Talk:Catalonia/Archive 3

message: To understand the kind of lies that are about Catalonian history only must to compare with how Bush call a 'freedom operation' the Irak's invasion. 
And to USA wiki editors too: must be a lot difficult to understand cultural oppresion because u haven't never been conquered. Please, make an effort.
>You're being totally subjective. Take science, history and objective information far from those map courses Owdki 12:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA history distorsion

message: For the suspicious among you, by "co-official" I meant no more than "equally" official.  In other words, Spanish is no more or less official than Catalan, and Catalan is no more or less official than Spanish.  That is the indisputable legal position at the present time.  Equally indisputable is that Aranese has no co-official status in this sense, and indeed no official status outside the Vale of Aran itself.
The issue that that nobody has addressed is why in a factual article about what is presently a region of Spain, the "regional" language should take precedence over the "national" language.  This is simply a matter of accepting the present reality, however unpalatable many Catalans (or Catalanists) may find it.
To answer the more personal imputations, I have spent many happy summers in Catalonia over the years, as well as in other regions of Spain.  I am also well aware that Spanish nationalism, no less than Catalan nationalism, has its ugly, extreme and intolerant side.  I believe it was Samuel Johnson (or possibly Oscar Wilde) who said that a patriot is a man who loves his country, whereas a nationalist is a man who hates everybody else's country.  Speaking for myself, I find any form of nationalism which relies on the denigration of neighbouring peoples or cultures utterly repulsive.  That goes for Spanish nationalists who denigrate the historic "nationalities" of Spain, as well as for Catalan nationalists who scorn the very idea that a Spanish identity can co-exist with a Catalan one.  Dare I say that it also applies to that minority of Portuguese Spain-haters who are still stuck in the mindset of 1640.
I am well aware that some Catalans (in common with some Basques and Galicians) regard any form of identification with Spain or a common Spanish identity as some form of subjugation to a historic Castilian supremacism.  While these arguments are all doubtless quite fascinating, my simple point is that they have no place here and should not infect this article.
An Englishman
: It's a pleasure start talking more calmly. Well, let's center on the infobox. Please, just notice that even in Spanish wikipedia Catalan name is precedent! And it's the same in most of Wikipedia versions. We may speak if Aranese should be there if it is only official in a part of Catalonia. I do think it deserves being there, and being the third one is a sensible option. I change again ;) Toniher 16:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, the official form in any language is Vitoria-Gasteiz. In common life, Vitoria (or even Gasteiz) are used in Spanish and Gasteiz (very rarely Bitorixa) in Basque. --Error 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding the issue 

message: To say that Spanish Wikipedia gives precedence to the Catalan name is disingenuous in the extreme.  As I have commented before, the parallel page in Spanish Wikipedia has been blocked as the result of constant editing wars between Catalan "nationalists" and Spanish "unionists".  It seems some people wish to achieve the same result here; namely, to sacrifice the article's credibility by making it a propaganda sheet for Catalan-language supremacy.  Indulge in this somewhere else: God only knows there are plenty of other fora on the WWW.
A user of English Wikipedia should be left in no doubt, after consulting this article, that Catalonia is presently an autonomous region of Spain.  Since any rational person would expect the "national" name to take precedence over the "regional" one, this should be reflected in the article.  If or when Catalonia becomes an independent state with Catalan as the preferential language, I will be the first to advocate a change in the article to reflect the new status quo.  However, until such time, please spare us this puerile point-scoring.
I have said all that needs to be said about Aranese.  I see no reason why English Wikipedia should bestow on this mountain-dialect of Occitan/Gascon a status which even the Generalitat's website does not feel it necessary to accord.
That is true, Catalonia in spanish wikipedia is the perfect example of a spanish unionist article, biased and the worst, blocked. <--
--Completely agree with that point from an anonymous.GillesV 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Wikipedia is a precedent to avoid, not one to follow 

message: Perhaps I was merely unsuccessful in my search, but is there a page/section on Wikipedia dealing with Catalan emigrant communities (e.g. Puerto Rico or Cuba?) Thanks --Dpr 09:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking. There is a very dubious stub at Catalan people that could use a real contributor. Right now it makes the dubious claims that "Native speakers of Catalan have an overall majority among the most famous Spaniards" and claims Pablo Picasso as a Catalan (or, I guess, if you read closely enough, just as a native speaker of the Catalan language, which may be true, since I imagine he was dual native). Also, once someone turns that into a half-decent article, then Catalans should redirect there rather than here. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalan diaspora/emigration

