularly...mhhh....I'm trying to find a mild word...just "not neat", if you may. Mountolive | Talk 05:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the header looks cluttered at the moment. Given the fuss at Valencia (autonomous community), I also wonder what the "official" name really is. Article 1.1 of the 2006 Estatut (Generalitat translation):

Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with this Estatut, which is its basic institutional law.

Surely the official name is just Catalunya etc., not Comunitat autònoma de Catalunya etc. Physchim62 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a good point. I have always thought that the Statute made a distinction between Catalonia (the historic territory [or to some, the nation] of the Principality) from the Autonomous Community. I will have to reread the Statute. --the Dúnadan 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issue?

This may be my terrible computer, but I have noticed some formatting issues in the article; it seems that the images and boxes near the "Literacy" section (on the right) have created a large white (blank) space in the text part of the page (on the left). I am not sure how to fix this myself without messing something up, so I thought I would mention it here. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe creating a gallery at the bottom of the article would work as a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I've solved the worst of the problem (at least on Mozilla) but there remains white space between the table and the image as there is not really enough space to insert text. Sorting this out will require an overhaul of the organization of the article, which I cannot do for the moment (for lack of time and energy...) An image gallery may well be a good idea anyway: what images would people like to see? I vote for an image of a Vall de Boi church, and one of a nice castle (Tortosa? Cardona?) Plenty of space for other ideas! Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

James?

Well, I don’t know if names can be translated in the wikipedia, or even in the english language, but I think that names that relevant to Catalonia’s history can't be changed so easily. I think that, just like Ramon Verenguer's name, the name Jaume should be respected as the main name, anyway I wouldn't disagree if James is specified as the proper translation. (Excuse my bad english)

You're excused for your english. And, yes, it is specified as the proper translation. --Maurice27 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, names of royalty should be translated. As such, the name should be James, not Jaume. --the Dúnadan 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I checked a while back a the convention is to translate the names of royalty where a reasonable translation exists, as it obviously does in this case. One reason for this is that many royals governed areas speaking different languages so that it is difficult or impossible to choose a "local" language. Another reason is that many royals are already known by English speakers by a translated name (just think of William the Conqueror). Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Being king Juan Carlos I the exception to the rule. I never understood why not John Charles or Jean Charles... ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maurice27 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Harald V of Norway is another exception. "King Juan Carlos" (not Joan Carles either!) and "King Harald" are the names usually used in English, which is why we use them on WP. Doesn't explain why people in general have decided not to translate them though... Physchim62 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it translated as Joan Carles in Catalan [7] --the Dúnadan 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Catalan as Valencian is known here

Could you please explain the rationale behind the inclusion of this phrase? --the Dúnadan 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected - Introduction

Okay, I've just protected this article at the current version due to the edit warring going on over it. This is due to the disruption it is causing to the article, and to prevent people from having to hand out 3RR warnings and people being blocked due to it. There is obviously a disagreement here, so please discuss it, don't just keep trying to revert and alter others work. This is what the talk pages are for. I'll check back here in a day and see if any consensus is emerging and see if the protection should be lifted. Ben W Bell talk 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is edit warring going on over a number of related articles. A request for mediation has been launched at Valencia (autonomous community) which might have implications here. It's a tricky call, and I will support whatever Ben decides is appropriate in the immediate future. Physchim62 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that no discussion has taken place on this page regarding the wordings and the basis of the edit warring, I am extending the protection on the page from 1 day to 1 week (but with daily checks to see if any progress or consensus has been reached. Please discuss the issues here and try and come to some agreement if you want editing on the article to start again. Ben W Bell talk 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have been missing something but most of the trouble in the last few days comes from a new user, User:Ferran.cabrer, either logged in or anonymously. I am not sure whether it is wise to protect an article instead of dealing with the source of the problems. I suggest to keep an eye on this user, semiprotect the article and see how things develop from there. Regards, --Asterion^talk 08:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you obviously know more about this issue than I do. I've changed it to semi-protected. Ben W Bell talk 08:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Can I suggest that the other two users who have been more actively engaging on this issue, User:Dúnadan and User:Maurice27, come on board and make their individual proposals in this talk page beforehand? Please list your disagreements here or describe them in a neutral way, so I could ask for a request for comments if needed. Thanks, --Asterion^talk

08:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, Asterion, the question is simple between Dunadan and me in catalonia's article, Balearic islands' and in Valencia's. I say that in the infobox should appear the conventional long form of the name (i.e Autonomous community of Catalonia) while Dunadan argues that only "Catalonia" should appear. I said that in every single article about geografical and political land, conventional LONG forms are used for the name (Spain is Kingdom of Spain; United Kingdom is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; France is French Republic, Calabria is Regione Calabria). So why are Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencia (autonomous community) the only articles in wikipedia which only have the conventional SHORT form of their names?. Even more, when all the other autonomous communities of Spain use the long form in their articles. Dunadan argues that in the Statuary laws of these AC it is explained that the Catalan name is to be used. I said that of course the spanish naming should be Comunidad Autonoma de las Illes Balears, but he keeps monopolizing all 3 articles, which since he has arrived to edit them have been protected. There has been a lot of edit wars but we managed to more or less succesfully to keep some agreements in their respective talk pages. Now, since he arrived, all the users involved have fleed them, giving Dunadan the monopole to edit at his will. Sources have been given, just like proofs and he just doesn't want to listen. In Catalonia's statuary law there is not a SINGLE reference to explain if the conventional long form or short form is to be used (I've read it twice). So I just did what is normal in every single article, which is to use the long form. And, if you read back in time, the long form has been used since the creation of the article.

Apart that, there's the languages problem. The statuary law of Valencia says that the catalan naming is to be used. And as Dunadan doesn't allow us to use the long form of the names, Suddenly after 5 years of this article existance, Spanish is not present in Valencia (autonomous community) or Balearic islands infoboxes. A language that 3/4 of the pop. speak. I guess he forgot to erase it in Catalonia's.

I hope this helps to explain the point. --Maurice27 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring personal disqualifications (i.e. Dúnadan is monopolizing...), I have read Maurice27 concerns (he is repeating almost verbatim what he wrote in Talk:Balearic Islands), and I already answered his questions and offered a rebuttal to his arguments. In any case, I will repeat myself, hoping that the voluntary mediators will help sort this thing out.

• I agree with Maurice in that long forms should be used in the infobox, whether it is République Française, Estados Unidos Mexicanos or simply Canada and Texas. The latter, Canada, has only one long and conventional short name: Canada, in the same way as Texas only has a long and short name: Texas.
• From the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community the long and short form names of these three autonomous communities are:
  • From [8]: "Catalunya, com a nacionalitat, exerceix el seu autogovern constituïda en comunitat autònoma", in English: "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government [and is] constituted as an autonomous community..." All throughout the text the term Catalonia is used by itself. The translations to the other official languages of Catalonia also translate the name: Cataluña and Catalonha. Therefore, all three names, Catalunya, Cataluña and Catalonha are official. I didn't "forget to erase them", because, in Catalonia, they are all official in Catalan, Spanish and Occitan.
  • From [9], p.13, First Article "El Poble Valencià... es consituïx en Comunitat Autònoma... com a expressió de la seua identitat diferenciada com a nacionalitat històrica... amb la denominació de Comunitat Valenciana", in English: "The Valencian people.. are constituted into an Autonomous Community... as an expression of their identity as a historic nationality... with the name of Valencian Community". Also, all throughout the text the term Valencian Community is used by itself. Unlike the Statue of Autonomy of Catalonia, when this legal text is translated into the other official language of the Valencian Community, Spanish, the name is not translated: all throughout the text, only the name in Valencian/Catalan appears [10]. Therefore, the legal and official name in both Spanish and Valencian/Catalan is Comunitat Valenciana.

• From [11], the second article is crystal clear: "La denominació oficial de la comunitat autònoma és Illes Balears" in English: "The official name of the autonomous community is Illes Balears". Again, unlike Catalonia, the name is never translated into Spanish, [12], so the official name in both Spanish and Catalan is: Illes Balears.

• Without having to reinterpret anything, it is plain, from the three statutes of autonomy that the short and long, conventional and formal names are simply: Catalonia, Valencian Community and Balearic Islands. It is also plain to see that while Catalunya is translated into the three official languages of the region, Comunitat Valenciana and Illes Balears are not. Even in Spanish they are referred to in Catalan/Valencian. My changes were thus fully referenced.
• Maurice27, had accepted that the official name was only in Catalan (where applicable), but argued, quoting, "Everybody here is ok about (in spanish or catalan, both languages under the same law) to use the catalan name of Illes Balears. That said, just to keep the Illes part is not correct. The full, official name, must have the "Autonomous community of"... Just like France is Republique de France, Spain is Kingdom of Spain, or Aquitaine is Region d'Aquitaine, or Calabria is Regione Calabria." Then he reverted all changes, back to "Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya", "Comunitat de les Illes Balears", and to be consistent with himself, to the ludicrous "Comunitat Autònoma de la Comunitat Valenciana". To justify his edits he brought up the Boletí Oficial de les Illes Balears, a periodical publication of the government of the Illes Balears [13], which, full of ambiguities uses Comunitat Autònoma Illes Balears, "Autonomous Community Balearic Islands" (sic), then throughout the text, they do not capitalize the phrase "autonomous community" (arguably because it is not part of the name) and when referring to the government they only use the name "Illes Balears" (i.e. Parlament de les Illes Balears, Presidència de les Illes Balears, and last, but not least, Boletí Oficial de les Illes Balears). Moreover, this periodical publication is always below the statutory text (the equivalent, except in name and probably status, of a constitutional regional law). I pointed all this to him, to which he responded by repeating his first argument again, and then saying "It's like arguing with a brick".
• Even if we ignore the inconsistencies of the aforementioned text, not all official names of countries or regions specify the type of "entity" they are. There are dozens of examples, but I thought that just a few will suffice: Canada, Ireland, Texas (which even though it is a state, it is simply Texas), and other "non-conventional" names like United Mexican States, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The name is whatever is specified in the legal text, whether it is a constitution, a set of laws, or the statute of autonomy.
• His last argument, that "the articles have been like this for 5 years until he arrived" (referring to me), is bordering on an ad hominem argument. No that he is insulting me, but in the sense that he is disqualifying my arguments because it is me who brought it up, breaking the status quo, and not disqualifying the arguments themselves. Even if the articles had been static for 5 years that does not mean they were right, especially here in Wikipedia, which is written, corrected, polished and made better by users who bring sources to improve the content of the articles.
• Finally, and based on the Statutory Laws whose links I provided, and to avoid more conflicts, I rewrote the introduction of this article. I specified first that Catalonia is constituted as an autonomous community in recognition of its status as a nationality (something that was ignored or erased) and not simply a "region". [Note: not all autonomous communities obtained self-government because they were "nationalities"] Then I said that the term "Catalonia" (especially by Catalans) sometimes refers to the historic territory (what they call "country") that includes a region in southern France that used to belong to the Principality of Catalonia, which is sometimes called Northern Catalonia. This cultural territory is similar to that of the Basque Country (historical territory) vis-à-vis the Basque Country (autonomous community) and also vis-à-vis Northern Basque Country. That is why, informally, the name "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" is used when talking about the autonomous community, albeit not officially.

