Talk:Catalonia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Aranese

According to their place of origin, it is significant to note that those born outside Spain outnumber Spaniards born outside Aran and Catalonia in the active use of Aranese (17% of non-Spaniards can write Aranese, while the percentage for Spaniards, excluding Catalans is 10%)

Who are those foreigners? French Gascons? -- Error 00:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea, my guess is that they must be people who attend or have attended school in Aran, so they must be necessarily in the younger age groups. They could well be students from Luchon who go to school in Bossòst or Vielha, I know there are a number of them, but I ignore whether their number is significant, and in any case, the source I quote being a poll conducted by telephone, most likely they wouldn't have been included.

Reverts

Can the user "Peter Wye" explain exactly why did he unconsideratily revert last night's changes without bothering to discuss any issues he might have in the Talk page first? If this happens again, I'll stick an NPOV banner on this page, as this page is in need of some serious work.

I have restored my version, and anyone wishing to improve it please leave your argumentations on this page first.

From Peter Wye,

We've had this discussion before, please see above.

I've read everything on this page.

I feel that it is correct to use the title of the government and region in both languages.

Please see my previous entry, where I pointed to the Linguistic Policy Act, which states that the only official name of Catalan institutions is the Catalan one. That is because Catalan linguistic policy (which is modelled after Quebec's) practises positive discrimination towards Catalan and Aranese, unlike that of, e.g., the Basque Country. Catalan names are also what we use in the expat community.

In addition, you should be aware that the use of Spanish forms for certain Catalan names (such as those of Catalan institutions and politicians) is considered by Catalonians and many Spaniards as a form of Spanish chauvinism, which is why they are not generally used even in the Spanish-speaking media, and part of what makes this article POV in its current form.

I agree with some of the changes made by this anonymous user. However, I feel other changes highlight Catalan-nationalist tendencies...

Please point out exactly which ones and why, and how that affects NPOV.

...that seek to ignore the current, neutral reality that Catalonia is part of the Spanish state.

I shall note that we are writing an article about Catalonia, rather than Catalonia in the context of the Spanish State. We should branch this out into "Catalonia" and "Catalonia (Autonomous Community)", following the example of the entries for the Basque Country.

As a general comment, I toned down this article (by adding Spanish names), so as to make it more neutral.

In light of what I've indicated above, regarding the official and social use of those names, as well as the custom in the English-speaking community, I shall remove those again. Please don't reinsert them unless you've got an irrefutable argument in favour of doing so.

Lastly, please be careful when making edits (says me who just forgot to save this), you've wiped out quite a bit of useful stuff added by user Error last night. I'll simply revert back to his version because that leaves me happy for the moment. Please advise if any of the other text you dragged back in was intentional (such as the rather verbose explanation of what the Generalitat is, which I had replaced by a short sentence and a link to Generalitat de Catalunya)

Lots more work to do on this article. Next day I'll copy it to a temporary subpage under Talk, which will be used as the basis for the "Catalonia (Autonomous Community)" entry (which is mostly what the current one deals with anyway).

---

OK, you can't complain that I "unconsideratily" (sic)(I think the word you are looking for in English is "inconsiderably") reverted an edit without justification and then do it yourself.

Grr! I forgot to save my changes to this Talk page and had to retype them again, that's why the changes to the article went in first.

I left essentially everything the same as the edits made by this anonymous user, but added the name of the region and government in Spanish. I believe that I have provided sufficient justification for doing so.

OK, now that I've finally provided the reasoning for my changes here, I'll revert one back, assuming your revert was due to this unintended absence of agumentation on my part. Once again, pls. careful with those changes, you managed to erase Error's contributions a second time.

And now that you know that introducing the name in Spanish is considered as much of a political statement as is, in your view, not having it, I trust we can move onto more useful work.

---

Update from 10:25, 12 Oct 2004: Added Italian and Arabic to the list of names of the country in various languages. Rationale is that Italy has a (tiny) Catalan-speaking minority, and Arabic is the 1st or 2nd language of a significant part of Catalans.

I deleted these references. This part of Italy never has been considered Catalonia, and Arabic (Berber is more spoken) is not considered a language of there, by both Catalan and Arabic people. ~~

These languages are not needed. Chameleon 16:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I knew they weren't going to last long. The reason why I introduced the Arabic form was because I thought it might be of help to speakers of Arabic (also Farsi and Hurdu) to know the correct spelling of the name in the Arabic alphabet (the first a is short and thus unwritten). Being unconvinced by the arguments for deletion, I might make an attempt to surreptitiously reintroduce it in the course of future edits. Ideally, of course, one would translate the whole article into Arabic, but I'm not volunteering :)

---

Modifications on 2004-10-29

Corrected a couple of misspellings, and rewrote the paragraph about the governing coallition ("Maragall's government will thus be an uncomfortable alliance between...") to correct a factual inaccuracy and eliminate its POV tone by removing assertions not backed by independent references and the accuracy of which was debatable.

More work remains to be done on this section. To start with, could someone please provide references to support the paragraph that starts "One of the keys to Catalan politics is the fact that Barcelona..." Seems very unclear to me whether any of the affirmations made there are anything else but the author's personal impression. And what is that paragraph trying to say, anyway?

As for the passage that goes "Despite his radical background, Pujol..." What is meant by Pujol's radical background? Apart from the use of an emotionally charged word, this is the first time I hear someone label Pujol a "radical", and I'm curious as to the reasons why? :)

And now on to the second sentence on the same paragraph. What is it trying to say by saying that "nationalist factions became increasingly dissatisfied with his rule"? Whose rule? Pujol's in Catalonia or Aznar's in Madrid? And what is a "nationalist faction"? The 47.3% of parliamentary representation from the fully autoctonous parties CiU and ERC, or the 85.8% of seats occupied by parties defining themselves or their programmes as "catalanist", or something else? So, was CiU dissatisfied with their own representative's (Pujol) rule, or is CiU not a "nationalist" party, or were these "factions" (including the "faction" governing Catalonia) in fact dissatisfied with Aznar's Spanish government, or exactly what?

In order to improve the above, both from an accuracy, balance, and literary point of view, I suggest that contributions (especially on volatile topics such as politics) be solidly based on (and preferably limited to) factual data, and free of any kind of interpretative comment. Personally, I think a minimal familiarity with the subject would also be beneficial, in order to lessen the risk of the author misinterpreting the data.

• Speaking as a complete outsider (I'm American, primary language American English) who until this very week had no idea Catalan was even a Romance language, despite being interested generally in learning most of the Romance languages (well... Italian, Spanish Romanian and maybe Portuguese, anyway, though that's somewhat beside the point) - I think to strike a nice balance between "coverage" and "not slanting towards a particular POV", having a section that includes the different names for the region/language in all possible languages, as opposed to just Spanish and Catalan, would be a good idea. Besides, first, the English equivalent terms are also given in this article, yet English is not an official language in the area. And what if somebody who otehrwise can read and write and understand English doesn't happen to know the English term for the region/language/whatever, or the Spanish, or the Catalonian terms? They might be even more fluent in English than other languages but not know the area even exists. I don't know if this is a standard at all or not for articles on countries and regions, but I don't see why it isn't, if it's not, because it would be really handy, and not all that hard to include/verify. 63.21.49.164 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Occitan

From the article: "...this small region of 7,000 is the only place where Occitan (majoritarily spoken in France and some Italian valleys) has full official status." What can this possibly mean? Certainly Occitan is not a majority language in France. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

They must have meant "mainly". Chameleon 09:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so "...spoken mainly in France and..." wrong word, wrong placement, no wonder I got confused. I'll fix it if no one already has. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

The "comarques" of Vallespir, Conflent, Fenolleda, Capcir, Alta Cerdanya and Rosselló make up the "Département" of Pyrénées-Orientales and not the "Région" of Languedoc Roussillon, which comprises the Départements of Aude (11), Gard (30), Hérault, Lozère (48) and Pyrénées-Orientales (66). I have therefore rectified this point. (26/11/2004)

---

Recently added link

• Recently and anonymously added external link Free Catalonia (forum) seems to be a brand new web site. Not sure if its inclusion here is appropriate. Whether it is kept or dropped right now, someone should check it again in a month when it has some content to see if it is shaping up as the sort of thing we'd want to link to. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:29, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• We have talked earlier on this discussion page (see the archives) about this link. It is not a NPOV. It advocates an opinion that is not only in direct conflict with what the majority of residents of this autonomous region think, it advocates separatist sentiment. This link should be located in a page describing secessionist sentiments espoused by a minority of Catalans who are hardline nationalists, not in a page describing the current reality of Catalonia as a Spanish autonomous region. Peter Wye December 5, 2004

I would like to bring to the readers' attention the emotionally charged and unfounded assertions that user Peter Wye has made above. In view of the predominantly political nature of the user's contributions and certain rather immature comments he has made, denoting hostility towards Catalonia, I urge readers and editors to treat his edits on anything Catalan-related with caution. 80.58.43.42 02:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Says "incognito" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.216.149.97 (talk • contribs) 19 Dec 2005.