message: I am glad we can agree on what most most people would consider "normal" and "rational", irrespective of the local position.  If by "toponym" you mean "place name" (I think it better to avoid unidiomatic latinisms in English), I have no problem with the existing text inasmuch as the Spanish names for "Lleida" and "Girona" should appear in brackets after the "official" names in Catalan which now take precedence at a national level throughout Spain.
However, political designations are not place-names, so our Portuguese friend's analogy is inapt.  Since the "national" Constitution still takes juridical precedence over any of the "regional" autonomy statutes, the political name of the region (the legitimacy of which derives exclusively from the Spanish Constitution) should continue to take precedence in the national language over the regional variant.  This is what any "rational" and informed user of English Wikipedia would expect, regardless of the convulsions which exercise nationalists and unionists in Spain (to the detriment of Spanish Wikipedia).
Finally, and for the final time (so far as I am concerned), I will reiterate that Aranese has no official status outside the Val d'Aran itself.  Accordingly, it is inappropriate to attempt to accord this dialect any co-official status with either Catalan or Spanish .  I notice that one of the more avid habitual Catalanist editors has yet again sought to disparage the official Spanish name for the autonomous community by placing it in a smaller-font italics alongside Aranese.  It is difficult to believe that such persistence is neutral and uninfected by point-scoring nationalist bias.
An Englishman (bored with parochial pettiness)
P.S. Can you please take the trouble to observe the convention of entering any reponses as separate entries (rather than merely "editing" mine).
===Toponym===
:Unless I'm very mistaken, a toponym is the adjectival form of a placename. While "toponym" is a bit Latinate, "adjectival form of placename" is really clumsy, and adjectival is just as Latinate as toponym. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subliminal nationalist agendas 

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

message: I did not say that "toponym" was not an English word, merely that it was an unidiomatic Latinism.  Strictly speaking, in English usage a "toponym" is a place name derived from a topographical feature (e.g. "Tras-os-Montes").  A desire for accuracy is thus another reason why "place name" is preferable (as well as being better understood by virtue of using words in common use).  By contrast, "parochial" is a word in everyday use, notwithstanding its Latin origins.  In fact, the word originates from the Greek word paroikia (meaning 'temporary stay').
As a general rule, the more idiomatic English word is the (usually shorter) one with a Germanic root rather than the (usually longer) Latinate equivalent; e.g. "start" and "end" are idiomatic: "commence" and "terminate" are not (even though they are undoubtedly English words).  While an understandable tendency among those whose mother tongue is a Romance language, the use of unidiomatic Latinate words in place of simpler and more idiomatic ones is apt to lessen rather than increase understanding.
As to the issue in hand, my position is simply to apply a criterion of common sense which would be universally understood by Wikipedia users with no axe to grind; namely, that the national takes precedence over the regional in this context.  Neither the Spanish Consititution nor the present Autonomy Statute accords Catalan any form of precedence over Castilian, which is no doubt why our Portuguese friend, unable to point to any juridical basis in favour of Catalan's 'official' precedence, is driven to invoke the wholly novel concept of "ceremonial" precedence.
I am well aware that within Catalonia (and its public institutions in particular), Catalan is routinely given precedence over Castilian.  However, since English-language Wikipedia is a global endeavour (rather than a publication by the Generalitat or some other Catalan institution), I see no reason why it should defer to local sensibilities which are neither universally shared nor accepted.
Finally, I do not recall making "ad hominem" (or personal) "attacks" on any particular contributor.  My "attacks", if they can sensibly be so described, relate exclusively to the partisan point-scoring which clearly underpins a lot of the editing on this page.  As far as I am concerned, it is neither here nor there that most of these edits appear to come from a handful of contributors whose chosen "identifiers" indicate names of Catalan origin.  In short, my concern is with the content of the article and the integrity of the project (rather than with the political or cultural predilections of any particular contributor).
An Englishman
: Hello Englishman. I have the impression we are having byzantine discussions here. I do not know what you understand by common sense, and it's better not to invoke it, because sometimes it might tend to be the less common of the senses. It does not matter the political, national or regional musings about, any person that lands Catalonia can easily check all what we are talking about. I could understand your position 30 or 40 years ago (during Francoist regime), but not know; I suppose you have visited Catalonia more recently, don't you? What I cannot understand is why Aranese presence is so offensive? I personally appreciate this kind of annotations, let's say in Switzerland, India, Scotland or any other places where there could be minoritary languages, even if they are not official (which is not the case for Aranese, which is currently official in Val d'Aran and might be in the whole territory in the future). Do you suggest that most English-speaking people do not want to know this kind of enriching things. I do not think so... Toniher 23:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any particular reason to say that "the national" ("Englishman" appears to use nation only in the sense of sovereign state) "takes precedence over the regional" (which in this case appears to refer to any culture that does not have full state sovereignty). Certainly that is not simply "common sense". It is a politically charged view. The fact that it is dominant in many countries—or at least in the politically dominant regions of those countries—does not make it apolitical. In your own country, I imagine that plenty of the Scottish and Welsh, and certainly of the Northern Irish Catholics, would disagree with you on this point. I live in the U.S. The most obvious semi-autonomous quasi-national entities here are the Native American nations, or tribes, depending on who you are talking to. We have increasingly moved over the last generation or two towards calling them by their own names (e.g. Lakota, Inuit, Aleut, none of which were words in common use 50 years ago) rather than by their historic English-language names (Sioux, Eskimo). I don't think this is contrary to common sense. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toponymical side-issue 