--the Dúnadan 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I assume that last argument is some kind of a subtle joke. If people wish to refer to the Principat they generally refer to the Principat, when it can be assumed that they are not referring to the boundaries of the Principat between 1660 and 1716. "Catalonia" in English, "Catalunya" in Catalan and "Cataloña" in Spanish refer overwhelmingly to the autonomous community. Physchim62 (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You assume wrong about my "subtle joke", and I resent your comment. Regardless of how you perceive the issue from France, people in Catalonia sometimes (and that is the adjective I used in my argument above!) refer to the Principality simply as Catalonia. That is why the article ca:Catalunya refers to the "territory/country" whereas the article ca:Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya refers to the autonomous community. Moreover, I was trying to present a middle-ground solution. To me, based on the first article of the Statute of Autonomy, the name of the autonomous community is simply "Catalonia", but Maurice insisted on it being "Autonomous Community of Catalonia". My introduction presented both names in bold characters while explaining why the second was also used even though it was not official. Obviously, it has been edited since. And if you only reject the last argument, why don't you talk about the rest? Have you read them, or my "subtle joke" disqualifies the rest of the arguments? I do hope you read an answer all arguments before requesting mediation.--the Dúnadan 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that now outside of Catalonia the normal use of Catalonia refers to the AC but inside and historically Catalonia can refer to both and I think that the article should explain that.--GillesV 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PC's suggestion

I agree with what GillesV writes above: United Kingdom can also refer to the British Isles including the southern 26 counties of Ireland, but usually it doesn't! Neither does Catalonia "commonly" (to take the term from the current version of the article) refer to the territory of the Principat—it only does so in a historical context, or in political discourse which has not found recent and significant support on either side of the 1659 frontier. I would suggest something along the lines of the following:

Catalonia is a region in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula which formed the largest part of the medieval Crown of Aragon and which is now an autonomous community within Spain. Modern Catalonia consists of the Spanish provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, an area of 32,114 km² with a population of 7,134,697 (2006 figures). The historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia also included most of what is now the French département of the Pyrénées-Orientales, ceded to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659.

Not perfect, I admit, but a more accurate reflection of the current reality than what is on top of the article at present. Physchim62 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to to me. After all, my main concern was the use of the unofficial "Autonomous Community of Catalonia". My proposal simply tried to explain why this unofficial version is used. I don't agree with your comment about the apparent lack of significant support towards the perception of Catalonia as the Principality on either side of the border and even in other countries [and I can even bring books of reputable Catalan and non-Catalan authors to prove that] but discussing that issue will protract the debate unnecessarily. --the Dúnadan 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition that you're proposing is ok,reasonable. But I don't agree with some of your comments (were them really necessary to propose a definition?). The first and the third political parties in the AC of Catalonia use the terms of that "political discourse", well a way to call a social movement despite some other political parties want to hide that as a political discourse. A different scenario is the one at Northern Catalonia probably because of the forbade of catalan by french administrations . --GillesV 01:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the above piece verbatim anywhere in the article, but, if you are to include it (or, if it is included and I am just too careless, which is not totally out of the question), please note that, per [14] Catalonia was not the largest component part of the Crown of Aragon but Aragon proper was.

The man who lost his tilde (aka Mountolive).

Now the article starts "Catalonia is a ..." but in all articles with an official foregin name, there is always the translation. Shouldn't it be "Catalonia (Catalan: ...) is a ..."?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yes, and that should be "most populous" not "largest" part of the Crown of Aragon, as per Mountolive (I was trying to avoid one translation error from French, I ended up with another one!) Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Languages II

I think there is something wrong about this article. Why does the section "Language" give so much importance to Catalonian, while mentioning Spanish as if it were a secondary language, putting it at the same level as Aranese? Shouldn´t they receive, at least, a simillar treatment? Especially considering that Spanish is the official language of Spain.

Mr.Nerd

It is possible because Catalan language and in general Catalan culture and identity is the basis of the catalan nationalism/catalanism which is a peculiarity and a matter of controversy. Spanish being spoken in Spain is nothing different from any other part of Spain.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is making Catalonia a biased POV article... Nothing new, in fact... --Maurice27 08:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to have objective facts about knowledge and usage of Spanish in Catalonia, because of the political sensitivity. If anyone knows of any decent studies in this respect—other than a general "everyone in Catalonia can speak Spanish, it's obvious"—then we should include them. There is no reason to give equal treatment to the two, but the treatment should not be misleading. Physchim62 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the problem is not political sensivity.The people who say "everybody in Catalonia can speak spanish" are saying the truth. Probably it is hard to find that statistics because there is no need to waste resources studying if people understands and can speak spanish. I remember some statistics (may be Education Department of Generalitat?) speaking about the overall knowledge of spanish in Catalonia is similar to other spanish regions. --GillesV 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia article in spanish wikipedia source:Instituto de Estadística de Cataluña —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maurice27 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

you and spanish wiki say that the source is Instituto de Estadística de Catalunya but in fact it is not obvious. Give a reference,another wiki is not a good reference.--89.130.26.177 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The first table doesn't seem to be sourced (the second is the 2001 census, no problems there). It would be interesting to have a breakdown by age as well (I think I'm suffering one of those at the moment, but that's another story!) Marks on the obligatory Spanish exam in the batxellariat (sp?) ? As I say, it's an interesting topic but we need sourced data to really make a comment, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This report from the Generalitat is quite interesting, although the data seems to be limited to Barcelona. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[source:Instituto de Estadística de Cataluña] with the very same percentages shown in the spanish wikipedia article. --Maurice27 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of the LEAD PARAGRAPH is disputed

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

Duanadan keeps reverting to keep "is a region in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula which formed the most populous part of the medieval Crown of Aragon and which is now an autonomous community within Spain" and "The historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia also included most of what is now the French département of the Pyrénées-Orientales, ceded to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659" in the lead paragraph which are clearly not belonging to this article.

Bolded just to make sure Dúnadan reads it. He is always asking to discuss and he never reads... BTW, NO ONE gave you the right to revert edits if they are not discussed with you (as you just did with mine). This is not your article, you don't own it. Stop monopolizing, and begin to read --Maurice27 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan keeps reverting each and every user who wants to edit this article even if he has to make use of WP:3RR ([[15]], [[16]] and [[17]]), to neglige Wikipedia:Assume good faith ([[18]]), which also means I suffered a WP:NPA here (([[19]]), and he is pushing WP:OOA to the extreme of not letting other users to freely edit, monopolizing the articles in which he is present.

For this reason I'm reporting him to the admins. I will post this message in his talk page. --Maurice27 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27, you have repeatedly insulted me here and in other articles, so your spurious accusations are unjustified. Please feel free to report me. Maybe that will be the only way to have an active administrator involved. Your contributions will speak for themselves, and my own will justify me. In any case, two sections above, Physchim, Xtv, Gilles and me, were discussing about the lead section. Physchim made a proposal, to which we all agreed that defines Catalonia as a region. You are ignoring our debate and reverting to your own version. You did not participate in the debate, yet accuse me (who happily agreed to Physchim proposal and to the consensus therein achieved) of pushing my own agenda, and the only thing I am doing is reverting to Physchim's proposal and consensual version. The least you can do is read the Talk pages before making spurious accusations.

--the Dúnadan 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote Physchim: "I assume that last argument is some kind of a subtle joke. If people wish to refer to the Principat they generally refer to the Principat, when it can be assumed that they are not referring to the boundaries of the Principat between 1660 and 1716. "Catalonia" in English, "Catalunya" in Catalan and "Cataloña" in Spanish refer overwhelmingly to the autonomous community. Physchim62 (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2007"... And me not debating? I'm really starting to think you live "floatin' on the ninth cloud...". --Maurice27 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maurice, I think that you're in a POV approach and you did not participate in the definition that we agreed with Physchim. After reading the lead you think that Catalonia is not an AC of Spain? I think it is obvious that the lead says that Catalonia is an AC of Spain and presents the disambiguation because an encyclopedia should arrive to all the meanings of the word (historical ones too). In addition, I think that presenting the Principality of Catalonia in the lead is is good for the reader because he will understand better the section that speaks about the history of Catalonia.What is the problem? It only says that "The historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia..." --GillesV 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilles, the disambiguation states: "This article is about the autonomous community." All the meanings to which you refer are to be the history section, nowhere else. And surely not in the lead. the Principality of Catalonia is not Catalonia! the same way people don't talk of the spanish empire in the lead of spain or the french revolution in the lead of france. If they want to read about history, they refer to the history section. --Maurice27 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bolded just to make sure Dúnadan reads it. He is always asking to discuss and he never reads... BTW, NO ONE gave you the right to revert edits if they are not discussed with you (as you just did with mine). This is not your article, you don't own it. Stop monopolizing, and begin to read --Maurice27 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) He already did read, so not bolded anymore --Maurice27 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to speak in bold,not a proper way of WP:Etiquette...I will not follow this game. I repeat, the term Catalonia can refer to both...removing one point of view will not be NPOV and the lead can speak about terms presented in the history section. With that style, are you sure you can be neutral? --GillesV 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I had said on the discussion whereby we reached a consensus, I agree with Physchim, Gilles, and Xtv; and disagree with you. How can you say that you have suffered WP:NPA when you have called us bricks and xenophobes several times, and been blocked for that? --the Dúnadan 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Following with the discussion,the point is that you can understand Catalonia in two senses: Catalonia from a historical point of view is a a part of the Crown of Aragón and Catalonia today which is an Autonomous Community of Spain. Wikipedia must present all the points of view (As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints ) and I think that this lead tries to do that. After that, (here you can agree or not, for example I disagree but I prefered to arrive to a consensus) the lead separates the historical point of view to the Principality of Catalonia article and follows with the meaning of Catalonia as an AC. It is not perfect but at least it is clear...erasing one of the meanings will not be a NPOV.--GillesV 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I chose the wording "region in the north-east..." was because Catalonia did not cease to exist as a region between 1716 and 1979. I agree with Maurice that the article should be primarily about the AC, with other periods of Catalan history simply mentioned in passing (we have History of Catalonia, as well as many other articles), but I do not think we should be pretending that Catalonia is some postfranquist invention either! :) Physchim62 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the problem is the disambiguation that I included AFTER the concensous of the leading paragraph, maybe we should discuss about the former and not about the latter. Anyway, I think now is ok: the article is about the AC (and so states in the disambiguation paragraph) but in the leading section there is a general view about Catalonia and then it starts the article concerning the AC. I think it could be better, but it is a neutral POV to start.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So, generally, we all seem to agree on the lead section, except for Maurce27. Since you reinserted the POV sign, can you tell us, specifically, which points do you think are still biased and need our attention? --the Dúnadan 00:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I take out the POV sign because it is not Mauricepedia ...it is wikipedia :) Anon

Maurice27, we all read your comments. But no one agrees with you. I responded, Gilles responded, Xtv responded, and anon responded, and even, yes, even Physchim responded and said it was he who proposed using region because Catalonia should not be shown as a "postfranquist invention" but as a region that as existed before that. Not me. Physchim.