Bilingualism, Spanish language (castellano)

Someone inserted the following into the discussion of language: "and Spanish (48%-52%)". I've cut it, but only because it was so terse that it was unclear in its meaning. We should further discuss the status of the Spanish language in Catalonia besides the fact that it is co-official. We have meticulous numbers on how many people in Catalonia understand Catalan and even Aranese, but nothing on the fact that close to 100% understand Spanish at an effectively native level and nothing about the percentage who consider Spanish their first language. This should be an additional section in the article, covered at the same level we cover Catalan and Aranese. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

From my impressionistic POV, it is not uncommon to find Catalan people in the Internet who mistakenly use Catalan spellings when typing Spanish (i instead of y is a giveaway). I interpret that there are lots of young people for whom Spanish is mostly listened rather than written or read. --Error 04:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. And we need to cover this, but not just in a cryptic remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Joe, there is no data reflecting the use of Spanish is Catalonia being collected on a regular basis of which I am aware. The reason for that is that the Spanish language is not the responsibility of the Catalan government, and there are no specific policies regarding its use in Catalonia (other than a mention in the Estatut of Autonomia, by reference to the Spanish Constitution, of it having official status). Based on anecdotical and personal evidence, I would tend to agree with Error in that Spanish is mostly a spoken, or at most passively practiced, language in Catalonia. --80.58.43.42 02:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with Error (or this anon). The point is, though, that if we are going to talk about language in Catalonia, we should not give Spanish short shrift. I would say that anything about a nationally official language lacking official status in a region would be highly notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Change 24/12/2004 Ivan. It was said that Catalonia is an autonomous region, but that does not make any sense if you don´t tell to which country it belongs. Knowing the implications of the words country and state in Catalonia i just used the name Spain.

How similar are the Catalan and the Spanish? An answer to this question would make the data about the numbers who understand both languages easier to interpret. For example, some Slavic languages are so similar that the mutual understanding is close to 100%. --Georgius 13:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Not very similar. I'd say subjectively that they are farther apart than Spanish and Italian, although I gather that linguists consider them more closely related. My own estimation is that anyone who knows one could become a reasonably competent reader of the other in a matter of a few months, but conversing, writing, and even tru reading fluency would take longer. This is real bilingualism. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Maybe I am not the only one who does not know that the two Romance languages are not so similar as e.g. Czech and Slovak or Serbian and Croatien. Perhaps it could be explained in the article?--Georgius 17:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added 24/07/2006 "Official languages are Catalan, Spanish (also known as Castilian), and (in Val d'Aran) Aranese."

Catalá (Catalan) is not the same as Castellano (Castilian) Spanish. The two languages are actually quite different (i.e. no use of "ñ", instead use of "ny" - "Banyoles" instead of "Bañoles"; the more common use of "d'" (Catalan) instead of "de" (Castellano) - this is notable even in the names of cities and such "Pica d'Estats" instead of "de Estados" or "Val d'Aran" instead of "Valle de Aran") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.9.8 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.

Harshness of Article

I feel that this article is being unduly critical of Catalonia. While I personally do not agree with the separatist pretensions that often filter through this article, the edits that have occurred have in my opinion presented Catalonia in a negative light that it does not deserve.

These edits must be discussed.

Peter Wye 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sunday January 2, 2005

I tend to agree, but I will admit that the article is not a priority for me right now. Do you have specific edits to propose? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Present Autonomous Community vs. historical Catalonia

I believe it would help to split the article into two, one dedicated to the Catalan Autonomous Community and another for Catalonia as a national and historical entity, following the example of the articles Basque Country and Basque Country (autonomous community). That should provide some degree of distinction between things being discussed in a Spanish context and independently of it. 80.58.43.42 02:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable idea. Does someone want to take on this somewhat laborious task? Probably step one would be to set up a temporary redirect to the present article from Catalonia (autonomous community) and get everything linking where it should before splitting the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

There's already an article on the Catalan countries. I'd have to say, though, that when a particular political entity has the same name and a fairly obvious historical continuity with a historical political entity, it's fairly odd to have the historical one be the main referent. It's not as if Nova Scotia refers to the original Scottish colony, with the modern province at Nova Scotia (modern province). -- Montrealais

Please note that Catalan Countries and Catalonia are not synonyms in any sense. The former refers either to the set of territories that have Catalan as a common language and share a number of other cultural traits, or to a political project to achieve some sort of unification of those countries along with independence from Spain and France. From my personal experience as a ten year resident, Catalonia itself is perhaps best described as a nation without a state. --80.58.43.42 01:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barcelona as the "national" Catalan side

I think the following needs to be substantiated: "The major football club FC Barcelona is "more than a club" and acts as an unofficial "national" team for Catalonia."

I have never heard any Catalan speak of Barça in this light. It is true that it represents the pro-Cataluña side of the divide, but no more than that.

That's a thorny subject. It depens on which side of the divide are you on. For a lot of pro-Catalonia people, Barça is really "more than a club", a real symbol of Catalonia. A triumph of Barcelona, it's a triumph for Catalonia. The other First Division team, RCD Espanyol, it's not seen that way, more like the contrary.

It was more in the Franco era, when Real Madrid was perceived as el equipo del gobierno by some.

http://www.barcelonaconnection.net/docs/barca.html Manuel Vázquez Montalbán

En certa històrica ocasió, un president del Club de Futbol Barcelona va dir que el Barça era "...més que un club". Ho va dir durant el franquisme, en un moment en què a Espanya tot era més del que era: els escriptors eren quelcom més que escriptors, els silencis quelcom més que silencis, la memòria quelcom més que memòria, la impotèncis quelcom més que impotència. Tot el que no fos combregar amb la veritat oficial i absoluta del Franquisme es convertia en un fet d'oposició objectiva, i l'equip de futbol del Barcelona polaritzava les ànsies nacionalistes dels Catalans, com si fos l'exèrcit desarmat d'un país amb la identitat aixafada pel vencedor en la guerra civil.

--Error 03:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't changed that much, in fact. The attitude of the previous PP government brought back a lot of these feelings, that still remain. This year's league championship was a big triumph not only because of the cup itself, but because it was won against Real Madrid.

It's not a simple issue and certainly is debatable.

Cut from article

An anonymous editor recently made cuts without explanation. I have restored several where I can see no justification for the cuts. I let the following cut stand, though, because the content seems polemical, and should not be in the narrative voice of the article. If we want to get something like this in there, we should be citing someone as saying it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

However, this appears to be changing fast - the tendency of foreign companies to set up their headquarters and main factories in Madrid and the increasing popularity of other autonomous regions as destinations for foreign capital has accelerated over the last decade. Catalonia's traditional competitive advantages are being seriously eroded as lack of local and central government investment in public infrastructure (roads, schools, university research, etc.) becomes increasingly apparent. The region's educational system also compares poorly with several others in Spain, and very poorly at the European level. As a result, the risk of Catalonia failing to make a successful transition from an industrial economy to a knowledge-based one is looming ever larger. To make matters worse, various international companies have shifted their plants from Catalonia to former Eastern Bloc countries (where labour expenses are much lower and workers are generally more skilled).

