Jump to content

Talk:Catalan Countries/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Template:Globalize

[edit]

As proven by a number of comments on this talk page, the examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Therefore, it is important to explain to non-related to Catalonia users this point. --Maurice27 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain please which perspective is missing? I think it is well explained that it is a concept that includes some territories and also the controversy behind it. Which section is missing?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the template! "This article [...] deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". Any perspective or section is missing. But, as you know perfectly BTW, the Catalan countries subject is only used in Catalonia. Neither in Valencia, Andorra, Southern France it is used. Therefore, "This article [...] deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". --Maurice27 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only used in Catalonia? "As you perfectly know", this term was born in Valencia because many Valencians felt that they also belonged to the "Catalan nation" that was being claimed by nationalism in Catalonia. And actually it is very used in Valencia (maybe even more than in Catalonia) both by those who support the idea and those who do not. In the rest of Catalan-speaking area, it is the main word used when refering to this territory, as none of the alternatives (Catalanofonia, Comunitat Catalànica, Bacàvia...) has reached such popularity. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the template as it is obviously geographically centered in the Catalan Countries.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template has a point, even though you are right when you say that the concept is known also outside of Catalonia...i.e. in Valencia and the Balearic islands. So, I guess the template should read "this article deals primarily with the "Catalan Countries" (sic) and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". That may sound a bit absurd, but, actually, the concept is, I'd dare to say, quite out of fashion ever since the 80s (at least in Valencia) and has become mostly self-centered as well, with virtually no factuality outside of discussions like this one.
I support the tag because I actually have an issue with the "Catalan Countries" ill translation from Catalan. That is why I stand by the tag unless the article name is changed to "Països Catalans", because "Catalan Countries" doesn't make any sense in English and, in the worst case, it may even be misleading.
If "Valencian Country" already doesnt make sense (check the relative discussion in the relative talk page.... if you dare and have a lot of time to read circular so called reasoning) go figure out "Catalan Countries" which is even more odd, because this moniker is suggesting that a "country" (like, for example, Valencia, which, let's not forget about it, is not a "country" whatsoever in the English language sense) is defined by another "country", Catalonia. Altogether, it is very uneasy English, to say the least. As I wrote elsewhere in this talk page, in English they (I'm not a native speaker myself) don't say "English Countries" for countries speaking English, nor "Spanish Countries" and so on....so why should be Catalan be different grammatically?
Should the name of the article be changed to "Països Catalans", I'd probably support untagging it for, that way, the oddity of the concept when directly translated is lost while the integrity of the article is preserved.
See, for example, a similarly irredentist concept such as anschluss which is not translated in the English wikipedia, I guess because any attempt would be uneasy and tricky.
Mountolive | Talk 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking myself the grace to explain it the way he does it, just wanna to quote in this regard that Seventh Force of nature called user:boynamedsue
OK, maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. Catalan Countries is a term I've never heard used in public discourse in English, nor is it used in academic circles, where the original "paisos catalans" or descriptive phrases like "regions in which Catalan is spoken", "traditionally catalan speaking regions" are used. Having an article with this name amounts to wikipedia creating an English term, and then importing a definition of that term that is highly controversial in Spain. Is wikipedia creating the Catalan Countries, rather than describing them? Sorry for going all french and post modern there: But if that was in any way comprehensible I'd like your feedback, with a view to changing the name of the article to "paisos catalans".
I know its not good to use a foreign word as the title for an encyclopedia article, but the translation is ropey as a sail-boat anyway: Mallorca, Valencia and Menorca, by the English definition of the word, never have been, nor ever will be, countries.



Again, because of the lack of partnership towards other users by some contributors, I must explain AGAIN my point in order to prevent further reverts.

As a user and contributor of wikipedia, I have the right to edit what I believe must be improved or corrected. Some users such SMP, but mainly Casaforra are preventing me to exert this right by erasing or simply reverting good faith edits.

The Globalize tag was created to advice users about the nature and quality of the articles about to be read. As I expressed above, I believe this article to be completely biased towards a pan-catalanist POV; not only because it only explains the vision of this subject in Catalonia, but also because it lacks of ANY SINGLE reference about the vision in the other regions mentioned.

In my humble opinion, only this, is sufficient to add the tag. Maybe Casaforra believes the contrary, but he decided not to contribute and simply reverted my edit.

As Mountolive explained above, even the original “Països Catalans” has an arduous use outside Catalonia. I may link here 100+ sources proving this fact and the doubious correctness of the use of this term.

I would like to add to the users reverting me that, when one user disagrees with another’s edit, he should bring sources and/or references to prove that he is correct and the other one isn’t. Explanations such as “many Valencians felt that they also belonged to the "Catalan nation" or “it is the main word used when refering to this territory, as none of the alternatives (Catalanofonia, Comunitat Catalànica, Bacàvia...) has reached such popularity” as SMP gave us, are simply not sufficient. Casaforra did not even bother to participate before reverting me.

Once again, I am suffering the frontal attacks of some members of the “CAT-TEAM”. A group of users which is only interested in preventing good faith users to improve or correct their heart-beloved pan-catalanists biased edits to the point of getting the opponent into an open war rather than collaborating.

I would like that users Xtv, SMP and Casaforra explain to the community their reasons to remove the tag when this article is completely biased because of the following reasons:

  • It does not give any single reference about the use of this term by the population of all the regions and territories mentioned (apart Catalonia, of course)
  • It disguises as a “linguistic sense” what clearly is a political feeling (once again, any reference is given to prove this point and, meanwhile, the political explanation covers 2/3 of the article)
  • It uses Pan-Catalanist terms such as “Northern Catalonia” (which is not official nor has any meaning outside Catalonia) instead of the correct Roussillon, misusses medieval terms such as “Kingdom of Majorca” or “Kingdom of Valencia” (which do not exist anymore) and finally, it invents just plain imperialistic terms such as this “little jewel”: Catalan Sea!!! (I guess they meant Balearic Sea, as it is clearly referenced in wikipedia here and here (Spanish wikipedia)… Or was it on purpose?)

I hope this proves the NEED of the tag to be heading the article to prevent readers to get a false and biased information. --Maurice27 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't notice the "Catalan Sea" thing...that is some geographic discovery, to say the least! I never heard of that even if I am quite (and dangerously) familiar with Catalan nationalist speech...I guess I need some doctrinary refreshment by now, for the boys keep working and don't bother to check with their older daddies ;)
Now, more seriously, even though my issues with the tag may be more related to other reasons than the ones exposed just above (those are worth looking at, too, BTW) I have to agree that the sole mention of a so-called "Catalan Sea" blessing the coasts of Castelló and the Balearics probably justifies the tag, because the so called "Catalan Sea" for the so called "Catalan Countries" is certainly too self-centered in Catalonia.
In Catalonia proper or Valencia and Balearics too? well, you just can't tell it easily; this is a good example of my problems with the direct and ill-fated translation. I may agree with someone who wants to call the tract of the Mediterranean sea before Catalan coasts "Catalan sea" (a quite parochial POV anyway, but if that makes him happy...). However, in the map the "Catalan Sea" goes beyond and sucks some water (soon to be desalinated, I guess) from the Balearic one. Indeed, "Catalan sea" may not represent a worldview, the worldview knows it as "Balearic Sea". Mountolive | Talk 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree absolutely the way Maurice27 is managing the things here:
Without any previous discussion he decided to put that Globalize tag. And that's what I'm reverting.
First discuss your change, try to reach a consensus, and after that, put the tag.
Regarding the reasons he now gives about this article, juts a brief answers:
* The term "Països Catalans" was spreaded by Joan Fuster, a Valencian. I don't know if he created it or not, but it's used not only in Catalonia, also in the places where Catalan is spoken, and not only by nationalists but also by linguists, for example.
* The political feeling of the "Països Catalans" is due to the linguistical fact. That is, Catalan nationalism is not based on religion, ethnics or whatever, but on the fact that Catalan is spoken in those places.
* "Northern Catalonia" is not Rosselló, but also Alta Cerdanya, Capcir, Conflent and Vallespir.
* If that pic is not proper feel free to change it for another one.
So, in short, Maurice27 your reasons are false, politically biased and motivated by your Anti-Catalanism, which has been proven blatant by the RfA that blocked you.
By the way, Maurice27, I'm still waiting for your excuses for your lies about me: My edits on the article of Catalonia for months, and me calling you fascist.
Lies, Maurice27, lies, Maurice27, lies, Maurice27, ...
And I won't recall again your linguistical theories about Valencian and Catalan... :D
--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not clear: I revert your tag because you didn't discuss it, you just imposed it and now you want to keep it without any discussion.

Hehehehe, everytime I see those summary edits of the people who donated saying something like "wikipedia brings back the faith in human beings", "Wikipedia is the manifest of human collaborative spirit" or the one I am just seeing now "most people don't realise how entertaining Wikipedia is" I think to myself..."guys, you'd better come over the CAT stuff before donating!" :D Mountolive | Talk 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:D Casaforra, my beloved "extremist collaborator", finally you decided to participate!!!! hurra!!! That's a good start!
  • I would like to point you that I'm not "changing", but adding
  • All your allegations are lovely ones... But once again, DO YOU HAVE REFERENCES? Algo de "chicha" para apoyar tus propuestas...? I would love to read more about the "The political feeling of the "Països Catalans" being due to the linguistical fact". Catalan Imperialists Graffitis pictured from Majorca or el Carxe could also defend your point... Give us (the community) references!
  • If you don't bring references or sources to back your point, how are we supposed to even take care of it?
  • I'm not even going to answer to your "Northern Catalonia" ridiculous excuses...
  • I wasn't blocked for my anti-catalanism... I was blocked for defending the truth! Because your "CAT-TEAM", instead than look for solutions to our controversial matters, just wanted to get me banned. Am I wrong? Am I?
  • Why are you allowing me to change the map (I guess because you admit it is biased and incorrect) and you prevent me to warn other users about the biased and incorrect content in this article?
  • If I may "feel free" to change the map, Why do I need your consensus to add the tag? See the irony, Casaforra? Do you see it?
  • And finally... I would like you to post or link here WHERE does it say that I must reach a consensus with you in order to keep the tag. If you fail to give it to me, the tag remains! I'm not here to lose my time with incongruent discussions with someone like you.
  • If you are still waiting for my excuses, I can only tell you that if it is itching you, then you should start scratching yourself. See, life for us, french fascists, it's all about us and our belly buttons. --Maurice27 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you how this works:
You have an idea to improve the article, if it's not polemical you edit it freely, if it's polemical you propose your idea on the talk page, if everybody agrees you add your idea, if not you try to reach a consensus.
But, Maurice27, you don't use to remain civil, neither you seem to be able to discuss civilly, and even less you follow Wikipedia rules. This time, a polemical idea of yours, that Globalize tag, which has been proven to be polemical, was not previously proposed or discussed on the talk page. You simply put it. And that's not the way it goes...
If you want that tag to prevail, discuss it, and if anybody disagrees try to reach a consensus about the tag.
Until no consensus about the tag is reached, it doesn't belong here. Point. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what if instead of threatening with reporting me for 3RR do you count the times you have reverted? 4RR!
1, 2, 3, 4 ... --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flag

[edit]

That flag is a lie, unofficial, and totally fictional, that flag have never been official, it's a new politic flag, that somebody did someday bored.---- Codorado (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is popular. Many people see it on TV (or on the wall graffiti) and wonder. People throughout the world have a right to information. Wikipedia's main purpose is to inform. To describe the reality. All flags were at some point made by someone. Spare us your POV please. Mohonu (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This flags is only the flag of a politic-point in Catalonia, that politic-point is only from a small group, for the rest of the "Catalan Countries", they are not in that group, they are so far from that gruop, for example, oficially in Valencian Community they don`t speak catalonian, they speak valecian, a different language for them. The Catalan Countries are a lie, except for a gruop of people in Catalonia, that represents a small part, this can not be a official name of nothing. and that flag is only a political flag of a small group, that can not been a unofficial flag of the other regions, and for the rest of Catalonia without that POV.--Codorado (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that the anti-Catalan sentiment is being promoted by important sectors of the Spanish State, but this is an Encyclopedia, not a hate-forum

[edit]

People like Codorado are totally POV. The Catalan Countries are linguistically not a lie. You just need to consult the Romanic linguistic department of any major university (Berkeley, Cambridge, Chicago, etc.), whereby you will know that the versions of Catalan spoken in the low Ebre valley and up to El Segriá are little different from the versions spoken even down to Alcoi and Castalla. What is a lie is that Valencian is a separate language.

What you make clear in your writings is that there is a powerful political group in Valencia which thrives on promoting hatred against Catalonia and everything Catalan. This is a cleary political agenda that benefits Spanish expansionist interests that seek to make Catalonia irrelevant. All empires have been very good at dividing and ruling. But this is an encyclopedia. If you want to promote your political hatred, please go to some pro-Spanish blog. No hysteria and no POV is welcome in Wikipedia.61.7.179.66 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particular point of view

[edit]

I think this article has a particular point of view [a bias] in defining Catalan Countries almost exclusively as a political and nationalistic/separatist concept. However, it is also a linguistic concept, I would even say, it is first a linguistic and cultural concept (not without controversy, of course), and then used by some politicians to advocate for nationalism and separatism. This article focuses exclusively on the latter and not on the former. --the Dúnadan 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dúnadan.
I guess in the first place I have to admit that I don't like to be simply reverted as you did, because I like to think there is some point in my contributions that can always been salvaged, and don't like being treated like a mere vandal. But this is a matter of manners and not really your problem, just spare the "sorry" for I guess it is more like my own problem.
After this unproper autobiographic comment, well, it looks like you didn't get the point behind my "guilders" comment. As a matter of fact, being Catalan nationalist is not a guilder in itself, is it? (I may have suspicions it may have become so in some mancomunitats, specially at the time of public funding distribution, but I'd still rather think it is not).
I guess the constraints of a summary edit didn't show the point of my edit (let alone the irony) and I apologize for that. What I do mean is that a plumber, a fireman and, why not, a linguist, may be, besides, Catalan nationalists or assuming concepts from Catalan nationalists, even though they are not assumed by the whole linguist community. For example: Carod-Rovira is a Filologia Catalana bachelor (thus, he's roughly a linguist) and a Catalan nationalist as well. Please don't bite the hook of the example, because it may not be the best anyway, but I think you get the idea of what I mean: one thing (guild) doesn't exclude the other (political adscription).
That is why I think I'll come back to my previous version ("primarily by Catalan nationalists") because it is both the most inclusive (all guilds, including linguists) and the most descriptive. I may do so unless someone changes my mind with some reasoning other than the one provided so far.
Moreover, ok Kathryn is one linguist, many other linguists won't call it "Catalan Countries" (that's by the way, a really odd wording in English, and that is another story, but for sure is not widely accepted in English-speaking communities, and I guess it is less so among linguists if only because they are supposed to have a superior command of English). I'd say that, actually, most linguists (let alone English-speaking ones) may call this the "Catalan domain" or something alike. Therefore, mentioning "linguists" is not a good idea, for, then, it should also be mentioned that "most linguists don't use this term" unless a reference was provided proving that there is general consensus among linguists designating this as "Catalan Countries". And that is not the case.
On the POV thing you note above, well, you'd say its usage is first linguistic and cultural while, myself, I'd say that, at least for Valencians, has become (regardless the original usage of the term) almost an exclusively political one. Opinions are like arses, everybody's got one, after all. In any case, feel free to overhaul accordingly to debase that political so called POV you feel. Actually, you have called my attention in this regard and I may also make some contribution debasing the linguistic POV, for the equivalence with the Lusofonia, Francophonie and the like stated in the lead is, to say the least, vague and not necessarily good enough.
Mountolive | Talk 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI Mountolive,
I must say that reversion does not imply that the previous version was the work of a vandal. In fact, I did not use the abbreviations "rv" (revert) much less "rvv" (reverting vandalism). Reversions are, for the most part, if backed up with a solid reason -like mine- valid editions, especially if a reversion reverts (pardon the redundancy) deletion of content.
I did understand your arguments, albeit constrained by the limited space of the edit summary. And I disagreed, as I still do. Now that you say you even want to debase the linguistic POV by eliminating the only reference to linguistics in the introduction (that of comparing the Francophonie to the Catalan Countries), the article will be simply reduced to an [anti]-nationalistic POV of a term that originally started as a linguistic concept that evolved into a cultural identity -one advocated by the Valencian Joan Fuster. If you do so, I am afraid I -as well as other users with knowledge of the term- will most probably revert you. As you know, WP:NPOV does not mean simplification, but the exposition of all different POVs whether contradictory or inclusive. As such, the linguistic meaning of a term which originally started as a linguistic term, must be preserved, as long as with the politically charged connotations it has acquired amongst some sectors of the Spanish society.
As for the inclusion of a "better" term, such as "Catalan domain", unless properly backed up by a reference, it would most probably violate WP:OR. Citing a linguist -amongst many- who make us of the term Catalan Countries, in spite of the apparent "oddity" of the term (which, as a Native English speaker I fail to see such "oddity"), complies with WP:CITE (obviously) as well as WP:OR. If you do have references to back up the apparent "guess" (citing) that the term is less "widely accepted in English-speaking communities", then by all means add it. If not, then, for the sake of maintaining the article free of personal POVs, we should avoid it. If a reputed linguist uses it, then its inclusion complies with WP:CITE.
Finally, your argument that claims that all linguists who make use of the term are a subset of nationalists, and therefore to simply state that "nationalists" use the term suffices is not correct. I assume you see the fallacy of it, for many linguist who use the term -especially non-Spaniards such as Mrs. Woolard- are evidently not nationalists (how could they, of a country they are not even part of!). In other words, there is an intersection of the set of nationalists who are also linguists but the set of linguists is not a subset of nationalists. Granted, you might argue that so is the case of the subset of plumbers, but the term Catalan Countries is not a term related to plumbery, nor did it originate by that guild. What a reputed economist has to say about a Mixed Market Model is relevant to that subject, and not what a plumber says. In the same way, what a linguist has to say about the linguistic meaning of Catalan Countries is relevant to the article, but -as you pointed out- what the plumber says is quite irrelevant.
I maintain my position: the article must properly explain the origin and evolution of the term: a linguistic term that evolved into a cultural one, and finally advocated by a group of nationalists. It must also explain why the term, today, if politically charged... in fact, the article does good job at that already, but a very poor job of the linguistic connotation of the term.
I hope this comment may serve to enrich our discussion and to improve the quality of the article.
--the Dúnadan 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey.
Well, since I have never seen you neither moving nor giving up from your initial positions ever since we have crossed ways (a few times, not many anyway) I didn't have any reason to believe that this one was going to be anything different, so, at least, this keeps the discussion in the "business as usual" level which we are used to (is this really good? I don't think so, but that's what we have and we have to get along with it). In any case, neither I am a good example of changing my mind (other than a couple times, to Xtv, I think...hello, Xtv! :) However, it has become more frequent that I end up, if not conceding, then just giving up, such as in Valencian topics (to Joanot aka Benimerin, once to you as well, in Names of Valencian Community) for the sake of my sexlife's quality (when I feel myself spending too much time around here with circular arguments, then I close my eyes and...quit).
Now, still generally speaking, but more focused in what matters here: when I suspect that the editor I'm discussing with, s/he knows about the factuality of my claim as much as I do, but, instead of conceding, s/he chooses starting listing all the wiki guidelines (WP:CITE, WP:OR, WHATEVER) then I know I am in trouble, for it looks like s/he wants me to bother in googling something that we both know about, instead of dealing about the topic in some other more constructive way. This, unfortunatelly, doesn't enters me in "consensus mood" because there is nothing more futile than discussing to someone who won't change their views. Excuse this another unrequested autobiographic note, Dúnadan, I just mention it because, in all honesty, I'm sorry to say that it looks like you are acting like that.
Anyway, despite all the above, I normally bite the hook, play the game if only for a while, before giving up. Therefore, here I am, googling "Catalan domain". Many entries appeared but, since neither in the first two pages had these two words next to the other but just very close and knowing by experience that, when people enters this mood of asking for the other about references on obvious facts, they will want it exactly that way, then I looked for an alternative "Catalan speaking areas". These are just 3 entries from the first two pages [1] [2] [3]. They prove nothing but the fact that Kathryn used "Catalan Countries" in this paper doesn't mean that she is using the standard linguistic parlance on the matter. Period. And (lacking references) let me say that Ms. Kathryn's (hello, Kathryn! :) was not using the standard this time. If you have references proving that the international linguistic community refers to that as "Catalan Countries", please bring them here.
But I won't make you look for references proving that Països Catalans was originally a linguistic only term (this seems to be central in your reasoning). I could ask you for that, "just to confirm", but I don't need to ask for what I already now and I don't want to make you busy unnecessarily. But then I also know that, at least in Valencia (and some noticeable tracts of Catalan society and elsewhere) it has evolved into a mainly politic one ever since the 80s. But this is another discussion and should be shelved.
(By the way, let me just point out that I could also provide references "proving" that either Elvis is alive, Hitler didn't order any genocide or stating that Valencian is not related to Catalan in any way. Therefore, let me please give a mere relative value to references, specially interenet ones. But this is just another side note, so please don't bother with this one, but go about the points you missed, please).
I can't see why the article would be reduced to an "[anti]-nationalistic POV" such as the one you fear after an eventual edit from my side. I wouldn't make assumptions on how an article it's going to look like before someone else edits it: it's risky and not really inviting to consensus. Actually I think it will be quite easy to open two sections, one Països Catalans as a linguistic community and another Països Catalans as a political desideratum instead of keeping it as it is now, with both approaches mixed in a rather messy way (BTW, I can't see why you place [anti] before the nationalist dimension. If you do assumptions of what people will think on something before it is even made, then it may look like you are acting under a POV yourself as well; I just mention this as a friendly note to improve your reasoning, don't get me wrong, as I know it is easy to be misunderstood over written stuff...hello Dúnadan! :).
I read you elsewhere saying that you were also a native Catalan speaker. I think that would explain that you fail to see the "oddity" of Catalan Countries, don't you think? You have dealt with both languages from a tender early age and so your brain keeps up with the whole thing at ease. But other English native speakers already said where it was pertinent that "Valencian country" didn't make sense at all (ask, for example, user:Boynamedsue in this regard, he knows better than I do...hello, BNS! :) let alone "Catalan Countries".
Take it this way, if you want: do we say in English "French countries" for countries speaking French? "Spanish countries"? "English countries"?. I can't see why Catalan language should be an exception when it comes to English grammar. The translation is obviously direct and, therefore, not particularly fortunate. But that, once again, is another story, I am biting the hook here regarding something inessential to the present dicussion and I had enough anyway with the qüestió de noms in my native language to try translating it into English. Really, I have better things to do.
As for I assume you see the fallacy of it, for many linguist who use the term -especially non-Spaniards such as Mrs. Woolard- are evidently not nationalists (how could they, of a country they are not even part of!) I indeed notice the phallacy of quoting me à la carte, since I actually wrote "a linguist, may be, besides, Catalan nationalist or assuming concepts from Catalan nationalists". I find it particularly useless to have to explain this part, but I will for the sake of...whatever. Anyway, why getting grumpy when it is not hard to neither explain nor understand: the fact that I am not Berber, doesn't mean that I can be sympathetic for Berber's, say, demand of autonomy or Berber's traditional hunting methods. I don't have to be native Berber to have my own opinion on their things, right? This is a particularly weak part of your reasoning and I invite you to delete it along with this paragraph, for this discussion is already acquiring the typical frustrating traits of Catabrawling: much talking, little action, (slightly)Catalanist POV 1 - neutrality in wikipedia 0, well, that is just how I see it, of course (sorry if I sound harsh, not meant, really, it is just that the whole thing is getting reminiscent of the reasons why I took a long wikibreak and this dejà vu is not so nice, just seeing me soon running away from wikipedia, like a chicken, once again).
Well, after all, maybe the above clear up is not so insignificant, for this is where you magnificently missed the point in my post above. The fact that one linguist (for the time being, we only have one) chooses the "Catalan Countries" moniker doesnt mean that this is the standard name in the linguistic community. And the fact that she is a linguist, doesn't mean that she can't be sympathetic to Catalan nationalism either. Therefore, writing "primarily Catalan nationalists" is more inclusive, for it includes Catalan nationalists and other people, such as plumbers or linguists (whether sympathetic or not to Catalan nationalism).
Please don't miss the primarily word; it wasn't included in the previous version, I added it after Pmmollet (hello Pmmollet! :) opened the question, for, while not agreeing with Pmmollet's edit, I think I understood his point (that not only Catalan nationalists use this moniker) and so I think this word makes the whole thing more exact or bearable to everybody.
So, all in all, after all the bla bla, and waiting for your reply to the above main point I think you are missing (just skip all the rest if you may: we are making it ridiculously long once again, aren't we?) I also maintain my position and I'm therefore editing the short passage which started this discussion. In days to come I will go about the Political/Linguistic distinction. I don't think it is particularly troublesome to split these in two clearly distinct sections, feel free to work on that yourself if you don't trust me. I hope this one is not casus belli, even though, sometimes, I have the feeling that anything with the adjective "Catalan" around it, becomes so....don't you?