We have all read and responded to your highlighted arguments. Not only me, even though you seem to have a vendetta against me. We all responded, and we all agreed to use the definition of "region". All, but you; 5/6 users. I guess I can call that a rough consensus. Please, try to be polite, and offer a counter-argument, should you have one, but do not revert a consensual version. If you still believe, after reading our new comments, that the section is POV; then be more specific. I don't think I am monopolizing an article when 5 users agree on a consensual version, but only you disagree and revert back to the version that you like. I think you are the one monopolizing the article, as the anom aptly pointed out. --the Dúnadan 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

--

"More specific"? Do you need me to write both sentences in your talk page with 60 bold letters? I can't be "more specific" about why I believe the paragraph is POV. Read the edit I did, and you will have a "more specific" exlanation.

About your "consensus"... Apart Physchim (which has clearly state he is not convinced about the perfection of the paragraph), is there ANYBODY who has reached that consensus who appears not to be a member of Catalan speaking countries wikiproject? No wonder you reached consensus... You are so funny.

BTW, "Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus." - Margaret Thatcher

You are free to reach a consensus about whatever you like, even to state about Catalonia being located on the dark side of the moon. That would be not true, not encyclopedic so it will be POV, just as the paragraph "consensued".

I don't know why the need to explain in the lead paragraph that Catalonia was:

• a region (false, it is a community, an autonomous community)
• the most populous part of the medieval Crown of Aragon (clearly suitable for the history section)
• The historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia also included most of what is now the French département of the Pyrénées-Orientales, ceded to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 (clearly suitable for the history section)

I don't understand why nobody includes spanish in the Literacy section.

I don't understand the need to include the sentence about valencian "as Catalan is known in this territory"

I don't understand the need to erase all presence of spanish in the infoboxes even if more than half the population speaks that language, and even more not being a written rule in wikipedia. (and this is a personal and unique decision you took, nobody else)

I guess it is your way of doing things... Censoring anything that smells spanish or french.

Now, will you be able to read and KEEP? Or will I need to be "more specific" again? --Maurice27 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mmaurice27. The article is about the autonomous community, not of the different meanings of Catalonia. Today , Catalonia is an AC within Spain, majority people refers to the autonomous community. Other meanings must go to a page of desambiguacion or go in history. When we speak about Eespaña, in the lead we speak about the present of Spain, don´t speak about the of 1700 or 1492. Kiko5000. PD: Today, Catalonia is a Spanish region and AC too.

Maurcie27, please be polite, and avoid sarcasm either in your comments or in edit summaries. Refer to arguments, not to persons (you are funny, you can't keep them in mind, and the like). Also leave aside personal attacks (your way of doing things... censoring anything that smells Spanish...) Maybe I should remind you of WP:Etiquette and WP:Assume good faith. If you do so, the debate will remain in a professional level. Usually, one user offers arguments (you); then another user offers a counter-argument (us), then it is expected that the first user will offer another argument, and so on. Now, let me answer your concerns:

• Catalonia is a region/people/nationality jurisdictionally constituted as an autonomous community. In fact, that is how the Statute of Autonomy states it: El poble de Catalunya...Catalunya és un país... and Catalunya, com a nacionalitat, exerceix el seu autogovern constituïda en comunitat autònoma [20] The former precedes the latter. The region existed, constituted by people, which then formed an autonomous community. Like Physchim said, Catalonia did not came into existence after 1979, it existed before 1979. Catalonia became an autonomous community in 1979. "País" is a very controversial name, and many English-speaking users prefer to translate it as "region". Sarcasm aside, we are not defining Catalonia to be in the moon, but we define it the way the Statute of Autonomy defines it.
• Secondly, the fact that we all come from the same project does not disqualify our arguments. To argue that just because we signed for a particular project we are all wrong constitutes a logical fallacy in the form on an ad hominem argument. Let's discuss the logic of the arguments themselves and not who is the author of the arguments.
• Since we do not own the articles, and like I have said two times already, I agree with you in that the Spanish use should be included in the literary section. I'll say it for the third time: why don't you add it yourself? You seemed to have found the source, then, by all means, add it. I agree with you: it should be included. So don't complain anymore, you are invited to add it yourself. May I propose the creation of a consolidated table that includes all three languages, instead of having three different tables?

As for the other points regarding Valencian and the official names in the infoboxes, they shouldn't be discussed here. We shouldn't mix up discussions that are not relevant to the decisions herein agreed upon into a consensus. Maybe Margaret Thatcher thinks consensus is fashionable, that is how Wikipedia works. If you disagree with the method, then discuss it at Meta.

Cheers! --the Dúnadan 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't have the time today, it is late.But fastly I want to state one point in order to reply your comment (I don't think that comparing articles is the way to be constructive) : in Spain lead we can see: Different cultures have settled in the area of modern Spain, such as the Celts, Iberians, Romans, Visigoths, and Moors. For just over five centuries, during the Middle Ages, large areas were under the control of Islamic rulers, a fragment of which survived as late as 1492, when the Christian kingdoms of Castile and Aragón completed the 770 years long process of driving the Moors out. That same year, Christopher Columbus reached the New World, leading to the creation of the world-wide Spanish Empire. Spain became the most powerful country in Europe, but continued wars and other problems gradually reduced Spain to a diminished status. The 20th century was dominated in the middle years by the Franco dictatorship; with the dawn of a stable democracy in 1978, and having joined what is now known as the European Union in 1986, Spain has enjoyed an economic and cultural renaissance. There are a number of hypotheses as to the origin of the Roman name "Hispania", the root of the Spanish name España and the English name Spain.

So I see that this lead is speaking about the history of Spain and mentions the Spanish Empire. Then I don't see the point of hiding Catalonia's history in the lead because of the existance of a History section. --GillesV 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See? Apart your idea about a "consolidated table that includes all three languages" in the literacy section, which is very good, you haven't answered any single one of my requests:

Why it is so important to keep in the lead paragraph those sentences?:

• a region (as a subdivision of Spain, it is compulsory to use the term described on the constitution, which is Autonomous Community)
• the most populous part of the medieval Crown of Aragon (clearly suitable for the history section and nothing else than a "Hey, catalans, it is us and our belly buttons")
• the historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia also included most of what is now the French département of the Pyrénées-Orientales, ceded to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 (clearly suitable for the history section and the POVish catalan paragraph ever as the principality of Catalonia was never constituted de jure as a single entity or territory.)
• the sentence about valencian "as Catalan is known in this territory" and
• the presence of spanish in the infoboxes, to which you only said that "they shouldn't be discussed here"

Don't you describe yourself as a defender of the argument, the consensus, the dialog? Well, I ask you to be "more specific" about these matters, as you are an expert to avoid to answer whatever doesn't suits you.

Catalonia is to be described as what it is, an autonomous community. Because if not, people could start to call it whatever they like, "Land of the Catalans, Land of Sardana, Pujolland!, Land that Time Forgot, Landudno!, Land me a Tenner Mate!!, Land me tender Land me sweet, The moon Landings, The Normandy Landings, The Ill-fated Sitges Landings!!! or Hotel Catalonia by the eagles!!!... (Kudos to BNS)" And it is compulsory to use the term described on the constitution, which is Autonomous Community, not what it is described in the statute. In addition, if Catalonia has a past, it must go to the history section.

Oh... BTW, as much as you love to quote the statute, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci

Putt this inside your head and don't you forget it; An autonomic Statute has no more legislative weight than a National Constitution, and because of that, the Constitution is to prevail. You usually tend to forget this little fact too often.

About my "logical fallacy"... Did you mean Formal fallacy, Informal fallacy or just a plain fallacy?

As far as I'm concerned, sarcasm is not a sin nor it is prohibited, so avoid to tell me how to express myself. Nobody gave you that right. You also tend to forget this little fact too often.

You love to remind me of WP:Etiquette and WP:Assume good faith... You are a lovely case of, (and sorry for spanish) "Consejos vendo, pero para mi no tengo".

Now, let's see if you will finally discuss with me and answer my requests... or you will continue wandering around. This is the fourth time I ask them. --Maurice27 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't respond as fast as you would have liked. I work. I eat. I don't live for Wikipedia 100%. I ask you again, please avoid personal attacks and sarcasm. Read WP:Etiquette, because it seems you haven't. It is preferable to avoid sarcasm and personal comments. Again, I ask you, let's continue this debate professionally.