A similar passage must have come in while I wasn't looking, and was, again, recently cut without comment. Again, if someone wants opinionated material like this in the article, they need to cite who says this. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Until recently, Catalonia was generally recognized as the second most economically dynamic region of Spain ( after Madrid ). Recent EU expansion to 25 nations may mean that Catalonia is no longer able to compete at either the technical level or on price with many countries in Eastern Europe - a fear that is widely expressed in specialist publications and in the local business press but which is omitted from official information for foreign investors. Tourism has been a bulwark of the Catalan economy ever since the late 60s. However, it shows signs of flagging, too, as tourists tire of the now overdeveloped and pricy Costa Brava and opt for more exotic destinations in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean. Several British tour operators have already struck large resorts like Lloret de Mar and Salou from their brochures. The local debate on promoting "quality tourism" may have come too late

I made some of theese cuts without explanation (the ones you kept). It was my first contribution, and don't know how to sign. Sorry. I just felt angered for the hostile style against my country. Thanks for your work! --Joan sense nick 22:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Which of two topics is this article about?

A recent edit completely changed the lead of the article. Old lead:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, Spanish: Cataluña, Aranese: Catalonha, French: Catalogne) is an Autonomous Community of Spain, with the status of Historical Nationality, in the north-east corner of the country. Historically, Catalonia included the comarques (singular: comarca) of Vallespir, Conflent, Capcir, Alta Cerdanya and Rosselló, which following the Treaty of the Pyrenees came under French administration and nowadays form part of the département of Pyrénées-Orientales (66). These territories are commonly referred to in Catalan as Catalunya Nord.

Substituted lead:

Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya; Spanish: Cataluña; Aranese: Catalonha; French: Catalogne) is a stateless nation in south-west Europe. Since the signing of the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, Catalonia has been divided between France, which took control of the Vallespir, Conflent, Capcir, Alta Cerdanya and Rosselló comarques (singular: comarca), and Spain, to which the rest of the nation belongs. The territories under French administration are commonly referred to in Catalan as Catalunya Nord (Northern Catalonia).

The question is, is this an article about the Autonomous Community of Catalunya, in Spain, or about historic Catalunya, a now-stateless nation? I think it should be the former: that's what English-speakers most commonly mean when they say "Catalonia" or "Catalunya", and that there should be an article at some other title about Catalonia in the historical sense.

If we decide to go the other way, there is a lot of rewriting to do, because most of this article is specific to the autonomous region (although a few sections are more about the historical entity). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The stateless nation bit does not belong here. That belongs in an additional article. East Coast Boy 01:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying that (for example) we should eliminate all history before the current autonomous region? Or just that the focus should be the current region, but the history can stay (which is what I think). -- Jmabel | Talk 04:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Drastic edits

East Coast Boy, I see that you removed large parts of the article in two edits with no edit summaries. Did you move these somewhere else? Given that this was done from an account with no previous activity, this was a pretty drastic way to start. I don't want to "bite the newbie" but could you please explain: did you move this material (which included quite a few solid citations) somewhere else, or did you just delete it? I have to assume the latter, since your account doesn't show any other edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did not that drastically edit the content. I removed the biased stuff and other items that were nationalistic and not a neutral opinion. If you feel that this was done in error, please make changes. A lot of the government content I placed in the history section, as it detailed current political responsibilities, as well as current disputes. I have now seen that a good chunk of this has now been added to a "Catalonian History" page, which makes a lot of sense. As it is my first time editting here, I apologize if the change was too drastic, and if you think that there need to be improvements, as there likely will need to be, please do!East Coast Boy 19:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't so much the edit as the lack of comment. Usually, when making an edit this large, you should at least give an edit summary explaining what you are up to, and often it's worth making a comment on the talk page, often including copying to the talk page the material that was removed from the article. When moving material to another article, it's particularly useful to indicate at the time of removal where you are moving it to. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre. I thought the consensus conculsion above was that this should be the article on the present-day autonomous region, and that the historic state should go elsewhere. But the exact opposite has happened (the bulk of the former article was cut-and-pasted to Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and the present title, which I would think almost any English-speaker (indeed, almost anyone) would reasonably expect to have lead to the present-day autonomous region is now a near stub about the long-defunct state. And none of the people who have took this apart seem to have thought through how any of this relates to the existing and quite excellent article History of Catalonia which, perhaps mercifully, was not touched in this process.

No one who worked on this gave a comprehensive description of what material was moved where. I am much to busy right now to sort through this. If someone can write such a description, it would be greatly appreciated. If not, I hope that one of the several other experienced editors who has, in the past, worked on this article has some time to look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Look at the how Ireland, Basque Country, Brittany etc. have been resolved. This is completely consistent with them. My friends from Perpinyà are just as Catalan as my friends from Barcelona. In the same way that Belfast is in Ireland, but not in the Republic of Ireland. However, I would agree that a disambiguation page should be added, particularly because there are already lots of links from other pages to Catalonia, some of which refer to the nation and some of which refer to the Autonomous Community. --62.57.149.30 16:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a non-sense the disctinction between Catalonia and its actual administrative status! When you look for France, you have to skip to French republic?.

I found political purposes in the supression of any reference of Catalonia as a nation. --Joan sense nick 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for previous edits without sign. I have removed the divisions of "historic territory of Catalonia" for blatantly false. In the middle ages, Catalonia was part of a kind of multi-kingdom state, named "Corona de Aragón" (Aragón Crown). Its king was king of Aragón, Valencia, Baleares (Balearic islands) and count of Barcelona (something as king of Catalonia). "Historic Catalonia" (if you consider Barcelona County as Catalonia, which I agree)never was composed of Valencia, Balearic Islands and 'a fringe of Aragón'. That could be (partially) right IF you are talking about Catalonian-SPEAKING territories.Catón 18:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in a point: Catalonia was a part of the "Crown of Aragon", and "Historic Catalonia" never included the Kingdom of Valencia and the Balearic Islands (Kingdom of Majorca). But, unfortunatelly, this is NOT what you have cutted off:

The historic territory of Catalonia is nowadays divided into different administrative jurisdictions: In Spain, the Autonomous Community of Catalonia and a small part of the Autonomous Community of Aragon (the Franja de Ponent or western strip). In France, part of the Département of Pyrénées-Orientales (Catalunya Nord or Northern Catalonia). It is usual, nowadays, to use the name of Catalonia meaning the Autonomous Community of Catalonia.

This paragraph refers to the parts of Catalonia ceded to France in 1659 (Treaty of the Pyrenees), and to Aragon when a new territorial division of Spain was made, I think in 1812. There is not a word about Valencia nor the Islands. So I don't understand your objections.

Besides, you make some historic errors: The Kingdom of Aragon never included Valencia, the Islands nor Catalonia. It's not the same "Kingdom of Aragon" than "Crown of Aragon". This Crown, in certain periods, included other kingdoms, and the catalan counties.

By the way, you can see my suggestion in order of the use the name of the Crown of Aragon to designate this more accuratelly.

--Joan sense nick 23:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never said that kingdom of Aragon possessed Valencia. Please, read my post. I accept your view: 'Crown of Aragon' to refer to the political entity grouping Aragon, Catalonia and, eventually, Valencia, Balearic Islands and Italian territories. Catalano-Aragonese Kingdom would be OK, since it has some use among historians (though it can be objected by valencianos and balears). Catalonia should refer only to the domain of counts of Barcelona or the regions with this name after 1476.

I have changed the title 'Decline of Catalonia' instead of 'Catalonia after the Middle Ages'. I can not understand why 'decline of Catalonia' coincides with unification with Castille. It is a bit strange to talk about 'decline' and tell how Catalonia got industrialised. or how Catalonia got richer. With the same motivations you could talk about 'Decline of Castille' or 'Decline of Catalonia' when it unified.

Paisos Catalans

I insist: The term 'Paisos Catalans' is an insult to Valencianos and people from Balearic Islands. (I am not, by the record). I can not understand why it stands. Please, try a Google search. You will only find it in nationalists pages.

About the map 8th century

The map about Spain in 8th century is just wrong. Firstly, it talks about '8th century'. If before 711, it should have included whole pensinsule under visighotic kingdom, but assuming it presents Islamic power I understand that it shows Hispania (current Spain&Portugal) and S current France. If so, why does it include Asturica, Galicia and Cantabria (sorry, which kingdom is this?)as 'Territoris sota obediencia del Califato Omeia de Damasc'? They were independent territories (en passant, they are represented far larger than they were) or, at least, as independent or as goth as the 'Regne Got D'Ardó'. When Pirenaic kingdoms were set, they owned only the mountains (Aragò, Ribagorza...) and only after francs' intervention they enlarged. The extension showed by the map it was only reached several centuries later.