Mountolive | Talk 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I guess I don't resent your invitation to "other users with knowledge of the term" to revert me if I edit in a particular direction you don't like. But I note it. And I kinda resent how easily you didn't include me among those users...

You are right, I could have only read the last paragraph and avoided the -unnecessary- arguments of my supposed motivations, my purported hidden intentions or how messed up my brain is given that I speak more than one language. I guess if you say so, you might be right. So I will not engage in that useless diatribe of trying to prove whether my intentions are honest or whether my brain actually functions properly -linguistically speaking. Maybe some other night I will. To me, the issue is quite simple. There are two opposite positions in issues related to the Catalan Countries, that of some Valencians and that of some Catalans (after all some Valencians do feel part of these "Catalan Countries", and some Catalans do feel they are Spanish and not of any particular "Catalan" identity). Wikipedia users, coming from different backgrounds will probably try to defend their own POV with whatever means possible, and sometimes engage in demagogy and argumentation to prove that their version is not a POV but the right POV. I am not trying to prove here that my version is the right one. Bear with me if I cite, again, one Wikipedia policy that of WP:NPOV. It requires that articles report all possible POVs and given their due weight. As such, I will not edit any reference to the politically charged connotation of the term. But, I think the article is written in such a way, that the political nationalistic connotation seems the most pervasive, which is not necessarily the case. Not in all Academic Circles, and not in all regions where Catalan is spoken. Therefore, and undue weight is given to a particular POV. I might strongly disagree with you, but I respect your right to say it, in life and in Wikipedia. I think you should do the same with those valid POVs of political/linguistic issues in which you disagree. Wikipedia should present all approaches to social issues like this one, without qualifying either one, and without hiding the nuances of each one with over generalizations like "the majority" and "primarily". I will not revert your edit, at least to see if you can live what you preach and engage in a honest debate so that we can reach a consensus, instead of putting fire into an edit war. Please avoid the diatribes and the arguments of my purported motivations and intentions and how messed up my brain is. --the Dúnadan 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I propose clarifying the article. Is our responsibility avoid confusing wikipedia readers.

And we cannot confuse 'bias' with 'concepts salad': this article talks about two very diferent concepts. Yup, concepts. Mixing two concepts as this article does is misleading the information. Because this is not an article about the history-evolution of the 'Catalan Countries' term. So we have to create one article "linguistic" and another one "politic". I think "linguistic" meaning is already defined inside Catalan language, we only need to explain what is the Catalan Countries as "politic". Minor references could be added if the two concepts are related (as this case).

We know that the main meaning of PPCC is politic. And it's in the everyday (f.e. whats the weather like?). As we can see in the Enciclopèdia Catalana's GREC:

The content, the core, is not about linguistics. The article reflects what is Catalan Countries. What every catalan perceives in the common language as Països Catalans (search in the mass media). Following the entire structure (climate, fauna, landscape, population, economy...) and you'll find the exact meaning. An explanation at the end of "definition" talking about its evolution. That's the place for pseudo-linguistic info (because it isn't a linguistic article nor about evolution about the concept).

We have to work it in the right place... each different concept. And using the right words defining the concepts. Which's the term in english language for the catalan linguistic zone? Catalan countries? Catalan-speaking region? Catalan language map? We could ask a professional. And if you want, we could create a new article with that rationale title defining the concept with two lines plus an illustration (it hasn't no more content):

"All these areas may be known as Catalan Countries (Catalan: Països Catalans), a denomination based on cultural affinity and common heritage, that have also had a subsequent political interpretation but no official status" (Catalan language)

Because that's the Països Catalans definition in linguistic meaning with minor references. Two lines.

BTW Have you read "John Fuster" in Grec article? Oi que fica "John Fuster" =P ???? --Owdki talk 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dúnadan, first of all I apologize beforehand about the misunderstanding. For you have to have gotten me wrong regarding my comments on your Cat/En bilingual skills. You mention in your post above me suggesting that your brain is messed, when, actually, I was only trying to explain (just read it again under a colder light and you'll see) why you don't feel the so called oddity based on your bilinguism and you coping perfectly with both languages, unlike English-only speakers. Since you mention this so called brain-mess no less than three times and, besides, you mention "useless diatribe" and similarly somber vocabulary, I assume you feel slightly offended, that is why I apologize and that is why this clear up. I hope my explanation is ok with you and we are good in this part.

Me living up for what I preach? I'll sure do. I preach "Mountolive, you better fuck off when people gets too stubborn for your, otherwise, brittle wikipatience" and I will surely do when they do get like that. At this point of my wikiexperience (I guess I'm at maturity, no longer really excited about it, but rather sadly aware about its limits and methodologic handicaps) I don't have any will to try to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I have learnt over past "honest debates" this is as useless as very much time consuming. So I'll try not to be caught there once again.

So, unfortunatelly, this also means that I can't promise I will "engage in honest debate so that we can reach a consensus". You were present along myself in past wikiexperiences of this sort. They have showed me that, unfortunatelly, too often this is nothing but wishful thinking empty rethorics: some people like being debating about something, and they do so in good faith, but then it ends up being debating for the sake of debating, as loooooooooooong talk pages as you wish, because, in the end, they just won't give up nor even accept "primarily"-like compromises. In other words, I may be done already with this, or may be soon. Then people will edit at ease here without me bothering them, and I will try to stay focused on more productive stuff.

Now, after my -totally unrequested- systemic "diatribe" if you may, let me get down to the particular. I indeed agree with you in that generalizations are, generally speaking, no good. However, if there is some "consensus to be reached" whatsoever, we may have to reach out for generalizations such as "primarily Catalan nationalists". I agree that "Catalan nationalists"-only wasn't so fair, but I know quite well that this concept is flagged these days specially by Catalan nationalists, also those within the Academic community. Now, to put it short, I guess it is a matter of other editors's will to reach a consensus and, therefore, acknowledge this fact which I think is a cold one, or, alternatively, not conceding to that but rather asking for "references" on this claim. I won't bother in bringing references proving this or that "horchata is made in Valencia" as someone said once. I have more interesting and intellectually challenging stuff to do.

I don't thing neither you nor Owdki nor myself we are so far in the linguistic/politic distinction. I just think the article needs this distinction to be more starkly put and then everybody will be happier about the article. I will be off for most of the coming week, so don't take my silence as "menfotisme", at least not yet. I won't make assumptions on how the article would look like if you edit, Dúnadan. Actually, if I made any assumptions, I'd say it would look better after your edit, for you are not one of those acting with an agenda (the only thing is that, in my humble opinion, you tend to be rather stiff if challenged).

You're right, Owdki, John Fuster...that's a good one! :D

Cheers.

Mountolive | Talk 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of the term

[edit]
  • Catalan Countries is a common English translation of Països Catalans. As it has been said, it is the term used by the English version of the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana[4][5][6].
  • Països Catalans is used outside of Catalonia and Valencia. For example in this web Catalogne-Nord.com [7].
  • Comunitat Catalànica and Bacàvia are certainly much less used than Països Catalans. Just have a Google test and see that "Bacàvia OR Comunitat Catalànica" has 850 results[8] and that the last option has more that 2.000.000 [9]
  • I do not see any misuse of the terms. The [territories of the] former Kingdom of Valencia is an accurate sentence. Roussillon is not "the correct" term, it is as official as Northern Catalonia and less specific.
  • If you think that it is not neutral add {{POV}}, but {{globalize}} is not appropriated into a geographical article which obviously will be focused in that territory.
  • I am sorry if I have erased Maurice27's good faith edits, but I do not have the feeling of having done it. Please, remind me where, and I will try no to repeat it.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)~[reply]


Well, you are dealing with a number of topics here but since the name of the section you opened is "English name", let me focus on this one.
Sorry for for the self-quote, but I'm forced to make it because your post above is completely missing the point of all these reasons provided already in previous posts of mine, which, for the moment, remain unchallenged and so I have to re-state here:


So, once again and just in case the above is not clear. "Catalan Countries" is an unfortunate and, what is worse, misleading translation, or so I think based on, at least, a double reasoning:


1. Because the term "Countries" is not used in English in this fashion meaning "Countries sharing same language", for example, Germany, Austria and the Swiss German cantons are not any "German countries" whatsoever in English.
The only usage I can think about in English which could be if only close to the intended by "Catalan Countries" would be the one of Low Countries, in this regard, this is how the relative article reads:
also, note the fact that this is not about language or culture, but geography, and translating a well-established "Nederlanden" Dutch concept, as old as the Netherlands themselves, while the "Països Catalans" moniker was born in the second half of the 20th century, for not to mention that this moniker is fiercely contested in some areas which are presumably included in it. And this makes some difference as well.


2. Because, as Boynamedsue points out, neither Valencia, the Balearics nor even (sorry about that) blessed Catalonia are "countries" in the English language sense (no offense meant to nationalists here, si us plau).


Therefore, to say "Catalan Countries" in English is at least doubly misleading and definitely confusing to any given editor not acquainted with the subtleties of Catalan nationalism (and, believe it or not, there are a few millions over there who are not familiar with those).
SMP, just saying that the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana translates it as "Catalan Countries" is not a right answer to all the above. Not at all.
It actually looks more like if we were trying to justify one wrong with another wrong. In this regard, a non Catalan encyclopedic source should be quoted, not one who is precisely from Catalonia and may incurr in the same mistake we are incurring here in the translation.
Just please don't lose sight that I am not saying that the article should be erased or something like that. I am only saying that its name should be changed to "Països Catalans", that's all.
Otherwise, this will remain as an odd concept, directly translating a minoritary and controversial Catalan concept, therefore, we shouldnt be surprised if the template {globalize} "this deals primarily with Catalonia and may lack a worldvision" is heading this article.
As far as I am concerned (except for the map with the so called "Catalan Sea", that should also be resolved) all it takes to de-tag it is change its name to "Països Catalans". In other words, not messing with a difficult-to-impossible to translate concept but respecting the original name in Catalan, like it's made in Anschluss. Is it so difficult for you guys? It shouldnt be unless some editors want to take advantage from this misleading concept to enhance their political views on the subject by abusing the translation.

Mountolive | Talk 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me personally would be a fine solution to:
  • Move the article to "Països Catalans".
  • Create a redirect from "Catalan Countries" to "Països Catalans"
  • Remove the template
  • Start the article saying: "Països Catalans (roughly translated in English as Catalan Coutries, see Països Catalans#English translation) ..." and then add a short section explaining better the translation. Or instead of "English translation" section, we could add an analogous "Description of the name" section or whatever where a detailed NPOV text explains what Països Catalans means or can mean (from "País" as a Country until "País" just as a "territory", deppending on who uses it). I think this could be a consensus solution.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I disagree with both Mountolive arguments and with Xtv's proposal. Besides citing himself and other users -which cannot comply by any standards to WP:CITE- as well as by the use of reasoning on how bad the term sounds in a language that is not even his mother tongue, what valuable references can Mountolive bring to the discussion? Even if we disagree and claim how illogical, odd or irredentist the concept is, are we supposed to discredit by our mere reasoning what the Academia uses (including prestigious universities like the University of Kent in the United Kingdom, an English speaking institution) and what is a common colloquial term? (See: [10], [11], [12], [13]. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]).
Please let's discuss about how we can neutralize the article, enhance it, bring some history of the evolution of the term,its different connotations, is acceptance or vehement rejection due to its political implications in the different regions that speak Catalan and in other regions as well, but let's not waste time arguing about how the Academia and everybody else that uses the term in English is wrong, because according to my own perception of how the English language should be, it is grammatically incorrect.
As a side note, I strongly recommend to do some thorough research of the term from all users (including myself) before engaging in an endless argument. For starters, please Mountolive note that the "moniker" was not created in the second-half of the 20th century, but in the late 19th century as a linguistic and cultural concept (please refer to some of the links provided above). The political connotation that it acquired in time was further advanced by the Valencian Joan Fuster in the second-half of the 20th century, and it became widely used -and liked or vehemently hated- onwards. But it did not originate in that time nor by him. --the Dúnadan 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dúnadan, what can I say? I admit not caring too much about wikirules other than good faith. I have a zero tollerance for what I am prone to identify as wikilawyering which, I know, won't take me anywhere these days around here.
Yes, I quoted myself (and another user) because a third user had missed magnificently the points this user and myself had exposed (how would we say in Valencian...er, sorry,....Catalan "¿de dónde vienes? manzanas traigo" ?)
Actually Dúnadan misses my whole reasoning olympically once again and apparently reduces it to a matter of taste: all my scheming, bla bla bla and examples above did such little impression on him. The fact is that I am too lazy to reformulate all my bla bla bla in other words again, because apparently they will be missed again. That is why I decided quoting my own post above (is that a real quote? well, it's more like a copy-paste, actually).
I could start here again saying that Boynamedsue (and so many others in this talk page) are English native speakers who find it odd. The problem is not any so called oddity, but the confussion or mislead implied. I could say all that in different words, but I am lazy. I could copypaste it again, but it will be reduced to a matter of taste.
So, Dúnadan, if you feel more comfortable with all the nuances implied by this ill fated translation, if you think it is better than reducing it to its pristine original Catalan, then I guess there is little to discuss.
By the way, I have said in many ways (for people who want to read it) what's wrong with me and "Catalan Countries" (and so other users have done in this talk page, look at quite older posts), but I still dont know why you Dúnadan think that "Catalan Countries" is better than "Països Catalans", when all we would do is redirecting the whole thing to the same article. Since I bothered in explaining my point (which is not just a matter of taste, even if that's the idea you got) it would be good that you explained us (since Xtv seems to agree with me) why you think that "Catalan Countries" is a better name for this article than "Països Catalans".
Oh, I knew Països Catalans was used for the first time by the late 19th century, so please excuse me for having stolen those 50 years of life (do you think I am one of those "starters" hehehe, if only you knew about my background, you'd be surprised ;). It is that I just thought that it wasn't worth mentioning, since this first usage was a one hit wonder (vanished completely until Mr. "John Fuster" picked it up in the 60s and that's when the term gained relevance).
<should we also change his article in wikipedia to John Fuster from Joan Fuster as well because the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana in English quotes him like that? mhhh...>
But those extra 50 years can be important to someone and so I appologize for the omission if anyone felt offended....ok, ok, maybe 60 or 70 years! (don't chastise me for that, please).
So, Dúnadan, how do you want me to engage in one of those never ending debates and "contributions" when you wont even agree in using a more neutral name for the article? You are asking about "neutralizing" the article but...could it possibly get more neutral than respecting the original?
Some other night I said that, even though I find you kinda stiff (well, really stiff, actually) I don't think, though, that you work on a (Catalanist) agenda here. And that is good. But, given your recurrent refusal of proposals coming from me, I guess you just dont like me, which it's ok, but, this said, well, I guess under this light I have little else to contribute around here.
Ah, by the way: I 100% agree to Xtv's proposal. He and I, we return fire from different POVs, but it's been a pleasure working with him so far, we have mutually compromised a few times. Thanks for that. If only everyone was like you, I would have a higher opinion of wikipedia, just like in the old days....

Mountolive | Talk 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I opposed your argument is because you have failed to brought any single source to back up your reasoning. You seem to forget that this is not a forum, but an encyclopedia, and there are dozens of Academic books and newspapers, like the ones I provided above -which I truly expect you explored- that make use of the term, many of them reputed Academic sources such as the New York Times or the University of Kent which can hardly be accused of using grammatically incorrect oddities in the English language or of being politically biased. Please, if you actually want to end this diatribe in a constructive way, then, please review the links above. Do a thorough research of the term in your local library as I do so too. Then we can peacefully discuss. But please do not go back to citing yourself and other users as if that were valid sources to prove how Academics are wrong in their use of the term and that we are right to correct them.
No, I don't dislike you, in fact I like you, because in spite of disagreeing -and sometimes ignoring some basic Wikipedian guidelines such as WP:CITE and WP:OR-you have never insulted anyone, nor have you violated Etiquette nor any rules of conduct, and that is very commendable. I even commented on your constructive attitude, compared to other users, with Owdki in his talk page.
No, there is no Catalanist motivation behind my actions. In fact, if you had bothered to look at my contributions in Viquipèdia, you'd have seen that there some extremist users think I am Estatista -the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of- simply because I defend neutrality. Neutrality means presenting the scenarios and all its nuances , positions, antagonism and, if you like , POVs , properly referenced by reputed sources. That is what I've done there and that is why I try to do here.
Now, if you want to take the time to actually discuss the issue with a proper background research, then I am willing to discuss. First, the name Catalan Countries is used by reputed sources, therefore, it is not an "rough" nor an "incorrect" translation. Therefore, if you wish to move this article and rename it as Països Catalans, as Xtv proposed, I would agree to it, but it is not a "rough" translation, but the translation. Secondly, if you bother to review the sources I provided, you'd see that there is an alternative, though rarely used translation: Catalan Lands. Therefore, the introduction could say: "The Països Catalans in English Catalan Countries or occasionally Catalan Lands refers to....". I still fail to see the need to rename if the article if "Catalan Countries" is the term used in English by Academicians, but with a proper introduction, it may work. Thirdly, based on some of the sources above, and not on yours or my opinion, I would propose a section on the true historical origin, as well as the original meaning -very much used and not "forgotten" (unless you have another source contradicting mine to prove that it was forgotten and "vanished"), as a linguistic and cultural term. Then expound about the political connotation it acquired in the 1930's, and its acceptance by Valencian and Balearic circles, as well as the vehement rejection and opposition by other Valencian and Balearic circles. Then, we can talk about Joan Fuster's promotion of the term in subsequent decades and the acceptance/opposition of the term. Then we can talk about the current perception of the term both linguistically and politically. Sources abound. So, if you want to stop the "cata-brawling" as you call it, then please, I kindly ask you, let's do some research, all users coming from opposing "POVs" so that we can write a thorough neutral article that includes all positions and approaches without qualifying either one (this is right and that's wrong), but stating the issue properly referenced, without any opinions from our own that try to discredit Academics or Historians.
--the Dúnadan 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we apply your arguin to mouse≠mouse? Two concepts in a single article, with a "section on the true historical origin, as well as the original meaning -very much used and not "forgotten" (unless you have another source contradicting mine to prove that it was forgotten and "vanished"), as a biologic term. Then expound about the "software" connotation it acquired in the 1970's". Do you get the point? Does anybody get it? The GREC! --Owdki talk 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrous. The arguing can be applied to the evolution of a single term (like republic) and not to two separate objects albeit homophones. Btw I didn't see any "political" definition of Països Catalans, from the GREC. In fact, they simply define them as the països de llengua i cultura catalanes. Again, it is first about linguistics, not politics. Some people do take the term to advocate for a political entity, but that is not the only use of the term. --the Dúnadan 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I can't understand you. Do you mean PPCC is just a single term (like republic) and not two separated concepts (like mouse≠mouse)? Do you mean that this is an article about the "evolution of the PPCC term"? Thus it's necessary to elevate a cross-reference in the hierarchy converting it in main concept inside the article, supposing that we are talking about the politic concept. Because I don't know what we are talking about (politics or linguistics).
After reading the GREC, can you answer the question "what is PPCC"?. A person? An animal? A machine? A country? A concept which belongs to catalan nationalism? Remember, (as James Brown says "please, please, please"), that we are talking about a basic nationalistic concept, so we need clarify it. --Call me Elmo Sesame Street 23:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles in encyclopedias not only define a concept (that is what a dictionary does) but make a more thorough presentation of them. That is why, whether we talk about a particular term (republic), a belief (Christianity), an institution (World Bank) or a country (Spain), there are sections regarding etymology, history, evolution of the concept/term/belief etc, that go beyond a simple definition. That is why, an encyclopedic article of the Catalan Countries should, naturally, include a section on who coined the term and the evolution of it. (Please refer to the links provided below in the subsequent discussions).
Now, after reading the GREC, if you ask me what are the Catalan Countries (from the entry Catalonia [24]), they state: "...el conjunt de terres de parla i cultura catalanes, [és a dir], els Països Catalans". So, the Catalan Countries are "the group of territories of Catalan language and culture". No political concept whatsoever. Simply a linguistic and cultural concept. Following your link, these territories have a geographic location (of course). Out of this concept, some groups advocate for the existence of a national identity and thus take the term to the political arena. But, again, that isn't neither the origin, nor the only contemporary meaning of the word. Many linguists, published books, American newspapers and British universities (see many links provided below) use the term in English in the linguistic/cultural sense and do not advocate for any political separatism. I hope that answers your questions.
--the Dúnadan 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "...there are sections regarding etymology, history, evolution of the concept/term/belief etc, that go beyond a simple definition..."
That's true and it happens in all the examples (republic, Christianity, World Bank and Spain). Because you're using singular number (grammatical number): "of the concept/term/belief". The problem is: we have one term (word) and two meanings (concepts) here.
And we have a big problem ("that go beyond a simple definition"), because we cannot define both concepts at the same time without falling in that which you call "bias". This is really ludicrous (and a blatant need of two articles).
In your examples you won't find two disciplines mixed as here. For this purpose, I think, we have disambiguation pages. I mean:
  • republic: term (word) corresponding to politic concept (form of government).
  • Christianity: term (word) corresponding to religious concept (belief).
  • World Bank: term (word) corresponding to banking concept (financial institution).
  • Spain: term (word) corresponding to geographic concept (country).
You'll understand better if we use two terms: "catalan-speaking areas" and "Països Catalans". How can I define it if I don't know what concept is explained here?
  • Catalan Countries: term (word) corresponding to nationalistic concept (politic idea-project) and linguistic concept (catalan-speaking world)
A blatant confusion that you can find in this talk page, around all discussions, e.g.:
  • "I'd have no real problem with that. Elsewhere, we've used "Catalan-speaking world", but that is probably wrong here: the article is really about the (basically political more than academic) use of "paisos catalans". - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"
  • "I am going to remove the template as it is obviously geographically centered in the Catalan Countries.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)"
In SMP's comment, geographically, what Catalan Countries is cited (we have two different geographies, two maps)? If we are talking about linguistics, we can argue. But if we are talking about catalan nationalistic claims, no doubt: the tag is necessary (French and Spanish nationalities have their rights, the same Valencia or Balearic I., and their POV should be here too). The current structure restricts the POVs.
You've said:
  • "I think this article has a particular point of view [a bias] in defining Catalan Countries almost exclusively as a political and nationalistic/separatist concept. However, it is also a linguistic concept, I would even say, it is first a linguistic and cultural concept (not without controversy, of course), and then used by some politicians to advocate for nationalism and separatism. This article focuses exclusively on the latter and not on the former. --the Dúnadan 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)"
My proposal: split it in two articles, explaining each concept separately. Paradoxically, you seem to refuse this solution. And there is no logic reason to keep this salad. If we don't clarify it, we'll extend the current controversy to other articles by means of cross-references. Because catalan nationalism is linguistic, but not all linguistics are nationalist.
Now, the GREC article. I ask you "After reading the GREC, can you answer the question "what is PPCC"?". And I had linked my past comment.
For answer, in a mysterious act, you grab the Catalonia article in catalan instead of the Països Catalans article. Here is in catalan if you want: [25].
You say: "...el conjunt de terres de parla i cultura catalanes, [és a dir], els Països Catalans". But in your personal interpretation you forgot the verb: "inclou" (includes).
Thus, it doesn't answer the question "What is it": So, the Catalan Countries includes "the group of territories of Catalan language and culture". You're answering "what does it include".
What's the answer? The answer is: the "Catalan Countries" is a COUNTRY.
And... what's a country? It "is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory". But... the Catalonia Countries IS NOT a political division of a geographical entity nor a sovereign territory. Damn! It's politics! So it's necesary to define it as a "political project" or "nationalistic idea". Keeping on this ambiguity is to disrupt the POVs flow.
Now, please, read The Extent of the National Homeland: Els Països Catalans from this source (John Etherington, Doctor en Ciencias Políticas UAB; Profesor ayudante del Departamento de Ciencia Política y Derecho Público; investigador adscrito al proyecto Euroregión Pirineo-Mediterráneo... nada sospechoso): "The limits of the national territory are, of course, a sine qua non of any nationalist movement...".
The origin of this term has a deep nationalistic intention ("wich in our eyes appear to be part of a whole, as members of a nationality", Bienvenido Oliver, quoted in Fuster, 1978:55). Why no ethnic discourse as basque nationalism? Why did Benvingut Oliver and John Fuster choose language instead of ethnicity as principal element of nationality? John Fuster explained and developed the reasons.
May be we could create a new section: there are many ":" (I count nine). --Call me Elmo Sesame Street 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be torracollons now but I made my proposal assuming that "Catalan Countries" is really odd and it's just a "Catalan" translation of "Països Catalans". If this term is generaly used in English (as in NYT), then I wouldn't see any reason to call this article with the Catalan name instead of the already used English one. So, to sum up, I would say that my proposal deppends "on the number and quality" of sources... Let's start the race, who can give more sources! (is there any source in English who calls this territory by the Catalan name as it happens with "Anschluss"? Perhaps if you (Mountolive) find reliable sources in English in which the term is used also in Catalan, it would be a reason to think that this translation is really odd and we have to preserve the original words.