message: Dear Englishman,
I would consider "parochialism" and "subliminal nationalistic agenda" as ad hominem attacks (since I don't consider myself to be parochial or a nationalist and I don't like being called that), but, once again, it's your opinion and I respect that. (And sorry to have said "parochialism" was a Latinate word. I was wrong. I mean it.)
I agree Wikipedia is global. That's why I didn't agree with your argument regarding what Englishmen would expect. The fact that Wikipedia is global (and not just for English native speakers) is where Wikipedia's strength lies.
I did not invent cerimonial precedence. "Proper" is the word used by the Statute. If the word has any meaning at all, it is that: cerimonial. That was what I was saying. And, in reality, Catalan does have de facto precedence: despite Catalonia having two languages, officially speaking the form "Catalunya" is used much more often that "Cataluña". Paraphrasing you, the national does not take precedence over the regional in this context. (This is not saying I agree with that fact. It's just that: a fact.) So, the order Spanish-Catalan is not accurate, is quite misleading and reinforces previous misconceptions many international users of Wikipedia have.
Well, I guess such a large discussion on such a petty subject is kind of time-consuming and, therefore, I will try to abstain myself for any further participation. However, I would advise Englishman to let "common-sense" aside and to accept that appearences, globally speaking, can be deceiving. National language precedence in Catalonia is exactly what a foreigner would expect and is exactly what he would learn, by experience, to be not true. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the subject.
Warm regards (once again, I mean it),
Your Portuguese friend (has you've called me) :)
Marco Neves 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any particular reason to say that "the national" ("Englishman" appears to use nation only in the sense of sovereign state) "takes precedence over the regional" (which in this case appears to refer to any culture that does not have full state sovereignty). Certainly that is not simply "common sense". It is a politically charged view. The fact that it is dominant in many countries—or at least in the politically dominant regions of those countries—does not make it apolitical. In your own country, I imagine that plenty of the Scottish and Welsh, and certainly of the Northern Irish Catholics, would disagree with you on this point. I live in the U.S. The most obvious semi-autonomous quasi-national entities here are the Native American nations, or tribes, depending on who you are talking to. We have increasingly moved over the last generation or two towards calling them by their own names (e.g. Lakota, Inuit, Aleut, none of which were words in common use 50 years ago) rather than by their historic English-language names (Sioux, Eskimo). I don't think this is contrary to common sense. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cont. 