• I refer to the ad hominem fallacy, not to formal or informal fallacies. Please read the article. The fact that we belong to the same project does not disqualify the arguments per se.
• The constitution of Spain does allow for nationalities and historical regions. Defining Catalonia as a nationality or as a historical region is constitutional.[21]. These regions make use of the right granted to them by the constitution to constitute themselves as autonomous communities. As the second article of the constitution says, nationalities and regions precede the autonomy. In fact it is in recognition of the nationalities and regions with common historical, cultural and economical traits, that the autonomy is thereupon granted. [22].
• In light of the above, I see no contradiction in defining Catalonia as a region that is constituted as an autonomous community. If it were up to me, and based on the constitution, I would even define Catalonia as a "nationality that is constituted as an autonomous community within the indivisible unity of the Spanish nation".
• Also, as the second article says as well as the 143rd article of the Spanish Constitution, it is in recognition of historical reasons (amongst economical and cultural) that autonomies are created, therefore is appropriate to mention the Principality of Catalonia in the lead section.
• This article does not mention anything at all about "Valencian, as Catalan is called". So there is no dispute in this article concerning that phrase. No POV here. That should be discussed in Valencia (autonomous community).
• The infobox in this article includes all official names in all official languages: Cataluña, Catalunya and Catalonha. The first one is in Spanish. Since all three are official in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (unlike the Valencian Community, where only the Catalan name is official), the Spanish name should be included in the infobox in this article.

Have I responded to all your questions? Well, now I'll go fix dinner. Cheers!

--the Dúnadan 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some users argue that they want a real consensus, despite the above consensus. I, like all users involved, are willing to reach a new consensus. However, why haven't those users continued this thread of discussion? After all, a new consensus is reached through talking and compromising, and continuing to participate in the debate. --the Dúnadan 05:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--

Gilles, you are so right! Mea Culpa. I dedicate this ([[23]]) to you! ;) --Maurice27 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of the Literacy section is disputed

Why arent the numbers of spanish also included?

[source:Instituto de Estadística de Cataluña] --Maurice27 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just include them, nobody opposes that. --the Dúnadan 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Idescat does not make that numbers for spanish, then it is not a point of view. If you want to include them find them in a source. Anon

Idescat does report numbers for Spanish. I agree in that they should be included. Why don't you include them Maurice27? --the Dúnadan 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just add them.--GillesV 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

Along the lines of the Basque Country page? Seems a good idea to me. Then we can cut the bit about Northern Catalonia in the first para. Boynamedsue 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm suggesting not doing because I don't know how, but it's still probably best to run it past everyone concerned.

Boynamedsue 10:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the way that Basque country articles are split (seems counter-intuitive to people who are not immersed in the politics of it all) but I see no reason not to experiment with Catalonia (disambiguation) to show other possible solutions to our disputes. The page was deleted in the 2006 here, but I will undelete the history for a provisional period at first if people want to experiment. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Physchim. Have given it a go, including Northern Cat, Catalonia Autonomous Community, the Principality, with links to Catalan Countries and History of Catalonia

I think the various uses of "Catalan" should also be included in any disambig page; I won't be able to deal with this myself until Monday, but what do others think? Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that now the content of Catalonia (disambiguation) is good now and can be useful if we cannot arrive to a consensus with some editors with an unfair attitude.--GillesV 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for the lead paragraph

• con·sen·sus (kən-sĕn'səs)

n.An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: --> (not by members of the same wikiproject)

The POV lead paragraph, the POV text is bolded

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, Spanish: Cataluña, Aranese: Catalonha) is a (region(1)) in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula (which formed the most populous part of the medieval Crown of Aragon(2)) and which is now an autonomous community within Spain. (Modern(3)) Catalonia consists of the Spanish provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, an area of 32,114 km² with a population of 7,134,697 (2006 figures). (The historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia also included most of what is now the French département of the Pyrénées-Orientales, ceded to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659(4)). Catalonia shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, with Aragon to the west, and with the Valencian Community to the south: to the east there is a 580 km Mediterranean coastline.

• 1- Not a region, the term used by the spanish constitution is "autonomous community"
• 2- Belongs to the history section
• 3- Modern Catalonia? that proves that this lead text is not about the autonomous community of Catalonia, and therefore POVish
• 4- Belongs to the history section and it is about the principality, not catalonia autonomous community, therefore not suitable at all to the Catalonia autonomous community article lead paragraph.

My proposal, completely neutral, without adding anything irrelevant (the principality is already explained in the dissambiguation and the history section):

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, Spanish: Cataluña, Aranese: Catalonha) is an autonomous community within Spain in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula. Catalonia consists of the Spanish provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, an area of 32,114 km² with a population of 7,134,697 (2006 figures).

Catalonia shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, with Aragon to the west, and with Valencia to the south: to the east there is a 580 km Mediterranean coastline.

--Maurice27 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Until we arrive to a new consensus please stop reverting the lead of the article...I'm sure that you agree that it is not the proper way to arrive to a new consensus. The term Catalonia can be seen from two POV: the historical POV and the legal and modern POV. If the article is called Catalonia then it must include the two points of view and if for the historical point of view it sends us to the Principality of Catalonia then the following can be an article about the AC of Catalonia but if we remove the historical POV of the lead then the article should be called Autonomous Community of Catalonia and Catalonia should be a disambiguation page with its differents meanings like Catalonia (disambiguation) or Basque Country. Like Physchim62 said , I prefer an article rather than a desambiguation page because not all the people is worried about this terms so I feel it is fair to speak about the AC in the article if the historical meaning is clearly presented and says where we can find it. Moreover, there is no problem to present an aspect of the history section in a lead , for example it was done in Spain until you remove it and I'm sure we can find more examples: Portugal, Italy , Greece,... --GillesV 10:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to repeat my arguments, since it seems they were not read. I consider Maurice27's proposal incomplete, based on both the Spanish constitution and the Statute of Autonomy. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and a such, appealing to authority is not "less intelligent", as Maurice27 implied by citing Leonardo da Vinci, it is imperative. For those who do not know anything about Spanish history, "autonomous communities", or simply "autonomies" came into existence in 1979, as a way in which the "nationalities" and "regions", comprised by one or more provinces, were given or devolved determination or autonomy.

• Regions, historical regions and nationalities precede the autonomy: "The constitution is founded upon the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation [...] and recognizes the right to autonomy of all nationalities and regions that integrate it..." (second article of the Spanish constitution).
• Nationalities and regions are constituted into autonomous communities. The recognition of them as regions and nationalities is based on historical, economical and cultural traits: "In exercising the right to autonomy, as recognized in the second article of the constitution, those adjacent provinces with common historical, cultural and economical traits, [as well as] the insular territories and the provinces with a historical regional identity, can accede to their self-government and be constituted as autonomous communities based on what is stipulated in this Title and in their own Statutes [of Autonomy]" (143rd article of the Spanish Constitution)
• The constitution distinguishes between "regions" and "nationalities" −in fact, when the constitution was drafted autonomy was to be granted initially only to "nationalities" (namely, Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia), but it was extended so that "regions" could be included too.
• Complying and in accordance with the Constitution, the Statute of Autonomy, states that: "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government [and is] constituted as an autonomous community, in accordance to the Constitution and with this Statute..." (first article of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia).
• The term "country" (país), which, according to some, may have a different connotation is English, and therefore should be rendered as "region", is also included in the text (in the same way as the Basque Country is known as such despite being a constituent entity of another "country" or more properly State).
• Like User:Physchim62 aptly pointed out when he proposed the (until now) consensual version, we should not imply that Catalonia is a post-Franco invention (i.e. post-1979), but has existed [in my words, as a region or nationality] even after its Constitution, self-government and Parliament were abolished in 1716.
• Based on the above, and on the rough consensus (which does not mean unanimity for Wikipedia purposes) of five users (of which some do not belong to the same "wiki-project", even though adherence to a project does not prove the arguments wrong), the following definition is fully verifiable, justifiable, and neutral: Catalonia is a nationality of Spain constituted as an autonomous community or, alternatively, Catalonia is a region of Spain constituted as an autonomous community. Since the autonomy is thereupon granted in recognition of historical and cultural traits, it is in recognition of what Catalonia was and is that its self-government was granted. Therefore, it also appropriate to say in the lead section, that this nationality or region constituted as an autonomous community comprises almost all the territory of what was the Principality of Catalonia, but not all.
• If it is important, perhaps for other users with different political points of view, I don't oppose the inclusion of the phrase "... within the unity of the Spanish nation" as a compromise proposal, so that Catalonia could be defined (all backed up by the constitution) as: a nationality of Spain constituted as an autonomous community within the unity of the Spanish nation.

--the Dúnadan 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Should we formally request external mediation? --the Dúnadan 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Gilles, at least we agree that this article is about the AC. So let's see your points:

The disambiguation you talk about is already done, "This article is about the autonomous community. See also Principality of Catalonia (for the historic territory) and Northern Catalonia."

• No need to include it (again) in the lead paragraph.

• Northern Catalonia (a POVish catalan term) not accepted in French nor spanish constitutions (not even in Catalan statute) and that is not official. To be neutral, this dissambiguation should also include Roussillon and Pyrénées-Orientales if it wants to become encyclopedic. Here is the full facsimile text of the Treaty of Pyrenees, (see [24]) and the French Constitution of 1958, (see [25]) in case you have any doubts...

You express your opinion that the lead should talk about the historical Catalonia and that this meaning should be clearly presented. Let's talk about that... The Principality of Catalonia:

• The term "Principality" is a bad translation from latin. When Ramon Berenguer IV married Petronila of Aragon, he declined the title of Count of Barcelona for his heirs in favour of that the King of Aragon. Because of that, he denominated himself "Princeps". Let's see the description:

Princeps -cipis (primus, capio) adj. and subst.: who occupies the first place, the first one (in periculo princeps erat, he was the first in danger) || the first one in dignity || chief, director, guidance || princeps senatus [the senator who was given the right by the censors to speak in first place]]

• This "title" was only in use untill his heir Alfonso II of Aragon grew up and become king of Aragon and ruler also in Catalonia. Neither Alfonso II nor his heirs used again the title of Princeps but the one of King of Aragon. This facts proves that any king of Aragon used the "Princeps" title. So Catalonia was never a principality

• During XIV century, some catalan jurist made use of Roman Law to extend the term Princeps to the territory. It was called principatus, or Principatus Cathaloniae to indicate that this territory had not the status of kingdom. As seen in the "Actas de las cortes generales de la Corona de Aragón 1362-1363": "Capitula in curia Montissoni super concordia scilitet si barones milites et homines de paratico et etiam personis ecclesiasticis regnorum aragonum valentiae et principatus cathaloniae teneantur solvere in impositionibus impositis". Before that the term Comitatus Barchinone (County of Barcelona) was used to describe the whole territory. This fact proves the false official use of "principality of Catalonia" to describe Catalonia BEFORE the dynastic union with Aragon.