Let's remark that I have already arrived to a point in which I don't really care if the article is called "Catalan Countries", "Països Catalans" or "l'Hòstia en Vinagre". I think it is much more important the content and stop loosing our time discussing about such nonsense, so I'll support both positions.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it could be either way, as long as the article is truly neutral. --the Dúnadan 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xtv, this is probably the most intelligent edit you have done in last 48H! Let's see if your good faith comment is mirrored with good improvements on your part inside the article. --Maurice27 12:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sources provided, while being perfectly valid, don't compromise, in my opinion, any of my concerns expressed above (which go beyond the "doesn't sound like good English" tenet which someone tried to reduce them to). Sources with a strong Catalan descent may be incurring in the same translation mistake I mention, besides, Catalan-unrelated sources may well have used this very same article as a reference or background (not in vain, this article is the FIRST entry you get if you google "Catalan Countries"...isnt that at least suspicious?).

Both Xtv and Dúnadan seem, if only half-heartedly, ready to accept my proposal of changing the article to Països Catalans. I have no problem in doing so as it has been articulated by Xtv a few posts higher.

Then, following the new "make love, not (edit) war" policy implied by Maurice's (who apparently just converted to vegetarianism), I propose indeed making this change. As a return, I would half-heartedly conceed deleting the "primarily by Catalan nationalists" part disputed by Dúnadan, as long as where it now reads "Catalan countries" elsewhere in the article reads, alternatively, either "Països Catalans" or the more descriptive "Catalan speaking territories".

Is that ok? Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proved that the use of Catalan Countries is not complitely odd. So I accept your offer but with the alternance of either "Països Catalans", the more descriptive "Catalan speaking territories" but also (not only) "Catalan Coutries". And as I said, if this is after a section where the translation and original meaning is explained, it should be no probem for the reader to misunderstand the words.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas! I had asked all users to please discuss with sources and not opinions in Maurice's extraordinary Memorandum of Understanding, to no avail. True, were are not writing Britannica -as someone aptly pointed out. And because were are not writing Britannica -and hence we are no experts or authorities- Wikipedia has set up three core policies to ensure the quality of the articles: WP:V, WP:NPV and WP:NOR. These policies, let me quote, "... are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." That is why I find it hard to argue when users simply "care less for wiki rules" and use mere opinions or subjective appreciations. Wikipedia is not a forum when anybody can write whatever they want as long as they assume good faith. I have argued my point ad nauseum backed up with references, only to be "olympically" ignored or criticized by users who simply state their opinions.

I am sorry if Mountolive feels that I summarize his position as simple "it sounds bad in English". Can you actually summarize your solidly referenced arguments against the English nomenclature of "Catalan Countries" in three simple bullet points? I have read and re-read them back and forth. I will quote them and offer as a response not what "I think" (like you had asked) but what I researched or what I can back up with reputable sources, which is an entirely different thing. And alas! I find myself repeating my argument over and over, and who knows if they will be ignored again, while another accusation of me "ignoring" is said. If any other of your arguments is missing, please add it to the list:

  • it is odd (without sources, and hence, no offense, that is "taste")
  • doesn't make sense in English, why? Because the use of country in this case makes no sense "whatsoever in the English language sense", in spite of the fact that I have argued, here and in other debates -only to have the links to English dictionaries blatantly ignored- that country in English does refer, let me quote to a "region with a special character", [26],"a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)"[27], " any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions [or] by a distinctive population" [28], "an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature" [29], should I add more, or will valid reputable sources be blatantly ignored again?
  • the same term has not been used in other languages, even though lack of existence does not imply incorrectness; moreover,"French countries" is used in a similar way to refer to French-speaking countries [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].
  • the term is not encyclopedic and/or not used by the Academia, even though I provided plenty of sources like newspapers (like the New York Times) essay books (with "read-inside" pages of the term from Amazon for your convenience), and universities (like the University of Kent) which use the term. I wonder, has anybody actually bothered to check those links -even if out of unbelief to make sure that I am not making anything up- or did I just do the research in vain?!
  • used by sources of Catalan descent [sic] which incur in a mistake (categorical personal judgment), and Catalan-unrelated sources use this article as their only reference (statement of fact). I am pretty sure that neither the New York Times, nor the University of Kent, nor many of the books I quoted are of "Catalan-descent", and being reputable institutions I really doubt they take our Wikipedian article as their only source to come up with that term in English.
  • and finally the term is reduced to its political and nationalistic implication, whereas many of the sources I provided above use the term in its original and still valid meaning which is imply a linguistic and cultural region. Sources abound. True, some groups have taken the term to advocate for a national identity or to call for separatism-and hence the hatred it has acquired in some Spanish sectors- but that is not the only current meaning, nor the only "subtlety" of the term. By reducing it to mere "subtleties of nationalism" we ignore the subtleties of the linguistic meaning of the term, advocated by many others who are not on either extreme of the political spectrum (love or hate).

Call me stiff, a brick or whatever other adjective you can think of, but I find it against all Wikipedia's principles to cast away perfectly reputable sources in order to reach a "compromise" in which the arguments based on opinions have been proven wrong with sources. But if that is the only way to end this debate, then so be it, rename it at will. The article will suffer from the quality required by the core principles of Wikipedia, which are being ignored, and I will have little else to add or contribute in that endeavor.


--the Dúnadan 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I take the approximately 60 lines of text above from you guys as a No to my proposal. I'm sorry guys, to have bothered you (specially Dúnadan, who is a keen writer). It is that I just thought that I read somewhere

Let's remark that I have already arrived to a point in which I don't really care if the article is called "Catalan Countries", "Països Catalans" or "l'Hòstia en Vinagre". I think it is much more important the content and stop loosing our time discussing about such nonsense, so I'll support both positions.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it could be either way, as long as the article is truly neutral. --the Dúnadan 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but now, having read the more recent posts, I guess that was a dream of mine (which makes sense, due to the high hours weekend editting times we are used to around here). That is clearly not the more appropiate timing to write in talk pages and so those impromptu posts of yours which I dreamt about. I see them now completely outdated and replaced by the old, more firm, "embolica que fa fort" position (no, no, no Dúnadan, don't cry wolf, spare yourself the reply to the "embolica que fa fort" thing: that was a joke! :)

Well, I didnt want to make it sound as blackmail or something back in the day when I offered my compromise, besides I thought that you guys were going to (if only half-heartedly) take my offer based on more cheerful posts of yours, and so I thought it wasn't necessary to state it. However, since we are back to business (if we ever quitted at all) I must say that I guess I will have to tag the article with {globalize}. 'Please dont take it personal, because it's not about you guys (I'm serious).

Dúnadan, as a matter of fact, you clearly outperform me in your willing to write and research here (my respect for that). Indeed, I am lazy to work out my own position, if I was paid, I would think it over (that must be my own Països Catalans cultural thing, ha, ha, -another joke). Being lazy is one thing, but the main point why I wont produce a roughly 40 lines text completing yours is because you keep missing my points (yes "olympically" ;).

Ok, I'll give you a taster of what I think only if you promise you'll just read it and think about it, I dont want you to lose your time producing a new reply to this. Promised? yes? ok, then. For example, think of TV3, a very reputable source and quite "official" (it's public, too). Using their sources, I could validly claim that the official name of the Comunitat Valenciana is País Valencià instead, for that's the only one they use. I could get very upset as well if you countered the validity of my various CCRTV (Catalunya Ràdio, etc) sources in this regard. Ok, since you promised you'd be listening, here's another one "being reputable institutions I really doubt they take our Wikipedian article as their only source to come up with that term in English" you'll have to admit is no less of a "categorical personal judgement" of yours such as the one of mine you label like that.

Anyway, I consider the discussion on the "English translation" closed as from my side.

Once again, sorry to have bothered. Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 11:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And blackmail it is: either we change the name to Països Catalans or you -without any base to claim why a translation would not be neutral- you will reinsert the tag. So, a translation -done by non-Catalan Academics- makes it non-neutral, doesn't it? Blackmail it is indeed, since you have been unable to prove that a name ceases to be neutral once it is translated to English. Do NYT and University of Kent need to be tagged as well? Ludicrous, but most of all, unethical on your part, and I am utterly disappointed at your position. If you do that I will most certainly request for mediation or arbitration.
Again, you olympically ignored all my reserach and sources. And please stop your spurious claims about me ignoring you because I did answer your arguments one-by-one in bullet points and even asked you to add more! But you didn't answer a single of my arguments above!! Only to claim that you could cite TV3 and compare it to the New York Times. But wait... doesn't TV3 fail to pass one of your requirements? Isn't it a source of "Catalan-descent"[sic]? Will you debate ethically by providing counter-arguments with proofs to my arguments with proofs? I am sorry if this comment carries a negative tone, but I am utterly surprised at the unethical position you are taking: no research, no intelligent arguments, simply blackmail. Maybe it was a dream of ours that you would actually read our arguments and debate accordingly.
It has always suprised me that no single user in Wikipedia -or no single Spanish citizen for that matter- has ever complained that es:País Vasco or Basque Country are improper translations of Euskal Herria, and that the Spanish país and the English country could not possibly be a proper translation in the Spanish/English sense of the word. But when it comes to País Valencià or Països Catalans they vehemently and strongly complain that those cannot possibly be translated as "country" ignoring the fact that they are translated as such by Academia, as I have proven above: not TV3, but non-Catalan Academia. Maybe you should insert the tag at Basque Country and Basque Country (historical region), and why not, at es:País Vasco? Following your argument -if any- they cannot possibly be right. (Just to save you some time, the entry in Britannica -a reputable source- is indeed Basque Country).
--the Dúnadan 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While being a keen editor as I said above, that, excuse me, doesn't give you any merit whatsoever to call me a blackmailer or "ludicrous but most of all unethical".
Please, Dúnandan, keep your lessons on ethics for the guys in your wikiproject, if they are ready to take them. I am not.
So far, I think I never called you any names other than "stiff" (you called yourself a "brick", to which I have nothing to object, by the way)
I can obviously insert the tag if I see fit, even if you don't like it.
Who do you think you are? Being THE Dúnadan is not so impressive to me. Actually, I wanted to hear what was your opinion before deciding on the tag, and, after hearing yours, I am more tempted than ever to place it right now. I probably will soon; when the disgust your accusations are causing me is over and I am more settled, I'll check again with myself and make the decission. If I did, yes, please, take it to arbitration, mediation, whatever. For sure you are much more familiar than me in those wishy-washy procedures.
In the meantime, I would really appreciate it if you sticked very much up your arse your "blackmailer", "ludicrous", "not intelligent", "unethical" and else rant. Thanks. ŴMountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's back off and take a deep breath. I said your argument was blackmail (and you yourself said "I don't want it to sound like blackmail but...", so the label is yours not mine, I simply said, "yes it is indeed"). I also said your argument was ludicrous (i.e. not making sense). Your argument. A person cannot be ludicrous (never heard anyone use that adjective to refer to a person!) And all blackmail is unethical. Please don't personalize your arguments so that you can claim that I call you a blackmailer. The arguments are what they are, but if you felt insulted I apologize. Moreover, I will not respond to the extremely inappropriate and unacceptable comment about sticking things up my a$%s. If you cannot control yourself, I can. I will criticize your arguments but I will never use inappropriate foul language and or comments directly to you, not in Wikipedia and not in real life.

Most importantly, you still fail to answer any of my questions. How many times do I have to ask them? Five times? Please tell us why do you reject the dictionary definitions that I provided that prove that "country" is not an oddity? Why do you reject NYT and the University of Kent as valid sources for the neutral use of the term? Why do you do not oppose labels such as French countries or Basque Country but vehemently oppose Catalan Countries based solely on the "inappopriate translation" of the term "país"? (If there are political impliciations, then they must be discussed in the article). Why does translating a term make it not neutral and hence if it is in English a tag is necessary, but not if it is in Catalan? Why do you still claim that the term is used only by Catalans when I have provided reserach books, American newspapers and University syllabi that prove otherwise? Do you want to insert a tag, you need to justify it. We offer a counter-argument, then offer counter-counter arguments. But simply saying, I will insert it if I see fit, without engaging in a debate is not appropriate.

Let's take a breath. This is not the place to make accusations nor insults about one another, but about arguments. Do you want to criticize my arguments? Be my guest, do it, and do it by solidly backing your position up with an honest neutral reserach. That is what were are all supposed to be doing here. --the Dúnadan 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o_O ETHIC!!! "This is not the place to make accusations": it's a nice sentence to write here. --Call me Elmo Sesame Street 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrigues

[edit]

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the tag

[edit]

well, hoping to set no precedents whatsoever, I did as Dúnadan told me and I bothered to visit that place called "local library" for some references.

The result is negative: "Catalan Countries" is not in Britannica. It doesnt seem to be in their online edition either. Its translation is not either in Espasa or the Spanish version of Larousse (arguably, this means that it is not in the French version, even though I admit this may be a "categorical personal judgement", per Dúnadan's good usage of terms) Reversely, it is present indeed at Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (as we knew).

The conclussion I'm inferring is that the term is closely associated to Catalonia (GREC has it, everyone else dont) and does not represent a world view, just as the tag mentions.

Dúnadan may agree with me that the NYT or the University of Kent (it's Kent, right?) while both being most reputable organizations, neither of them is known for a particular insight or expertise on Catalan nationalism, its relevance, parlance, translations, or are the self-appointed agents to settle the relevance of Catalan homemade concepts internationally, their translations and else.

Besides, neither have an encyclopedical mission either, while Britannica, obviously, does.

The fact that when you google "Catalan Countries" the first entry you get is this very article we are discussin here should be, let me mention this once again, a source of concern with this translation which I think it's ill fated. I still think that this could well be behind of the usage made of this term by media and institutions (such as the NYT and others) which only go about this subject in a very much incidental hit-or-miss (miss?) way. This could be another "categorical personal judgment" of mine, ok, but replying to this one with a mere "being reputable institutions I really doubt they take our Wikipedian article as their only source to come up with that term in English" is, you may agree with me, no less of another "categorical personal judgement" of yours as well.

Moreover, we shouldnt lose sight that it is not me only who has deemed this translation as less-than-perfect or troublesome. A number of both English native speakers and non-native have expressed in older posts their concern with this translation. You may want to ask Boynamedsue, for example.

If someone thinks that the NYT and else have a more proper approach to the subject, that's ok, but that is no less of a "categorical personal judgment" as my own approach, which is that Britannica is much more relevant, since it is an enclyclopedia, and not just one more but I'd say it's the most reputable one.

I will restore the tag for these reasons (the map with the so-called "Catalan Sea" is another reason -yet a secondary one, I wouldnt like to be stiff myself).

This said, I'd like to remark that I keep open my offer to rename this to "Països Catalans" as expressed above. As long as this is done, then I'd have no problem with the article as it is now nor in removing the now infamous tag. Also, in this regard, I wanted to remark once again that Dúnadan, who defended "Catalan Countries", he also said he could be agreeable as well to my proposal, being this windfall of his the responsible for the current controversy.

Dúnadan, I have made as you did, looked for references and I think all this I just expressed above is, at least, a respectable aproach to the matter. I would like also to note the evil nature of having to look for something to prove it doesnt exist, which amounts to looking for a blank. It is quite more easy, you may agree with me, to google something you think it exists and then collect the results without questioning the source's validity.

Thanks • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ditto! --Maurice27 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have here a "conceptual false friends" case. But first, some notes. Dúnadan links (review, amazon links are broken, and The Catalan Countries Project (1931-1939) is repeated):
  • GREC : The Catalan Countries, Catalan Hyperencyclopaedia (catalan context)
  • RECERCAT : The Catalan Countries Project (1931-1939), by Arnau Gonzàlez i Vilalta (catalan context)
  • UNIVERSITY OF KENT: HISPANIC STUDIES, Catalan Countries
  • Learning Catalan 2A : David García Sirvent (catalan context)
  • Learning Catalan 2B : David García Sirvent (catalan context)
  • RECERCAT : The Catalan Countries Project (1931-1939), by Arnau Gonzàlez i Vilalta (catalan context)
  • UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO : Eva Juarros-Daussà, Assistant Professor in the State University of New York at Buffalo (catalan context)
  • NEW YORK TIMES: Països Catalans as principal term, and in parentheses, the translation: Catalan Countries. The preferred term in the text is Països Catalans.
  • GENCAT : CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE USE OF CATALAN, Generalitat de Catalunya (catalan context)
  • UNIVERSITAT RAMON LLUL : History of Catalonia, Enric Puig Giralt (catalan context)
  • AMAZON : broken link
  • EUROPEAN PARLAMENT (ERC doc) : Multilingualism in Europe: The Importance of Education, by Bernat Joan i Mari. Republican Left of Catalonia. (catalan context)
  • AMAZON : broken link
  • AMAZON : broken link
  • AMAZON : broken link
  • AMAZON : broken link
The only source out of catalan context is the NYT, and its wording gives relevance to Països Catalans (translation in parentheses).
But now, "conceptual false friends": Graham Pollock warns about this serious risk (beware of this guy). What means "conceptual false friends"?:
  • "A related but more insidious danger is the conscious or unconscious tendentious translation of technical terms, especially when they are conceptual false friends. Globalization may be leading to an increasing consensus on the meaning of technical terms, but false conceptual cognates still exist. A literal translation of “the state,” for example, may give rise to misconceptions due to discrepancies between Western-based concepts of the state, which refer either implicitly or explicitly to Weber’s definition, and conceptualizations of the state by authors engaged in a critical reading of Western social science as applied to the social institutions of non-Western countries. What looks like “international” terminology may therefore be deceptive or, in extreme cases, an attempt to impose meanings from one culture on another. A word like “democracy,” which would seem to offer automatic equivalents, may turn out to require an explanatory footnote or—if it affects the way the reader is to view a concept throughout a work or article—a translator’s introduction [...] Since the prevalence of technical terms is one of the prime distinguishing features of social science discourse, translators must take special care not only in rendering them but also in making their audience aware of them".
My POV: the best rendering, the original term "Països Catalans" (with translation in parentheses) for politic concept, and "Catalan-speaking world" for linguistic. --Call me Elmo Sesame Street 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great analysis. • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Mountolive for your response and your evident change in attitude and most of all, language. It is noted and appreciated. Thanks for the bibliographic review. You brought into the discussion three sources -Britannica, Espasa and GREC. Britannica apparently does not mention the name (neither in Catalan or English) and the same goes for Espasa, unlike GREC, which you reject because it is a Catalan source. From that you argue, that if a reputable source as Britannica -heavily criticized before when I brought into the attention of several users that ituses the word "nationality"- does not mention the concept of Catalan Countries, then that means the concept does not represent a worldview.
Then you argue that neither NYT nor U of Kent are experts in Catalan nationalism -thus again reducing the concept of Catalan Countries to that of nationalism, and ignoring its linguistic use, a connotation that is very evident precisely in those two sources, one of which is an Academic one, much closer to a primary source than an encyclopedia (a tertiary source). But again, I am glad you bring out the virtues of Britannica; that would indeed settle many of the concerns at Talk:Catalonia, and the vehement opposition to the word "nationality" therein expressed, because it was "improper English" and not "encyclopedic". =)
So, I guess you answered some -not all- of my questions above. However, you still have not answered the rest of the questions, namely (1) Why does a translation of a term make it not neutral automatically? (2) Why did you (or do you) reject the dictionary definitions showed above that show a different conception of what you believe "country" means in English and that they are not false friends? (Thus making the literal translation as adequate as the Catalan original). I still fail to see why a term (that if you google in quotations you find more than 4,000 entries, so I guess it does not mean you are looking for a "blank") in Catalan is appropriate and why in English is ceases to be appropriate; and (3) why do you still reduce the Catalan Countries to an expression of nationalism and reject its valid use -by Academia- of a linguistic area? Isn't that leaning to a particular POV?
As for the use of the term "Catalan Sea", I do agree with you, that particular term does represent a particular POV, and not a worldview and it is, by no means, a common term in English usage. I propose that the map be changed.
And to answer to Owdki, I was about to write an extensive answer, but I rather keep it short. I am glad he provided sources. He is more than welcome to include them in the article. That is what NPOV is all about, to present all POVs. But when he claims that his particular POV, endorsed by his particular sources discredit all other equally valid -or more reputable- sources that other users presented, and therefore we are wrong, he violates NPOV. I already told him, and kindly asked him twice to contribute to building an article that presents all POVs. For many -and the sources that I provided prove- it is only a linguistic concept. (The same term, in English and in Catalan, not two different terms as he wants us to believe). For others, it carries a nationalistic connotation in nature. The article should present both points of view. I don't oppose the inclusion of the fierce opposition and the accusations of its use under a nationalistic banner. But I do oppose when users try to reduce the article to a particular POV, by debasing other POVs that are equally valid, to claim that the term is merely a nationalistic moniker, when it is not so. And to why if an author is Catalan, he is automatically disqualified from being a valid source (which seems an ad hominem argument, or perhaps, ad regionem?), that further proves that other POVs -of non-nationalistic authors, whether Catalan or not- are being excluded from this article.
Happily, country and país are not false friends, as the many English dictionary sources that I provided above prove, whose definition of country as a region with cultural characteristics is strikingly similar to the Spanish and Catalan definitions. Just in case he missed them I will produce them again: "region with a special character", [36],"a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)"[37], " any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions [or] by a distinctive population" [38], "an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature" [39] So luckily we don't need to worry about the insidious danger of a tendentious translation, the is more than one meaning for country. ;-)
Finally, I when I provided the article of Catalunya instead of that of Països Catalans, I did so because Països Catalans was never defined politically -as you seem to imply- in the latter. But even though you claim that I missed the word "inclou", I suggest reading the article again. Well, let me write what it says, in Catalan, which I assume you speak,, referring to Catalonia, "Constitueix la part territorialment més extensa de l'anomenat Principat de Catalunya i inclou el nucli originari de tot el conjunt de terres de parla i cultura catalanes, els Països Catalans" Let me translate, "Catalonia constitutes the largest territorial section of the so-called Principality of Catalonia and includes the original nucleus of all the set of lands/territories of Catalan language and culture, the Catalan Countries". Which is the -tacit-subject of the sentence? Well, evidently Catalonia. I hope that by re-reading that sentence, you'll realize that the "inclou" refers to "Catalunya" and not to the "Països Catalans". Catalonia includes the nucleus (or core, center) of the Països Catalans, which are defined as the territories of Catalan language and culture. If that still doesn't make sense, take the sentence to a philology professor, I am sure he will show you who the subject of the sentence is, and that the direct object is the "territories of Catalan language and culture, the Catalan Countries".
As a PS, for the Amazon links, you need to be registered to read them, simply log in, and you will. If not, the books are: (provided to prove that the term is translated to English in several contexts)
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Guideline p. 632
  • The Film Festival Guide: For Filmmakers, Film Buffs, and Industry Professionals (Film Festival Guide), by Adam Langer, p. 228
  • Politics of Language in the Spanish-Speaking World (The Politics of Language), by Clare Mar, p. 42
You might as well do a search of all books that contain the phrase "Catalan Countries" both at Amazon and at Barnes and Noble.
Cheers,
--the Dúnadan 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've bringed you references. What do you bring me? Accusations and vivacissimo tempo. I'm tempted to place a [citation needed] in your signing, because you seems to be far from Dúnedain's characteristics. I've touched only 2 points, Dúnadan: two concepts and term translation. There are still a looooot for discourse, so is extremely premature to say that anybody wants to reduce the article to a particular POV. So take it easy or take a breath. And meanwhile, remember: "I have actually invited you, Owdki and Mountolive to discuss with references, not with opinions and accusations". As Jimbo says "Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way". Entesus?
Now, go back to the PPCC. Firstable, my error: sorry. You're right. Sing with me: "my mind is playing tricks on me...". You should know that I lost all my eyelashes in a screen spontaneous combustion (searching, searching, searching, reading, reading, reading...). And I'm very disappointed because after that bigeffort you put the bold in the minor points: you've obviated the big ones. Sources: for what?
"For many -and the sources that I provided prove- it is only a linguistic concept. (The same term, in English and in Catalan, not two different terms as he wants us to believe). For others, it carries a nationalistic connotation in nature. The article should present both points of view". I'll try to explain it clearly. But first, we must assume that we're talking in Catalan:
  • 1. In Catalan there's a term: Països Catalans.
  • 2. For many catalans it's only a linguistic concept
  • 3. For others, it carries a nationalistic connotation in nature.
Now I'll grab, again, your comment and I'll rewrite it (I think the same as you):
  • 1. In Catalan there's a term: Països Catalans.
  • 2. It can be used in a linguistic context: linguistic concept.
  • 3. It can be used in a politic context: politic concept.
Thus we find a fact, the meaning of the term Països Catalans depends on the context we use it, am I wrong?:
  • people use "Països Catalans" in a linguistic context: e.g. L'Alguerès és un dialecte parlat als Països Catalans.
  • people use "Països Catalans" in a politic context : e.g. Seguidament els informem del temps i les previsions pels Països Catalans. (=> yes, fent pais in the mass media, politic: process of national construction, you know the Joan Ferran affair, and [40], and [41]... like God it's everywhere)
That's why I asked you about mouse. For me it's very clear:
  • people use mouse in a informatic context: e.g. I don't like the Apple round mouse.
  • people use mouse in a biologic context: e.g The mouse is a mammal.
You won't find anybody claiming that this division is violating NPOV, or claiming their merging in one mouse article. Because yes, this would be really ludicrous.
I'm assuming here part of your POV. I don't think that Països Catalans is used in any case as a linguistic concept. Using it means "fer pais". So it is politic everytime. As I said, from the beginning it was used in a politic context [42], [43]:
"The limits of the national territory ar, of course, a sine qua non of any nationalist movement, if it is to establish claims over and control a given territory. [...] Such competing definitions of what constitutes the exent of the homeland of the Catalan people have been present in Catalan nationalism for well over a century, and it is to this that I now wish to turn".
"This fact, that, if we are not the first to discover, then no-one up until know has proclaimed it, throws unexpected light on our history and on the true character of the peoples that can be said to be the Catalan language, which in our eyes appear to be part of a whole, as members of a nationality" (=> this one from Benvingut Oliver, 1876)
Do you still think that the term have no politic connotations in its "birth"? Benvingut Oliver was not extraneous to the Renaixença and the nationalistic discussions of those years (1876). The same as Josep Narcís Roca i Farreras (1886). How to define a territoriality to build a nationality.
On the other hand the everyday in Catalonia shows you the most extended use of Països Catalans. Look it graphically:
It's different. It is not the same. I cannot understand why the map which defines PPCC, as most people understands, is not in the article. Read, please, the reference or the GREC: it is explained clearly. What to do? Two diferent maps in the same article? Two introductions? Two definitions?
I don't know how to explain it clearer. I would like to know other users oppinions (Xtv, Casaforra, Maurice27, Mountolive...). May be I'm wrong. I dunno.
Regarding "why if an author is Catalan, he is automatically disqualified from being a valid source". Instead of getting amazed by the extreme coincidence that is "finding a catalan behind each translation", you reply "that further proves that other POVs -of non-nationalistic authors, whether Catalan or not- are being excluded from this article".
Well, my answer is clear: it could be accepted if our discussion have as objective to find how catalans translate Països Catalans to english, i.e. translations in a catalan context. But we are trying to elucidate the correct rendering of the terms in english.
"Conceptual false friends" is different than "false friends". And that is: may be in the english world is used "xxxxxxx-speaking world" or similar as the correct terms for the concept (defining territories in which a given language is spoken). Native english speakers have shown here their doubts.
That's about linguistic concept. I have no idea about the politic concept translation, that's why I prefer Països Catalans (as Nosaltres els valencians instead of "We the Valencian").
On the other hand: follow this link. Go to the section "Pujol and Fer país (Building a Country): 1964-1974". Dúnadan, I'm sure you use to hear Catalonia. But how many times have you heard Catalan Country? Now, "Cultural activism":
  • "Jordi Pujol has also been closely associated with other projects for civil society, such as his contribution to the Enciclopèdia Catalana"
Ergo the GREC, as you can see, is closely associated with Jordi Pujol. Fent país, noi.
"I did so because Països Catalans was never defined politically -as you seem to imply- in the latter". Man, in 1886 (ten years after Oliver), Josep Narcís Roca i Farreras explained "Països Catalans" (in Catalan, because Oliver wrote "países catalanes" in lower case) as a politic concept. 121 years ago. There's a lot written about it in these 121 years.
Sorry. I'm exhausted. May be my mind beguins to play tricks on me. I'll welcome any other opinion. I think we are spending our time here for nuttin. --Call me Elmo Sesame Street 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix- Semantic range of "country" and its validity as a translation of "pais"