message: I think the "Current political issues" should be updated with the censorship law that was voted in Catalonia and came into effect on Januray 3, 2006. Obviously, nationalists will immediately erase such an addition but at least the English-speaking world should be aware of the fact that the first and only European Union region to establish political censorship of the media is Catalonia.
It might surprise many people, but the most dangerous parts of the proposed new Catalan statutes are not the ones in relation with the national identity of Catalonia, but the ones establishing a Communist-like control of society and economy by the Generalitat. All major  industries will be state-controlled and media (print, TV and electronic) will be subject to excruciating limitations. If the statutes are voted, Catlonia in 2010 will look more than Poland in the 1970's rather than a free-market, liberal country of the European Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  83.35.166.225 (talk • contribs) 9 Jan 2006.
: Can you point at an account of this that you would consider to be from a reliable source? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry on official censorship to be added? 

message: Okay, I know Repùblica Popular is "People's Republic" in English, but I wonder whether this should be "People's Party" in English.  I mean, it's a "populist" and hence centrist (perhaps center-right) party, while "people's party," suggests ... something different.  "Popular Party" doesn't make much sense in English, but perhaps that's a good thing in this case (as it at least does have the odd connotations of "People's Party."  "Populist Party" might be more on the mark, but it's really less a translation than an explanation.  I mean, the "Partido Radical" in Argentina is usually given as the "Radical Party," as odd as that is in English (particularly when it's more like the Grassroots Party, that's the "radix" they're getting at).  So I'm on .... Popular Party for the Partit Popular/Partido Popular.  It's literal, perhaps too literal, but no more literal than so many other glosses of organizational names. Blondlieut 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that I would lean toward Populist Party. Popular in Spanish can mean either "popular" or "populist" in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partit Popular

message: Similar to my edits on the main Spain page, IMO, this name should only have the official name of Catalunya, which is the Catalan spelling.  It is the SOLE official name of the region, although when writing in the Castilian language, you would write "Cataluña," just as you would in any language conforming the proper noun to your language.  However, this is not such an instance.
And to say that the only official language of Catalonia is Catalan is plainly false.  It is Catalan AND Spanish.  This is not a POV, this is established fact.
Eboracum 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the region 

message: Catalonia has a rather rich anarchist heritage, does it not? Ie. George Orwell wrote fondly of Catalonia in his book Homage to Catalonia for this very reason. Yet this article doesn't seem to mention the period where anarchism was dominant in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. In fact, this barely mentions the Spanish Civil War, in which I suspect the Fascists were deeply suspicious and paranoid of Catalonian culture and tradition. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 13:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't particularly a history article. I think that is decently covered at History of Catalonia; you might want to have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anarchist  history  

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Move" debate

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support - I agree with Joan sense nick, Catalonia is a nation, the article should have its name. Afonso Silva 00:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello!
According to the Statute of Catalonia, now Catalonia isn't divided on provinces, but in vegueries, a new territorial unit. The seven vegueries do not correspond to the old four provinces. This is a major change because none of the seven vegueries (Alt Pirineu [High Pyrinees], Girona, Ponent [Roughly "West"], Tarragona, Terres de l'Ebre [Lands of the Ebre], Barcelona and Catalunya Central [Central Catalonia]) has an article of its own, and I wanted to discuss this subject before making any changes.
What should be done in this case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatoshiMiwa (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.
:Do they cross province boundaries? If so, what about postal codes? --Error 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegueries 

