Talk:Treaty of the Pyrenees

message: Augé, C. Nouveau Petit Larousse (1934), under the "Flandre Française" entry in the History and Geography section, gives the date of the French annexation of the present department of Nord as 1668, under the treaty of Aix la Chapelle (Aachen). Its entry concerning the Treaty of the Pyrenees makes no mention of anything which might relate to Flanders. (RJP 11:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I think this paragraphs should be in another article, about French Catalonia: 
A royal French decree on April 2, 1700 (applied on May 1), forbade Catalan language usage in any kind of official act. Since then, French continues to be the only official language and the only one used in public education. Recently, the  French Constitution has been modified, and the statement la langue de la République est le français (French is the language of the Republic) was added in its second article. This is often referred in order to deny subventions to civic and cultural movements, or for refusing Catalan language presence in administration.  
Every year on November 7,  Catalanists remember this event and demonstrate in Perpinyà. 
I mean, Catalonia's partition was not the biggest change of lands, nor the biggest loss. --85.48.101.69 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry: it totally escapes me why you think this would not be relevant to this article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err... because events in 1700 do not relate with the Treaty of the Pyrenees, maybe? As far as I know, there was not any clause in the Treaty which said: "And 41 years later H.M. the King of France will forbade catalan language in the French Rosillon". It is relevant to the history of the region, or Catalonia, or France, or Catalan language & culture, of course... but this paragraph do not belong here.  --85.48.107.216 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me to be relevant because they were apparently a violation of this very treaty. Why would the breaking of a treaty not be relevant to an article on the treaty? - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the French Constitution wasn't born form the Treaty, nor France regional organization. And while it seems "apparently" is not "really", and in the Wikipedia we should wrote about proven facts. If you can show that Pyrenees' Treaty leaded to | 1958 French Constitution, go ahead. If not... then we should find a way to re-write the article, shouldn't we? --85.48.107.216 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Where on earth to we get to the Constitution of 1958? We are talking about events in 1700, when the signing of the treaty was within living memory. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about "Since then, French continues to be the only official language and the only one used in public education. Recently, the French Constitution has been modified, and the statement la langue de la République est le français (French is the language of the Republic) was added in its second article. This is often referred in order to deny subventions to civic and cultural movements, or for refusing Catalan language presence in administration. Every year on November 7, Catalanists remember this event and demonstrate in Perpinyà."? That DO mention 1958 French Constitution, unless "Recently" means "in 1700". Now it's up to you explaining why an article about a 1649 treaty should talk about the political situation three centuries before. 85.48.107.216 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1958 material should be dropped. But it still doesn't mean the 1700 material should be, too. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, that seems fair to me. Still, I fail to see why this article is placed under "Catalan culture". There was a world outside Catalonia which was affected by the Pyrenees' Treaty... And the map is not very NPOV, since it shows a "Catalonia" apart from Spain, when the Rossillion partition took place because Catalonia was part of the Spanish Monarchy (Spain). --85.48.102.179 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences for whom? 

message: Can somebody find another map? I do not understand why in a peace concenrning the Pyrenees there is presented some changes in Sweden? Also, the article does not explain exactly how Dunkrik and England are involved in the traty between Spain and France as the map sugested? More the text should make more clear that the French teritorial gains in Est (Luxembourg, Flanders) are also mentioned in this peace traty as other former Spanish provincies. At a superficial reading seems strage to conect Luxemburg with the Pyrenees.BdB-18 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: "The Treaty of the Pyrenees was signed in 1659 to..." In what day it was signed and by who exactly? November 7? This to explain why the catalans choose this day to comemorate?BdB-18 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Day

message: As teritories were exchanged in other region except Catalunya, there shoul be mentioned the consequences for those peoples too (Luxembourgers, Walloons, French, Flemish, etc). Otherwise, the articlet might be considered as a manifest for catalan nationalism.BdB-18 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalan consequences

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of the Pyrenees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050918195527/http://www.smae.diplomatie.gouv.fr/choiseul/ressource/pdf/D16590001.pdf to http://www.smae.diplomatie.gouv.fr/choiseul/ressource/pdf/D16590001.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified