Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 3

message: Hello everyone, there is a current need to help disambiguate the term Valencia.  At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, Valencia is one of the disambiguation pages with the most links, and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages.  So if possible, please take a look at the  links, and disambiguate to a more correct location.  Thanks, -- Jeff3000 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate Help 

message: Maurice argues he revised facts in the article because of:
# In english word for "Castilian" has not the same meaning than in Spain and it always redirects to "Spanish language", then I edited to "Spanish".
#: I'm sorry, but it's not true. "Castillian Spanish", briefly "Castilian" often refers to the Spanish spoken in Spain. In spite of it, "Valencian" isn't neither a traditional English name but it's often called Catalan. Both are recently used as literal translation because of legal reasons of Autonomous Charts. In Spanish language case is the same case, this language isn't being referred as is, but "Castilian". A NPOV would be one of both two ways: refer those languages in English traditional names, it's Spanish and Catalan, or translate the names according legal reasons, it means it's Castillian and Valencian. I prefer both solution, is most informed and doesn't gives any doubt abut what it's telling about. 
# Valencian language has official status in Spain and even its own Academy (the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua), then I edited to Valencian all the "Catalan" synonims.
#: I'm sorry, but it's not true. AVL academy stated officialy that Valencian is the same language used in Catalonia and called Catalan. The use of a different name because of traditional and historical reasont doesn't imply the status of different language. See Valencian for further info.
# In the History section, Catalan colonization is mentioned. Being James I an aragonese king, a french (Montpellier) -born from an aragonese king and a french princess, why is there always the need to described his troops as catalan? That is not only unaccurate, but simply and completely FALSE. Troops from Aragon, Catalonia, Roussillon, Valencia, Balears or Sardinia from the XI to XVIII centuries (XVII for Rousillon) HAVE TO BE described as ARAGONESE. For this reason I erased "Catalan colonisation".
#: I'm sorry, but it's not true. The colonisation is about christian people over muslim people, and among the christian people the main nations are came from Catalonia and Aragon, in this order. The charts or "population" in Middle Ages, such "El Llibre de Repartiment d'Oriola" states it. As a proof that Catalan Chrsitians colons were majority is that the 85% of the territory was Catalan-speaking area in XVI century (according to language used in postal correspondence between Valencian churches during this century).
# I have also edited some other unaccurate or even false history facts (i.e. Phillip V of Spain, Senyera...)
#: I'm sorry, but here you aren't giving any reason.
# And Last, but not Least, I have erased the "The Catalan-speaking territories".
#: I'm sorry, but it isn't unreasonable. This is a template of the territories where Catalan is spoken, not about Catalonian territories. I'm not consider as Catalonian, but a Valencian Catalan-speaker.
# To finish, I would like to kindly ask all the contributors which feel the "urgent need" to fool and fill the Wikipedia world with Pan-Catalanism, Catalan Countries wannabe, Catalan nationalism and just plain false pseudo-Catalan History to restraint themselves from doing it. Not all the surrounding lands to Catalonia feel the need to become part of it, and the english Wikipedia will not become a highway to "export" their history "a la carte". Giving for right the fact that we should not generalize, I often wonders if these people suffer from the well-known "Catalan Small Penis Syndrome"  (Are we allowed to say "penis"?)
#: This is a futile argument largely used by Anti-Catalanism ideologies. And the latest sentence shows a lack of respectful. It shows that he doesn't accept to discuss several POV to achieve a NPOV.
--Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biaised POV by Maurice27 