message: Methinks there is an error here, but since the subject of "nationality" appears to be sensitive in this article, I'll run it by the rest of you:
Second paragraph of article:
"Catalonia was officially recognised as a nationality in the Catalan Statute of Autonomy enacted in 1979 pursuant to the Spanish Constitution of 1978."
Surely this should be one of the following:
*"Catalan was officially recognised as a nationality..."
*"Catalonia was officially recognised as a nation..."
*"Catalonia was officially recognised as an autonomous community..."
As I read (admittedly in a quick glance) the 1979 statute, the status asserted and recognized was "autonomous community". See: http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/preambul.htm
Will someone more knowledgeable than I please correct this. Thanks.
: Nationality, in Spanish legal system, is basically an euphemism of nation so this may not conflict with the definition of Spanish nation as the only one in the Spanish Kingdom according to Spanish Constitution. Some Autonomous Communities, apart from Catalonia, are also referred as nationalities. In the newly approved Statute, Catalonia is recognized as a nation in a non-legal part of the document, so this does not conflict with Spanish Constitution. Some feared that Catalonia being regarded as actually a nation in a legal document may ease international acceptance for its right to self-determination. For that reason, in order to avoid this, that reference was removed from the legal part of the Statute draft.
: Of course, nation is rather a complex and politically charged term. For instance, Catalan independentists rarely regard the Spanish Autonommous Community of Catalonia as the territory of their nation, but the whole Principality, or more normally, the whole Catalan Countries. Toniher 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur completely with Toniher here. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from memory, the Constitution talks about "nacionalidades y regiones" not specifiying their number, name, extension nor location. --Error 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To complicate things even more, now we have Realidad Nacional as a step further over Nacionalidad but shy of calling itself Nación. I'm obviously talking about Andalusia's reformed Estatuto (see Andalusian nationalism for references). E  Asterion u talking to me? 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just copyedited the article, but as the article says that the August reforms gave Catalonia status as a nation, I used the word nation.  That may need to be corrected.  As a note, the independentists weren't mentioned, and the VCB pic botched the table formatting, so I removed the picture for now until the table gets done properly and the group gets mentioned -- they're obviously important, but the casual reader has no idea why, especially since the article says Catalonia is an autonomous government (or its own nation). MSJapan 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalonia a nationality? 

message: There are a lot of historical mistakes in this article. Please review it deeper.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.
COMPLETE NONSENSE!!!!
The Crown of Catalonia never existed. I quote: " The union of the territories of the Kingdom of Aragon and the County of Barcelona was brought by the 1137 marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona and Petronila of Aragon. The resulting new kingdom came to be known as the Crown of Aragón. The son of Ramón Berenguer IV and Petronila, Alfonso II, inherited both the titles of King of Aragón and Count of Barcelona, in a style that would be maintained by all its successors to the crown. Thus, this union was made while respecting the existing institutions and parliaments of both territories." --> See:"Crown of Aragon"'s history chapter
There was never a known title such as "King of Catalonia". As always, for many catalans, politics are far more important than contrasted history facts. Maurice27 21:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crown of Catalonia & Aragon

message: :Catalan was a language before Spanish, like Catalonia was a nation before Spain. The first remark of the word 'Catalan' is in the battle of 'Camps Catalàunics', when roman empire descendents defeat the huns in the lands of Catalonia. The first remarks of Catalan Nation (like independent regions of France in Middle Ages : Comtat de Girona, el Roselló, Comtat de Barcelona, Balears, etc...under a common name of Crown of Catalonia & Aragon) are parallel to the rise of the Al-Andalus, the time of the Reigns of Taifas (arab), etc... To resume. Catalonia was a nation (and Catalan his language) while the rest of Peninsula Iberica were under control of the Arabs (except Asturias, and the Basque Country). La Marca Hispànica (remarck the tilde) where a strategic military band (<---not the best word) to prevent the arabs go north. The Reconquist (the military expulsion of the arabs of the Peninsula Iberica (excuse me my english again, pls)) beguns in Girona. The catalan and french languages are more similar than catalan and spanish.
Im asking to Wikipedist to investigue deep in this themes, because there a lot of historical errors that had been covered by "oficial" Spanish history, not only in internet, but here, in Catalonia.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.
::I usually never answer to anonymous posters. But this, and others from the same IP deserve a strong
answer, as they show serious educational flaws:
* The Catalaunic Fields are near Chalons sur Saone, in northern central France. Hundreds of kms. away from nothing ever has been Catalan even in the widest sense. See Battle of Chalons
* Read the article History of Catalonia for a minimal knowledge of Middle Age Catalonia. One of the things you'll know there is that the first attestation of the term "Catalan" (in Latin) is from the XII century
* The historical evolution of the counties of the Hispanic March has nothing to do with your comment. The Balearic islands, for obvious reasons -wasn't reconquered till the XIII century- was never part of it.
* If Gerona wasn't reconquered by the Franks until 785 (see above reference), how could the Reconquista start there, if the Battle of Covadonga is usually dated 718-724, and by Gerona' date the Kingdom of Asturias border was already on the Duero river? 
* See the Catalan Language page. Besides the complex status and relationships between the western Latin languages; and an almost geographical imposibility, no philologist asserts that catalan is closer to normative French than to Spanish (ever been in Paris?). If you'd said with Occitan, there are a lot of scholars that would agree with you, and probably me too.
* Somewhere else, you state that Catalan is older than Spanish. Saying that a language is older than other is usually nonsense, even more when both are derived from the same source (Latin) and almost for sure evolved in parallel. The first extant witness of Catalan and Castillian are roughly contemporaneous (IX/X century)
--Wllacer 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: :When the PSOE (socialist)& ERC (nacionalist) wins the elections in Catalonia in 2001 or 2002 (dont remember exactly), French goverment get afraid and very fast change the name of that Region. There was manifestations importants in France (not in Spain) for this 'hide of roots'. If you go to that part of France, you will see that there people feels more catalan than in Barcelona.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.3.221.180 (talk • contribs) 7–8 October 2006.
More OCCITAN than in Barcelona should be better Maurice27 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Llanguadoc - Rossillon