More: The 'valiat d'Hispania': Why does it include Tarraconensis, Baetica and so on? They were roman provinces, not Islamic ones.

More: The 'bascons lliures'. Well, let us admit there were independent basques tribes both sides the Pirineos. Were they more lliures than catalans?

Summary: What nationalist page are this map taken from?Catón 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the map after waiting comments. There are many maps on kingdoms in Middles Ages Spain. If someone has one without copyright problems, post it. Catón 15:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, nowadays, Països Catalans is a controversial name, but it is not an insult to ALL Valencians and people of Balearic Islands. In fact, it is even supproted by some, and historically, the union of all catalan-speaking countries was promoted by a Valencian in his famous book Nosaltres els valencians (Joan Fuster). It wasn't until after the restutituion of democracy that Països Catalans became a more "nationalistic" (in reference to Catalonia) term in opossition to "Valencian nationalism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.Alonso (talk • contribs) 14 Jan 2006.

Two articles

The distinction between Catalonia (nation) an Autonomous Community of Catalonia (spanish decentralized administration of part of the catalan territory) can solve the problem, but only if contents of each one are accurately defined.

Most of cultural and historical contents must be included in "Catalonia". "Aut. Community of Cat." should include only the contents that concern strictly the territory of this Autonomous Community (the educational system, in exemple). This is the general sense of the contents in articles about Ireland or Britanny, quoted above.

Note that it's also possible to differentiate between "Spain" and "Kingdom of Spain". So the Autonomous Community of Catalonia is a part of de current Kingdom of Spain.

If Catalonia is a part of Spain or not (I think not) is an issue in discussion. The neutral point of view policy in wikipedia is preserved using always a double reference of the articles: Catalonia can be included in "European countries" and also in "Subdivisions of Spain". Its a good formula for nations with not recognized state, and information is not cutted off but increased. --Joan sense nick 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Joan, the Autonomous Community of Catalonia IS in Spain. This is a fact we cannot deny (I don't like it any more than you do, but the Encyclopedia is for facts, not for points of view). But the historic territory is now split between France and Spain.

For those who understand Catalan, I've just looked at the Catalan articles, and they have done the same as us. If you understand Catalan, look at the pages and it will probably give you some ideas on how to improve the two English pages.

I think disambiguation is definitely needed because of the fact that the word "Catalonia" can refer to either the Autonomus Community or the nation. It is not uncommon in France for "Catalogne" to refer to the Pyrénées Orientales department, though generally they would say the "pays catalan". --62.57.149.30 10:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's very tricky. There is no question that the Autonomous Community of Catalonia is in the Kingdom of Spain. But if people are going to insist that this article covers historical Catalonia as a stateless nation, then it is wrong to say that Catalonia, in this sense, is "in Spain". The Pyrénées Orientales is, for the most part, historically Catalan, as is Andorra; arguably, at times in history, the Balearics and a goodly chunk of the Mediterranean (e.g. parts of Sardinia) were Catalan. I was wondering if anyone was interested in starting some sort of a WikiProject to sort out how we want to handle some of these issues. Right now, the related articles are a mess. For example, we now have historic Catalonia at Catalonia and the autonomous community of the same name at Autonomous Community of Catalonia; At the same time, Valencia is an article about the city of Valencia, and Autonomous Community of Valencia is a redirect to Land of Valencia, specifically historical and dealing only minimally with present-day matters; if the latter are covered in more detail, I don't know where. Cerdanya redirects to Cerdagne and deals with the historic county; contemporary matters are covered in Baixa Cerdanya and (minimally) in French Cerdagne; Alta Cerdanya is a redirect to the latter. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Catalonia (the historical Principalty of Catalonia) includes the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and part of the french Département of Pyrenees Or., part of spanish Aut. Community of Aragon and the state of Andorra.

Catalonia article sholuld include most issues about history, culture and geography.

Autonomous Community of Catalonia article should include issues on the territory administred by the Generalitat de Catalunya governement since 1977, and the spanish context issues.

Valencia and Balearic Islands should be described in a similar way. All them can be linked in a Catalan countries article, but lots of valencians will reject being called as catalans. I think it is an excellent idea the Jmabel's template, and its name "Catalan-speaking world". I suggest to use it from now on.

--Joan sense nick 13:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I ask for general agreement before making changes related above from Autonomous Community of Catalonia to Catalonia.

--Joan sense nick 22:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with both of you. Also, note that, as a result of Talk:Cerdanya, I have moved the article from Cerdagne, which now redirects to Cerdanya. Tomer^talk 06:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Template

In any event, as material about Catalonia is becoming a bit scattered, I've started a template {{Catalan-speaking world}}. As of this writing, it's "not ready for prime time" but I'd love to have help in getting it there. We could then add this to the relevant articles to "stitch them together": much more useful than a disambiguation page, though probably we should have that, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added the draft template to this article; I'm going to be mostly on a break for about 5 days (starting in about 12 hours). This should give others a chance to see if they can improve the template. I suggest that it be left on only this one article for a week or so, as sort of a sandbox.

Some remarks: (1) if someone can work out a way to make this template a bit narrower without losing information or making it hideously long, please go for it. (2) Note the HTML gymnastics (on the imag immediately following the template) by which I got this in here in a way that shouldn't muck up the page layout. We'll probably need to do something like this each time we add the template to a page. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Edited by: Catón

(I have moved the following comment, which was inappropriately added at the top of the page approximately 28 Sept 2005 by User:Catón. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

In my humble opinion, the whole article should be removed.

The only vision is those of hardcore Catalan nationalists.The article is fully biased, politized and useless.

The very name 'Paisos Catalans' is considered for most non-nationalists as an insult and a show of imperialism.

Regarding the language: People from Valencia (including 'Estatuto valenciano') think valenciano is a separate language from Catalan. It is a matter of discussion but, agreed or not, it should be mentioned. Furthermore catalan /valenciano is not spoken at all in some parts of Valencia (while it is said it is spoken in a tiny part of Aragon, which is right, but, if not mentioned the aforementioned, biased).

Half the people in Catalonia speaks Spanish as its mother language. Every paper in Catalonia (including the most read, EL Periódico de Catalunya and La Vanguardia are Spanish-written. Those things is not mentioned. Why? Franco banned Catalan. Right. Nowadays Catalonian Government has almost banned Spanish in Catalonia. This is not mentioned. Why?

Regarding other topics:

When Catalonia enters into Spain the title is 'Decline of Catalonia' Why? Catalonia was a part of Aragón Crown (as the same level as Baleares, Aragón or Valencia) during all Middle Ages.

The modifications I entered were removed for no specific reasons, while the nationalist rubbish (sorry, but I can not find any other term to define the article) stands.

<end moved comments>

I'm almost hesitant to reply, because I disagree so completely.

• "In my humble opinion, the whole article should be removed." I just love it when someone starts out by overtly stating his humility, then follows—in the same sentence, no less—by demonstrating his arrogance. A great way to get the discussion off on the right foot.
• This article previously focused on the present-day autonomous community, but also included history. Someone apparently hostile to accepting that the present-day autonomous community has continuity to the historical region split off a separate article Autonomous Community of Catalonia. I happen to think that was wrongheaded, but inevitably it leaves this article focused more on the historical region.
• The use of the term Paisos Catalans is surely less of a "show of imperialism" than the successful inclusion of most of the Catalan-speaking world in the Spanish nation-state, and the rest of it in the French nation-state. This is akin to claiming that the Black Power movement in the United States was an effort to assert African American hegemony over white Americans. Last I checked, no one in Madrid or Paris has, at any point in history been forced to use Catalan as the language of public discourse.
• This is not the article on the Catalan language. Agreed (universally, I presume) that western Valencia is not part of the Catalan-speaking world. Agreed that people elsewhere in Valencia tend to say that they speak valenciano, not català, but that is an argument over what to call the language: I've never heard of a serious linguist claiming that valenciano and català are actually distinct languages. Clearly, they are mutually intelligible dialects. I'd venture to say that, as spoken today, they are considerably closer to one another than Andaluz is to the Castillian of Madrid.
• Let me see if I have this straight: La Vanguardia is in Spanish, but the "Catalonian Government has almost banned Spanish in Catalonia"? You are really trying to have this both ways. (By the way, Avui, also widely read, is in Catalan, and if I remember correctly Vanguardia runs a supplement, in Catalan, on Catalan literary and cultural matters.) In any case, it seems pretty clear to me that both Spanish and Catalan are rather freely used for almost all public purposes in Catalunya today. It is true that some specifically governmental functions are conducted exclusively in Catalan. I'm not sure this is the article in which to take up the degree to which each language is used today; it probably belongs in Wikipedia somewhere; it belongs here with sane and accurate research, not with efforts to throw blame around.
• Why "Decline of Catalonia"? Because until the unification of Spain, Catalonia was the heart of a Mediterranean empire. Unification of Spain was rapidly followed by the shift of commerce toward the Atlantic, and slowly followed by the subordination of Catalan institutions, language, and culture.

Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to give reasons, but I see we are talking to a nationalist. - Your first remark comments itself. - The term Paisos Catalans is a 'show of imperialism'. Ask anyone, outside the nationalist world.'The successful inclusion of most of the Catalan-speaking world in France and Spain' is a show of peaceful integration among lands. This is my personal opinion. AS that is my PERSONAL opinion I do not ask to be included in the article. Meanwhile, the hateful 'Paisos Catalans' stands. - The discussion about Valenciano and Catalan is the most interesting, but it is not EVEN mentioned, nor the fact that Paralamento Valenciano thinks otherwise. Any reader of YOUR article will think Valencia is a kind of appendix of Catalonia. - Avui is the most susidied paper in Spain, while La Vanguardia and El Periódico (as well as 'Madrid' papers, of course) are written in Spanish (except the subsidied supplements, of course). The point is 'Catalan is not, by far, the only language in Catalonia'. This is so false as saying (Franco)that Spanish is the only language in Spain. - Decline of Catalonia: When Aragon Crown united with Castille, it has just passed a horrible civil war. It was empoverished and it saw Peninsular trade as a good alternative to Turkish-blocked Mediterranean Sea. As a matter of fact, Zaragoza (Saragosse) was larger than Barcelona. Aragon Crown only had (from your 'Mediterranean empire') Sicily, owned by a branch of the Aragonese royal family. Eventually, Aragon (with Catalonia) recovered Naples and Sicily, under the command of 'El Gran Capitán'... a castillian with mostly castillian troops. Catalonia was (by far) smaller than Castille. Of course the trade shifted to Atlantic. America was discovered, you know. And Turkish blocked Mediterranean sea, in spite of the efforts of the ...Spanish (Aragonese&Castillian) fleet. At the end of the 'decline' Catalonia is the main power in Spain, economic and cultural (many SPANISH speaking publishers are sited in Barcelona, when, you know, nobody can speak proper Spanish). I want to decline!

As a summary, this article has one view, YOURS. Check ANY other encyclopedia and tell me if they look similar.Catón 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a nationalist, not even a Catalan or Spanish person. But I have some remarks: El Periodico publishes a version in Catalan. Publishers in Barcelona, usually, publish books in Spanish and Catalan. Catalonia can be said to be a bilingual territory. But, from my experience visiting Barcelona, it is easier to find Catalan-speaking people trying to comunicate in Spanish than the other way around. Spanish-speaking people are usually very hostile towards Catalan, which is a pity (Spain would gain enormously if it accepted in good will all languages and cultures inside its territory). And Catalans speak proper Spanish (and also Catalan). Best regards, Marco Neves 16:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Marco, my point is very simple: Catalan and Spanish live together in catalonia. Any attempt to say that only Catalan is spoken (as the article tells) is wrong. As you say, Catalonia is bilingual.

But you have not explained why you have returned to the previous version, when: - There was a silly map. Please, try a Google search on 'Regne got d'Arcó' or look for ANY 8th century Iberian Peninsula map. - I simply pointed out (quite softly, I must say) that Paisos Catalans is only used in nationalist circles. Which are your arguments for reverting such changes?

...and you are right. El Periódico has a Catalan edition ...since 1997! La pela es la pela (money is money). --Catón 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW, I find it pretty amusing that as an Ashkenazi Jew, originally from New York, living in Seattle, that I am deemed a Catalan nationalist. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to edit a version that, I hope, can be universally accepted.

Some comments to Catón:

• I agree with you on the point of decline.
• The language used for part of the population of Valencia is called valencià (none of this speakers should say valenciano), and it refers the way that catalan language is spoken there. A good example: the official catalan/valentian translation of the new European Constitution is wroten only in valencià. This is a real fact, not a particular opinion.
• I don't know enought history to give an opinion on the historical map you have deleted. But, if it is untrue, you should insert the correct one before removal, and cite your sources.
• The sentence Catalonian (sic) Government has almost banned Spanish in Catalonia is unacceptable, and betrays a manipulation will.

--Joan sense nick 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the name of the language in 'valenciano' (Spanish) is 'valencià' (Valencian). The point is I did not know how to say 'Valenciano' in English. I should have said 'Valencian'.

I am not a linguist. I only to make clear:

1) Many valencians think they speak a separate language of Catalan. 2) In Valencian 'Estatuto', the language they talk is referred as 'Valencian', not Catalan."The two official languages of the Autonomous Community are the Valencian and the Castilian. Everyone has the right to know and use them.".

I have no personal 'love' for the term 'Valencian' but the opinion of Valencians should be mentioned.

About the map. The point is that the map is pointless. It has no link to anything I know from Middle Ages History. I do not know the motivation of the author but I have said several things nobody has answered about the map.

• The sentence Catalonian (sic) Government has almost banned Spanish in Catalonia is my personal opinion. As such, I have not included it in the article. But try to find an official poster in Spanish in Catalonia or try to educate your children in Spanish in Catalonia. Please, do not adopt the view 'Paisos Catalans' is ok, but 'it is not acceptable' to say that Spanish is discriminated in Catalonia (it is).

By the way, you are right. The right term is, of course, 'Catalan' and not my 'Catalonian'.--Catón 12:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Franja de Ponent

Please clarify the sentence: "and the small Franja de Ponent or Western Strip, part of the Spanish region (now Autonomous Community) of Aragon since 1812." I don't know much about the rest of the Franja, but Peter IV of Aragon (1319 - 1387) confirmed Fraga as belonging to Aragon. And as far as I know it stayed like that. Thanks, --84.56.158.168 21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, the correct date is 1822, I should have consulted before... You can find information on the history of fraga here: [1], [2] and [3]. As you can see, the zone have changed of jurisiction several times, as is usual in most frontier zones. The historical frontier between Aragon and Catalonia was usually the Cinca river, that divides the city, (in some periods, the city was also divided between this two territories!). I include the zone to the "Catalan-speaking world" in a cultural and linguistic sense. --Joan sense nick 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is misleading: when you read it you get the impression that the strip was politically Catalan and changed hands in 1822. This is clearly not the case.

The place you name (it’s just one: GREC) is visibly POV. In the article of Fraga it doesn’t even say clearly that the city belongs to Aragon, just Although the part of the area lying on the right hand side of the Cinca river was considered to belong to Aragon since the partition carried out by James I the village continued to come under the jurisdiction of the Principality of Catalonia probably until the end of the 15th century at the end of the text. In a Catalan encyclopaedia this could be interpreted as the city just being Catalan. I could point many other instances where the text is clearly POV just telling half of the story, like not mentioning Fraga and Lleida belonging to the taifa of Saragossa, or the text of Peter IV of Aragon (1319 - 1387) who confirms Fraga as Aragonese, but I’ll leave it here.

Even the texts you recommend says continued to come under the jurisdiction of the Principality of Catalonia probably until the end of the 15th century (with probably not being really of much help). How can it be that it is part of the Spanish region (now Autonomous Community) of Aragon since 1812 when it stopped being Catalan (according to the text) in the 15th century?

Other parts of La Franja, as the Matarranya, plainly never had anything to do with Catalonia, apart from the language of course.

As your I include the zone to the "Catalan-speaking world" in a cultural and linguistic sense, I think there is the concept of Països Catalans for that kind of thing. Including La Fraja into Catalonia sounds quite POV to me and should be eliminated.