[edit]

In the current debate regading the validity of the translation of the Catalan "Paisos Catalans" to the English "Catalan Countries" the key issue is whether "Countries" is an adecuate rendering of the Catalan "Paisos". Posts above debate this issue, but they regularly do so as part of a raft of other issues, leading to confusion which in turn stops us from resolving the problem of this article's name. I have created this appendix so that we can discuss this topic without deviation.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources cited in support of "countries" = "paisos"

[edit]

The argument that "countries" fills the same semantic slot as "paisos" has been advanced by Dunadan above. He infers (and if my appraisal is wrong, please correct me) that "country" can mean "region with a special character", therefore "countries" would mean "regions with a special character". External sources are presented to support this argument in this paragraph:

"Happily, country and país are not false friends, as the many English dictionary sources that I provided above prove, whose definition of country as a region with cultural characteristics is strikingly similar to the Spanish and Catalan definitions. Just in case he missed them I will produce them again: "region with a special character", [48],"a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)"[49], " any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions [or] by a distinctive population" [50], "an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature" [51] So luckily we don't need to worry about the insidious danger of a tendentious translation, the is more than one meaning for country. ;-)"

This first of these references is from encarta:

5. region with special character: a region that is distinguished by particular characteristics or is associated with a particular activity, person, or group of people
Since this was rebel country, checkpoints were set up along the road.

The second from wordreference.com:

A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.

The third is from dictionary.com

A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.

The fourth is from Cambridge university press

Definition
noun [U]
an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature:

Stratford-on-Avon is the capital of Shakespeare country. The empty roads make this area good cycling country.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Validity and Analysis of presented sources

[edit]

These websites are all valid and, to a greater or lesser extent, respected sources. They more than meet the criteria of reliability needed for sources on wikipedia.

In each case an example of the structure is provided:

1. Since this was rebel country, checkpoints were set up along the road..
2. hill country; Bible country.
3. hill country; Bible country.
4. Shakespeare country, cycling country.

In none of the above cases is an article used with "country", and it is always modified with a noun functioning as an adjective. In all these cases "country" is an uncountable noun.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Relevance to translation of Paisos Catalans as Catalan Countries

[edit]

It has been argued that the above sources support the translation of "Paisos" as "Countries" in the phrase "Catalan Countries". The reasoning being that the various components of the "Paisos Catalans", although not meeting the normal English definition of "countries", satisfy this secondary definition of "a region characterised by a certain quality or feature"(please see above quote by Dunadan).

A brief look at the structure will show that this can not possibly be the case here. All the above uses are uncountable nouns, the CUP (the most trustworthy of the sources cited) explicitly states this to be so. The English neologism Catalan countries, however, uses the plural meaning that, by definition, it is not the same structure as the one described in the above sources.

Unless further supporting evidence is provided, I feel we are safe in discounting "Catalan Countries" as a semantically accurate rendering of "Paisos Catalans" in English. The only way that this might not be true is if "Paisos", in this specific instance, also means the collection of defined regions with actual or potential individual (NOT collective) sovereignty, which is the meaning of "Countries" in English.

This conclusion (though not the analysis above it) is opinion drawn from fact, rather than fact itself, still I feel that it puts to bed any dispute as to whether Catalan Countries is either good English or a good translation.

The only way I see that Catalan Countries should remain the title of this article is if we decide that the term is already so widespread in English that we are reflecting English usage, otherwise it must be left in the original Catalan, with an explanation in the first paragraph.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting WP:OR. I am sure the New York Times and the University of Kent would benefit from it, being English speaking institutions who make use of a English neologism that is semantically inaccurate, according to the above. It is not my place to argue or disqualify an OR. But I will give my comments.
  • CUP does say that the definition of Country as Land is [U], arguably, uncountable. From that you extrapolate that the rest of the dictionaries also imply that the noun is uncountable. As far as I can tell, that is the core -and probably the only- argument. Since that particular meaning (acepció, in Catalan/Valencian), out of five possible meanings, is specified to be uncountable in one dictionary, then the only other meaning is that of sovereign countries which, obviously, the Catalan countries are not.
  • The distinguishing feature in this particular case (or characteristic, culture or distinction) is that Catalan is therein spoken (albeit with diverse statutory names). The rendering, "Catalan Country" would therefore, be accurate (wouldn't it?). Now, engaging in OR as well, the "Cowboy country" -an expression extensively used in southern US- refers to a particular territory. Cowboy, being the English translation of the [Mexican] Spanish vaquero, also applies to a territory in Mexico that is maybe, but not necessarily adjacent to the territory in the US. Cowboy country also refers to the province of Alberta in Canada. Each of these territories is appropriately an uncountable "country", and each is referred to as such. Being located three different political locations (sovereign States) when referring to two, or the three separate entities (or any other cowboy country, for that matter), the plural happens to be used: the "cowboy countries"[52], and not an entire global cowboy country. The same can be argued for Bible countries [53], rebel countries [54], "Catalan Country", while grammatically correct in Catalan, Spanish and English, would probably cause a hundred times more uproar in Valencia and the Balearic Islands, even if it only refers to language, as you would probably agree. But, being two regions in which Catalan is spoken -again, albeit with different statutory names- in Spanish, Catalan and English the term "Catalan Countries" -when referring to those individual territories with a distinctive characteristic (Catalan language), not necessarily coextensive with particular political entities- is more appropriate and -arguably, politically correct (using the American English idiom).
--the Dúnadan 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunadan, being my country, France, completely "splashed" by those "territories" called by you "countries", I invite you to read Pays (France). I invite you to understand our point in how a real neutral article, does explain the peculiarities of those territories, why they are called "pays" in french and how, IN ANY WAYS, a translation into english "countries" is used. The article is not called Countries (France). It uses the french "pays" as only in that language it has a meaning. Why is Catalonia to be different? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Dunadan's answer

[edit]

Point 1

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting WP:OR. I am sure the New York Times and the University of Kent would benefit from it, being English speaking institutions who make use of a English neologism that is semantically inaccurate, according to the above. It is not my place to argue or disqualify an OR. But I will give my comments.

It is not original research to discuss the validity of sources, and to disagree with the (erroneous) conclusions which you draw from them. Since our sources do not support the conclusions you draw from them, it is you who is closer to violating WP:OR. You are extrapolating from dictionary definitions of "country [U]" to support your view of the meaning of "countries [pl]", not providing examples of it meaning what you clain it means. You have provided, as to now, no evidence which supports your view.

The use by NYT and University of Kent are factors suibtable for discussion elsewhere, when we discuss the currency the neologism has gained since its coinage.

Point 2

"CUP does say that the definition of Country as Land is [U], arguably, uncountable. From that you extrapolate that the rest of the dictionaries also imply that the noun is uncountable. As far as I can tell, that is the core -and probably the only- argument. Since that particular meaning (acepció, in Catalan/Valencian), out of five possible meanings, is specified to be uncountable in one dictionary, then the only other meaning is that of sovereign countries which, obviously, the Catalan countries are not."
  • [U] does not mean arguably uncountable, it means uncountable.
  • The examples given are all uncountable, this is not opinion it is fact. This is true in all the dictionaries.
  • The uncountable meaning is the one that you quote, in all cases. It is the only one that means a region rather than a nation-like entity, according to the CUP. Please re read the source you provided in full, if you are still unable to see this, I will post the definitions in full so everybody can see it.
  • This sentence is circular reasoning:

"Since that particular meaning (acepció, in Catalan/Valencian), out of five possible meanings, is specified to be uncountable in one dictionary, then the only other meaning is that of sovereign countries which, obviously, the Catalan countries are not. "

I argue that "Catalan COUNTRIES" is incorrect English, as it uses a structure that can only be used with "Country" as an uncountable noun. You argue that this structure can't mean only this because if it did then the construction "Catalan Countries" would be incorrect. It is a mistranslation, plain and simple.

Point 3

  • The distinguishing feature in this particular case (or characteristic, culture or distinction) is that Catalan is therein spoken (albeit with diverse statutory names). The rendering, "Catalan Country" would therefore, be accurate (wouldn't it?). Now, engaging in OR as well, the "Cowboy country" -an expression extensively used in southern US- refers to a particular territory. Cowboy, being the English translation of the [Mexican] Spanish vaquero, also applies to a territory in Mexico that is maybe, but not necessarily adjacent to the territory in the US. Cowboy country also refers to the province of Alberta in Canada. Each of these territories is appropriately an uncountable "country", and each is referred to as such. Being located three different political locations (sovereign States) when referring to two, or the three separate entities (or any other cowboy country, for that matter), the plural happens to be used: the "cowboy countries"[55], and not an entire global cowboy country. The same can be argued for Bible countries [56], rebel countries [57], "Catalan Country", while grammatically correct in Catalan, Spanish and English, would probably cause a hundred times more uproar in Valencia and the Balearic Islands, even if it only refers to language, as you would probably agree. But, being two regions in which Catalan is spoken -again, albeit with different statutory names- in Spanish, Catalan and English the term "Catalan Countries" -when referring to those individual territories with a distinctive characteristic (Catalan language), not necessarily coextensive with particular political entities- is more appropriate and -arguably, politically correct (using the American English idiom).
--the Dúnadan 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first use of "cowboy country" is as an uncountable noun. E.g "New Mexico is cowboy country" NOT "New Mexico is a cowboy country".
  • You then google mined a reference to "cowboy countries", implying in your statement that this source referred to the three "cowboy countries" you previously mentioned. Google gives forty hits for "cowboy countries". The one you quote is the first on the list, the statement in context is:

” The US needs to take care of these cowboy countries, because these cowboy countries need a bigger cowboy to reign them in.”

Good faith forces me to assume that you hadn't read this quote, as it is obviously referring to Sovereign countries like Iran, Iraq and Venezuela, not "cowboy countries" like Wyoming and the Badlands of Montana.

  • Bible countries, in the google results page you linked, refer, in all cases, to the countries in which the Hebrew Bible takes place. Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
  • Your third posted link, supporting "rebel countires" is to an organisation calling itself "The chronicles of Girku". They are very concerned about freemasonry. I feel that a quotation from their website should be enough to establish their credentials as arbiters of academic truth:

"The KUR, which is invisible to the three-dimensional perception of beings evolving in KI, consists of KUR-GAL, the 2nd dimension, and KUR-BALA, the 1st. This KUR is the region promulgated as "Hell" by the Judeo-Christian religions and, as such, it evokes images of a dark and lugubrious domain. However it is none of that! It is similar to our 3rd-dimensional world with its mountains, lakes, forests and deserts. On the other hand, its light is different, as are the sensations there.

As can be seen in the diagram, the KUR also includes two intermediate dimensions.

Just "below" our 3rd dimension is the intermediate dimension KUR-GI-A, meaning KUR of the "firm" Source, or the ANGAL."

Personal message

Dunadan, your use of sources is very worrying. You continue to post sources that do not support your argument, whilst claiming that they do. When this is pointed out to you, you attempt to muddy the waters by essay-posting and logical non-sequiturs. On this page you have cited 7 pages that I have had time to check, none of which support your argument in reality. I would not have gone to such lengths in doing so were it not for the fact that I have had this argument 3 times with you, and you seemingly refuse to see or understand any evidence you do not want to be there.

You know that I have a lot of respect for your dedication to wikipedia, and your breadth of knowledge on many topics. It is not a sign of weakness to admit you are wrong, there is still a debate to be had about the currency of the term "Catalan countries", but it must be based on usage rather than linguistic validity, and I am happy to take your contributions in good faith in this future debate.

Boynamedsue 16/12/2007

I am Mountolive and I approve this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Boynamedsue's arguments

[edit]

By focusing on the nuances of the discussion, BNS, you are missing the big picture -and I got myself into trouble by trying to respond to your OR by engaging in a 5 minute OR myself. I don't know how else I can explain my arguments, so I will try for the las time to explain myself:

With all due respect, I believe you are engaging on OR simply because the term "Catalan Countries", whether right (in my eyes) or wrong (in your eyes) is the current term used in English, as the many links I presented above show, including the Academia. Even if it is a mistranslated neologism (as you call it), it is used currently. We had a similar discussion -albeit less heated- over the translation of the official name of Mexico, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, commonly rendered as "United Mexican States". The translation -used in almost all major serious publications in English- has been argued several times to be incorrect, since the adjective Mexicanos is qualifying the compound noun (historically written with a hyphen)Estados-Unidos. If that wasn't the case, according to the argument, the term in Spanish would make more semantic sense as Estados Mexicanos Unidos. Therefore, the argument goes, the correct rendering is "Mexican United States" (or following the historic spelling, "Mexican United-States"). We all concluded, however, that we were not in the position, as Wikipedians, of engaging in a possibly valid and correct OR, to disqualify was has become the traditional universal and Academic rendering of the term in English. We were not in the position of discrediting serious institutions or sources by our argumentation. (That would violate OR; we could, however, discredit sources with equally valid sources: if a reputable linguist had written that the translation of the Spanish term is wrong, then that source could be used, but not our work as linguistic amateurs). The same applies to Catalan Countries, regardless of how we feel about the term -or even how we feel about its political connotations. In fact, I believe that this debate is much more heated than that of Mexico, not because of its purported grammar or semantic inconsistencies but because of the different reactions that the term evokes (mainly political) of utter like/dislike of its meaning and how it has been advanced by some sectors in Spain.

If there has been a debate over how wrong the English-speaking world is by using a mistranslation, I fearfully foresee future arguments over the validity of the term itself in Catalan, and then, not only engaging in OR , but engaging in a POV war, in which each party will argue that the other one cannot possibly be right and how the term is completely wrong/right. Maybe my fears are unfounded -and do hope so- and we can write an article that truly presents all POVs (as required by WP:NPOV) without disqualifying each other.

--the Dúnadan 16:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what you say above, and of course I would be disingenuous if I pretended that my motives were only linguistic (though knowing me as you do, you'll see that language is a big deal for me).

I agree that the usage of the term is the most important factor, but as the coinage "catalan countries" has a political dimension and is not yet very widespread (though I accept it has been used, albeit rarely, in some very respectable circles), we need to tread quite carefully.

I feel we can leave it like this for now, if you can accept there is little evidence for the "accurate translation" theory, I can accept that usage may have rendered this discussion obsolete, or may do so in the future.

My respects. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the end is the beginning is the end

[edit]

Based on the dicussion above (the "KUR" or "Hell") and some additional discussion held at my own talk page (probably the "ANGAL") looks like we are eventually ready to re-name the article "Països Catalans". If so, I would have no reasons to keep the tag, I would happily remove it. Yet the only minor problem would be the map including the "Catalan Sea" ("KUR-BALA"), but I am sure that a new one will be found soon (a new map, not a new sea, please) and in the meantime I can bear with this one, if only temporarily.

However Dúnadan rightly points out that, since Països Catalans exists already, if only as a redirect, We The People cant do this by ourselves, but an Administrator (amen) has to step in and do it for us, as only an Administrator (amen) is the only one capable of doing this re-organization of the whole KUR system, I guess.

But for that he may want to hear that we are all ok with this move, so please drop by and let us know your position: hopefully most of you will agree with this move and we can finally leave behind this issue.... and move on to the next one.

Anyway: I do agree with this proposed solution.

Your turn.

Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --the Dúnadan 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary to ask an admin, the original page had just one edit as a histoy and therefore could be moved. Even since I think Dúnadan sources verified the possibility to call the article "Catalan Countries", I don't find it so important and I just want to finish the discussion. Now, let's work to find all POV in the article. My offer is still valid (section about proposed (and used) translations, etc...).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the translation. I DON'T agree with the removal of the tag because still:

  • It does not give any single reference about the use of this term by the population of all the regions and territories mentioned (apart Catalonia, of course)
  • It disguises as a “linguistic sense” what clearly is a political feeling (once again, any reference is given to prove this point and, meanwhile, the political explanation covers 2/3 of the article).
  • It uses Pan-Catalanist terms such as “Northern Catalonia” (which is not official nor has any meaning outside Catalonia) instead of the correct Roussillon (or whatever other name. I rather keep the neutrals Roussillon, Cerdagne, Vallespir and Conflent list of territories rather than the POVish "Northern Catalonia" which is clearly not appropriate). It is like calling Valencia, Catalonia del Sud. Absolutely not acceptable.
  • It misusses medieval terms such as “Kingdom of Majorca” or “Kingdom of Valencia” (which do not exist anymore). Kingdom of Mallorca is Balears + Roussillon and Kingdom of Valencia is Valencia in XXI century.
  • and finally, the removal of the Catalan Sea map is a must.

Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I had forseen, some people were not truly concerned about the purpoted inaccuracies of a transalted term, but about pushing a particular POV. --the Dúnadan 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like renaming back. Think better I quit again...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share some of Maurice's concerns, but I think that putting the tag back should be a last resort. Is "Northern Catalonia" used IN Northern Catalonia by anyone not associated with Catalan political parties? Is Roussillon more common? I genuinely don't know the answer to those questions. I believe "Catalogne" is used by some people, when speaking French (as most people habitually do in that region).

The dual linguistic and political senses of the term CAN, I feel be explained adecuately in the text of the article, it will just be a question of us working at it.

Medievalisms should surely be avoided where possible, but they may be necessary here or there, lets see which ones can be cut and which need to stay.

Putting the tag back is, for now, the nuclear option. Lets try a few edits first and see where it gets us. If it doesn;t wotk.. well, I guess it will be time to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb ;-)

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already expressed my opinion. No one, excepting Dúnadan, has made "comments/allegations" (this with quotation marks, and I'm still waiting for his answer about my last explanation). Actually I cannot contribute in this article because I have no idea about what we are talking about: politics or linguistics. And I don't want to disrupt the consensus flow. So it's in your hands. All best. --Owdki talk 14:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a temptative edit for the intro. Style and wording aside (please improve it) I think it is not too bad.

On the other side, probably, Maurice's concerns should be replied by either Dúnadan or Xtv.