message: I edited some parts that I think that are very spanish unionist biased. It is not the problem of english readers of wiki that editors can't be objective. There was a link of libertaddigital.com please, be serious. This is an encyclopedia not a game. I hope that my edits aren't followed by lots of unionist putting "The spanish autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain) that has no international recognizement is a REGION which capital is Barcelona, the second largest city of Spain, near the Mediterranean sea, a sea which borders with the north-east of Spain that is the spanish autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain)". Hope people is more serious. 
I agree up to a point with this idea but it is not  biased up to that point, Despite that I edited some points and I think now it is more neutral. --83.45.130.186 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too unionist biased article

message: By GillesV request, who erased my comments about The generalitat de Catalunya having more powers/competences transfered by the spanish government in present day than during the spanish second civil war, without even informing himself. Even more when the actual article in wikipedia, already explains it. 
I quote: "The historical region has gradually achieved a greater degree of autonomy since 1979. The Generalitat holds exclusive jurisdiction, ->[many of which were not held in 1932 statute]<- (this was my contribution), in various matters of culture, environment, communications, transportation, commerce, public safety and local governments but shares jurisdiction with the Spanish government in education, health and justice [12]. Catalonia has its own police force, the Mossos d'Esquadra, which is currently in process of taking over most of the role within Catalonia of Spanish nationwide police forces Guardia Civil and Policia Nacional"--> See: Catalonia, Catalan self-government section
(BTW, maybe reading those FACTS from your own government webpage (AKA gencat.cat), will you believe me.
I link:
1-Beginnings of the autonomous regime, 1918-1932
2-The republican Government of Catalonia, 1931-1939
3-Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006 Title IV. Powers (articles 110-173)
This is the second time (at least that I know) that GillesV erases/censors my contributions to Wikipedia without explaining the reasons for it, or by just lacking of a verification on his part before doing it.
In both cases, I have myself proven the veracity and certainty of my contributions.
I kindly ask for moderators/administrators to advise him against personal attacks and to survey his future contributions to this marvellous project. Maurice27 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving competences gaining by the Generalitat since 1932 after erasing by GillesV 

message: Long, run-on sentences in some of this article have become so confusing that it is impossible to edit. Here's an example:
:Identifiably Catalan culture developed in the Middle Ages under the hegemony of a number of Counts throughout those lands. The counts of Barcelona were Frankish vassals. Nominated by the emperor then the king of France, to whom they were feudatories (801-987). Only from 987 (when the count of Barcelona did not recognise french king Hugh Capet and his new dynasty) to 1137, (when Ramon Berenguer IV el Sant (the Saint) (1131-1162), married Petronila of Aragón (to whom he was king consort) establishing the dynastic union of the County of Barcelona with the Kingdom of Aragón or Crown of Aragón), could we say that the County of Barcelona was de facto independent. Anyway, it was not until 1258, by the Treaty of Corbeil, that the king of France did not relinquished his feudal overlordship over the counties of the Principality of Catalonia to the king of Aragón James I, leaving this de facto independence valueless to become a de jure direct transition from French vassalage to Aragonese vassalage.
The third "sentence" is but a piece of a sentence. Editorial comments in the grammatical first person are improperly included in the fourth sentence. The fifth sentence is an ungrammatical double-negative that makes no sense at all to me. This paragraph and others badly needs a cleanup. Pollinator 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This statement in article is wrong:
Catalonia is an Autonomous Community of Spain, with the status of historical region in the Constitution of Spain
Spanish Constitution says:
The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.
But there is no mention about which are those nationalities. It's one of the proposed Constitution's reforms. Although Catalonia is accepted by Spanish political parties and mass media as a historical nationality (or region), Spanish Constitution doesn't give any special status to Catalonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Constitutions and Nationalities 