message: :This is what Mr. Joanot is claiming. He is in his right, but, where are the explanations in this talk page to do it? This user is not using the right channels that wikipedia demands. This is a proof that how he considers his opinion OVER the others. Just by taking a look at his userpage talk page, or even this own Valencia talk page, you may see that the naming discussion has been around for a long time. Contributors decided to use both valencian and spanish namings because that's what the LAW says. I'm not the only one, many others confirmed it. There is even links in the article to the government of Valencia to prove it. People who understand Spanish can go to the spanish valencian discussion page and see that the name appearing is none other that "valencian language", not "Catalan". In fact the spanish article had to be protected because of his continuous edits and reverts against the Will of the Majority. 
:I would like him to explain why the use of spanish and valencian namings are to be disputed. One being the name in english for the language spoken in Spain and the other one being the name given by the government of Valencia to his OWN language. When is Joanot going to understand that "castellano/Castilian" is a word people in Australia or Pennsylvania DO NOT KNOW! Who is Joanot to revert those FACTS. I consider this vandalizing Wikipedia.
:I would like him to explain why to erase the spanish naming "Comunidad Valenciana" from the infobox claiming that only official datas should be included, while ALL THE OTHERS autonomous communities in Spain with two official languages (see Basque Country (autonomous community), Catalonia, Balearic islands and Galicia) DO KEEP the spanish naming in the infobox. I consider this vandalizing Wikipedia.
:I would like him to explain why a template about Spain is not suitable to a spanish territory article (erasing it), while the Catalan-World one is. This morning, when I woke up, any newspaper said that Valencia had become a catalonian province. I consider this vandalizing Wikipedia.
:I would like him to explain why this sentence in the history section is to be changed: 
:"James I "the Conqueror" led Aragonese colonization of the Islamic taifas of Valencia and Dénia with Catalan speaking people. So the Kingdom of Valencia has been an independent country under the sovereignity of the Crown of Aragon."  
:For this one:
:"The King of Aragon James I "the Conqueror" started Christian colonization of the Islamic taifas of Valencia and Dénia with Catalonian and Aragonese people in 1208. In 1238 the Kingdom of Valencia has been founded by the same king as an independent country under the sovereignity of the Crown of Aragon. "
:This last version by Joanot is clearly using a bad use of english grammar, repeting the same thing (mentioning James I again, "the same king"). The catalan language of the colons is already explained in the first one. Then why change a correct paragraph just to say the same thing in an incorrect way. I consider this a bad use of english wikipedia.
:And finally I would like him to explain why did he include the dispute template without even taking the time to explain his reasons in this talk page. Proving with links, argumenting his beliefs to convince the other contributors that the changes made are to improve the article. This is something Joanot has not done much, and when done, it was giving unaccurate facts and lacking of any consideration against the established order or laws. Again, none of this has been done, while all the changes made by me are proven. People may not like many things they read, but that's because of the influence of personal beliefs on logic. I consider this a bad use of Wikipedia.
:I hope that now, with the dispute template, Admins. will kindly explain to this contributor how to use Wikipedia in a correct way.
Regards,
Maurice27 12:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please, and block such a unpolite user as Maurice27, who doesn't respect non-native English speakers, insults others' ideologies and shows repeatingly his lacking of knowledge about History and Linguistics, at least regarding Valencian History and Valencian dialect of the Catalan language. I'm surprised that somebody who claims to speak French, Spanish and a bit of Occitan might give any credit to non-scientifical theories about Valencian and Catalan being two different languages, so I guess he is just a GOOD Frenchie-Spaniard, that is, a high-handed guy who despise minorized languages and people who try to revitalize them. According to French laws there is no other language spoken in the Hexagon than French, but we all there are many more: Catalan, Basque, Breton, or Corse, for example. So, Maurice27, don't use laws to annoy us. We do know laws are written by the winners of past wars, that is, Frenchies and Spaniards. You are just carrying to the Wikipedia your French-Spanish nationalisms which, as History has proven, mean obliteration or genocide. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 13:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A patriot is a man who loves his country, whereas a nationalist is a man who hates everybody else's country" - Samuel Johnson (or possibly Oscar Wilde)-  Maurice27 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed 

message: Hey guys, shouldn't we start translating the Kingdom of Valencia article once for all? I see there is such an article in ca.wiki, es.wiki and fr.wiki which makes it a shame to be redirected to Crown of Aragón when we click on Kingdom of Valencia here. I think this info has more than enough notoriorety to be translated now. Mountolive | Talk 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Physchim62 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: GO FLIGHT! Maurice27 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Valencia 

message: Sadly, Joanot has done it again: he has again edited the lead with those unofficial names of obscure translation and usage in English. I am not sure anymore whether he is a troll or what.
I am considering now whether you make a quick search for sources of "Levante" and "Kingdom of Valencia" and add it as well, or simply revert, or RfC...I don't know, but this is definitely not working with such an user who is even able to revert to older versions including typos or wrong information only to get his mono-edit done. 
Because, despite several calls to be cooperative here, to enlarge content, offers to reach consensus (like placing those names in a separate section out of the lead, which is, by all accounts, the best solution), he keeps coming back with the same edit, again and again. When that is done, he leaves because, apparently he couldn't care less about the rest of the article as long as "Valencia, Land of Valencia, Valencian Country" (and soon Levante and Kingdom of Valencia) are included in the lead. Mountolive | Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External sources are given (WP:SOURCE) supporting my added information, two of them directly from Valencian Government. If you have another some external source that contradicts the name usage in English referring to the Land of Valencia we can continue to discuss about thruthfullness. Meanwhile, if it isn't being given, it would be your own humble and respectable opinion, but not a NPOV. To achieve a NPOV, it should contrast several external sources. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I preffer to find concensuous, but Joanot has sources from Valencian Government. Which better sources can exist?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe because his sources come from direct translation from different namings along history. For english speaking people, only ONE should be used in the lead. Why not call it also "la huerta de España"? If any wants to prove that english people call this land other way than a simple and plain "Valencia"... He is free to try it... But he won't get much results. Joanot proposals are correct, as they really are used... By Valencian people, not foreigners. Then, they should not be in the lead. Maurice27 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument shows that we shouldn't call Valencian to the language in any part of the article, because English people calls it Catalan, not Valencian.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He has done it again 