In any case, it shouldnt be so difficult to find a new map (if that is impossible, the other one already present in the article could be good enough). As for the "Northern Catalonia" thing, it could be easily neutralized by one of those wikiperiphrasis in this fashion [Roussillon, Vallespir, Cerdagne and Conflent, which are collectively known in Catalan as "Catalunya Nord" (Northern Catalonia in English)] As for the usage of the term by people from other countries outside Catalonia, I think I could find some source in ERPV or some astray CUP ;) in Valencia. Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a term used in there. As for example in the webpage of the City council of Perpinyà [58]. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it back to Catalan Countries

[edit]

I am sorry because I have not able to be here in many days and now I want to reopen the discussion, but I cannot understand the moving that has been done. As I have understood reading it everyone agrees in the following facts:

  • The references state that Catalan Countries is the term preferred by Catalan publications (when those are written in English).
  • The concept of Catalan Countries is rarely used outside that territory by non-Catalanist people.

Then the page should be called Catalan Countries, as the only people who use it (Catalan nationalists) translate the term like this when talking in English. It seems to me that you all are trying to say that Catalan nationalists cannot use the English language and that therefore the term has to be in Catalan language but this is not true. To accept the use of Països Catalans I would like to see substantial references that prove its use in texts written in English language. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't got enough yet with all the above, then, yes, go and move it back to "Catalan Countries". As far as I am concerned, I will have to reinstate the little tag on top of it all, to reflect all the concerns expressed in depth in this very talk page.
Well, it's good that at least you feel sorry for coming here just when a brittle consensus had apparently been reached (only apparently indeed) now that people seem exhausted and fed up to death with this discussion. You'll have to excuse me, but I am not going to start over just for you: you have it all just a few posts above and your Perpignan source doesnt really change anything (can't really speak for the others, as for me, I definitely had enough). Anyway, I guess that | if you havent got it by now, you will never really really get it....
But, hey, this is just wikipedia after all and circular reasoning comes with the package, doesnt it? If it wasnt you, then it would be someone else, so, actually, you dont have to even feel sorry... Mountolive talk to me/don't talk to me 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only have two half-decent sources for "Catalan Countries", one being the university of Kent, and that is not an institutional decision, but a course syllabus written by a Catalan teacher, the other being a translation in brackets of "Paisos Catalans" in the New York Times. The others are Catalan organisations translating into English.

I feel Mountolive is justified in asking for the tag to be put back if the name is changed back, Paisos Catalans is a catalan political concept with a (dodgy) translation which has not as yet gained much ground in the rest of the world. Ironically, I suspect that if a better translation had been used, then the concept would have gained more currency amongst English speakers.

BNS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.74.174 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong whith Catalan organisations translating it in English? Aren't they representative of those English speakers who follow those publications? I agree that the term is almost unknown in the rest of the world and because of that I think that we should use the form that is used in Catalan publications (in English) because these are the ones who most use the term. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 19:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, some people were not concerned by the purported semantic inaccuracies of a term, but rather wanted to push their POV of what they think the Catalan Countries are. At least this discussion page will bear witness that many users wanted a truly NPOV page, even if now we are too tired to continue with the endless diatribes. I fail to see why a "semantic inaccuracy" merits a "non-neutral non-global POV" (i.e. the globalize tag). If it is a semantic mistranslation it is a semantic mistranslation and that's it. A translation does not make a term less global or less neutral, or less political especially if the [mis]translation is extensively used. Are you guys defending appropriate semantics or not?
As it is right now -even it remains under the title Països Catalans- the article is POV. Four reasons, just concerning the new introduction, suffice:
  • "The Catalan term 'Països Catalans' (which has been roughly translated into English by some Catalan authors as: Catalan Countries)...". First "some" falls into WP:WEASEL (how many is some? the majority? the minority? all but one? one but all?). Moreover, I provided at least three non-Catalan authors that make use of the term, not only the NYT (please review them above, including the Amazon books). So the sentence is inappropriate, and so would other equally WP:WEASEL terms such as "predominantly", "the majority" and such, that cannot be proved. And, last but not least, even BNS admitted the fact that -even if it were a mistranslation, like the United Mexican States- it is the traditional or extended translation used even in the Academia, so it is not "rough".
  • "... is a concept which sprung out from the Catalan cultural revival at the end of the 19th century[citation needed]. Països Catalans in this sense..." The concept was never defined, and yet a connotation is given (in this sense... what sense if the concept was never defined? the sense of its origin? its definition?). If the title of the article is in Catalan, then, by all means, the GREC's definition in Catalan is appropriate: "territories of Catalan language and culture". That is the original and current definition. No "sense" whatsoever.
  • This usage never reached widespread cultural usage and nearly vanished until it was rediscovered, redefined and put in the center of the identitary cultural debate by the second half of the 20th century, starting with the Valencian writer Joan Fuster." A misconception that I had already proven wrong (please read the sources). The concept was never lost. It was very much alive during the Second Republic, and it was then that some nationalistic groups advocated for the union and eventually independence of the territories of Catalan language and culture, and it was then that it received opposition from some Valencian sectors as well. The concept did not "vanish", and Fuster did not reinvent it. The sources above prove it.
  • "...a new usage of the concept is introduced; from the original, meaning roughly "Catalan speaking territories..." A POV mixture of "usage" with "definition". The definition did not change, it was still the territories of Catalan language, in as much as the Francophonie is the territories of French language. Fuster argued that a "national identity" was inherent in those territories, in as much as a pan-nationalist could advocate for the Union of all French speaking territories, but the concepts remain what they are: linguistic concepts. If a nationalistic group makes use of the term (i.e. usage) so as to advocate for independence, that does not change the meaning of the word, in as much as the Francophonie would not become a political term. The PPCC have not changed in meaning according to GREC. Let's not confuse "political usage" with "definition". As an example, the constitution extensively uses (except for three or four exceptions) the phrase "Estado Español" or "el Estado" to refer to Spain. There is no single mention in the constitution of the term "Kingdom of Spain". Yet, some nationalistic groups prefer the former, but the usage of the term has not changed its meaning! And even some sectors in Spain oppose the use of this constitutional term (Estado español) because they assign a connotation (nationalistic) to it! But the definition remains the same.
  • "Later on, the political sense of the concept has lost preeminence in favour of the cultural sense of it; but altogether it remains a very minoritary topic as of now, mostly confined to the more uncompromising Catalan nationalists] (in its politic sense) and some academic circles in Catalonia (in its cultural usage)." Several sources would be needed to support the various claims of this phrase. Even if they were correct, the sentence needs a grammar as well as a logic revision. If the concept in its "political usage" (rather than "sense") has lost preeminence in favor of the "cultural" usage (its definition), then the cultural usage has gained preeminence (by mere logic, isn't it?) However, the sentence ends by saying that the term is mostly confined in both its political and cultural usage. A thorough revision is needed.
Maurice's concerns had already been answered, and I don't know why we (Xtv and me) were asked again to respond to him. Several sources have been provided that show that the term "Països Catalans" is used (in both its linguistic "sense" and its political "sense") in and outside of Catalonia (and of course there has been strong opposition both in and outside Catalonia).
In view of the recent behavior of some users; I have little hope of reaching a compromise in which a truly NPOV article based on honest research and sources can be written. So, at least I said what I had to say. I'm too frustrated and tired of trying to reach a compromise, when several users just want to push their POV.
--the Dúnadan 16:16, 21

December 2007 (UTC)


The concept of the Paisos Catalans needs to be explained in wikipedia. I reassure you that I do not want this concept to be censored, expunged or secreted.

Now, Dunadan, the sources you provide for the name "Catalan Countries" do not seem to be very good. As I say above, NYT follows the pattern I want to see, University of Kent is a one off course syllabus written by a Catalan, the Amazon book, I seem to remember, was written by a Spanish author. We have already established above that Catalan Countries is a mistranslation, and that the use of that term must be based whether it is widely used in English, I don't think you have any evidence that it is. You can google-mine as much as you want, but you don't always turn up a diamond.

Now as to the rest, if it's weasel words, change it, if you don't agree with what's there edit it, and if you feel it needs proof, fact tag it.

bns

Please review the sources again. Two of the Amazon books were written by English-speaking authors. We haven't established anything about [mis]translating (remember, we are not linguistic experts?). There is no way you can prove that the term isn't widely used in English either, and yet, at least it is used in the English-speaking Academia, which suffices for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
As to the rest, I wanted to hear your comments on my concerns before changing anything. But I will proceed, in lack of any comments.
--the Dúnadan 15:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did Check D, the links were broken so I used the Amazon search facility. I found a lot more sources for Catalan Country than than Cataln Countries, interestingly. You have the burden of proof for inclusion, and your sources are weak. That it is not widely used is evidenced by the lack of good English sources. Would you care to post these books again, or indicate where they might be found? I say again that I have searched on amazon and found nothing.

bns

Using the within text search on Amazon I found more examples of "Paisos Catalans("Catalan Countries")" than "Catalan Countries", is this evidence enough? That is without searching "Paisos Catalans". Do you accept that as evidence supporting my case?.

bns

There is no way you can prove that the term isn't widely used in English either, and yet, at least it is used in the English-speaking Academia, which suffices for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --the Dúnadan 21:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since Owdki proved that most of your sources are either flawed or having some problems, BNS quite thoroughly dismantled your respectable reasoning with a quite in depth philological analysis and myself I confirmed that the term is not present in any international enciclopedia, then you are sounding each time more and more like playing on the defensive and "Dúnadan against the world". Yet, curiously enough, it is you who is accusing the rest of the world of acting on a POV basis ¿? It could well be the other way, for it is only a couple weeks now that yourself, you said that either term could be used and now you changed your attitude to staunch rejection, which looks to me like a bit worrysome change of heart in terms of POV pushing, however, I wont challenge you on POV grounds (not for the moment) because you are normally used to be a fair one.
Maybe you may want to sit back, relax and check your point of view this time...maybe.
Dúnadan, it looks like you could have to get off your splendid white horse this time, this had to happen sooner or later and it may happen in the future again, because it is not written anywhere that your contribution is necessarily the best, specially when a plurality of users are proving something else.
I am afraid that being ironic to you (like, out of frustration, I've been sometimes...I'm not this time, btw) is not working and, actually, it's making a reverse effect on you and so you look to me like increasingly castled. So, beforehand, my apologies if you felt hurt in your ego by things I have said, really. But for the sake of wikipedia, I think there are more interesting contributions you can make here (as you have proved elsewhere very successfully) than castling yourself here and posting comments like the one above, which make you sound just like a latter day Dr. No. And that is unfair for yourself, because you are normally a keen wikipedian.
Giving in is not a crime, Dúnadan. No one will think you are weaker, actually (I speak for myself) if I ever saw you giving in, I'd say you are even a better wikipedian than the one you already are by now. Mountolive talk to me/don't talk to me 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? My sources are flawed? The NYT is flawed? The University of Kent is flawed? Why, because you or Owdki say so? If the author of a book is Catalan then the source is flawed? Are you kidding me? Your "comprehensive" research on "international" encyclopedias was limited to two: Britannica and Espasa (you actually didn't look at the GREC, did you?). And based on that, you conclude that it is not present in any international encyclopedia? And you automatically discard GREC and its English version. Why? Well, of course, because it is a Catalan encyclopedia. Don't you get it yet? We are in no position of discarding or "proving" that sources are flawed because neither you nor Owdki's attempt are reputable Academic authorities. Since you are not English-speaking Academicians, why is your "reasoning" better than non-English speaking Academicians (like the Univeristy of Kent lecturer?) The plurality of users advancing their own point does not prove that the UofK lecturer is wrong. It proves that you reject sources. You've said it yourself; that you have little regard for Wikipedia's rules. But not even in your own introduction were you willing to do a thorough research of the term itself and, as I proved above, you wrote many misconceptions that I have proven wrong, not with my reasoning but with sources, including the "disappearance and vanishing of the term". This is not a forum, and the three pillars of Wikipedia are not be bold and ignore all rules. The three pillars of Wikipedia are: WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. It's always been that way, even if you believe it otherwise. So, my apologies if you feel hurt in your ego by repeating this tenet one more more time, but fore the sake of Wikipedia, I think there are more interesting contributions you can make than insisting on using your own "conceptions" (i.e. POV), insulting me with your "sarcasm" (and your direct insults of which you never apologized, do you have a vendetta against me by any chance?) and discrediting sources and Academicians like if you were an Academic authority yourself. It is unfair for yourself, because you are normally a keen Wikipedian who can contribute better if you just realized that this is an encyclopedia that requires serious research. But hey, guys, why the conflict? You got what you wanted, didn't you? And I am not saying that we should change the article back, but I am saying that I agreed based on compromise, not because I agreed with you because you are not a linguistic authority, but a user who dislikes the term and the political connotation it conveys. Of course, most of you have proven that the purported (yes, purported) semantic inaccuracy was the least of your concerns, and that is why maybe you were not willing to say the words "yes, let's call it a compromise": let's change the name (that's done) and let's write a really thoroughly researched NPOV article (not done). At least, even if for a brief moment, BNS actually understood that his argument of [mis]translation could not be used as OR. Even if for a moment, for he seems to be recanting. --the Dúnadan 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dúnadan, the NYT is not flawed. Your usage of this source, it is quite so. As BNS points out, all this article makes is keeping the original "Països Catalans" throughout the text and then put "Catalan Countries" in brackets. And to that I have little to object.
Dúnadan, the University of Kent is not flawed. But it is a Catalan author belonging to this University writing in English who makes this translation, and that usage both sounds like a false friend and has fundamental problems if we are to remain true to the English language (see the countable and uncountable lecture above).
Given the tone of your first sentence (yes, I am serious) I admit I havent read the rest of your post. I have enough if that is the tone for all the rest. I guess you wont move a comma. It's a pity that now you decided to take this course of action. I never thought you would act like that. It's quite disappointing coming from you. Anyway.
I would love to continue this thread of discussion, when you actually read the entire comments of other users. You seem to olympically miss my points. I apologize for the "tone" of my first sentence. I actually had to bear not only with your tone, but your direct insults (like sticking things up my arse, remember?). After defending your "always positive attitude" with Owdki, it was quite disappointing coming from you. But enough talk about us, I rather talk about the content of the article.--the Dúnadan 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing primarily for an English-speaking audience. In my experience, it is unusual for English-language authors to code-switch and use the term Països Catalans when writing in English. Given that we use Catalonia rather than Catalunya, it would seem to me that we should certainly use Catalan Countries rather than Països Catalans. - Jmabel | Talk 22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Actually, all the discussion is based on that very point (that we are writing primarily for an English-speaking audience). Since we dont want to make an automatic (and, arguably, per the above, wrong) google-like translation of Països Catalans as, simply, "Catalan Countries" (too good to be true) that is why we are discussing here.
Another story would be if we are actually ready to bless "Catalan Countries" as has been put mostly by Catalan authors when writing in English. Those are not necessarily English philologists. If we did, that would mean that we are ready to introduce an arguably quite weird concept in English, if only because neither of them (maybe Catalonia is? for sure not Valencia, the Balearics, let alone Carxe or La Franja) are countries in the widespread usage of the English word. I'd say Anschluss literally translates as (excuse me for what I'm about to say) "juxtaclusion" or something like that (in the sense of "putting together two adjacent things"). It has normally been translated as "annexation", even "coupling" could make sense. However, given the impossibility to get the original German nuance in English, wikipedia is not making any translation at all. Maybe actually we know better here, but...I doubt it.
Good to hear from you, Jmabel. You may want to read the above posts for, say, the last 6 weeks and get acquainted with the current state of the discussion. Helmet is both recommended and customary... (mountie)
[Interspersed, hope no one minds] Actually, I was just putting in my two cents. Nope, I'm not willing to wade through the 6 weeks of argument. In fact, I'd suggest that if there is to be an effort to engage more people in the discussion, a succinct statement of each of the conflicting views would be useful, and not only to me.
It may have been said before, but "country" and "país" have parallel etymologies. But I agree that in English, this particular connotation of "country" is not the dominant one, especially in the plural. Besides the meaning of "nation state", though, we do have in English, for example (and admittedly in the singular), "wine country", "Indian Country" (usually with the capital), etc. Or, for another example, I live in Seattle, in the country that has Bush as president, but in a place that is definitely not Bush country. - Jmabel | Talk

Dunadan. What I agreed above was that the only basis for inclusion of the term Catalan Countries in this page was its usage in English language sources, this has always been my position. I did this because you have argued again and again that Catalan Countries is a valid translation of Paisos Catalans, and that this supports the use of that term in this article's title. You did this by an audacious misuse of sources, which I chose not to rub your nose in at the time, but which was, in truth, more like something you would find on the evolution page of Conservapedia than anything you would expect to find here. You were honestly coming very close to trolling, and the main reason I did not make a bigger deal of this was that my only intention during this exercise was to take the linguistic argument off the table, which I feel I did once and for all.

If you want, we can do a rigourous analysis of sources (forgive me but after the "country=pais" discussion, I find any source source you post immediately suspect). But if we do this you must recognise that sources on their own prove nothing, we must consider where they come from and what they say, rather than merely listing them and claiming them as evidence.

The reason I say this is that you often use sources that support completely the opposite conclusion to the one you propose, for example the infamous NYT article. I am no longer sure if you do this by accident, damn me to KUR if I'm wrong.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong accusations indeed. But you missed my point, especially the last intervention that you seemed to "agree" with (remember our discussion about the United Mexican States?). I am not using the sources to prove that it is a "semantically accurate translation". I am using the sources to prove that it is the widespread and Academic translation, whether right or wrong in our own eyes as amateur philologists, and that we should not engage in OR to prove that the Academia is wrong and misleading in using a term. (And, also, I argue against the rejection of a source based on ad hominem argumentation: if the author is Catalan-speaking, discard it, but if the author is Spanish-speaking (Espasa), use it). But please note that I am not trying to convince you to rename the article back to Catalan Countries (I did not start this thread of discussion) so please let's end this discussion. As long as the article is truly NPOV, I'm happy with the compromise. --the Dúnadan 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to remember that Mountolive removed a source provided by me. He argued that it was good, but under the new redaction after my [Mountolive's] edit, was out of place. So, do you still think that the reference is good? --PmmolletTalk 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too bad, for it reads "Catalan Countries" in between quotation marks and the original (Països Catalans, without quotation marks) right next to. BTW, from your post it could be inferred that I was trying to conceal that info, if that is meant (which would be quite tendetious) then I just would like to remember that the debate on this source is here in this very talk page and it is actually the one who started the whole thing...

Cool, if you don't want to change the name then we have consensus.

Lets get on with editing not bickering.

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Roughly translated?!”

[edit]

I don’t have time to go through all the arguments regarding the naming of this page right now, but I will at least take issue with the current revision stating that països is “roughly” translated as “countries.” This strikes me as absurd. The only other translation I can think of for països is “lands,” and “Catalan Lands” only gets 800 ghits (many not using the phrase as a proper noun) as opposed to “Catalan Countries”’ several thousand hits. —Wiki Wikardo 09:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


read the above appendix, and discussions ad infinitum on this page. Basically the argument boils down to whether you think that Paisos=Countries in English, not as clear cut as it may seem. —bns (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s ridiculous. So what are you supposed to translate it as, if not countries or lands? —Get around to it later 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations

[edit]

I'm wondering.....what does exactly "first language" mean? Mountolive our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind 08:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First language is well, mother-tongue, native language, the first language you learn to speak. No relation whatsoever with the Canadian First Nations. (¿¿???). Ever heard of TOESL, i.e. "Test of English as a Second language? --the Dúnadan 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, well, the Canadian first nations was...er....a joke or something, I thought it was obvious, but given our mutual record and, I guess, my not that funny sense of humour, my excuses (blame it on a "cherokee country" mood...another "joke or something").
as for the first language, that's what I guessed it was meant, but I wanted to recheck for the sake of bon rotllo here. In this regard, let me point out that the text reads about "territories where Catalan is the first language" and, well, territories do not have either first language nor second languages, because territories do not speak languages, people do. In other words, you find speakers of Spanish as a first language in Lleida, Elx, Ibiza and so on. Same of speakers of French as a first language in Perpignan and so on. I'll try to rephrase it accordingly.
No, never heard of TOESL but of TOEFL (as a Foreign Language). Mountolive our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Territories do not speak languages, that is why the sentence read "where Catalan is spoken as a first langauge", in the passive voice, with the tacit subject obviously referring to people. My assumption was that you disliked the terminology "first"-for whatever reason.
Now, as for the last paragraph, I will reinsert the "however" because it is contrasting two connotations; the linguistic connotation and the political connotation. "However" is a conjunction that aids in that manner.[59]. The concept sprung out as a linguistic term, which, however has acquired a political connotation. Otherwise the reader will imply that the political connotation is inherent to the term thus contradicting its definition, as expounded on the first paragraph.
Thirdly, "oftentimes" means "frequently" not "sometimes".[60] Besides carrying a more encyclopedic tone, it is more accurate. I will reinsert it as well.
Fourthly, the last sentence, if you insist on keeping it, you must source it: how can you measure the "strength" of the opposition to the term so that you can say (without a source to back it up) that the term is opposed "more" or "especially" within the Catalan Countries than in the rest of Spain. If it is in term of population, I would assume there is more "opposition" in Madrid than in Catalonia (which is, after all, part of the Catalan Countries, so the "especially" does not apply), and even the Valencian Community (given its smaller population).
I don't find the word "tiny" particularly "encyclopedic", but rather commonplace or even colloquial. Moreover, its connotation [61] is rather unfortunate when it comes to describing a territory. May I suggest "small"?
Ohh, by the way: [62],
--the Dúnadan 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I also find the reference to four "nation states" rather unfortunate. I will not present my own opinion about the characteristics of the four independent states referred to, but several important political figures -at least in Spain and Italy- have argued otherwise. Since the concept of State encompasses both nation-states as well as multicultural and multi-ethnic states, by simply saying "States" we avoid having to take sides with either POV (single-nation or multi-ethnic entities), thus complying with NPOV. --the Dúnadan 03:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey.
You write "oftentimes" means "frequently" not "sometimes" You know what? honestly, I didnt know what "oftentimes" meant, I checked in the dictionary before you wrote that and found that it means, indeed, "frenquently" and so I changed it accordingly to "frequently" before you wrote the above. But then you changed it back from "frequently" to "oftentimes" based on that it doesnt mean "sometimes"...ok, but...er.... who said it means "sometimes" after all??? Not me!. Since we both agree with "frequently" being a synomim, I am changing it back. I wouldnt say my English is perfect, but I'd say that "oftentimes" is a quite formal word while "frequently" is perfectly fine for wikipedia and, guess what: everybody knows what it means without having to check the dictionary...I'm sure we are not going to be grumpy over synonim words, anyway.
In my opinion (and that is a categorical personal judgement of mine) often sentences, especially in an encyclopedia, can be deprived of "howevers" and still mean the same. My opinion is not relevant, I know, but this case looks like one of those, because, indeed, "since the inception of the concept, several figures have argued...". Is that wrong? In this regard, check Owdki's sources (Roca i Farreras, Oliver) who, back in the 19th century, already gave it a politic sense, let alone what happened in the 1970s. For not to mention that, without "howevers" sentences often read more "encyclopedic".
As for the Carxe, to me a population of some 500 people from which (to my knowledge) we dont have any linguistic census whatsoever (and it could well be that out of 500, they were, say, 300 effective Valencian speakers after all) does not suffice for their inclusion in English wikipedia. Unlike those who frenzy for including these hamlets here, I've been myself to Canyada del Trigo, La Zarza, Umbria de la Zarza and else: believe me, if the road signs didnt tell you, you'd never think those spare 3 or 4 houses next to the road even have a common name to designate them. This said, I am well aware that its mention makes some people happy, especially at the Catalan-speaking countries wikiproject, if only because it makes the distribution map larger. My friendly recommendation for them is to never visit el Carxe otherwise they'll be thoroughly disappointed. On the other side, I'd suggest them not to expect the next Pompeu Fabra being local from El Carche either.
So, all in all, I think mentioning Carxe in English wikipedia is of a blatant nationalist bias (given its definitely marginal numbers and, hence, lack of relevance) but I dont want to make Catalan nationalists sad systematically, so let it be, "tiny" or "small" as it is.
On the "especially" thing, let's do it the other way, if you may: why dont you source that opposition to this concept has been greater out of the Paisos Catalans?. To source my claim I have the editorial guideline of Las Provincias (ouch!!) I have the demonstrations of the GAV thugs, I have Unio Valenciana, I have a few bombing attempts against "John Fuster" (sic, in GREC) and Sanchis Guarner. I have repeated arsoning episodes at the 3 i 4 bookstore. Need more? Please go and find a similar if not exceeding reaction in Madrid, Huelva, Zaragoza or elsewhere in the rest of Spain and then I'll change my mind.
Cheers Mountolive our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in arguing -given that it has been unsuccessful and you keep reverting (somehow I am not surprised)- so it really doesn't matter what I say or how I say it. Maybe in the future when you and I are gone, some other users will be able to write a truly NPOV article. So far -as I expected- even after the name was changed for a purported mistranslation, the anti-PPCC bias is still evident. By the way, I never said that the opposition was stronger outside the PPCC (neither in nor out): my sentence read "including" so I didn't try to qualify any opposition, like you do. The burden of proof lies on you. --the Dúnadan 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself writing a reply to the above which got too long. Since I try to stay away of convoluted stuff and you gave a succint comment yourself this time, let me put mine shorter, to reinforce simpler prose here if that was possible at all. Your NPOV comment brings to mind this quote from, I think, user Gberry at the time of 'off with Physchim's head frenzy':"Admin X is biased in matter Y" is a standard, usually invalid, complaint made by partisans when someone on their side gets sanctioned". This has quite some point when we are not dealing with trolling (and that is not our case here) I will keep this comment in mind for the next time I have to claim on NPOV grounds. Maybe you also want to give it a thought or two. Second, I didnt revert you (I may actually agree with your nation-state thing and I won't fight over "small" things either). But I can correct you where I think you're wrong all the same, and I provided the reasoning for my edit, like it or not. I dont expect you to yield with a smile on your face (normally we dont like to do so, me either). But given your record, I appreciate it seeing you yielding at all, even if in a sulky way per your post above. After all, doesnt matter how right we think we are, yielding to other people comes with the wikipedia package. Hopefully next time you have to do it (and let it be in a very distant future and, especially, not to me) you wont do so in a sulky manner. All the best for 2008. Mountolive our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't see why you quoted Gberry. Neither you nor I are admins here, and I have not complained that your administrative actions (?) are biased in PPCC matters because you sanctioned someone in my side (¿¿??). Maybe that quote can be used in another more ad hoc and appropriate occasion. All I am saying is that the article has a strong anti-PPCC bias -a valid complain, everywhere in Wikipedia. Simple. I have provided reasoning for my edits, and yet you changed some of them back (note, I didn't say revert this time and I said "some" =) ) oftentimes with the burden of proof still pending. I thought that by changing the name of the article as you guys requested (despite strongly disagreeing with the WP:OR implied) you might yield in other areas, you know, quid pro quo. Evidently not (i.e. "compromise", the "dreaded" word that you refused to say/write). Interestingly enough you have insisted on keeping a word that doesn't mean the same thing in English in other articles [nationals] but were very purist when it came to "countries". I am not yielding per se, I am just too tired and frustrated to keep on with diatribes and endless reverts. At least BNS has shown a different -and positive- attitude recently in Names of the Valencian Community. If you wish to continue with this thread of "personal comments", may I suggest doing it in my Talk Page? I don't think other users are that interested in your opinions about me, or my opinions about you. All the best in 2008 to you too. Cheers. --the Dúnadan 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Sea