• This term, Principatus Cathaloniae or simply Principatus never achieved official status to designate the territory as show the covers of the various Catalan constitutions, (see [26] and [27]). This fact proves the false official use of "principality of Catalonia" to describe Catalonia AFTER the dynastic union with Aragon.

• In 1258, and not before, by the Treaty of Corbeil, Louis IX of France renounced to feudal overlordship over the counties of Catalonia in favour of the king of Aragon James I of Aragon. From that time it become a full member of the Crown of Aragon. This fact proves that Catalonia was never independent as such.

• In 1659, already under the rulement of Habsburg Philip IV of Spain, Spain ceded to France the Roussillon, Conflent, Vallespir, Capcir and French Cerdagne by the Treaty of the Pyrenees (which BTW, in this contemporary image [28] are described in english as Roussillon, not the POVish Northern Catalonia, but that's another story). This fact proves the wrong use of "Northern Catalonia" outside the catalan language. It is a POVish catalan term not accepted in French nor spanish constitutions (not even in Catalan statute) and that is not official

• And finally, During the Nueva Planta decrees signed between 1707 and 1716 we first find the use of "Principality of Catalonia" in the cover of those decrees, (see [29]). And that's 57 years after the Roussillon was ceded to France. So if we keep to an official use of the term, it will never describe the whole counties forming the former Hispanic Marches but rather what "remained" of "Catalonia" under the rule of the spanish king.

This said, if you (all the users who defend the inclusion of Principality of Catalonia in the lead) defend that "the lead should talk about the historical Catalonia and that this meaning should be clearly presented", should read again your own history, investigate the facts and then, propose. What you are trying to include is not only POVish, but just plain false and historically innacurate.

The article Principality of Catalonia is to be rewritten from top to bottom as it is false and innacurate in it's core. A pure and plain Catalan political pamphlet:

• it does not have "an adjoining portion in southern France"
• The Autonomous Community of Catalonia has never been called "Southern or Spanish Catalonia with respect to French or Northern one" --> this is just hillarious
• There is not a single source for the Catalan constitutions of 1283
• Not a single reference of why this name was first used
• et caetera et caetera...

Not only I'm wrongly accused of POV, anti-catalan or blaverist, but I'm forced to teach you (all the catalan paladins) your own history. This proves that most of your edits are not backed with historical facts and that you are only filling wikipedia with your "History à la carte"

--Maurice27 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than teaching just follow VP:Etiquette, there is no point about speaking of the Principality of Catalonia article here and if you don't agree with what is wrote there make your proposals in its discussion page because I had never wrote on that article. In my opinion an article about Catalonia should present all the POV's the historical one and the situation of today.Normally when we speak about something we present what it was and what it is. It is not a bad idea to separate the info in two articles...Principality of Catalonia for what it was and Catalonia for what it is. "History à la carte" is to remove any appearence in the lead of what Catalonia was.--GillesV 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And we agree on another thing ...it is better to use the term Catalonia rather than the Principality so it is good that this article speaks about what was and what is Catalonia and it makes no hurt to reflect that in the lead. --GillesV 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan, stop divagating... The paragraph you are keeping is POVish and inaccurate:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, Spanish: Cataluña, Aranese: Catalonha) is a (region(1)) in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula (which formed the most populous part of the medieval Crown of Aragon(2)) and which is now an autonomous community within Spain. (Modern(3)) Catalonia consists of the Spanish provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, an area of 32,114 km² with a population of 7,134,697 (2006 figures). (The historical territory of the Principality of Catalonia also included most of what is now the French département of the Pyrénées-Orientales, ceded to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659(4)). Catalonia shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, with Aragon to the west, and with the Valencian Community to the south: to the east there is a 580 km Mediterranean coastline.

• 1- Not a region, but rather a nationality. In addition, the term used by the spanish constitution is "autonomous community". (whatever they are nationalities or regions, they ALL ARE AC!)
• 2- Belongs to the history section and completely POVish
• 3- "Modern Catalonia"? that proves that this lead text is not about the autonomous community of Catalonia, and therefore POVish
• 4- Belongs to the history section and it is about the principality, not catalonia autonomous community, therefore not suitable at all to the Catalonia autonomous community article lead paragraph.

Gilles, VP:Etiquette or not, you are including terms which are not only POVish but wrong. I quote from you:

• "It is not a bad idea to separate the info in two articles...Principality of Catalonia for what it was and Catalonia for what it is" --> this is exactly what I am trying to do. And you are mixing both of them in the lead of this article.

So, if I took the time to explain where you are wrong (i.e Principality of Catalonia) is because between you all don't even agree if we are talking about one single article or two. As long as this article is named "CATALONIA" it will be about the AC. If tomorrow we decide to call it Catalonia (historic territory) then be my guests to add as much history as you wish in the lead. Untill then, the lead is POVish and wrong

--Maurice27 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We can be discussing until the next year and yep a bit confusing because I don't agree in the way the contents about Catalonia are structured in this wikipedia but if we pretend to have the info in two articles then the word Catalonia can refer to both: What it was (Say it Principat or another name) and what it is. If this article only presents the AC of Catalonia it should be called Autonomous Community of Catalonia] and Catalonia (disambiguation) should be Catalonia. If we mantain the same structure then, like now, we should explain all the POVs in the lead. --GillesV 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And obviously when I'm discussing with you I speak from my POV and use POVish terms...what worries me to be NPOV is the article and what is written there. Some users (me included) think that the lead now is NPOV (or we arrived to a compromise).Do you think that when you're discussing you are neutral? Or when you replace that consensus with your definition?....please God come and see... :) --GillesV 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Consensus for the lead paragraph (II)

The lead untill two months ago was:

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Catalan: Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya; Spanish: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Comunautat Autonòma de Catalonha), in the Kingdom of Spain, shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south. To the east there is a 580 km coastline which meets the Mediterranean Sea.

Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Occitan (Aranese) spoken in Val d'Aran.

Its territory corresponds to most of the historic territory of the former Principality of Catalonia and the capital is Barcelona. The autonomous community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006).

Who decided it was not good? It had names, geography, languages, history, demographics... But someone decided to change.. who? Ahhhh... Your side! why?

--Maurice27 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not divagating (sic), I have answered all your concerns with the constitution, which you wanted. If I can summarize them in a single sentence is: nationalities precede autonomies, ergo, nationalities are constituted as autonomous communities. What is Catalonia? Well, a nationality first (according to the constitution) which is administratively an autonomous community. Please review what I wrote above before copying/pasting your arguments over again without building upon what I have already answered. Otherwise the debate gets circular. Not including the term "nationality" in the lead section is POV; in the same not including the term "autonomous community" is POV. Including both is NPOV.

If you are worried about the order, I have no problem, as a compromise, to switch it. What about the following: Catalonia is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation.

Now, historical revisionism aside (which you might have to substantiate with Academic sources), the Principality of Catalonia is known as such by historians, either Spanish, Catalan or English. Since a "nationality" in Spain is also a historical region, it makes sense to mention that the current autonomous community comprises almost the territory of what was the Principality of Catalonia (from which the nationality comes from) except for a region that now belongs to France.

--the Dúnadan 17:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What sides Maurice? this is not a war...Physchim62 (not related with the wikiproject!) proposed one new definition and some users agreed with him in my case because at least there appear all the POV. If the older definition was the one you're pasting here then that definition is a good definition for the AC of Catalonia and as you can see the bold text is Autonomous Community of Catalonia but that is not a good definition for Catalonia because there are not all the acceptions. In fact despite the new one has some consensus it is not a question of consensus, there are more POV and wikipedia must reflect all the POV so OK we can agree a new definition but we cannot forget the historical aspects. I make one new proposal: If we cannot arrive to a consensus then : Catalonia (disambiguation) can replace Catalonia and what is Catalonia now using your lead be a new article: Autonomous Community of Catalonia. If not Dúnadan also said that "Catalonia could be defined (all backed up by the constitution) as: a nationality of Spain constituted as an autonomous community within the unity of the Spanish nation" in order to arrive to a compromise and I can also accept that if that ends this edit war but you don't seem to be constructive and only taking care of your opinion... --GillesV 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So now I don't seem to be constructive? You might believe that all these posts in the talk page or that I started this "Consensus for the lead paragraph" section is just to improve my mecanography skills...

Dunadan, my vote goes to turn back to previous lead paragraph to which everybody was ok:

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Catalan: Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya; Spanish: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Comunautat Autonòma de Catalonha), in the Kingdom of Spain, shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south. To the east there is a 580 km coastline which meets the Mediterranean Sea.

Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Occitan (Aranese) spoken in Val d'Aran.

Its territory corresponds to most of the historic territory of the former Principality of Catalonia and the capital is Barcelona. The autonomous community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006).

Gilles if this article is about the AC, this lead is perfectly correct. Again, Catalonia as an historic territory is defined in Principality of Catalonia.

--Maurice27 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again and again ...If the article is called Catalonia it should refer to the two POV. From my point of view there is no problem about speaking of the AC in the rest of the article after pointing on the lead where we can read the historical meaning. If you want an article which refers only to the AC and without any historic referece in the lead about what Catalonia was then I would call it as Autonomous community of Catalonia and use a disambiguation. On an article called Autonomous community of Catalonia your "perfectly correct" lead for an AC may work, not in an article called just Catalonia.--GillesV 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! the article is now moved to Catalonia (autonomous community). You may write as much history in your Historic Catalonia article's lead to fulfill your egos. --Maurice27 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maurice if there is a user with egos is the one who renames an article without any type of consensus and without any type of feedback in the discussion page.--GillesV 21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done what you have asked to do! Nothing else... Don't blame me for that. --Maurice27 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not done it because we know that wikipedia is a community. You know what you're doing because you're not a newbie.--GillesV 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be known that the article was renamed without consensus. Let it be known also that Maurice27 does not want to reach a consensus other than his own version which he imposes even though 5 users disagree (ergo his versions has no consensus). I think we need to formally request mediation and arbitration to resolve this issue. --the Dúnadan 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it also be known that after having tried once and once again to reach consensous or at least the closest point to it, I decided to stop discussing with Maurice27 not because of his biased POV (mine is also biased in his eyes) but for his complitelly repeatedly lack of respect to other wikipedians. I think it is symply impossible to reach any concensous with him.

Said that, I want to suggest for the introduction that in spite of "region", we should use nationality. If the constitution recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions, and the Estatut defines Catalonia as a nationality (not as a region), I think it is wrong to define it as a region.

I also agree to find a meditation or arbitration. I already requested it once but it was when Maurice left for some days and the problems disappeared and the meditation was closed. Cheers.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why Scotland can be defined as a nation and one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Catalonia have to be defined only as an autonomous community. I don't see the difference.

Also, in the lead section of Scotland it appears a brief explanation about the former Kingdom of Scotland and its union with England.

In Wikipedia it's usual to provide short introductions about the history of geopolitical entities, and Catalonia (or the autonomous community of Catalonia) shouldn't be an exception. --Pmmollet^Talk 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lead paragraph should be shorn of anything that doesn't relate to the current autonomy, for consensus sake I would put up with a mention of the former entity of POC, but the disambiguation notice at the top of the page deals with any other doubts the reader may have.

As for Scotland, there is no ambiguity as to whether Scotland is a nation or not. Catalonia is not called a nation by all Catalans, never mind everybody else, and those who call it a nation cant agree whether it stops at the ebro, Alicante or somewhere in the desert of Almeria. These questions should be dealt with in the catalan nationalism page (which should probably go on the disambig page). Boynamedsue

Anonymous, you are right about Catalan not being called a nation by all Catalans, but there is no ambiguity whatsoever, neither in the constitution nor in the Statute of Autonomy that Catalonia is a nationality. Again, it is in recognition of Catalonia as a nationality that its autonomy was granted. Nobody here is trying to promote "nation". We are talking about what the constitution says: nationality. --the Dúnadan 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: The article should be called just Catalonia with a reference to its history and the Principality of Catalonia in the lead because like user:Pmollet says it is not any strange idea just look: Scotland, Castile and León, Italy, Portugal, ,Greece, , Spain before Maurice's edition,.. In compromise we can remove the disambiguation if the lead is concrete and a good idea would be using the constitutional term nationality instead of region. But this is my POV and I'm open to other proposals in order to reach consensus. Another alternative and for me not the good one is Catalonia (disambiguation) = Catalonia (not like now) and Autonomous Community of Catalonia this article. And yes probably we need external mediation.--GillesV 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gilles, the article should be moved back to "Catalonia". The lead section, in accordance with Scotland, [[Castile and León], etc., should mention the Principality, and in accordance to the constitution, we should define Catalonia as a "nationality". I guess we have a rough consensus of that, considering that 4 users are now agreeing on this "new" lead section.

By the way, the only problem with Mediation is that all parties must sign the petition. If any user, for any reason does not sign it, mediation is rejected. That happened last time, Maurice27 did not sign the petition and the mediation was canceled. We can try requesting for mediation again, or go for WP:Arbitration. --the Dúnadan 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't have catalonia as a "nationality". "Catalan" may be a nationality, "Catalonia" may be a nation, but a territory can not be a nationality. However, estatutal terminology belongs in the "status of catalonia" section.

I think that the Catalonia disambiguation page should be the only Catalonia link, splitting to principality, autonomy, northern, paisos catalans, nationalism and history. The modern autonomoy and the historic principality are two different things, whereas Scotland's borders have remained stable for 800 years, give or take Berwick-upon-Tweed, Catalonia has never included all the territories referred to as "el principat" at the same time. So the analogy is false.

Any attempt to go beyond the following is POV.

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Catalan: Comunitat Autònoma de Catalunya; Spanish: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña; Aranese Occitan: Comunautat Autonòma de Catalonha), in the Kingdom of Spain, shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, and Valencia to the south. To the east there is a 580 km coastline which meets the Mediterranean Sea.

Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Occitan (Aranese) spoken in Val d'Aran.

The autonomous community of Catalonia covers an area of 32,114 km² with an official population of 7,134,697 (2006).

The rest can be dealt with in relevant sections, let's keep it brief at the beginning, explore in detail further on

Boynamedsue 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, "Catalan" is a nationality, but who are we to disqualify the Spanish constitution? After all, the articles are not about how we think things should be. We must use sources that can be verified. Those who wrote the constitution decided that "nation" should be a word to designate Spain, whereas "nationalities" would be used for Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia. So what do we do? We say that they are nationalities. A link that would explain what this word means to the Spanish will suffice. Negating that they are recognized as a "nationality" is POV. --the Dúnadan 19:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I (unusually) have some sympathy for what you are saying re the spanish governments use of the term nationality.

Are we bound by the Spanish constitution or not? If the Israeli government says that Jerusalem is its capital, do we put "Capital-Jerusalem" or say "claims Jerusalem as its capital". In something like this there is no magic bullet, I would say that the term nationality should appear in the consitutional status section, given it is very ambiguous, and given the English definition of Nationality is: Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state. Boynamedsue 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article treats on the autonomous community of Catalonia, which official denomination in the world is Catalonia and the great majority of the people when speak about Catalonia they refer exclusively to the Autonomous Community. The title has to be Catalonia and the article must speak about Catalonia (autonomous community). Principality of Catalonia, Catalonia North ...., they are not Catalonia and they have his own articles. To want to impose here these meanings of Catalonia it is want to falsify the reality and treats about propaganda and it goes in opposition to wikipedia. My offer is:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, Spanish: Cataluña, Aranese: Catalonha) is an autonomous community within Spain in the north-east of the Iberian peninsula. Catalonia consists of the Spanish provinces of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, an area of 32,114 km² with a population of 7,134,697 (2006 figures).

Catalonia shares borders with France and Andorra to the north, with Aragon to the west, and with Valencia to the south: to the east there is a 580 km Mediterranean coastline. The capital is Barcelona

Written by KIKO5000

The above is not a proposal, it is a verbatim copy of what is already stated and contested in this section by 5 users. So it is not a consensual version, neither does it offer some compromise from the affected party. (i.e. Kiko and/or Maurice27).

Now, answering Boynamedsue, I think we must use of the Spanish constitution in this particular case for several reasons:

• Wikipedia standards: WP:Cite, WP:Verifiable and WP:NPOV.
• This carefully chosen word, it is a perfect cognate of the term "nationality" in English (i.e. the term "nacionalidad" means just what you wrote above in Spanish too), so it was "ungrammatical", yet selected as a compromise between two POVs: those who claimed that the Spain was constituted by nations, and those who defended the unity (or singleness) of the Spanish nation. As such, any other solution, whether it is ignoring the special status of Catalonia within Spain, or by claiming something that goes beyond its constitutional status (i.e. "nation") is inappropriate and POV. I believe Wikipedia should use the same term.
• Autonomous communities came into existence after 1979. That doesn't mean Catalonia didn't exist before 1979, it means that Catalonia existed (define it as a "region", "historical region" or more properly, "nationality"), yet in 1979 it became politically organized and integrated into the Spanish Kingdom as an autonomous community. Like Scotland, it is appropriate to mention it in the article.
• Jerusalem is not "claimed" to be, it is a de jure capital (constitutional), and a de facto capital of Israel (i.e. it is the seat of the Parliament and the powers of government), and it is portrayed as such in this Wikipedia. True, it is not recognized by many countries in the international community. But that is a different matter, the fact that it is not recognized doesn't change that the Parliament meets at Jerusalem, and not at Tel Aviv. But that is a different story.

As to the pertinence of using "nationality", I have talked a lot, and the arguments are available in previous sections.

--the Dúnadan 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Answering some points presented: If there is not consensus I agree on using the disambiguation page as Catalonia but I feel that it should be the last solution,only if there is no other option. I can understand user:Boynamedsue point about the reference to the Principality but let's see some other articles where we refer to historical territories:

• in Castille and León we see a reference to the Old Castille and to the Kingdom of Leon (not the same territory of AC of Castile and Leon)
• in Portugal we can see a reference to their global empire (not the same territory of Portugal state)
• in Greece the Byzantine Empire (not the same territory of Greece)

A good lead should speak about all like in this articles and obviously it must be clear that now Catalonia is an AC in Spain but having that clear it can include more things like the leads that I'm using as examples. The defintion written by Maurice and the anon is not only POV, it is also incomplete...

About the term nationality...I agree with Dúnadan that the term nationality is the NPOV one, a good compromise. Saying only Catalonia is a region is POV, saying Catalonia is a nation is also POV so if it is not clear what about creating an article named nationality (Spain) explaining what means nationality on the Spanish Constituion? --GillesV 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

You are all missing a quite little but also quite important fact...

• I quote the spanish constitution of 78, PRELIMINARY TITLE, Section 2:

"The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all."

Not in a single article, does the spanish constitution explain whether any AC is a region or a nationality (in fact it does not even name them)

• I quote PART VIII. Territorial Organization of the State, CHAPTER 1. General Principles, Section 137:

"The State is organized territorially into municipalities, provinces and the Self-governing Communities that may be constituted. All these bodies shall enjoy self-government for the management of their respective interests."

• So, if the Spanish constitution does not state Catalonia to be a nationality and if the Spanish Constitution does state Spain to be organized territorially into municipalities, provinces and the Self-governing Communities that may be constituted , the solution is clear, No region and no nationality... An Autonomous Community (which in fact I'm starting is believe are wrongly translated to english because the english version of the constitution states "self-governing Communities").

• The nationality term is to be described only in the "Legal status within Spain".

• In addition, the "Legal status within Spain" section in this article is therefore wrong:

Catalonia is an Autonomous Community in the Kingdom of Spain, with the status of historical region or "nationality" in the Spanish Constitution of 1978(1). In September 2005, the Parliament of Catalonia approved the definition of Catalonia as a nation in the preamble[1][2] of the new Statute of Autonomy. In the opinion of the Spanish Government this mention does have a declaratory but not legal value, since the Spanish Constitution recognizes the indissoluble "unity of the Spanish Nation". This said Spain can now be argued to have a federal structure in practice.

• 1 - It is not the spa.const. who declared Catalonia a nationality, but the very same statute of Catalonia. The spa.const. just accepted that term to the regions wishing to make use of it.