message: Perhaps will be good to separate, like in 'Basque Country' article, what is the 'Catalonia (autonomus comunity)' and 'Catalonia (historical territories)'. This can be a very good way to determine what is the actual status of Catalonia (in the autonomous comunity one) despite cultural factors, and the history and all influence of catalan culture and nation (in the historical one). So, the first one can talk about only about the OFFICIAL Catalonia (it is, like an autonomous comunity) and in the other one about the problems of Catalonian Nation (like covered history, desplacement of Catalan, etc...) and corrobored History.
:I think this would be a pretty good solution: Having an article called Autonomous Community of Catalonia speaking only about the politics concerned in this part of Spain, and then one article called "Catalonia" speaking about the historico-cultural territory.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This issue was widely discussed before (see above). If you are willing to reopen the debate to get to a new consensual version, I guess the first step is to make a new poll. --theDúnadan 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it should be a poll of a double renaming: Catalonia to Autonomous Community of Catalonia and Principality of Catalonia to Catalonia...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you must also include the rationale behind opening the poll again, especially for non-Catalan users who might not fully understand the issue. --theDúnadan 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basque Country Article 

message: The phrase "awareness of environmental problems" is biased.  'Awareness' like 'reform' is a standard positive-bias word.  'Problems' are not elaborated and only readers that agree that environmentalism is a valid ideology can nod knowingly.
---
In my opinion the "Environmental policy" section is more based on cliches about southern Europe than reality. I suggest that the opening sentence is removed from the section: 
"Awareness of environmental problems tends to be much lower in Catalonia (and in Spain as a whole) than in northern Europe".
Additionally, data about dioxide carbon emissions and ageing nuclear stations should have references or be removed. 62.58.106.42 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmentalism

message: The GDP of Catalonia as of 2005 is $207.206 billion (€157,124 billion). The GDP of Denmark is $187.9 billion. However the 'Economy' entry for Catalonia is almost inexistent. I'm aware that Catalonia is not a state like Denmark is, nevertheless a 9-line entry with half of it dedicated to detail facts like animal husbandry is not less than a joke. Could someone detail the long comercial and industrial tradition of Catalonia and its hazardous history?  62.58.106.42 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. The present Economy section would be laughable if the matter wasn't rather serious. All those energies used in getting the notes and explaining in detail Aranese etc may want to work improving this section as well. Mountolive | Talk 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy of Catalonia 

message: This may be my terrible computer, but I have noticed some formatting issues in the article; it seems that the images and boxes near the "Literacy" section (on the right) have created a large white (blank) space in the text part of the page (on the left).  I am not sure how to fix this myself without messing something up, so I thought I would mention it here.  *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe creating a gallery at the bottom of the article would work as a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've solved the worst of the problem (at least on Mozilla) but there remains white space between the table and the image as there is not really enough space to insert text. Sorting this out will require an overhaul of the organization of the article, which I cannot do for the moment (for lack of time and energy...) An image gallery may well be a good idea anyway: what images would people like to see? I vote for an image of a Vall de Boi church, and one of a nice castle (Tortosa? Cardona?) Plenty of space for other ideas! Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting issue? 