[edit]

would someone from the Catalan speaking countries wikiproject explain user 161.111.136.166 that "Catalan Sea" is not compliant with wiki guidelines? is a Mountolive commit comment. Would the author mind to expand this? Thanks. --Toniher (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed already and, by the way, it was the only thing on which a consensus was reached at once. Just pay a look at the sections above here, chiefly "globalize" and "the tag". Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must explain that. I'm a marine geologist working in the (probably) biggest marine research institute in the Mediterranean Sea, in Barcelona. There is a lot of scientific literature about the Catalan Sea (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Catalan+Sea%22&hl=ca&lr=&btnG=Cerca), there is several Ph.D. Thesis, I know scientist that use commonly (WE use commonly), and so on. Another thing is that Maurice27 or you didn't know anything about "Catalan Sea". But Maurice27 didn't know very much about geography, writting "Sicily" above Sardinia (he is a Southern European user, I can't understand this basic, very basic mistake for a Wikipedia user). So as I'm the author of the original map, I'm a marine geologist, I know about geography and I'm know to make maps. I think original map is better.
About the other names, they probably don't like to Maurice27 (an user biased against every Catalan word), but they are commonly used in the context of Catalan Countries, and you can find them in Wikipedia (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Northern_Catalonia).
There are several kinds of maps. That is not a map about official states or countries (political map). Catalan Countries is not an independent or official country, that's clear. But there are a lot of other class of maps (as the second map in the page). This is showing a cultural concept with its names (politically official or not) in common use with the people that are identified with the concept of Catalan Countries. Thus, the map is in the context of this article. So the map doesn't use the official name for Northern Catalonia because in the context of Catalan Countries people don't use it, they use Catalunya del Nord (in English Northern Catalonia). And this is the reason of an article: to explain the meaning of the things in its context Marc B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm browned-off by those people who accuse me of not liking catalan people, catalan words or catalan way of life... BROWNED-OFF!

This is the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA... ENGLISH!!! This is not the place to use, or to expand Catalan names.

Why then, aren't english users supposed to change the name of the article of Londres in Ca-wiki[63] if "London" is the name used in everyday's life by them?

Why are Catalan users supposed to change to catalan all the names related to that region and everybody else can't the other way?

I already said that you may be very well the Pope of Rome and you may have studied for decades marine geology. WE DON'T CARE! This is the ENGLISH wikipedia and so, YOU MUST use english names. (BTW, same could go for names such as Girona, Lleida... In no way used in english)

Due to your studies, you may very well know The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, right? Ok, let's talk about them:

  • "1.The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission established by resolution 2.31 adopted by the General Conference of Unesco at its eleventh session, and in conformity with the recommenda tion of the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanic Research (Copenhagen 11- 16 July 1960) met for its first session in Paris at Unesco Headquarters from 19 to 27 October 1961" [64]
  • "2.By the end of the session, a total of 40 States had become members of the Commission. These are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, India, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet-Nam. [65]
  • 3.Representatives and observers of the following intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations also attended the session: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Health Organization (WHO), Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), International Association of Physical Oceanography (IAPO), International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), Special Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), Permanent Association of Navigational Congresses. International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission." [66]

You may find its statutes here and its Rules of Procedures here.

Notice that the biggest Unions, Comittees, Asociations, Bureaux and Coucils related to Geodesy, Meteorology, Oceanography are present in this commision and that Spain (the country in which this Sea is "located" (international waters included) and that USA and UK (the most relevant english speaking countries in the world) are also members.

This said, this gentlemen decided that this sea in question, was to be named in ENGLISH Balearic Sea (Balear Sea, Iberian Sea)[67] with the following codes:

  • 28 (c) using IHO 23-3rd: Limits of Oceans and Seas, Special Publication 23, 3rd Edition 1953, published by the International Hydrographic Organization. [A preliminary revision of SP 23, dated 1986, is widely cited on Internet websites.
  • B9 using ACIC M 49-1: Chart of Limits of Seas and Oceans, revised January 1958, published by the Aeronautical Chart and Information Center (ACIC), United States Air Force; note - ACIC is now part of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA).
  • 8J using DIAM 65-18: Geopolitical Data Elements and Related Features, Data Standard No. 4, Defense Intelligence Agency Manual 65-18, December 1994, published by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

So, my dear annon user, let us IGNORE your original research of marine geology, even if working in "the (probably) biggest marine research institute in the Mediterranean Sea, in Barcelona". let us IGNORE your "lot of scientific literature about the Catalan Sea" and let us IGNORE your "several Ph.D. Thesis". Again, even if you are the Pope of Rome, here in wikipedia, we love references, we love facts and above all, we love the truth.

And the truth is, that in english, that sea is called Balearic Sea. PERIOD! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Maurice, you are very biased. I've never said that Balearic Sea didn't exist. The question is Balearic Sea and Catalan Sea are different seas (Catalan one is inside, more or less, to Balearic one, as Balearic Sea belongs to the Mediterranean Sea). References are showed (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Catalan+Sea%22&hl=ca&lr=&btnG=Cerca) and I said before that you must read Catalan Sea in Catalan Wikipedia (althour your well-know bias against Catalan issue), where you can some other reference (enough for peer-review scientific journals). Please, read carefully references found in Google Scholar. It's stupid to talk about that with you. You have the same problems about Sardinia-Sicily. I ask some scientist few meters from I'm writing now about Catalan Sea before writting in Catalan Wikipedia or made maps. Some of them are representatives of Spain in several international Unions, Comittees, Asociations, Bureaux and Coucils.
So, it's simply, you're wrong. It's not truth that the truth is, that in english, that sea is called Balearic Sea. PERIOD!. You're wrong. For example: http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2996791 (it's english, in an international journal). It's not only to do some copy&paste, it's about knowing a little about you are talking about. Be humble, my friend. Marc B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholars made by Catalan people of the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, 08039, Barcelona, Spain???? Are you kidding us? What kind of proof for the international use is that? The International Hydrographic Organization... that's what you need! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you racist, Maurice? What's the problem with the Marine Sciencies Institute (ICM) from Barcelona and Catalan People? ICM is the biggest marine institute of the Spanish Research Council, and the biggest of the Mediterranean Sea. With a staff of more than 300 people, with scientist publishing in the more important International Journals as Nature of Science, representatives in several International organization (http://www.icm.cat/introduction.php). You are simply crazy. You are providing a few reference from 50's and 60's. I'm providing +1000 modern reference, from several institution (if you look carefully, as I said you will find, for exemple from International Atomic Energy Agency in Monaco (referenced by you), among other international institutes.). Moreover, Catalan Sea was defined by French Scientist.
Nevertheless, you can try to publish in International peer-review your theories. Try and later come back to Wikipedia. But Wikipedia has to show the current knowledge (not from 60's). Be humble, my friend. Marc B.


As it seems that de "Catalan" issue is a problem for user Maurice27, here there is one of the last reference where you can find Catalan Sea. It's from Spanish Oceanography Institute (Instituto Español de Oceanografia) placed at Madrid (Spain):

(Book) Cambio climático en el Mediterraneo Español (Climate Change in the Spanish Mediterranean)[68]

The main goals of the Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO) are to generate scientific knowledge, as well as to assess and to inform the public about the state of the sea. The IEO is primary focussed on the study of the variety of phenomena influencing spanish coasts, including the process of Climate Change.

Anyone can check for "mar catalan" (Catalan Sea) in the PDF, produced by the Spanish Ministry for Education and Science. All the quality criteria in Wikipedia is followed for introducing Catalan Sea in English Wikipedia. Please, Maurice27, stop your attitude.

Marc B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.45.49 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you "ask(ed) some scientist few meters from (You are) writing now about Catalan Sea before writting in Catalan Wikipedia"... That's fantastic... See, right here, next to me, God himself and Mahatma Gandhi (which is next room) are saying that that is not an acceptable reference. the "Someone who knows told me" doesn't work here in wikipedia.

You keep using as references google scholars and other institutes which are:

  • in spanish language
  • in catalan language
  • made by catalan people


So I decided to took some time to search...

A search at Google:

A Search at Google Scholars:

  • "Catalan Sea" 1,030 results (note than the majority is made by catalan people)
  • "Balearic Sea 724 results (note that names are more "international"

A search at Google Books:

Neither Encarta nor britannica show any result.


Now, let me guide you to WP:NAME guidelines:

  • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"

And, let me guide you to WP:NCGNguidelines:

  • The following convention on geographic names represents what Wikipedia actually does, and reflects lengthy discussion on the talk page. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it.
  • This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government.
  • In general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
  • Please remember that Google Scholar and Google Books are largely random selections out of the whole corpus of English writing. If the results could easily have arisen by chance (for example, if there are only half-a-dozen or so valid hits on all the alternatives combined), this is not a good indicator of widespread English usage.
  • There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. So, Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority


And how does the "linguistic majority" reach a consensus? Pacta sunt servanda ("pacts must be respected"). International treaties under the International Law are there to guide us all, my dear Marc B. Not just "per què te es passis pel forro dels collons" (to ignore them). If they are signed, you, as an individual, must RESPECT THEM.

And the most known supranational organization, the UN, did a treaty on the sea naming matter. Let us please ignore if you believe that a "reference from 50's and 60's" is not ok to you. As far as I'm concerned, a law or a treaty does not have a date of lapsing. If the treaty is effective to this date, you must accept it, because it is an International agreement.


And what does Wikipedia says to do in case of Naming Conflict Wikipedia:Naming conflict ?:

  • International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.

So, my reference here above is far more respectable than your "google scholars" which can/may fail reach NPOV (if only in the naming). An International Agreement will NEVER.


United Nations view on the importance of Hydrography.[69] (Location: Home > Background)

On 23 December 2003 (that's not from the 50's and 60's anymore, right?), the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/58/240 on Oceans and Law of the Sea that dealt, in large part, with safety of navigation. In this resolution, the General Assembly:

  • Welcomes the work of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and its 14 Regional Hydrographic Commissions and encourages increased membership of the IHO by States, noting that organization’s capacity to provide technical assistance, facilitate training and identify potential funding sources for development or improvement of hydrographic services; and calls upon States and agencies to support the IHO trust fund and examine the possibility of partnerships with the private sector;
  • Invites IHO and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to continue efforts and to jointly adopt measures with a view to encouraging greater international cooperation and coordination for the transition to electronic nautical charts; and to increase the coverage of hydrographic information on a global basis, especially in areas of international navigation and ports and where there are vulnerable or protected marine areas;

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) (which you fail to accept, even if the International community does), and which is encouraged by the U.N, does have a publication section inside their site [70] (go to Home > Publications > IHO Download Section), and how funny, it has charts in it (Special Publications > Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953). Sheet maps 1, 2 and 3). Click on "Sheet 2" [71]. Again, you will see that it clearly states Balearic (Iberian) Sea. Even more, "your" subdivision of this sea as "Catalan Sea" is not even accepted nor mentioned.


Now, untill you recover your breath, quit bulls**ting me with "Catalan issue being a problem to Maurice". Each day, I have 3-4 little boys as you for breakfast. If you fulfill your mouth with words such as "respect", "being humble", "read carefully references", "follow guidelines", "knowing a little about you are talking about", you must be prepared to bite the dust when playing with the big boys.

Wanted references? You better start chewing slowly. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice, if you want to use these offensive words, please give me your real complete name, your academical background and where are you living and working (I did with me. You can contact me). We can discuss it in person. If not, please, as you know, discussion pages are for talking about articles.
I have to repeat that Catalan Sea and Balearic Sea are different Seas? You have the same (biased) problem as in Sicily-Sardinia. Your references do'nt mention several seas current in the Mediterranean Sea Wikipedia. Please, can you apply same criteria and erase them from it?. Later you can create a Section called "Seas that are not in the theories of Maurice27). I repeated that Maurice27 vandal attitude is intellectually dishonest due to ideological prejudices, breaking the neutral point of view rule. Marc B.

To Maurice27 (and replies)

[edit]

Please, Maurice, stop changing the article. Your are saying that Balear Sea is the Catalan Sea (included in Catalan). That's simply wrong. WRONG. You were saying, also, that Sardinia is, indeed, Sicily. And some other things. Plase, learn Geography, learn Oceanography, use Google (better, Scholar Google), ask to specialists, and LATER come back to the Wikipedia and begin to write (and finally, correct other people). But only LATER. People as me have no time to waste in his kind of things. Marc B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh, how amazing... another catalan teaming... The Sicily-Sardinia matter, it was already changed. About your recomendation about "asking to specialists", refer to my here above reply. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it was annon user:161.111.136.166 who just "decided" to identify himself as Marc B, even if being a registered user since August 23, 2005... Anyway, please refer to my here above reply as it is for you. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember, I'm not a registered user in English wikipedia. Could be, as I'm registered user in a lot of sites. I'm using a PC with fixed IP (you can find easily to whom belongs) and giving my username in Catalan Wikipedia. I'm not using several usernames, as you. Please, this is not a flamewar, this about a knwoledge that you, obviosly, lacks. Your state is wrong, in English or Catalan. Be humble, my friend. Marc B.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc, when you have time, you could create a Catalan Sea entry and expand present Balearic Sea one as well. --Toniher (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it astonishing that you two guys –Toniher and Marcbel, self proclaimed opinionated Catalan independentists, see [72] and [73]– not only do not refrain from editing Catalan related topics beyond the reasonable, but actually you coordinate your efforts to impose your Catalan independentist point of view in such a blatant way as above or using summary edits like here [74].

I think it is worth noting that, for far less than that, an overall very good user like Physchim62 was reported.

So looks like what Maurice once labelled as the CAT team (an article should be created one day...) is getting bolder while the rest of editors just look the other way, maybe because we are not as familiar nor as prone as those same editors to report other people...

But, really, something should be done about this and let it be soon. I think other users from the Catalan speaking countries wikiproject could help by reminding the CAT team (both are not necessarily the same...or so I'm hoping) that we have to play by some rules here (and that, by the way, what goes in Catalan wiki does not necessarily apply here)...In my humble opinion, you experienced editors at the Catalan wikiproject should make your more opinionated colleagues think about what they are doing (just because they are more prone to listen to you than to anyone else). Looks like you guys should do it if you want your wikiproject to be taken seriously as a contributor with interesting Catalan related articles, not as a mere POV pushing machine bringing controversy to every article sporting a four bars shield, even stickling to the smallest and more disparated thing as this one with the see. Otherwise people will be led to think that there is no real difference between the CAT team and the "Catalan speaking countries" wikiproject. And that is a quite sad prospect indeed, because if fire is brought, then you have to expect returning fire sooner or later and, eventually donors won't be able to say those "I think wikipedia is the most cooperative and nicest effort in the world nowadays" and the like ;)

Don't get me wrong. I am asking for this because I still think your wikiproject is interesting. And one of the reasons why your project is interesting is because, despite being inspired by Catalan nationalism, it could drive the more opinionated Catalan nationalists to more agreeable terms, doing so if only because, after all, you can serve much better your respectable point of view by a serious –"wikiprofessional" if you may– attitude instead of a militant (en Català) one like the ones we are seeing from time to time and suffering now.

This said, well, if it is not clear already, I support restoring Balearic Sea per the sources provided above. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mountolive, I have never concealed who I am, because I think that it is a sincere and proper way to contribute in a communitary knowledge effort that is an Open Project such as Wikipedia. I do not know English Wikipedia rules in such detail as the editors you are asking for comments, but would be a rather sad outcome to know that anonimity and puppetry were the practical recommended way of acting.
So, whenever anyone may think I incur in any bias, as anyone can actually do (you are not an exception, do you know what banal nationalism is?), I consider it's then easier to discuss about. This helps me to have a more adequate behaviour and think about topics thoroughly before any contribution.
As we know, Maurice27 attitude, whoever he/she/it/you/they may be, is beyond any respect and clearly xenophobic. We have enough examples such as direct personal offences to contrast.
Best regards --Toniher (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only they proclaim their Catalan independentists (which is perfectly acceptable and respectable), but they even (in the case of Toniher), attack institutions such as the monarchy of Spain [75](which willing or not, do represent a whole country). If this is not a proof of the lack of respect against a community, a xenophobic message and total despise for the country's citizens, what else can be? This type of users should be banned from every single article. They ask for respect to their beliefs and culture and meanwhile, they attack other people burning their symbols? Simply astonishing. Which one of us is the is one "beyond any respect and clearly xenophobic". People like Toniher are despicable! Absolute Rubbish! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toniher, your reflections on anonimity are interesting and actually ring true. Please don't get me wrong about this: I have nothing against people here showing their likes and dislikes. This said, the point of my post is that the problem comes when you/I/anyone feels himself 'on a mission' here of 'spreading the word'. Because one thing is representing the diverse points of view, and another one is imposing one of them. On the face of different point of views, one has to be impossed and that has to be the official/legal on the matter, because, this criteria, while maybe not being perfect, is the fairest. And the official with the current issue is Balearic Sea. I have no problem if you prefer calling it "mar catalana" with your pals as I have no problem with a bunch of Catalan scientists writing papers with references to a so-called "Catalan Sea" but here the official should be used. And the official, per the sources provided by Maurice, is Balearic Sea.

Mountolive, I do not want to continue talking in this forum-like discussion page about what we already know well enough. There are other places in the net for doing this. The point, said above, is that Balearic Sea and Catalan Sea are actually two different things, as I can understand Catalan Sea is part of the latter one. I'm not an expert in the issue, Marc is, so I suppose he can contribute more about this than me. That's all. Cheers. --Toniher (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not endorse Maurice's last line as I do not endorse either your calling him "xenophobic", that is what I meant when I said that, if you bring fire here, you will be burnt with fire, too. And then neither the donors (excuse the semi-private joke) nor anyone are happy.

(as a side note....damn, Catalan nationalists have this tendency of calling anyone countering them as "xenophobic" which, actually, if they want to be taken seriously, s'ho haurien de fer mirar un dia d'aquests...their latter-day burning frenzy won't help you much either for its inquisitorial tone...) Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all countering Catalan nationalists are xenophobic, I know many who are not. I simply think that Maurice27 appears he is if we take into account its/his/her/their/your countributions, at least for Catalan people. As I said before, these are my last words in this issue. --Toniher (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And may we know what's the problem with my contributions my/his/her/their/our contributions? (looks like you now want to make me appear as a sock-puppet maybe?). Too bad that once you got burned with you own accusations, you decided to fly away... Calling me "xenophobic"... How hillarious that's is coming from you precisely... Yes, better go home burn some more stamps to satisfy your beliefs. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My darling, I do not have enough time to play with you :( I do not have time to research what you might be either, and I actually have got other more interesting things to do. But, unless you clarify it publically, do not feel surprised if anyone can think about any kind of hypothesis. Tapa't, que fa fred. --Toniher (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"To play with me"? ROFL. Now, go, or you will miss the next Festa AntiHispanitat... Remember to bring some more stamps... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

I would like to ask all users involved to stop personal disqualifications (i.e. despicable) and ad hominem arguments (i.e. if you are pro-Catalan independentism then you are biased), and stick to the arguments. All users have biases, all, whether it is anti-Catalan, pro-Catalan or whatever. But the political inclination of the users does not prove the arguments neither right nor wrong.

I have read and reviewed some of the links above, and I was surprised myself to discover that the terms refer to different things; I thought they were referring to the same thing, and therefore, I preferred the one with the longest English tradition (i.e. Balearic).

This is the issue:

  • Catalan Sea is not the same as Balearic Sea. The Catalan sea is contained within the Balearic Sea.
  • The fact that the term in English is used in papers written by Catalan authors does not disqualify its usage. (That would amount to an ad hominem argument, i.e. "because the author is Catalan, he is wrong").
  • Regardless of the usage of the term in Catalan, the English term Catalan Sea, along with the Spanish version Mar Catalán, are being used in Academia: several Academic papers of Oceanography have been presented in both languages, so the non-political usage of the term (i.e. the scientific realm) is not limited to the Catalan language.

In light of the above, the debate on whether one term is "right" or "wrong", or whether "it doesn't exist" seems to be irrelevant. Both terms exist, and they refer to different things.

So, the question is, which "sea" should we refer to in the map? This is not a right or wrong question, since both terms are "right" in referring to a specific and different body of water, just as the Balearic Sea is contained in the Mediterranean Sea, so the Catalan Sea is contained in the Balearic Sea. All three "seas" are different. Which "sea" should we show in the map? Mediterranean, Balearic or Catalan? Which one do you guys prefer and why?