--Maurice27 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok ,and Catalonia (using its Statute) is making use of it so I think that this is what the article must reflect also in the lead.--GillesV 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is done in the "Legal status within Spain" section just below the lead. This section was removed from the lead once for being too much "political" for a first general reference, for which the lead is for. That said I have no problem to modify that section removing the spa.const. and adding stat.law as the text describing catalonia as a nationality. --Maurice27 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You've said it yourself. The constitution accepted (and coined) the term for those regions (you're word, not mine) wishing to make use of it. Well, then the Statue of Autonomy (not the Preamble), the first article with declaratory value that says that Catalonia is a nationality is in full compliance with articles 2, 137, AND 143. Therefore, the Statute of Autonomy is valid in using the word "nationality" which the constitution allows for. In fact, Catalonia, under the law, has the right to define itself as a nationality, just as Texas has the right to define itself as a state (and there is no article in the American constitution that explicitly says that Texas is a state [30]). Therefore, it is NPOV and appropriate to say that Catalonia is a nationality constituted as an autonomous community within the unity of the Spanish nation. I guess it is a good compromise, but most of all, using the same word by which the legislators reached a compromise in the constitution of 1978. --the Dúnadan 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC) PS. Our definition of Catalonia as a nationality goes in line with the definition given at Galicia.

Hi, Dunadan, thanks for answering. The point I was making is that, just because a government says something, it doesn't make it NPOV. Catalonia IS an autonomous community because it has all the trappings of one (albeit with an extremely high degree of autonomy) and functions as such. It is a structure which exists. The status as a nationality is a metalinguistic construct arrived at by commitee, I agree that we should say "The Genenralitat of Catalunya defines Catalonia as a "nationality" constituted within the unity of the Spanish state". But this is merely the opinion of the Generalitat, it is POV. The article is about the comunidad autonoma, and the lead paragraph should merely reflect the facts. That Catalonia is a Nationality, or a Nation or an indivisible component of the Spanish state are all equally valid opinions, whether legislation supports them or not. Boynamedsue

Agree with BNS.

By the way, I think his contributions always have an interesting point, i.e. debasing the POVs coming from Spain (which includes, as of May 2007, Catalonia). Those POVs (either nationalist or anti-) are often unintended even by their bearers. Luckily, BNS is around here with his magnificent words-microscope to ring the alarms....then all that some have to say is, well, complaining about that annoying bell sound.... Mountolive | Talk 14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, don't you think it is a little far-fetched to claim that whatever is written in a constitution is POV? More specifically, do you think Wikipedia (or us Wikipedians) are an authoritative source to qualify the constitution so as to claim that it is POV, and if so, on what grounds other than personal political opinions? Do you think Statutory and constitutional definitions should be claimed, by us, to be mere opinions? I disagree. Wikipedia is not WP:OR, it is a tertiary source. We report. I believe we should include both definitions: nationality and autonomous community, without trying to qualify either one with our personal political preferences or interpretations (one is POV, or the other is POV, or both are POV), but simply reporting what the constitution and the Statute say.

To claim that the constitution is POV or that a certain article in the constitution is POV is beyond the scope of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that we do not report what is "true" (or what seems true to us), but what can be verified. In this case, "nationality" and "AC" are both verifiable, regardless of what opinion you might have of either one. Or, to put it differently, WP:NPOV does not mean that we only show what we think is NPOV (a subjective task by all accounts), but to present all POVs. So, again, by Wikipedia standards, the inclusion of both definitions if fully justifiable. --the Dúnadan 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So the conclusion is that we should ignore the Constitution and put only one POV after ignoring the other ...are we forgetting what is NPOV? Remember that here the discussion is not about saying any stupid thing...it is only about using the constitutional term nationality to define what is Catalonia now. BNS thanks for the opinion but I don't agree, the Statute is a law so it is not only the opinion of Generalitat.The Statute was also approved by the Spanish Parlamient and approved in referendum by the citizens of Catalonia. --GillesV 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is a statute "what government says"? Further reading: separation of powers --Pmmollet^Talk 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilles is right, both the 1979 and the 2006 statutes were approved by the Parliament, which is the ultimate representative of the Spanish people; so it can't be argued that a statutory (or a constitutional) definition is merely the opinion of some... in fact, it can be argued that is it the opinion of the people, being represented democratically in a Parliament.

PS, Pmmollet, can you expand your comment? --the Dúnadan 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. Boynamedsue said "just because a government says something, it doesn't make it NPOV". Usually statutes and constitutions are written by the legislative branch. When he says "government" I suppose he's talking about the executive, not the legislative. If not, my apologies.--Pmmollet^Talk 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that saying Catalonia is an Autonomous community is a POV. Everyone can agree that it is an Autonomous Community, whether they want that to be the case or not. What I am saying is that to define Catalonia as a "Nationality", one first has to ignore the meaning of that word. If the Spanish constitution said I was a chemical element, with an atomic weight of 73, it would not be true, it would merely mean that I was defined as such in existing legislation. Catalonia can't, logically, be a nationality, so it can't be included without the caveat "The Generalitatat/Spanish government says Catalonia is a nationality". There are many people who believe that this is not the case, conservatives, non-nationalists, centralists and people who own dictionaries. This is why this paragraph belongs in the legal status section, it is the law, but it can't possibly be true. I don't think this is original research, and its purpose is merely to improve the article.

In this case Mr Mollet, I was referring to the legislative branch, so your initial, slightly offended, response was correct, but we have an interesting dilemma here. Do we report the subjective truth (Catalunya is A, a nation, B, a region, C, the source of all evil, D, the only modernising force in all of Spain), the legal truth (Catalunya may be a nationality, is an autonomous community, and is a nation... but only during foreplay), or the objective truth: Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain bordered to the north by....

Thankyou Mountolive, I spent a lot of money on that word microscope, and I intend to get my money's worth.

Boynamedsue 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The POV is to deny it is a nationality.--89.130.26.177 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon, I'm not saying that Catalunya isn't a nation (although I personally believe it isn't), but that it can't be a "nacionalidad" or a "nacionalitat" or a "nationality", the definition of those words mean that they can't be applied to territories. Boynamedsue 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I disagree with you. It is your opinion, which you might share with conservatives, that Catalonia is not a nationality. You might even claim that is "can't possibly be true" because it is grammatically incorrect. But that is still an opinion. Again, we are not supposed to report what is true (subjective as it can be) but what can be verified: (read WP:Verifiable). Unlike chemistry (perhaps) or mathematics, this is a subjective thing. So, if the Spanish people, fully and democratically represented in the Parliament (that is, the Parliament, being the voice of all the People) approved to define nationality the way they do, this is verifiable. You can argue that is not true, you can argue that it is grammatically incorrect and that the term cannot be applied to territories, you might argue that there are some Spaniards who do not think the concept is true, but all of that is opinion vis-à-vis verifiable facts. Moreover, RAE has accepted the definition of "nationality" that the constitution has given it.[31]. In other words, you are claiming that both the constitution, approved by the Parliament in representation of all Spaniards and all political parties and ideologies is wrong and/or POV, and you are claiming that the Academy of the Spanish language, the ultimate authoritative and normative source to define words, is also wrong.

Again, I repeat, especially when it comes to abstract concepts like this (and unlike concrete concepts like a "tree" or a "horse"), we are in no way authorities to claim that the Constitution is right or wrong or POV. I, personally, think they are right. But my opinion doesn't matter, neither yours. We are a tertiary source, and a such we report what can be verified, and do not qualify, accept or deny that which authorities have accepted. If the Catalan people, in full compliance with the Constitution and in full compliance with linguistic authorities, define their region as a "nationality", then that is what we should report, regardless of how we feel about that.

--the Dúnadan 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading Britannica, a very reputable tertiary source in the English language, (and I am more than happy to scan the page if you wish) and offers an excellent example for us as a tertiary source. Let me quote them: Macropedia Vol 28, p. 13: The three regions that had voted for a statute of autonomy in the past -Catalonia, the Basque provinces and Galicia- were designated historical nationalities and permitted to attain autonomy through a rapid and simplified process. (bold mine) They have no problem at all in using the word nationality in English in a way that may seem, to you, grammatically incorrect. Let me quote another sentence: Article 2 of the constitution both recognizes the rights of the "regions and nationalities" to autonomy and declares "the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation"(bold mine). Again, they have no problem in using the word nationality. In the Micropedia, vol 2, p. 945, unlike Maurice27, Britannica has no problem at all in defining Catalonia as a region, let me quote: Catalonia [...] comunidad autònoma "autonomous community" and historic region of Spain....

So, in light of all that I have exposed above, about WP:Verifiability (RAE and the constitution) about not using our opinions, and in quoting a very reputable source in English that makes use of the words "nationality" and "region" to define Catalonia, I still think it would be POV if we do not include them. Catalonia is a nationality constituted as an autonomous community.

--the Dúnadan 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi D, the quote you provide states.

"The three regions that had voted for a statute of autonomy in the past -Catalonia, the Basque provinces and Galicia- were designated historical nationalities"

A paragraph like that is fine for me, because "were designated" means that the government states that they are this, the source isn't saying that they are this. Thanks for your continued habit of searching for quotes to support my arguments. :-P Boynamedsue 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I find your comment about my "continued habit" somewhat inappropriate. You might wish to read all my arguments, perhaps you'll find that the sources support the rest of my arguments, which you are conveniently or inadvertently ignoring by focusing on a single phrase. My quote proves the fact that "nationalities" is being used in a manner that contradicted your own arguments (I recall that you were claiming that nationalities couldn't refer to territories, and this source proves you wrong), and that Catalonia is defined as a historical region too.

I was thinking of a way to explain my arguments, without repeating myself. I decided to make use of an opposite or reverse argument. Please, I'd ask you to follow through the whole argument closely, before jumping to any conclusions:

• For the sake of the argument, I could say that Catalonia is a nation without a State (i.e. a Stateless nation). Nation, as defined by dictionaries is either an ethnic group or a people with a common language an culture. Since Catalonia fits this definition, in as much as the First Nations of Canada do, or the constituent countries of the United Kingdom or the Netherlands, this designation is linguistically [not to mention grammatically] appropriate, and self-evident, to me. Therefore, for the sake of the argument, to me, this designation is true. You might argue that the Constitution of Spain says that there is only one indissoluble nation: Spain, and that there is no other nation. Yet if you do so, the argument fires back, because you said that Catalonia is what it is, not what the government says it is. However, defining Catalonia is controversial, because what is self-evident to me (and to many others Catalans and Spaniards) is not self-evident to you, and in fact, you can argue that Catalonia is not a nation, and claim that to be a truth too, and many other Catalans, not to mention Spaniards, will agree with you. So if we cannot use the ultimate primary source to define Catalonia (the constitution, and by extension the Statute of Autonomy), how do we define it? To claim that the constitution is POV is not acceptable because it is an opinion, as valid as my hypothetical opinion.
• Truth could be subjective (and I will not engage in a philosophical diatribe about what is true or not), and abstract concepts (like "nation" and "nationality") are by their very nature subjective or cultural-based. Since we are not scholars in this matter, but most importantly, since Wikipedia is not a primary source nor a secondary source, we cannot claim anything ourselves. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, simply reports the facts of primary sources and the reputable interpretations of secondary sources, and gives them their due weight. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability which stipulates: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (bold mine).
• I will not argue that Catalonia is a nation; I have never done it nor have I proposed that we define it as such. That would be a POV. However, I do argue that Catalonia be defined the way the constitution and the Statute of Autonomy defines it: as a nationality. This designation was approved by the Parliament of Spain, integrated by representatives of all political parties and ideologies. In fact, we could arguably say that this definition was approved by the Spanish people, since the Parliament is defined as the voice of the people and the democratic representative of the Spaniards. Being a primary source, to say that Catalonia is a nationality complies with WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Moreover, it is the way other reputable printed sources, like Britannica, define it, as a nationality, despite the evident (to you) linguistic contradiction. Using Britannica to define Catalonia would only add more grounds for the inclusion of the term "nationality" (and/or region and/or historical region), in that it will also comply with WP:CITE.