--84.56.152.169 09:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am not an expert in history. But I think we have not so oposed points of view: the references GREC) given confirms part of the historic facts you have exposed. The zone have suffered several jurisdiction changes and is disputed.

But, it's a fact (not an opinion) that in the zone between Cinca River and current Autonomous Community of Catalonia there are native catalan-speakers. One of them, the Mequinensa-born important catalan novel author Jesus Moncada. Another one, the President of the Autonomous Community of Aragon (a Catalan native speaker himself, I think). So "la Franja" belongs to a "Catalan-speaking world.

If you can read in Spanish, take a look at the (not POV suspicious) spanish wikipedia article: Franja [4]. The definition of limits is quite detailed there. --Joan sense nick 10:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, we are not so oposed in our points of view. And your are again right, the new text is not so POV.

We also agree that the area belongs to the "Catalan-speaking world", no doubt. But to me "Catalan-speaking world" is Països Catalans not Catalonia, or Algher or Valencia would also be Catalonia.

Another point we agree on is that the frontier changed quite a lot on those days. But again, to include all La Franja in a phrase like and a small part, the Franja de Ponent or Western Strip, lost to the Spanish region (now Autonomous Community) of Aragon in 1812 is misleading. Different parts of La Franja have different histories and belonged or not to Catalonia or the count of Barcelona at different times. And what territories actually changed hands in 1822 when even the texts you propose talk about the 15th century?

The only explanation I can find to include a sentence like that is to consider Catalonia as all territorries that ever belonged to the Count of Barcelona or Catalonia. Then, why not include the south of France? (and I'm not talking about Catalunya Nord).

To me this as ridiculous as including Lleida in Aragón: "and Lleida, lost to the Spanish region (now Autonomous Community) of Catalonia in 1808". Lleida sent a delegate to the Aragonese parliament in 1808...

So I still haven't heard a reason why La Franja (as a whole) is considered as Catalonia and why it was supposedly lost in 1822.

--84.56.196.225 19:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, which of two topics is this article about?

We have had people decide that this article should be only about the historic domain, and tear out everything about the present-day autonomous community. We have had people decide that this article should be only about the present-day autonomous community and tear out everything about the historic domain. Frankly, this is an enormous waste of everyone's time. Without favoring one ultimate solution over another, can we try to reach some kind of consensus before people go ripping apart the article again? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And on top of that, everyone seems to be doing this by cut-and-paste moves, which essentially destroy the ability to track the history of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would use it to History, common cultural traditions and current relationships within this territory. Most significant political events may be referred. However, I would stress demographics, local politics and other kind of statitics, details of separation (Northern-Southern Catalonia), etc. in each article. Toniher 06:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A vandal recently increased the confusion on this article: now we have "Catalonia", "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" and "Traditional catalan domain". What's next?

It's clear that the target of such editions are NOT to give a best information on Catalonia in the encyclopedia, but to use it with political intentions. Main of them, to cut off any reference to Catalonia as a nation. Others, to describe an independent free Catalonia that is not real nowadays.

In my opinion, most references in others articles on the wikipedia refers to "Catalonia", so this must be the main article on such issue.

The complexity of the definition of the geographic limits of Catalonia, and the confusion between Catalonia and the countries where Catalan is spoken (Catalan-speaking world is an excellent consensus word) are not easy to deal just in an article. I think "Catalonia" can be the main reference, on cultural issues (the most commonly quoted in other articles), and from "Catalonia", we can give a links to "Autonomous Community of Catalonia" and to the articles on the other historic countries that have been part of Catalonia in history.

"Autonomous Community of Catalonia" , in my opinion, can't be the main article, because:

- It doesn't cover territories where a relevant portion of population consider themselves as Catalans.

- It's only an administrative division (since just 1979) in the context of Spain, not a definition of the country.

Please, the inclusion of POV should be evited. Issues with complex diverse versions can use the formula "some catalan nationalists think ... " or, "this issue is currently in discussion" or so. But don't cut the work done, neither increase the number of redirections. This is an enciclopedia, to give true information. All information.

I ask administrators to move "Traditional catalan domain", and replace its contents to "Catalonia". --Joan sense nick 09:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Joan sense nick in one sense: The main article should be 'Catalonia' and this article should include the contents of the 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'. I do not know which is the Wikipedia's usual way but I would prefer 'California' better than 'State of California' or Badajoz instead of 'Province of Badajoz'

However, I do not quite understand these sentences:

- It doesn't cover territories where a relevant portion of population consider themselves as Catalans.

Which are exactly these territories? I do not know none. Of course, I consider 'relevant' more than 10%.

- It's only an administrative division (since just 1979)

'Kingdom of Spain' is a name not used during First and Second Republic and most of Franco's rule. I do not see as a motivation to get rid of it.

I heartly encourage the use of remarks such as 'nationalists think...'. As a matter of fact the lack of these qualifications is what was spoiling the article.

Anyway, I think some of the last contributions well documented and should be maintained. Catón 11:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to revert to previous state but I will try to make both Catalonia and Autonommous Community of Catalonia less PVO biased (not only because national reasons) I can understand that especially many Spanish-centric contributors may consider (and I mean the whole kingdom, independently of political opinions) Catalonia only for the Spanish autonomy, but it's not true for instance for some French and Northern Catalonians, who can even regard Catalonia only for what is also Pays Catalan. I would personally put Catalonia as the historic territory (and this does not mean that there are not current links between North and South, which are indeed increasing) and I would point, as I have done in previous editions, disambiguations of Southern and Northern Catalonia in the header of the page. Another option would be to place a full disambiguation page and point to the different terms.

Please, opinions are welcomed. Let's discuss it here. Actions performed by IP or newly created users changing things without previous discussion are not a proper model. Toniher 11:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

'Catalunya Nord' (North Catalonia) is nationalist neospeak. The presence of Catalan language north of the Pyrinees is (sadly) very weak, let alone Catalan 'feelings'. I have never seen a large demonstration in N. Catalonia asking for 're-union' with Spanish Catalonia or for linguistic reasons.

So, I think Catalonia = A.C. of Catalonia. Of course, you can talk about French people speaking Catalan. When you speak about Catalonia History you should talk about Rousillon and Cerdanya (the same when talking about Spanish history) and when you talk about nationalist Catalan movements, you should talk about the scarce movements in France.

I know that they are people in Mexico that like to consider itself as Spanish instead of Mexicans, but that is no excuse to talk about American Spain and European Spain. Spain is the kingdom of Spain and you will only talk about other territories when talking about the language (Hispanic America, Equatorial Guinea, partly Philippines,...) or the History (Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Rousillon,...)--Catón 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right that Northern Catalonia is a recent term (in Catalan)read about here. This was mainly coined as a modern opposition to French dominion which, since Treaty of the Pyrenees has tried to remove any former connection between the different regions of Catalonia. The most recent strategy, as I suppose you know, is Septimania campaign promoted, which is a pre-Catalonian term.

You can not compare Northern and Southern Catalonia with Spain and Mexico, there is not an ocean between. And, what can be regardes as origin of Catalonia is indeed in Conflent, under French jurisdicition.

However, let's try to be constructive in order to minimise the vandals from one side or the other, I suggest this solution:

• Catalonia (current article, with redirections from Autonomous Community of Catalonia, Southern Catalonia, etc. ; disambiguation in the header -> Catalonia (Historic territory), and Northern Catalonia)
• Catalonia (Historic territory) - what is currently named as Catalan Traditional domain is a term that exists only in Wikipedia.

If no further discussiom, I would apply this change. Any comment? Toniher 14:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To me, as your most-useful link show, the term Catalunya Nord is a catalan nationalist invention. According your link is as new as 1970s.

I would prefer Rousillon (Rossellon in Catalan or Rosellón in Spanish) or Septimania (Latin from Visigothic times) or Rossellon & Cerdanya. As the link says these were the main counties seized by France in 17th century. Of course, the name means nothing to me. If anyone wants to say he wants France to return Rousillon to Catalonia or to Spain, he can use it properly. He is defining exactly what he wants to say.

But this is MY opinion. What I consider common ground is to remark in every mention of Catalunya Nord/North Catalonia its nationalist origin and use.