--the Dúnadan 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of know, and just to end this controversy, I would vote for Mediterranean Sea. Since all terms refer to different things, I don't know whether we would find an acceptable solution that would satisfy either party. --the Dúnadan 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote, obviosly, Catalan Sea. From a cartographic point of view, general maps use general names, and local maps use local names. It's a questions about resolution. This is a map of a local region of Mediterranean area, thus I use Catalan Sea. Balearic Sea is bigger thant the area of the map (as well as Mediterranean Sea).--Marcbel (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I believe in your good faith trying to solve this dispute, but I have to disagree with your proposal of even considering "Catalan Sea" as an option, leaving it only to Balearic Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Why? Because "Catalan Sea" lacks of any single "juridical authority", "law (i.e. de jure) that stipulates that official name" as you (so many times) exige in order to accept a proposal. Being this a matter of using an internationally accepted name in International treaties under the International Law (known and used by every country in the world without misleadings), the options are clear.

  • The "Catalan Sea" name has not been accepted by the international community nor appears in any International treaty (please refer to above's explanation). In only appears in some scholars or books, but again, it lacks of International jurisdiction and/or approval.
  • The "Balearic Sea" does have the approval, full description, resolution in the Law of the Sea, and is perfectly delimited by the IHO in order to appear in sea charts worldwide

This said, I find that "Mediterranean Sea" is far more universal and much more preferable choice. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote, but no, I will not limit the options. "Accepted by the international community" is a tricky word. So far, the English, Spanish, Catalan and French [76], German [77], speaking oceanographic communities —those in charge of well... the seas—make use of the term. "Seas" are not political nor administrative entities, so there is no de jure stipulation that makes a sea "official". Spain, as a political entity is supposed to have an "official denomination"—but that is another story regarding de jure stipulations, or lack thereof.
Moreover, the Law of the Sea refers not to "official" or "juridical" nomenclature, but to the lawful use of marine resources by countries and their environmental responsibilities and exploitation limitations. Please read the article. The UN does not "establish" a "juridical" denomination. In fact, since the UN is not a "juridical institution", they have no regulatory powers regarding toponymy (or rather oceanonymy?). --the Dúnadan 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It's not only about nomenclature... it is also about Limits of Oceans and Seas.

The UN, as such, has no jurisdiction, but the International treaties under the International Law signed between its members absolutly do. Therefore, the edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas" by IHO (as an International organization), has FULL jurisdiction to give an "official denomination" (supposedly, as I'm not certain, with the majority of the votes of its members) with legal recognition.

May I use this example from October 2007, in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan requests a revision of the name "Japan Sea" Vs "Sea of Japan". Let me point you at section 5:

  • "The IHO is currently asking its member states for their opinions concerning the Japanese counterproposal while pointing out that there is no agreement on the Chairman's suggestion among member states concerned. It is the sincere hope of Japan that the Japanese counterproposal will gain the understanding and support of the international community, so that the revision of the "Limits of Oceans and Seas" can be realized at an early date."

So, you can imagine that, if a fully executive power such as the government of Japan adresses this organization, it is because the International Community did once give it full jurisdiction to manage these matters. And the agreement's signatures by the member states/organizations did give it therefore regulatory powers regarding (among many other things) sea toponymy.

And, "Catalan Sea" is not (yet) recognised by the IHO (therefore, no international recognition), as any member has (yet) presented its proposal to include it. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, in your provided referenced (dated from 50 years ago), in the Mediterranean Sea are not mentioned these seas that appears currently in the Mediterranean Sea Wikipedia article: the Libyan Sea, the Sea of Sicily, , the Sea of Sardinia, the Thracian Sea in its north, the Myrtoan Sea, the Sea of Crete north of Crete, the Cilician Sea.
When someone can't apply the same criteria, and when someone is provided enought references according to Wikipedia rules, we can accuse Maurice27 of beein intellectually dishonest, due to an ideollogical prejudice, as he is a well-know by the community activist against Catalan stuff that not follows his particular point of view. Catalan Sea is not the problem, the problem is Maurice27. You are breaking the neutral point of view Wikipedia rule. Marc B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.42.28 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, you may revert as many times as you wish. ALL those sea names are either unreferenced in their respective articles and/or are just mentioned in Antiquity by people such Horace (see Myrtoan Sea).... talking about OLD references... Mines at least are from XX century...

Whos is the one here who gave full referenced sources? I am

Following your criteria, you are asking to include unreferenced data in wikipedia, not only applying names wich are not recognised by the international community, but also you keep of insulting me with senteces like "beein intellectually dishonest, due to an ideollogical prejudice, as he is a well-know by the community activist against Catalan stuff", being this a personal attack and xenophobic discrimination. You are prejudging my edits negliging the references.

Due to your condition of annon user, I cannot report you to administrators, but your way of editing is clearly demonstrated.

You want to continue reverting? fine, as you don't admit being wrong, I will also continue. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My references are from XX, also. And there is from XIX, also. I see that now are you changing your criteria (intellectualy dishonest). When I said that there are several Mediterranean Sea are not recognice by IHO, then you said that Horace cited them. It the supreme criteria is IHO, then these sea has not to appear in Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll create a section in the Mediterranean Sea definition called "Other Seas" with a text "There are other seas not recognice by XX century IHO treathies, but currently in common use.." Do yo agree?.
By the way, you are more "anon" than me. I'm providing my real name, my workplace (and you can phone me there) and my academical background. I can report your attitude to the community. That would be sad, but I have to do, I'll do. Marc B.
You will then create a section of unreferenced, unrecognized sea names... It is up to you to add something which will be reverted by the first editor passing by... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can check that you also don't know to read. How many references do you need to Catalan Sea?. Are clear that this is not a question about reference. It's about Maurice27 don't like Catalan Sea. Please I ask help to some admin. Marc B.

Just change it to Mediterranean Sea once for all (I'd do it myself if I knew how to work on maps). Mediterranean Sea is far better because, while still being perfectly true, it avoids the very interesting debate which has arisen and, on the other side, it seems to gather some sort of consensus... Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalized & Unbalanced tags added again

[edit]

Since annon user is flagrantly ignoring all the talking that once was made about the names in the map and the consensus reached some time ago to use some names instead than others, he is again driving this article towards an unbalanced direction in order to use non-internationally recognized names.

I have already been warned for 3RR and as nobody is willing to stop these 2 users at accusing and insulting others, I decided to add this in the article.

May I remind the annon user that, erasing that tag, which is my absolute right to express as an editor, already got another user to be blocked for 30 days.

Way to go Marc... keep "working" this way. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Need to remove that POV tag

[edit]

Maurice 27 is a servant of the Spanish and French empires. Catalonia for such folks is just folklore and the Catalan language a "patois". They love to humiliate. The tag at the head of the article has to be removed for it is highly derogatory for the article. Polish, Estonians, Latvians or Lithuanians have gone through the same derision in history. But this didn´t make them less of a nation in each case.

Xavier, from Ulldecona (Catalonia, a nation under Spanish occcupation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.189.85 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endearing post indeed, you seem to know which is the right attitude here but...<irony on>...why dont we just kill those evil imperial servants (they just love to humiliate and stuff) and add to wikipedia the virtue of forecast by accelerating history and saying that Catalonia is independent already? let's do it here and now and we will spare a few hundred years of humiliation! <irony off> Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps. how could someone possibly serve two empires? and...where's the Jedi here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is talking about killing? A desire for freedom has nothing to do with murder.

Regarding your question how could someone possibly serve two empires? Well.. there are many examples in History. In the case of Poland Germans and Russians played into each other´s hands. The question was to divide, humiliate and gobble up Poland.

Xavier, from an occupied country.83.32.81.167 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Next! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 14:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All ideas to improve and expand this article are welcome. Empire, city/community/country of origin, first language, adherence to a political POV, or even membership to a particular WikiProject (or lack thereof) are by no means diqualifiations for any of the arguments or proposals a user can make (these "disqualifications" could go both ways...). Arguments and propositions fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies and standards are always welcome, as well as positive attitude and good manners. --Owdki talk 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done to improve the article?

[edit]

I am a quite new wikipedian willing to contribute in those entries which seem important to me, as this one for instance. I have read it and noticed the two tags claiming that it is Catalonia-centered, not providing a worldwide view on the subject and unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. So I would like to know what should we done to overcome those drawbacks. The problem is that I do not quite see them and the quite long discussion in this talk page has not provided much light to me. I assume there has been some consensus to put the tags here (though I am not able to find in the long discussion). Would anybody please explain in a clear way which are the reasons for the tags, so that I could be able to contribute in some way in order to solve the problem? Thanks in advance. --Cnoguera (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a rather surreal discussion going on regarding the Sea...yes, the Sea, whether it is Catalan, Balearic or Castelldefelsian Sea (yawn) Apparently a plurality of users seem to agree to change it to good-old Mediterranean Sea (what a daring move! dont you think? less is indeed more, sometimes...) but no one has done so yet.
In the meantime, I'd say it would be best to place the worldwide view tag just below the map, and removing the other tag (the article has been quite neutralized and reached NEAR consensus recently)...but this article seems just too hot to touch it at this point...
I salute your arrival here. Even though, per your user page, you are expected to bring some more table spoons of the same point of view, at least you are addressing topics and people politely, which is quite some improvement... the (yawn) recourse has been plagiarised from BNS, the real mccoy and definite authority when it comes to these topicsMountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All ideas to improve and expand this article are welcome. City/community/country of origin, first language, adherence to a political POV, or even membership to a particular WikiProject (or lack thereof) are by no means diqualifiations for any of the arguments or proposals a user can make (these "disqualifications" could go both ways...). Arguments and propositions fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies and standards are always welcome, as well as positive attitude and good manners, like Mountolive said. --the Dúnadan 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Dúnadan. That's why I said I salute your arrival here in the first place. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your welcome and for the information. So we could start, if you wish, some discussion about the proposals you, Mountolive, just made. About the name of the sea, I honestly cannot participate in the discussion because of my ignorance on the topic. (However, I would appreciate seeing some neutral assessment on the rationale provided by both sides for Catalan sea and Balearic sea, respectively).--Cnoguera (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountolive, after realizing in your talk page(damn it! I should not be so curious when arriving at a new place... ;)) that I am a "typical profile", I appreciate much more your kind welcome and the fact that you assume good faith in me, as I promise to do with anybody else. (Please, don't take this comment as sarcastic, definitely it is not the case! I just found your friend's description of my profile so funny I could not remain silent ;)). --Cnoguera (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and welcome. Sorry if I've offended you.
Without any effort you'll find it as a kind of 'guasa' close to pagliaccio. I mean, under the 'guasa' there's only sadness and frustration.
And obviously, you haven't deleted any POV tag.
We need here more Virgil and less Ovid.
Best. --Owdki talk 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the tags

[edit]

Dear colleagues, I would like to bring into your consideration some proposals recently made regarding the tags on this article. According to Mountolive, the worldwide view tag is due just to the "Catalan sea" issue, so it could be place just under the map until some solution on this conflict is reached. Furthermore since, according the information you have given to me, the article has already been neutralized and achieved some sort of consensus as a whole, the second tag could be just removed. What do you think? Shall we perform these changes? --Cnoguera (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cnoguera, I had already made another version of the map some days ago but I was waiting for some more oppinions to come. Since no other user has and following your request, I have already changed the map to display "mediterranean sea" and removed the "unbalanced" tag.
Meanwhile, I kept the "globalized" tag . The article still lacks of any reference for Andorra's, Roussillon's, Balears' people oppinion on this matter. There is not a single source referenced for what those respective authorities say.
BTW, welcome to en:wikipedia. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 10:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your welcome, Maurice. So, you support this kind of neutral solution in the sea name conflict by changing it to "Mediterranean Sea". Seems to me a reasonable choice as long as there is no consensus for other terminology (somebody competent should really assess the outcomes of your previous discussion with Marc B.). However, there is something I do not understand: Why have not you changed it in the previous version of the map? I mean, one would expect that only the name of the sea should be changed while keeping the remaining names as they were (unless they would be the subject of other discussions), and keeping the demographic data from 2007 (not going back to 2006). As regards to the remaining tag, I appreciate your information about missing aspects of the article and I we hope we all will work to improve it in the suggested direction. Thanks. --Cnoguera (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far I have done just a couple of minor changes. I would like to do some more substantial edits but in a potentially controversial article I am not sure what is the usual practice. Shall I change whatever I consider necessary to be improved or should I first bring it here into your consideration for previous discussion? --Cnoguera (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice, you never said that you included the tag because of "lack of references", but because of the use of "Catalan Sea". Please stick to you own word. Besides read the discussion archive, several references were included regarding Balears and Rousillon. Take the time to review them if you may. And if you find a way to insert them in the article do so. --the Dúnadan 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The article still lacks of any reference for Andorra's, Roussillon's, Balears' people oppinion on this matter. There is not a single source referenced for what those respective authorities say." (this is what I explained to Cnoguera)---> Therefore: "This article or section deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject." (as the tag clearly states). So... what's your point Dunadan? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you don't stick to your word. As soon as something is fixed you will find another "reason" to put a tag. By the way, I repeat, we have already provided links to the perspective in the so-called Northern Catalonia and the Balears. Why don't you review the discussion? Feel free to add them. --the Dúnadan 16:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly the reason why I removed the "unbalanced" tag. But, it still "lacks of any reference for Andorra's, Roussillon's, Balears' people oppinion on this matter" (not about catalan language... About the Catalan Countries). There is not a single source referenced for what those respective authorities say (not about catalan language... About the Catalan Countries). So, again... what's your point Dunadan? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ask me to repeat ad nauseum what I have already said? This article is about the Catalan Countries as a linguistic area... Please read the introduction. Please read the source being cited. So? What is your point? Didn't you read the last sentence of the introduction about the opposition to the concept from the very same Catalan Countries? What do you want to prove? Trying to ask the every Balearic what they think? Ludicrous. Why don't you try to find that yourself, instead of simply putting senseless tags? Are you actually interested in contributing (you know, actually researching) in this article, or just criticizing the purported inconsistencies? Like I said, stick to your own words, instead of trying to find faults to discredit a concept that you particularly dislike. --the Dúnadan 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Look Dunadan, if you want to live in your "happy happy wonderland" of the Catalan Countries' concept being a linguistic area, it is up to you. But don't force us to agree with it. If you want to stick with those arguments, fine, but start considering erasing the last picture of the article (yes, the graffiti in Vilassar de Mar one claiming "Una nació, països catalans"), as it makes your arguments about the linguistical matter sound ridiculous.

And about you having to repeat "ad nauseum" your arguments against my "ad hominem" attacks... If you had Ab origine understood Ad cautelam what other peoples write, we probably shouldn't need to repeat Ad infinitum our Ad libitum arguments to make you understand Ad litteram what is Addenda et corrigenda, something that everybody else understands Ab initio. Now, Ad majorem Dei Gloriam, without any Animus injuriandi, I ask you... Are you willing to erase that picture in order to support your Ad absurdum and Ad aeternam argument about the catalan countries being a linguistical matter? As I know your answer will be "no", then I'm forced to add the tag because I do believe it is an acusatio manifesto political feeling. And, as I do believe it is a political feeling, the Authorities sources must be included. Acta est fabula. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh,quite a diatribe. Did you bother to do what I asked you? Did you read the introduction, with the source of course? Just in case, I'll copy it: The Catalan term 'Països Catalans' [...] refers to the territories of Catalan language and culture. Now, some groups advocate for a national identity for these countries. Can't you tell the difference?! I guess not. But then, I ask you, for the third time [hopefully the last], if you are so interested in including the "opinion" [ergo. POV] of people in the Balearic Islands and Rousillon, why don't you add it yourself? Are you more interested in putting tags or in building the article? I am not forcing you to agree with me, I am demanding that you agree with what the sources say. If you dislike the sources and if you have an opinion about the Catalan Countries, well, there are plenty of forums for you. But Wikipedia is not a forum. --the Dúnadan 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


After rereading and rethinking the matter, now I am not sure of understanding Maurice's point. We should include "reference for Andorra's, Roussillon's, Balears' people oppinion on this matter. There is not a single source referenced for what those respective authorities say" he said. So, are you talking about people or authorities? And, more important than that after I realize the content of the dispute with Dúnadan, should it be their opinion about the cultural or about the national notion of Països Catalans? If it is about the first one, then there many evidences easily referable (participation of Andorra's and Balear's governments in Institut Ramon Llull, Perpinyà being the capital of catalan culture, ....). Since this is the primary definition of "Països Catalans" (I always had been taught they were defined as a linguistical-cultural notion), maybe it should be enough to satisfy your requirements. Am I right? --Cnoguera (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANY reference or source is desirable, of whatever nature. It is very funny to read about the linguistical, cultural and political community all these regions have and not having a single link about the presence of this community apart than in Catalonia. Where is the presence of the Institut d'Estudis Catalans mentioned in Andorra for example?... Where are the external links?

Some people are willing to compare this to the anglosphere, the Francophonie... I find that very same thinking absurd, but I respect that opinion. For me it is nothing else than (and let me call it this way) "Catalan Imperialism" towards its neighbours. Like calling the sea Catalan Sea... For God's sake... Like Mountolive said, are we gonna need to mention also Castelldefellian Sea also?

Do we french people exige to change the english name of English Channel for the La Manche? It is also our coast, but we respect that this is the english wiki and we don't try to change it towards our culture. The "Seville" article is not called "Sevilla", nor the "Rome" one is called "Roma". Why are Catalans (some of them) different? Why is the Lleida article named in Catalan? As far as I know, in english, Lerida is the official use. But here, we have to bend against the Catalan lobby. If english uses the name Normandy, french people don't claim that the article must be changed to it's "proper language" or "official name" Normandie. Do germans also change Munich for Munchen???? But Catalonia is different...

In these related matters, we have to reach consensus, we have to respect national indentity, we must improve catalan culture... Why? Who knows? I've said it a thousand times, Wikipedia is not a Catalan political pamphlet to spread Catalan POV or beliefs. Wikipedia must be an encyclopedic reference to spread knowledge, not political ideas. For this reason, if english community (and this is the english wiki) does not accept La Manche or Roma or Sevilla, Having articles called Illes Balears or Lleida is against the rules of wikipedia. But Hey! It's Catalan culture and we must respect it... (I'm being sarcastic here...)

For this reason, some data about which % of the pop of Andorra or Balears or Roussillon do approve these so-called Països Catalans is a must. I'm asking for references for what the article claims! Nothing more!

I lived for almost 2 years in Lleida province and other 3 in Barcelona province. Because of my job, I've been more times to Andorra than probably all of you together. I've asked people, I've mixed with them. Andorrans do love Catalans! Well, I'll rather say they love their Euros... But in any way they desire to be united in any ways to them (politically or culturally). Have you been to Balears? I will not say that the general opinion is of hate towards Catalonia, but they don't love the "terra ferma" either. In Valencia, it is "vox populi" the crescent animosity towards this "catalan countries" concept... Let's not talk about Roussillon then... And that's only the political view...

Let's talk about the cultural side... This article compares the Catalan Countries with the Anglosphere, the Francophonie, the Hispanophonie or the Lusophonie... Fine, but, where is the link to the organization which reunites all these regions in a "happy happy wonderland" of Catalan-Speaking regions? There is none! Not a single institutions promotes the "union" in a cultural way of these regions. You'll probably be thinking of the Institut d'Estudis Catalans. This institute is only present in Barcelona, Perpignan, Castellón, Alicante and Lleida. There is no presence in Balears, nor Alghero nor Andorra... And let's not forget that the IEC is paid with GenCat funds exclusively (let's talk about a political move)... These regions or countries are not members of any "academy" of the catalan language (And Quebec, without being a State as such, is a participating government of the Francophonie).

So, if it is demonstrated that there is no cultural unity among these territories to work together towards a so-called "Catalan culture", why does wikipedia have to respect and admit that a user edits this article to defend the catalan cultural unity if none exists?

The only territory promoting the "catalan culture" as such is Catalonia. We'd better said "catalonian culture"... Y en mi pueblo, a eso se le llama politica! Am I right adding the tag? or am I right?

P.S. No offence intended Cnoguera, it is just that I consider myself an old dog tired of fighting useless fights with the Catalan lobby. But you seem interested in improving knowledge, not politics. You have my support! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am happy to know that I have your support in improving the encyclopedic knowledge in this entry. Let's try to do it smoothly. Leaving aside some topics you mentioned which are not the main issue here and should maybe be discussed elsewhere, I will just concentrate on the possible drawbacks of the present article and propose some way out of the conflict. First of all, I infer from some previous comments (by Mountolive and Dúnadan) that consensus was already reached in the structure of the entry, namely in defining Països Catalans as "the territories of Catalan language and culture" (as it is usually defined in textbooks), and then discussing the political usage of the expression in some political circles and assessing the influence of this latter usage. Taking for granted that this structure must be preserved, let me focus on its details:

(1) Països Catalans as a linguistical-cultural notion:

(1a) The definition of its territories is correct and it is accurately distinguishing the parts where Catalan historically has been the proper language from the parts where this is not the case but catalan has some official status (some interior valencian "comarques", Fenolheda, Vall d'Aran). It seems clear that references for the extension of the language need not be provided here, but in the catalan language (and valencian) entry.

(1b) The normative institutions for catalan language. It is well known that there are two: IEC and AVL. This is not strange since catalan is a pluricentric language. Both of them accept and promote the unity of catalan language, even if they have proposed two different standards. It is already explained in the entries about the language and I don't think they should repeated here.

(1c) The unity reflected in the cultural institutions. Here we could add some more information. The official intergovernmental institution is the Institute Ramon Llull (currently under reconstitutional process to fit together Andorran, Balearic and Catalan governments). As can be read in the current statutes its aims are purely cultural and, presumably, this will remain when the reconstitution will be done. As regards to non-governmental institutions and their unity, we could refer to Federació Llull, which unites Acció cultural del País Valencià, Obra Cultural Balear and Òmnium Cultural. We could also mention the collaboration of these institutions with other entities in Franja d'Aragó (see [78]) or in Roussillon (see e.g. [79]). At city council level, there are also some facts that can argued to show official institutional support to the linguistical-cultural unit: the number of municipalities using the extension CAT in their web site all along the territory, or that fact that Perpinyà is the "capital of catalan culture" of 2008 (see [80]).

(2) Països Catalans as a political notion: As matter of fact, the territories falling under the definition are not forming a political unit. Nobody claims it (surely not the entry). The question whether there is a national character binding them all is controversial all along the territories, as the article is already explaining. It has been proposed by some political parties and rejected by others. Nevertheless, the details could be improved since now only the most radical views on the subject are represented (there is no mention to nationalist political parties for instance in Valencia and Balears that support at some extend the political collaboration between territories without claiming explicitly the national character). Furthermore, the data about electoral results should be updated and more detailed.

I will be more specific on proposals about this second aspect in the future. Let us concentrate on the first one by now. I would like to hear opinions from everybody involved in the discussion. --Cnoguera (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Finally!!!! Someone with willingness to contribute!!! Not just to spread political ideas!!! Is this love that I'm feeling? Is this the love that I've been searching for? Is this love or am I dreaming? This must be love, 'cos it's really got a hold on me... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess either you were pretending or you were not reading what we proposed, because Cnoguera is repeating what we've been trying to make you understand from the very beginning: the PPCC is a linguistic concept (not a political unit) and that some claim there is a national identity and others reject it; that Catalan is one single but pluricentric language (even though you claimed otherwise at Talk:Valencian Community, and even suggested that Valencian and Catalan were dialects of Occitan!). But who cares if you read our arguments or not, at least you finally understood... kudos! --the Dúnadan 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! you "proposed"... Cnoguera started working! Denying that Catalan, Valencian or Eivissenc are dialects of Occitan is like denying French or Spanish are dialects of Latin. As simple as that! Want to deny it? Fine!
Past reference of Maurice --Toniher (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hohoho... "pro-catalan crusaders"... I'm one of a kind... I forgot that one. BTW Toniher aka the user who burns spanish symbols, why don't you go burn some Spanish Flags? If you have some more stamps left (not burned please), I can send it to you by mail... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 09:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, notice that I have added a new paragraph on cultural collaboration in order to fulfill Maurice's demands. I hope that, in addition to our love for The Rolling Stones and Whitesnake, I will also share with Maurice some agreement on that point. Let me know. --Cnoguera (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time today, but I already removed the tag as I sincerely see willingness on your part to understand my point and to improve the article. I can't remember if the paragraph you just added has exactly the same content about the sources and references you mentioned the other day, but I have to say that those sources are references seemed also quite interesting. Cheers! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad nauseam

[edit]

First, it is ad nauseam, from the Latin NAUSEA, not ad nauseum. Second this article has been invaded by those with an agenda to ridicule Catalonia. Maurice clearly enjoys acting as an irritant. The tag at the beginning of the article could be applied to any article about a nation without a state, but I don't see it in the Kurdistan article for example. It should be removed.