message: OK, here's the deal. Country and Land do not literally translate as "pais". There is some overlap but in this case the terms are not equivalent.
A country is a recognised independent socio-cultural historical nation, usually with a sovereign nation state. It could be argued that Catalunya is a country, it could also be argued that the Catalan-speaking areas SHOULD be a country. However, it is impossible to argue that Valencia is a country, as its history is so linked with the Castillian crown and the Catalan language. The phrase "Catalan countries" is similarly nonsensical in English, you could call it the "Catalan country" but it is impossible that the constituent parts are all countries, e.g The Republic of Valencia, The Kingdom of Catalunya, The Islamic Republic of Cabrera. The expressions listed at the start of the article are just bad translations from Spanish and Catalan
Land is an archaism for country. And the Basque Country is an exception.
01/03/07
Hi again, please can somebody provide an English language source for "Land of Valencia" or "valencian country" not originating from Spain, the terms both sound barbaric in English and are not used by native speakers. "Valencian country" sounds like it is the region famous for valencian things "Bronte country", "Wordsworth country", "good hunting country", not an administrative region. "Land of Valencia" is like "Land of Nod", "Land of Nevermore" or "Land of the Midnight Sun". Its awful, and sounds anachronistic, we would never talk of the "Land of France". Anyway, have ammended the text to show that these terms are not used by native speakers, given the refs are Spanish. Please give reasons if changed. Boynamedsue
: The term "Valencian Country" has a large literature used in English (and not originated from Spain). You can find easilly bibliographic references via google. In the other hand, "Land of Valencia" is used in oficial instances from Valencian Government. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See what happens when trying to include all those names in the first paragraph? Now it is not only Mountolive and me. We are now 5 people asking to keep only the official name in the lead paragraph, which is "Valencia (autonomous community). Please downgrade all your historic naming to the History section. Maurice27 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  alteration of 1st paragraf, land of valencia and valencian country 

message: I know that in Spanish culture the concept of "llengua propia" is current, but in English "the language proper to a territory" has no meaning. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic rights is an excellent document, but it was written in Barcelona, and therefore is overly influenced by the terminology of linguistic debate in Barcelona. It seems to mean "the language people should speak", and is, as such pov.
Noinamedsue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.129.134.21 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your interpretation. I see it as the language that was developed there in contrast with the language that was imported.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was also imported during the "conquista" (without "re"), and also Vulgar Latin was imported in Hispalis, and... but as I wanted to mean, in Valencia there was during some centuries a great development of the language with some of the best contributions to the language (Martorell, March, ...), and this didn't happen with Spanish.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it did!!! It also happened with spanish. After doing a fast search in Generation of '27 and Generation of '98... Just to name some valencians who did their writing in spanish... (and not small ones, being all of them from '98 and '27 generations)... Juan Chabás,Miguel Hernández, Carlos Arniches, Azorín, Vicente Blasco Ibáñez. Unfortunately, Some people are SO anxious to add catalan related facts to some articles, that they don't understand they are biasing if not mentioning everything. Why Martorell and March and not Azorín and Blasco Ibañez? IMHO all 4 being equally important... Maurice27 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the kind of contributions are slightly different. In one point the language is just born, there are almost no literature, they are creating the Catalan literature. The latter are contributing (not creating) to Spanish literature. But I can accept this is more subjective POV...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  llengua propia 

message: I preserved all your contributions except two "wich" that should be "which". Sorry. All the other part was made by an anonymous and we are discussing it here. Sorry for this 2 typos I reverted.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, also the ó in Aragon ;-) I saw you modified the word and I thought it was only the capitalization. :P--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis Maurice27 05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last rv