About organization: I would hold ONE article (Catalonia), with any other article talking about Catalonia history or political organization referring to this article. You can say in the header or (better to me) in a 'Catalan nationalism' chapter that the nationalists claim Rousillon, which they call Catalunya Nord and the Paisos Catalans and everything they claim.

Of course, in the 'History' chapter, you would explain that Catalonia lost Rousillon & Cerdanya in the 17th century and that 'la franja' of Aragon was peacefully swaying between Aragon and Catalonia.

Any article talking about 'Historic territories' would be so redundant (to me) as if we talk about Spanish or French or Ethiopean 'historic territories'. Any claim or description of past domains of a country/region/empire... can be described (offending none) in the History chapter of the claiming/claimed entities (Spain, France and Catalonia, in this case) and in the article referring the claimed territory.

Sorry for my possibly confusing explanation:--Catón 20:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Northern Catalonia is a recemt, as recent as Internet, term. It's basically a response to French domination of what was formerly simply another region of Catalonia. I think your assumption would be suitable if Catalonia was an equivalent 'Spain' that got its provincies, such as Mexico, independencised. That's not the case for Catalonia. As you know, first it was divided and what we currently name as Northern Catalonia became under French dominion. In less than a century and under a context of increasing dependence, the rest of Catalonia, lost its political sovereignity to what we currently know as Spain. So, Catalonia was split between two of the strongest countries in Europe. Southern part, which was the largest part of the split territory, (and considering Modern history) was domained by the less advanced country of the two (Spain vs France), has been regaining more sovereignity than the othe part.

Maybe in some years there will not be any Catalonia more than a regional or (simply historic) concept either in France or Spain, such as it is may be mostly nowadays Andalusia in Spanish context. Maybe France or Spain will not be as we can understand by now. I does not mind. We do not know what will be the future. Let's try to describe current situation. By now, despite you may think it is minoritay, it is significant enough to claim the differentiation which has been proposed. For this, I offer my propose as a consensus. Catalonia will refer mainly to Spanish autonomy entity, but historic entity, which is indeed further than a historic punctualization, will be noted. Browsers will be advised of the different options.

I do agree with you that the origin of the terms must be stressed. For instance, the term Spain, as we know now, has changed historically its meaning from the whole Iberian Peninsula to what is currently an European State. How does it change? The same must be done for Catalonia, Northern Catalonia, or whatever... Toniher

The order of the changes is the other way around. First, Catalonia (which was yet not independent, but a part of Aragonese Crown) melted with Castille (1469). Secondly, Catalonia-Aragon-Spain lost Rousillon (17th century). It was not firstly 'divided'. To name Rousillon 'North Catalonia' is as fair as to name it 'North Spain'.

If you do not like the comparison Spain-Mexico, take Spain-Gibraltar or Morocco-Ceuta or any other claimyou like. No Spanish nationalist is so stupid to call Gibraltar 'South Spain'. They simply call it 'Gibraltar' and they say 'I want Gibraltar to be returned'. Furthermore, I can not understand how North Catalonia is about only 5% of whole Catalonia. But my opinion is no use here.

As you have said the name 'Spain' has changed its meaning. Portugal & Spain were united in the Middle Ages and (after Modern Spain was born) in 1580-1640. What would Portuguese say if Portugal was named 'Western Spain'?

The point is 'North Catalonia' has no use in English world (unless they refer to the North OF Catalonia (Gerona/Girona province). Its use in Spanish and Catalan is limited only to political use. Again, any reference to N.C. must have the apostrophe 'nationalist use'. As you have said the origin of the term is to be mentioned is OK to me.

--Catón 10:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It will be difficult to concile both views, since we are analysing history :-), but let me expose:

What we currently understand as modern Spain can be considered to be born after War of Spanish succession, and maybe even more precisely after the First Spanish Constitution in Cortes de Cadis was created and restricted Spain to a defined territory similar to what is currently known as Kingdom of Spain. Portugal considered themselves as Spaniards during middle ages as most other countries in Iberian Peninsula. As I have said, Spain was mainly a geographic term. Felipe II, in 1580, not before, was the first king to take the title of King of the Spain o las "Españas" because Portugal was incorporated to the crown, and the whole Peninsula was under one crown. Finally Portugal revolted in 1640 and ceased to be part of the same dinasty, this coincided with the division of Catalonia. Dinasty or crowns must not be confounded with other things. As you know, the different Iberian (or Spanish in the old meaning) kingdoms were different entities with separate legislations, as we have examples in other cases in Europe. As time happened Portugal, refused more and more the former Spanish denomination as it was getting associated to the upcoming nation-state term.

Nowadays, North or Northern Catalonia is the usual meaning for concretely referring to Catalonia under current French jurisdiction. It's much more usual than using it for Girona. Just make an Internet search. Of course that many would prefer that this denomination did not even exist, but the fact that it is Catalonia cannot be ignored.

Now, I will change traditional Catalan domain which is a term born in Wikipedia for Catalonia (historic region). Catalonia and Autonommous Comunity would be still have to be decided how to be dealt. Toniher 11:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see, then a state is born when it gets its current limits and political organization. France was born in 1918 (or in 1960, after losing colonies), there was no England after 1700, Germany was born in 1945, Italy in 1945, etc. United States is, couriosly enough, much older than 'old Europe', 1776.;-)

If the first king is Philip II, Rossellò was lost for Catalonia and Spain alike one century after its coronation (1556).

About Google. Languedoc-Roussillon 4,7 million mentions, Roussillon 5,2 m, Rossellò 613 k against 2k "North Catalonia" and 159k "Catalunya Nord". In Britannica does not even appear. What do you call 'usual'?

By the way, the venerable Septimania gets higher than Catalonia Nord.

Do you know which is the only 'North Catalonia'-mentioning Internet page not based in Catalonia? Yes, Wikipedia.

Who is ignoring Catalonia? We are talking about an invented name for naming something which has a name in Catalan, French and Spanish since the Middle Ages.

--Catón 14:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Catón, when I have told you to make searches, my intention was to show you the difference between North/Northern Catalonia usage for French Catalonia compared to the North of Spanish Catalonia (Girona) you were suggesting. Current Northern Catalonia and Roussillon entries in Wikipedia need to be improved. Roussillon-Rosselló may refer to many things: the old county, the current comarca, etc. and they are not exactly the same as Northern Catalonia. In the future, I will try to improve this, and any help to improve the section from a Spanish-centric POV as yours will always be welcomed. Toniher 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

The main article should be 'Catalonia' and this article should include the contents of the 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'.Usually, when people speak about Catalalonia, it refers to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia and not of the historic territory.

I agree. These articles were rearranged way too hastily. The guideline we use is the most common usage in English. Even granting arguendo that you *can* use the name "Catalonia" to describe the països catalans, nobody actually does, especially not in English. If I said "I'm in Catalonia right now" and I were in Valencia, Palma, or Perpignan, people would think I was nuts. I don't think it's in any way defensible to assert that an average person attempting to use this encyclopedia would expect to find any referent for Catalonia other than the territory of the Generalitat. - Montréalais 21:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I included this point just for information. Països Catalans were not described as Catalonia. Only Southern+Northern Catalonia. It's true that there are some nationalist groups may normally or occasionally refer to Catalonia as a synonym of Catalan Countries [5]; but normally, even most of the independentist groups, avoid this denomination, and usually consider Catalan Countries!=Catalonia, and Catalonia just one piece of the Catalan Countries Toniher 22:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to any arrangement that can get some consensus, but here are two alternatives I would prefer

1. If we can agree that Catalonia in the English-speaking world today normally means the present-day autonomous region (I think it does) then Autonomous Community of Catalonia should redirect to Catalonia rather than vice versa.
2. If not, then Catalonia should become a disambiguation page, not a redirect.

Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll leave the various other determinations to those more knowledgeable than I. But I do hope that we can, in fact, agree to your point 1: "Catalonia" in present English means the territory of the Generalitat, and Autonomous Community of Catalonia should redirect to Catalonia. There's no reason we can't have a disamb line at the top redirecting to other historical notions of Catalonia, just as we do now. But the territory of the Generalitat should stay here at Catalonia. - Montréalais

Wishing to help finding consensus, I agree with Jmabel. The real goal now must be to have one only article, and the best name is "Catalonia". Others must redirect there. --Joan sense nick 21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove those sections which are already in Catalonia (historic territory). Toniher 12:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just two remarks on "Northern Catalonia" (facts, not opinions):

• Entering Perpinyà by higway you can see some city council big pub posters with the inscription, in French (not in catalan): Perpignan, la catalane, and a catalan flag. Everybody thinks it's normal to be catalan and french.
• Roussillon is just a part of this territory, is not the name of the whole one. This territory have not a name, because it's not a real entity, but a part of an entity.--Joan sense nick 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just other remarks (facts, not opinions):

- Of course it is possible to be Catalan and French, so Catalan and Spanish. I am Spanish and European, Hispanic and European, European and mediterranean, Iberic and Latin. They use 'Perpignan/Perpinyà la Catalan' the same way in Olivenza are proud of its Portuguese origin... with none wanting to return to Portugal.

Check in the page www.mairie-perpignan.fr who has won the elections in Perpignan (French parties, with no presence of Catalan parties).

- I agree with you: North Catalonia it's not 'a real entity'. Check again if the 'Mairie' of Perpignan uses it (or anyone in any 'normal' encyclopaedia, or anyone who is not directly linked with RADICAL Catalan nationalists. Check if even CiU or Generalitat use it.

Again: You are inventing a politically-charged name and assume everything use it. I strongly disagree. The territories Catalonia lost in 17th century are named in every history book Rossellò or Rossellò i Cerdanya (Catalan). Yo can claim it, you can think it is Catalan territory, you can think it is as Catalan soil as Paseo de Gracia. And maybe you are right and Almighty God agree with you, but this does not change its name. France has longed (successfully) for Alsace and Lorraine for 47 years, but none has named them 'France Est'. They were 'l'Alsace et la Lorraine'.

By the way, I want Rossellò back. The greater Catalonia, the greater Spain.

--Catón 10:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Language war in infobox title

There is an edition war in infobox title. There seems to be some guidelines about writing down only the official name. I do not know how it would apply in this case, and I do not have a strong opinion about. However, I have added the Occitan name, since it's official as well in Val d'Aran. Finally, I would suggest all these anonymous people to go to Spain entry and add all the official languages apart from the Spanish Reino de España. Come on! I would like you to be as insistent as you have been here. Toniher 13:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Subliminal propaganda

I don't know about an editing war: what there does appear to be is a persistent attempt (seemingly by the same small group of "editors") to introduce Catalan nationalist propaganda into what is supposed to be a neutral information page in an encyclopaedia. This is an inappropriate forum to ventilate such sentiments, and it would be a pity if this page were to end up "locked" as a result of the "unionist" versus "nationalist" vituperation which has already disgraced the companion page in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia.

For native English-speakers (such as myself), and doubtless for all non-Iberian users of the English-language Wikipedia, it is a matter of utter indifference whether Catalonia remains in Spain or becomes an independent "nation". However, as a neutral information resource, the article should reflect the status quo, not nationalist wishful-thinking. For better or worse, Catalonia presently remains a region within a country. Accordingly, common sense dictates that the autonomous community's "official name" in Spanish, the "official language" throughout the "country", should take precedence over the "official name" in the language spoken only in the "region". By way of comparison, this is what happens in Wales or Scotland, which also have their own parliaments - and even their own football teams!

Your call for a tit-for-tat editing of the entry for "Spain" betrays your ill-concealed nationalist agenda, as does your hollow (and bogus) recourse to a supposed "policy" on official names. However, what gives you away is your wish to relegate the community's official name in Spanish to a position below even that of the supposedly "official" name in Aranese - an Occitan mountain-dialect spoken by around 5,000 people. Since even the Generalitat's website does not feel the need to publish an Aranese version, it is difficult to see this as anything other than a gratuitous (and childish) excuse to denigrate the Spanish language.

This sort of Balkanistic, point-scoring propaganda has no place here. Please take it somewhere else.

An Englishman (17 October 2005)

As yourself, all people who are editing these entries are mostly anonymous users. I DO think that these matters should be discussed, an it is often not such a big deal. Apart from the national issue, it's a shame the current situation of this article and there are many points that could be improved. I reaffirm that things should be contextualized the more the better, but if you want a concrete view, you will lose the knowledge of the issue of the article and you will only have what you want to get. For this reason, especially for hot topics such as we are dealing now, we have a talk page. Pro-Spanish, pro-Catalan, or whoever may use this page, we should improve the quality of this article. We all, you as well, may have some bias about certain topics, and it's our responsibility to lay them down for being the more explainable the better.

I must apologise for what you say it was a tit-for-tat. My intention was to finish it up and I should have been more cautious with my comments, but before any policy can be established about which is the best option, I tried this solution, which I thought it was a compromise for current state of affairs. I should have discussed here before, it was my fault. We can talk about which is the best option then or even the placement of the languages in the title or the body of the text, if you want.

I do not despise Spanish, it is my mother tongue indeed and I suppose I use it more often than you do if you are an Englishman.

Generalitat has several pages in Aranese (not as many as Catalan, English or Spanish), please search Aranes in its webpage.

Best regards Toniher 22:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous "Englishman": There is a clash of nationalisms -- Spanish and Catalan -- and while our wordings can attempt to be neutral, any wording that does not account for both inherently takes sides. To stick to Spanish is no more "neutral" than to stick to Catalan.

Catalan nationalism is not necessarily separatism: many people who consider themselves Catalan rather than Spanish are quite content with the current cultural autonomy and partial political autonomy.

Catalonia and Spain are distinct nations; however, Catalonia is, and has been for centuries, within the Spanish State state, as are the even more distinct Basques. (Yes, in both cases some are also in France, but that is not relevant to what we are talking about here, in both cases the respective heartlands and the bulk of the population are in Spain.) A confusion is possible here because the Kingdom of Spain has the same name as one of its constituent national populations: many Scots who are happy to be called British or part of the United Kingdom would not accept being called English; in this case there is no word available to make an easy distinction (since, conversely, many Spaniards-in-the-narrow-sense are not Castillians). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The concept of different nations is a personal opinion of yours. There are lots of Spaniards who don't concur. There are also those who do, of course. --Error 23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course, one can reject the concept of "nations" outright, and it might be healthy to do so, but if the concept of "stateless nation" has a meaning at all -- and Wikipedia unhesitatingly applies it to, for example, the Scots -- then I can't see an argument against applying it to the Catalans or the Basques. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In terms of language, the comparison to Scotland or Wales is inappropriate: the street language of Glasgow or Cardiff is English, albeit something of a dialect. The street language of much, perhaps most, of Catalonia is Catalan, and the degree to which it is not is largely due to recent migration. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: languages in infobox and order

ca - es - oc: Comment which of them and in what order. Toniher 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm no Catalan (nor Spanish, for that matter) and I try to be unbiased. Since in Catalonia toponomy is official only in Catalan (unlike Basque Country and Galicia), I think Catalan should be in first place, then Spanish and then Aranese. It's my opinion. We should not compare with Wales or Scotland, where particular languages are much less used than Catalan in Catalonia and where English toponomy is used more often. Marco Neves 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Basically concur. For referring to the whole of Catalonia ca-es-Aranese (I don't believe Aranese is, properly speaking, Occitan, it is Gascon); when dealing with the Vall d'Aran, Aranese-ca-es or Aranese-es-ca (no real preference between the two); for places in Catalonia that do not include the Vall d'Aran, just ca-es: virtually no English-speaker cares if there is a distinct Aranese name for Sitges. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I agree.

On the other hand, just as annotation, I think there are very few Aranese different names for Catalonian geography sites (except for Val d'Aran), so this would be commented in very few instances in English Wikipedia. Catalan endonyms are usually taken as they are in Aranese by default. As exception, we may have toponyms that are relevant to Aranese community such as Lleida->Lhèida, since Val d'Aran is administratively part of the Spanish province with the same name. It may also happen because of the different way of representing the same sound: ll->lh. Toniher 11:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to be more precise, I'd include Aranese first for geography within the Vall d'Aran, last for larger units that include the Vall d'Aran, and not at all for units that exclude the Vall d'Aran. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)