Please let's try to reach a compromise, and be so kind as to read the Britannica source thoroughly, as well as my previous arguments. I think we have enough information to reach a consensual version for the lead section if we rely solely on the sources and forget about our personal political preferences or ideologies. Alternatively, we could either request for mediation or even arbitration, but I hope that we can reach a consensus civilly and professionally amongst ourselves (without the sarcasm and reiterated insults I have received from other users, not from you though).

My proposal is this: Catalonia is a nationality or historical region of Spain constituted as an autonomous community within the unity of the Spanish nation., or even ... the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation.

--the Dúnadan 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BNS... You're the man! ;) hehehehehehe

Dunadan, Some of your statements lack of backing...

• The constitution uses the word "region" because that's how they were called in the Franco era. Let's not forget that the constitution was signed on '78, 3 years after Franco's death and that the firsts statutes are from '79. This is the reason for this text:

"The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all."

I guess you are not willing to use a word (region) from those years and with that "political meaning"... It's up to you...

• The Constitution clearly states:

"The State is organized territorially into municipalities, provinces and the Self-governing Communities that may be constituted. All these bodies shall enjoy self-government for the management of their respective interests."

So, ACs WERE NOT YET constitued, but it is stated how they had to be named. If you want to describe Catalonia anyhow, it is as an AC.

As much reputation Britannica may have, I can pretty much assure you that the text of a national constitution is to prevail.

--Maurice27 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing for the use of "nationality" for Catalonia, as backed up by the second article of the constitution, which recognizes that nationalities are (present tense) part of the Spanish nation.

I am not saying that Catalonia is a nation. According to the constitution there is an indissoluble nation: Spain. But this nation is constituted by nationalities (present tense) and regions (present tense: que la integran and not que la integraban). These regions accede to autonomy, hence they are jurisdictionally and administratively "autonomous communities", but their status as "regions" and "nationalities" preceded their autonomy. In fact, they had to be regions with historical identity in order to be constituted as AC. The 143 sets up that requirement. In fact, Madrid, which wasn't neither a region with historical identity nor a nationality, could not accede to its autonomy through the normal process, but had to be approved "for the nation's interest" through the 144 article of the constitution. This was a special case. The constitution recongizes (present tense), the nationalities that integrate (present tense) the Spanish indissoluble nation. Why don't you want to define Catalonia as a nationality? I am not arguing for anything that contradicts the constitution.

Curiously, Boynamedsue argued that a national constitution is POV and should not be used to define Catalonia as a "nationality", yet it "should" be used to define it as an AC. Why not both?

--the Dúnadan 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Who said I don't want to define catalonia as a nationality? I quote myself:

• "1- Not a region, but rather a nationality. In addition, the term used by the spanish constitution is "autonomous community". (whatever they are nationalities or regions, they ALL ARE AC!) Maurice27 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

Boynamedsue is right, the spa.const should not be used to define catalonia as nationality; it does never state which subdivisions of Spain are regions and which are nationalities. That, was decided by the statutes at least one year later after this constitution was approved.

--Maurice27 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the cheek in my last post, I was short on time and ónly dealt with what I felt was new material (though I'm glad it pleased Moz27). Re-reading, I see that the dictionary definition of Nacionalidad has been altered by the constitution. I have always been in agreement that the word "nationality" should appear, in the "legal status within Spain" section. Though of course, it would need a supporting quote. Therefore "Catalonia is defined as a nationality in its statute of Autonomy, and a nation in the preamble of the same." is fine by me. But not in the lead, because I feel that, for the audience of this wiki, we need some kind of definition of what "nationality" means in Spain, given that it is not the same in English, and I suspect that users will take it for Spanglish and edit it out.

The truth is, nationality in its constitutional use, means precisely nothing. We are all aware that it is there for that precise reason, it is a silly little phrase agreed by a commitee who had guns pointing at them. It was just enough to shut the nationalists up and avoid bloodshed from either party.

I am not arguing about whether Catalonia is a nation or not, but I feel the issue is sufficiently murky to be stated as "The preamble to the statute of autonomy states", I am not a constitutional expert, but as far as I am aware, the preamble has no legal force, and is purely descriptive.

My suggestion Catalonia is an Autonomous Community of Spain. Leave the rest to the appropriate sections.

Boynamedsue 08:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to recap, i dont think that definitions voted for as part of a constitution are necessarily neutral terms. They are legal terms and should be referred to as such, but the law has no jurisdiction on wikipedia, we put what can be supported with evidence, X says y is a terrorist, not x is a terrorist.

I don't see the problem about saying what Dúnadan originally stated. He does not say directly Catalonia is a nationality, he said : Catalonia is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation. There is no contradiction, perhaps I'll use nationality or a reference about what means nationality in this context.--GillesV 10:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that could be a compromise Boynamedsue, the one mentioned by Gilles: we define, categorically, Catalonia as an autonomous community and then say that it is being recognized (what the government says) as a nationality, just like Britannica used the phrase ("were designated"). I guess since we wouldn't be saying that Catalonia is a nationality, but instead that it is recognized as a nationality, it would satisfy your concern about "what the government says is not what it is". What do you think about that proposal? Catalonia is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation

--the Dúnadan 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hi, like I said, I don't see any reason to go into the question of legal definitions of the territory in the first paragraph, given the second paragraph is "legal status within spain": and all this is just about which word is used to describe the AC, in which document. I suggest "Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain (see legal status)" and leave it at that. However, why don't we concentrate on the specific paragraphs, then come back to it? 89.129.146.52 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this is nonsense because "autonomous community" is also a legal definition. --Pmmollet^Talk 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but an autonomous community DOES specific things, it is tangible in a way that a nationality isn't. It is a structure of government that acts in similar ways wherever it is found. I would say that it is a specific set of relationships of power, and powers in exercise, how could one say the same thing of a "nationality"? noinamedsue

You seem to forget that the definition: Catalonia is one of the constituent autonomous communities of Spain, which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation is firstly saying that Catalonia is an AC so including another term like nationality is completing the definition and not erasing the mean of the other.--GillesV 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An AC is as "tangible" as a nationality. You cannot touch AC. There is an administrative structure whereby an AC is recognized as defined by a legal system. But you cannot touch (i.e. tangible) an AC anymore than you can touch a nationality. Both are abstract concepts even if the first has a legal structure and the second doesn't. You can touch the land, the country, the buildings, but can you "touch" a republic, a state or an autonomous community? --the Dúnadan 00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut which acceded to this status in being recognized as a nationality of the Spanish nation. So, this says that Catalonia became an autonomous community at the moment of, or during the process of, being recognised as a nationality by the Spanish government, it implies causality. This is very vague, looks unproveable, and probably not relevant even if true, i suppose a source would be out of the question?

Boynamedsue 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprovable? Isn't the Statute of Autonomy a valid source? If not, why not, according to you, a legal text is not valid? The Statute of Autonomy says, "Catalonia, as a nationality, constitutes itself as an autonomous community". Isn't it a valid source?--the Dúnadan 23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal status within Spain

This section is informative, but I believe we need to discuss some issues:

• articulate is not a cognate of "articulado" in the meaning of "within the articles" or "the articles of a legal text". The link to wiktionary does not define "articulate" as a noun, but as an adjective. I guess we need to replace it with "within the articles". See: [32], [33]. Maybe replacing it with "the articles with declaratory value" will suffice.

seems a good idea.--GillesV 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase In the opinion of the Spanish Government this mention does have a declaratory but not legal value... cites the constitution. I find this misleading, not in the meaning. I agree with what you are trying to say, but the link points to the constitution itself, and not to an explicit declaration of the government saying verbatim, that "it has no declaratory value". It looks to me like a substantiated opinion. I'd rather cite the Statute: "However, the Spanish constitution recognizes the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality". [34]. Maybe we can phrase it so that we clarify that even though the Preamble uses the word nation, to the Spanish constitution this means nationality, since it only recognizes one nation: Spain. But if the government hasn't say anything explicitly (i.e."it as not declaratory value") we must not put words in their mouths. (Btw, if the government has officially said something like that, legally (not in interviews), then don't change anything, just add the reference).

I agree with that change,if the government said that it needs the reference.--GillesV 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the phrase "has a federal structure in practice" is appropriate, especially if it does not have a reference. Unlike a federation, Spain most likely resembles a regional state, with devolved powers: the central government still has the authority to remove the devolved powers from the autonomous communities, and the Statutes of Autonomy must be approved by the Congress of the Deputies. In a federation, each constituent entity is fully autonomous internally. The powers are not devolved, on the contrary, the entities cede some powers to the federation (the origin of attribution is the opposite). The federal government cannot intervene in local affairs unless they contradict the federal constitution. The federal congress cannot overturn a local constitution and cannot review nor approve a local constitution, unless it flagrantly contradicts the federal constitution. This is not the case of Spain.

--the Dúnadan 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that change.--GillesV 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that the reference to federalism has been removed. I roughly agree with Dunadan's analysis, but I would also add that the request for federalism is an active issue in Catalan politics, going beyond the supporters of the ERC (around 40% support, the same as for the status quo of the 2006 Estatut: Source: El Periódico de Calalunya first half of April 2007, I'll find the exact reference if it is really needed): in the context of this WP article, it would be surprising if people were asking for something they had already! Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)