message: Well, I don’t know if names can be translated in the wikipedia, or even in the english language, but I think that names that relevant to Catalonia’s history can't be changed so easily. I think that, just like Ramon Verenguer's name, the name Jaume should be respected as the main name, anyway I wouldn't disagree if James is specified as the proper translation. (Excuse my bad english)
:You're excused for your english. And, yes, it is specified as the proper translation. --Maurice27 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, names of royalty should be translated. As such, the name should be James, not Jaume. --the Dúnadan 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked a while back a the convention is to translate the names of royalty where a reasonable translation exists, as it obviously does in this case. One reason for this is that many royals governed areas speaking different languages so that it is difficult or impossible to choose a "local" language. Another reason is that many royals are already known by English speakers by a translated name (just think of William the Conqueror). Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Being king Juan Carlos I the exception to the rule. I never understood why not John Charles or Jean Charles... ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maurice27 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald V of Norway is another exception. "King Juan Carlos" (not Joan Carles either!) and "King Harald" are the names usually used in English, which is why we use them on WP. Doesn't explain why people in general have decided not to translate them though... Physchim62 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it translated as Joan Carles in Catalan  --the Dúnadan 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James? 

message: Could you please explain the rationale behind the inclusion of this phrase? --the Dúnadan 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalan as Valencian is known here

message: I think there is something wrong about this article. Why does the section "Language" give so much importance to Catalonian, while mentioning Spanish as if it were a secondary language, putting it at the same level as Aranese? Shouldn´t they receive, at least, a simillar treatment? Especially considering that Spanish is the official language of Spain. 
Mr.Nerd
:It is possible because Catalan language and in general Catalan culture and identity is the basis of the catalan nationalism/catalanism which is a peculiarity and a matter of controversy. Spanish being spoken in Spain is nothing different from any other part of Spain.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is making Catalonia a biased POV article... Nothing new, in fact... --Maurice27 08:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to have objective facts about knowledge and usage of Spanish in Catalonia, because of the political sensitivity. If anyone knows of any decent studies in this respect—other than a general "everyone in Catalonia can speak Spanish, it's obvious"—then we should include them. There is no reason to give equal treatment to the two, but the treatment should not be misleading. Physchim62 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the problem is not political sensivity.The people who say "everybody in Catalonia can speak spanish" are saying the truth. Probably it is hard to find that statistics because there is no need to waste resources studying if people understands and can speak spanish. I remember some statistics (may be Education Department of Generalitat?) speaking about the overall knowledge of spanish in Catalonia is similar to other spanish regions.  --GillesV 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Catalonia article in spanish wikipedia source:Instituto de Estadística de Cataluña —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maurice27 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you and spanish wiki say that the source is Instituto de Estadística de Catalunya but in fact it is not obvious. Give a reference,another wiki is not a good reference.--89.130.26.177 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first table doesn't seem to be sourced (the second is the 2001 census, no problems there). It would be interesting to have a breakdown by age as well (I think I'm suffering one of those at the moment, but that's another story!) Marks on the obligatory Spanish exam in the batxellariat (sp?) ? As I say, it's an interesting topic but we need sourced data to really make a comment, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Along the lines of the Basque Country page? Seems a good idea to me. Then we can cut the bit about Northern Catalonia in the first para. Boynamedsue 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the way that Basque country articles are split (seems counter-intuitive to people who are not immersed in the politics of it all) but I see no reason not to experiment with Catalonia (disambiguation) to show other possible solutions to our disputes. The page was deleted in the 2006 here, but I will undelete the history for a provisional period at first if people want to experiment. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the various uses of "Catalan" should also be included in any disambig page; I won't be able to deal with this myself until Monday, but what do others think? Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that now the content of Catalonia (disambiguation) is good now and can be useful if we cannot arrive to a consensus with some editors with an unfair attitude.--GillesV 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page?

message: This section is informative, but I believe we need to discuss some issues:
* articulate is not a cognate of "articulado" in the meaning of "within the articles" or "the articles of a legal text". The link to wiktionary does not define "articulate" as a noun, but as an adjective. I guess we need to replace it with "within the articles". See: , . Maybe replacing it with "the articles with declaratory value" will suffice.
: seems a good idea.--GillesV 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that change,if the government said that it needs the reference.--GillesV 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with that change.--GillesV 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that the reference to federalism has been removed. I roughly agree with Dunadan's analysis, but I would also add that the request for federalism is an active issue in Catalan politics, going beyond the supporters of the ERC (around 40% support, the same as for the status quo of the 2006 Estatut: Source: El Periódico de Calalunya first half of April 2007, I'll find the exact reference if it is really needed): in the context of this WP article, it would be surprising if people were asking for something they had already! Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status within Spain