Patrick F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.179.81 (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but erasing the tag before its proponent has had the chance to explain better his point (which I asked for above) doesn't seem the best way to deal with the conflict. Maurice, we (at least me) are waiting to know your opinion --Cnoguera (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have it now. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different point of views: Political, cultural, etc. [81] [82] [83]. --Toniher (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Toniher, can you let me a stamp? Ohhhhhh... Too bad you burned them all in the last festa anti-hispanitat... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleagues, I kindly ask you to stop erasing and reintroducing the tag until we can work out a solution in this discussion page. Thanks to Maurice for his long reply with a more detailed explanation of his point of view (that's what I like: argumentation). Thanks also to Toniher for the new links. Now let's try to work calmly and we'll surely reach a solution. I will prepare something. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no political vaccuum in which the people inhabiting the Catalan-speaking territories and their local institutions would be able to decide for themselves questions regarding their mutual relationship and their fate. Therefore no "neutral" position and discussion is possible, for its is against the interests of the states dividing up the nation without state that it even dares to exist. A lot of effort has been put both by French and Spanish Governments to erase Catalonia as an identity (From the Bourbon king Carlos III's Decreto de Nueva Planta: "Para que se note el efecto sin que se note el cuidado"). The situation is similar to Kurdistan. However, in the Kurdistan article I see no tag as the one Maurice (with his steadfast "cuidado") insists to hang on this article. I wonder why Wikipedia allows such deliberate slurs and apology of imperialism to take place. Patrick F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.183.107 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because since I started editing, no one as contested the content of my edits, ever!... If only the manners... Is that a valuable answer to you or you want continue your personal attack against my "imperialism apology"? Are you going to call me "Citizen of a genocide country" also? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 09:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new round?

[edit]

Per the latest edits, I am copying here a comment of Dúnadan himself in names of the valencian community which applies here nicely

WP:BOLD I cite from that very same page: "it is important that contributors do not edit recklessly. "Being Bold" does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia".
From that same page: Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories [...] should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. As it has been shown in this and many other Catalan/Valencian related articles, this is a very controversial subject. And, unfortunately, for the much part, we are still to learn to agree on consensual versions in these articles after arduous negotiations that would reflect the diverse points of view, without demeaning one, two or all of them. As such, I think major changes in this article must be discussed first amongst many users.

This said (or borrowed on Dúnadan's own words), I would like to point out that

1) the intro is getting very long

2) extending clear-enough statements and nuance them ad infinitum is not helping in this regard

3) doing so to push a particular POV (that Països Catalans is mostly a cultural term) does not help either, especially when the nature of this term has been the origin of a quite unpleasant discussion (see previous posts and the quote above in this very one) from which we seemed to have freed ourselves.

4) "as such" is crystal clear, "some sectors" wording is imprecise and vague to-the-max. If someone thinks that making a territorial reference would help to avoid "some sectors", ok doing so with the Valencian Community, but then "Gonellisme" in the Balearic islands should also be included, and that would not help in terms of length.

Anyway, I hope you guys are ready for some more, because it looks like we will be having ;) Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not qualify this as a "new round" as if we are expected to fight, but as a new opportunity to improve the article and built upon what has been done. Sadly, the same person that is accusing me/us of pushing a particular POV is actually pushing a particular POV. Let me elaborate
  • As the very article cited in the definition shows, the Catalan Countries are a linguistic and cultural region. This is their first meaning.
  • As some nationalists advocate for a national identity inherent to these territories, the term has carried a strong nationalistic and/or separatist connotation in some sectors in Spain, most notably in the Valencian Community, and most notably in politics, whereas several universities and Academic papers in all the territories comprised by the Catalan Countries simply endorse the linguistic union. This is fully verifiable, and therefore compliant with WP:BOLD, not to mention the three pillars of Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Mountolive, you know very well this is sourced. I find your claim that it isn't somewhat unfair. We can avoid weasel words, like "some sectors" and then clearly specify which: political parties and Valencian cultural organizations.
  • Per WP:UNDUE and the three aforementioned policies, I improved upon the text by contextualizing the opposition received. That is, that opposition to this term is not "frequent" (at least a source would be able to prove the "frequentness" of the opposition), but most importantly, that the opposition comes from very specific sectors (and most notably from the Valencian Community): from the main political party in the Valencian Community, and other cultural sectors (like the Consell Cultural). To simply say that "opposition" comes "notably" from all territories comprised by the definition actually borders on WP:WEASEL. Preciseness is better than ambiguity.
Now, I believe, and may external editors confirm this, the article is giving due weight to all POVs. For example, besides the introduction, the entire article is focused exclusively on the political controversies on the countries and the impossibility of creating a federation of autonomous communities in Spain. In fact, after reading the entire article, the reader will most probably get the impression that the PPCC are a nationalistic/concept. By adding preciseness to the introduction, the reader will understand where is this opposition coming from.
By the way, I do not see why length should be a problem. Lack of information is. The article can still be improved upon and expanded.
--the Dúnadan 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunadan, your obsesion to describe the Països Catalans as a mere linguistical or cultural matter negliging politics is completely out of place. There are lots of examples to reject your arguments. How do you explain the "viva el països catalans lliures" in a linguistical manner? You are the one pushing to extremes your POV. Want to cite WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR? Ok, let's see how you explain this one... You love to cite these rules, but it is hard to see you using them. Again, wanting to deny or negliging the political movement of the "països catalans" is against all rules in wikipedia. I could bury you with examples of the political use of this matter. It is up to you to continue this path of negliging what is vox populi. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice, please tone down your words ("obsesion" [sic]). No, I don't "neglige" [sic] the political connotation. But, like the reference of the GREC, and the many other references show, they refer firstly to a territories of Catalan language. Then some sectors advocate for a national identity inherent to those territories. The problem is that you "neglige" [double sic mine] the linguistic definition in order to fully make it a political concept, which is not true. NPOV requieres both POVs to be explained and contextualized. POVPUSH, which is what you are doing, is denying one particular POV and pushing the other as the "only" valid version.
I don't deny the fact that there is opposition, but this opposition is not ubiquitous, and we violate Wikipedia's rules if we present the opposition in WP:WEASEL terms. For example, the link you added, is perfect: it describes that the Valencian government opposes the PPCC. So, in actuality, the sentence should read "the concept has received opposition by the political sector of the Valencian Community", which is precisely what your reference is proving. But if we say "the term frequently carries a political/nationalistic tone in all territories", then the claim is ambiguous whereas the source is specific. That is precisely what we must avoid.
--the Dúnadan 01:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yo, Dunny! so looks like you are ready for some more. Let's go for it, then.
First -as a side note- it would be good to know from where you infer that a 'round' means a 'fight' (sic). In this regard... ever paid, say, a round of beer? I guess yes (and I guess you are getting it now). Looks like that comment was actually a slip of tongue of yours. That's ok.
Please excuse this stickler moment...I guess it is that your (sic)s, italics, occasional latin (sometimes bad one, like in 'ad nauseum' -sic-) routinarily inflicting of some WP:WHATEVERs to other users (as if you were always fully compliant with them and everyone else wasn't) and else, they all end up influentiating people's style in the end. Not always for good.
Expanding the article is ok. To my knowledge, no one is against it (even though bear with me if I state again that the intro (notice the italics? is for emphasis, as you know very well) is getting too long. I guess in this regard you can illustrate us with some WP:SOMETHING on the desired intro's lenght in an article.
You are concerned [84] with the fact that the political side of this concept is about 3/4s of the article (sic). Since length doesnt seem to be a problem, I guess all it takes is making some research and expanding the cultural side of it by roughly 2/4s. In this regard, your adding of the Frankfurt fair is the right path. Keep the good work like that.
The problem is if, to give more weight to the cultural side, you introduce slightly convoluted syntax or zealous connotations to the political one, as to debase its own due weight. That is not the right direction nor a proper contribution. Cultural and Political sides of the concept do not exclude each other, do they?.
So, if they are not mutually exclusive, then, to illustrate better the cultural side, is not a good idea to debase the political one, as your reasoning so far suggests. To illustrate better the cultural side it is best to illustrate the cultural side. The circular reasoning is meant as a means to make it even more self-evident that detracting due weight to the political side of this concept is not the way.
You seem to know quite about the cultural side. Then, please work on that. I know it is easier to mingle both and then try to give some more weight to one or the other (according to each one's point of view) but it is obviously best to make a stark distinction of both concepts and illustrate them, rather than messing both. Especially if the former option meant a breach of the consensus reached after a particularly heated, "oftentimes" unpleasant, debate.
As for legitimate point of views, you claim above that the cultural side is "their first meaning" (sic). You should prove that. I am not the only one who disagrees with that, but I am willing to hear your reasoning proving it (I dont think that Ph.D.s and other scholars indulge in graffitti painting as seen in the images, but please bear with me if I ask you to please spare me a grave reply -including a few WP:SOMETHING- to this: it is meant as a joke only).
I wouldnt like to forget about the consensus. It was not long ago that you accused Maurice of not sticking to his word. We got, roughly, a consensus in this article, and you were active in the relative discussions. Further enlargement of the article will require new consensus or will not, but the parts on which a consensus was reached after a long and heated debate, they should be respected, especially by the ones who took part in the debate. And that includes you.
Also, it was not long before that Maurice was including a neutrality tag based on reasons which I wasn't very sure if they applied to his claim. You complained about that. The difference now is that Maurice has dropped his tag claim for the sake of cooperation, while now it is you who is placing a tag based on dubious rationale.
Please act responsibly. Please contribute with your insight and proven expertise bringing more info supporting your legitimate POV like you have done with the Frankfurt fair. Please do not reopen past debates, which include past grudges and have a terrible and scary potential for a new 'round' (sic) of less than nice arguing. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountolive (please act reciprocally when you demand me not to call you "Mounty"):
You have written quite a diatribe with plenty of intentionality, sarcasm and calling into question the fact that I quote the rules of Wikipedia. I will never stop doing that, because it is through those rules that Wikipedia stands. I hope you understand that. If not, I recommend other places to edit and express opinions, because Wikipedia is not a forum.
I do not with to talk about mood, ethics, attitude or sarcasm. I have very specific concerns that I am addressing not only with my opinion and a couple of implicit insults here and there. Please respond with the same professionalism and responsibility. I would be more than happy to request the aid of administrators and arbitrators, if you deem it appropriate.
Please also explain what you mean by my "zealous political connotations". . There is no "zeal", except that for factual accuracy in building an encyclopedia.
Like always, I am more than willing to discuss. Per WP:Consensus, nothing is written in stone, including a tacit consensus, can always be improved upon. I do not understand why you are calling me to "stick by my word". I believe you understand the difference between improving a previous consensus and saying that "until you do this I will put this tag", then we do it, but the tag remains. Two different scenarios, as you can tell.
--the Dúnadan 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'quiate a diatribe'? when? how?
Well, even though me (I guess other users either) I dont have such a thin skin to call your sarcastic style a "diatribe" (when you incurr in that one style, that is to say, which, fortunatelly, is rather the exception than the rule) I guess it is still good that, when you are exposed to the same mirror, you feel your own way to address people as such (as a 'diatribe'). Maybe this way you will realize better that, among others, placing so many (sic)s next to other people's comments -as if they were dumb and needed to get their noses rubbed against their own words- it can be taken as a 'diatribe' with "plenty of intentionality, sarcasm".
As for you quoting the rules, it's not bad in itself (who said that?) but, my suggestion would be that you go a bit more in depth when quoting them, that way you will increase whatever informative value intended. Routinarily, you tend to smash the bulk of WP:THIS WP:THAT WP:ETC and, by my experience, that is not really informative, but it sounds, yes, like smashing that on people. And like if you were always fully compliant with those and the rest of the people wasn't. That is not nice.
You resort to that recourse so often as to even using it with newcomers (always to the users you dont share POV, obviously). Like in here to poor Charlygc [85]. Please bear with me if I think that is against #10 in WP:BITE policy as seen here [86]. Besides, you may agree with me that, if you quote the bulk of them routinarily (roughly every couple posts) it loses any effect it could ever have. Please dont take this as a 'diatribe', but as a suggestion to get your point better explained.
Anyway, this is no invitation to discuss this usage in particular. It is just an example of how your 'modus operandi' (we like latin over here, dont we) may not be as illustrative as you intend it. And how you should care about it, especially in damned complicated articles like this one.
This said, I could address your questions as expressed above, but it wouldnt be fair, since you have nothing but ignored mine, and reduced them to a mere "diatribe, with plenty of intentionality, sarcasm". Bear with me if I say that I will happily address your questions when you address mine, this way we can have a more orderly debate.
Now, I am really concerned to know more about the reasons why you consider my above post "quite a diatribe" and, especially, I would like to know where is "here" and where is "there" in your sentence "a couple of implicit insults here and there". That's quite some accusation, which should be addressed. When you let me know where are those heres, theres, therefores and whys, I'll be happy to apologize if necessary, but, in the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you dont't cast shadows on my comments at ease. It is not necessary to know latin to realize that you are suggesting I am disrupting with these comments of yours I'm bringing to your attention.
Please let me know how and I will apologize, alternatively, please apologize yourself. Actually, since I wouldn't like to get down to this kind of thin skin editor who feels everything as an "insult" or a "personal attack" it will be enough if you advise me to take these as not said or not meant, and that is enough with me. But, hey, if everyone is dancing here to the "you insulted me" tune, I am left with no other option but joining the Grand Ball myself. Even though I would regret it to drain so much energies in that (dirty) dancing, instead of using them for sound contributions.
Let's keep a high polite standard here, too. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New situation, new tag

[edit]

Dear colleagues, let us keep on working.

The old tag is gone. My sincere thanks to Maurice for his positive behavior in removing the tag. I added the mention to intergovernmental cultural cooperation via Ramon Llull Institute and then it has been improved by several contributors. We could add other references to support the usage of "Països Catalans" as a linguistic-cultural reality, but as pointed by Mountolive, this could make the introduction of the article too long. So, what do you think: Can we survive with the current references or we need more? Should we create a new section for linguistic-cultural issues? Should we make the introduction even longer? Opinions please.

But we have a new one. After some discussion with Mountolive, Dúnadan has added a neutrality tag for the final paragraph of the introduction. The problem is how to formulate correctly that Països Catalans as a political project (i.e. their possible national character) are controversial and have received some support and some opposition. In my opinion it is not a problem if this is written in a quite vague way in this paragraph of the introduction, as it should be explained in details later on in the "Controversy" section. So, can we reach some consensual vague formulation here and then discuss the more interesting detailed section below? --Cnoguera (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, as you can see now an anonymous user decided to restructure the article before we could discuss it. I am not very happy with this way of proceeding, but I am not reverting it since after all could a good idea. Maybe now the article could become clearer and more complete. What do you think? As regards to the tag, I have placed it again in the right place. Do not forget we have to find a consensual formulation to remove the tag. --Cnoguera (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the new structure.
As for the tag, I have relocated it. It was placed on the grounds that the article is 3/4 political, and that this would be an undue weight. If so, since all the political part is verified and compliant, then the only way out I see would be expanding the cultural sense (as yourself and Dúnadan have made so far) even though I am not sure if 50/50% applies or is a good solution in this particular case. The thing is that, if the tag is placed only over the political definition of the concept, then tagging is a not neutral move in itself, because it suggests that these aspects are not verified or something. On the other side, additional reasoning given by Dúnadan to place the tag is:
Like I said before, I wish to avoid weasel words such as "all". If we attribute the opinions and opposition to the appropriate actors, we are actually being precise. To say that this or that party in the Valencian Community opposes the Catalan Countries with sources, is far more encyclopedic than to attribute opposition to all territories and all sectors including the Academic sector
Sounds good, but.... there is some important point missed in there: the fact that, actually, the text doesnt read all anywhere. Not at all (ha ha). As such, the rationale of this reasoning is not that strong, but seems to be based on the personal perception that the sentence "its usage has received oppostion" implies opposition everywhere. Still, it is self evident that, implying that "have received opposition" means "have received opposition everywhere" is just a categorical personal judgement. If that was the meaning intended by the text, then it would read, well, "it has received opposition everywhere" (sorry for circular reasoning, but looks like necessary). However, it doesnt read like that. Similarly, as for territorial opposition, the article reads clearly "from some territories", not "all".
I'd say it would be best to remove the tag. Not in vain (or maybe yes?) Maurice conceded doing so for the sake of cooperation here. All parts should add its own bit in that regard. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV tag goes fine (on the top), from my point of view. --Owdki talk 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Mountolive, I thought it was clear that the only reason for me to remove the globalize tag was the appearance à la scène of Cnoguera. He is the only hablante casi nativo del español ( ;P ) not only willing to reach a consensus, but also the only one who has really taken the step to reach it. I asked for some references and sources to remove the tag and he proposed some to us. No other member of the catalan lobby has bringed none. Yes, I've received a lot of WP:Everything guidance and ad nauseam talking diarrhea, but nothing else. I'm tired of talking to the walls and not getting any answer to my questions or proposals. Again, the only reason to remove the tag were the hechos (no palabras) by Cnoguera. If it wasn't for him, the tag would be still atop of the article.

If a single personal alarm bell is ringing, That would be great. Some people are starting to forget the Memorandum of Understanding so fast. We are not reaching any "win-win situation" anymore. And with Respect and win-win situations, we could reach (all of us) all the fuck*** consensus we could dream of...

Oh, and BTW, nobody from the Catalan lobby wanting to explain to Mr. "I love to burn spanish symbols" Toniher and his scholar friend Mr. "I couldn't care less for what the international treaties stand for", that they were completely out of place with their article reverting in order to keep the Catalan Sea in an english wikipedia didn't help much either.

None of us is here to make new friends and/or to find a new girlfriend among our respective sisters so, why don't we start working together in order to improve the articles de una p*** vez/vegada? Everybody seemed happy with the memorandum and everybody seemed ok to respect what we all freely proposed there. Looks like Christmas time has passed... Am I wrong? We all probably need to read it again from time to time...

I'll be off 'til saturday, I wish you all a lovely remaining of the week. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramon Llull Institute

[edit]

There's many stuff here to discuss (I'm thinking about Cnoguera, Dúnadan, and our talk pages' comments). I've written about it and I'm bored. Rather than posting a long text with sources, I'll make questions. You know my concerns:

  • 1. PPCC ≠ catalan-speaking territories
  • 2. PPCC = political

Today I'll touch the point 1. Cnoguera (I'm sure that Dúnadan agrees with him) has presented the Ramon Llull Institute as an important institution, even as a proof of unity of the Països Catalans. Why the "Països Catalans" don't exist for the Ramon Llull Institute? Why we cannot find ANY reference about PPCC in its official webpage (nor in its statutes)? Why it is not cited (at least once)?
We have here two facts:

  • The Ramon Llull Institute, as official intergovernmental institution, doesn't recognice the PPCC, but we find that this institution defines the catalan-speaking territories as "The linguistic domain of the Catalan language" (now I see our past translation-discussion as a joke).
  • The PPCC, in expert officialdom, don't represent the catalan-speaking territories.

Am I wrong?
BTW (Mediterranean Sea in all the maps, Ramon Llull, GREC... =P). --Owdki talk 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! This is getting interesting! (my distorted philosopher mind enjoys discussion when it gets involved with difficult nominalist and semantic issues ;)) As you can see, I have added a new reference to Joan Lluís Vives Institute in order to provide more interesting data (as required in this discussion page) about cultural collaboration between the territories falling under the Països Catalans concept. I hope you will appreciate it as something relevant to the article which gives to the reader some more information and consistency about the Països Catalans as a cultural reality. Nevertheless, I am aware it can be a target of the same criticism Owdki is doing to the IRL. So let's deal with it properly. I will try to state my points as clearly as possible:

  • I am trying to do exactly what you required to us: provide information that will help the reader in understanding in which sense the Catalan Countries can be regarded as a linguistical-cultural entity.
  • However, does the previous point mean that in all the provided sources the expression "Països Catalans" should appear explicitly used? I don't think so. Let me pose an analogous question: if we were to prove that there exists cultural collaboration between governments and institutions from several spanish-speaking territories, should we require that the word "Hispanophonie" must appear in their statutes? What if they are using equivalent formulations?
  • But, don't you be puzzled, I will tell you why "Països Catalans" is not appearing in the statutes of IRL. It is very simple: because of the political controversy. Because, as explained in the article (though in an incomplete and possibly biased way we should revise some day), the term has been associated (only by some sectors) to some political projects which has resulted in some opposition (again only by some sectors). Therefore, it was not convenient from a pragmatical point of view to use this terminology. As it has been stated by the three governments currently engaged in the IRL, they plan to extend the collaboration to the whole the catalan-speaking world, which means including Valencian government in the consortium. You will agree with me that this would become nowadays too difficult if the unfortunate expression would be used too explicitly. So it is better to use equivalent names for the territories, not politically charged.
  • The IRL, and the Joan Lluís Vives Institute, do recognize the PPCC as a matter of fact, because those are the territories (they are explicitly mentioning them) where they intend to work in promoting the common language, culture and educational and research activities.
  • Institutional collaboration requires involving the current administrations and their domains include territories outside the strict borders of the language. Thus, the whole PPCC (in the broad sense) are somehow involved in such enterprises.

I have written it elsewhere: reality is complex, but this should not discourage but challenge us to write good articles dealing with its full complexity. --Cnoguera (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, reality is complex and this is an hot article, so our lucid wikipedian minds should shout: stick to the facts. Just in order to avoid OR. Please check this past case as illustration.
"If it's a statement of fact, it'll be very easy to find a citation for it, no?" Words of wisdom.
"do recognize the PPCC as a matter of fact" is an opinion. We cannot verifity it. The fact is: this term is not used. That's the fact. And another fact is that the principal official institution promoting the Catalan language and culture defines those territories as (designates, and use the term) "The linguistic domain of the Catalan language" (anything except Països Catalans).
If you want to know my opinion, I agree with you: "because of the political controversy" (globalize tag ;P ). What you defines as "pragmatical point of view" is called "neutral point of view" in the Wikipedia. You should recognize that Wikipedia is taking part when this term is being utilised as the "catalan-speaking territories" or "linguistic domain of the Catalan language", and when the principal official and involved institution doesn't use it. And this means that by common knowledge this is, mainly, a political term "to be avoided". You know, neutral lenguage for neutral contenses, as the official institution does (Wikipedia is another official institution, of knowledge, isn't it?).
"[...] in all the provided sources the expression "Països Catalans" should appear explicitly used?" For sure. We have a problem here and, taking your analogy, it might be developed as "Spanish Empire-Hispanophonie" and the Instituto Cervantes, in the case that some people (in a political way) will identify the Hispanophonie with the rebirth of the Spanish Empire (I know, it isn't comparable with the Catalonia case, but only to clarify the situation). Fortunatelly we haven't that madness (my god, imagine it).
"the term has been associated (only by some sectors) to some political projects". Absolutely not. The term not only since its origin but by its evolution has been inside the catalan nationalistic movement in all its expressions and stages (read this talk page, past comments). You'll have enough with Oliver:
"This fact, that, if we are not the first to discover, then no-one up until know has proclaimed it, throws unexpected light on our history and on the true character of the peoples that can be said to be the Catalan language, which in our eyes appear to be part of a whole, as members of a nationality" (Benvingut Oliver, 1876)
Thanks. You're truly moving this stone, with a exquisite behaviour. --Owdki talk 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let our lucid wikipedian minds keep on running ;P You know I want to remain stuck to the facts here for the sake of good encyclopedic knowledge about catalan-related articles.

The situation is the following (please correct me if I am wrong in any detail or if I claim something not supported by facts). The introduction clearly states that "Països Catalans" has two meanings (related meanings, since this is not a case of homonymy, but polysemy): the linguistic-cultural one and the political one. There are uses of the expression in each of those meanings, this is a fact. Then the article should provide enough information about both meanings, right?

According to the first one, Catalan Countries are the territories where catalan is historically spoken. These territories share some common language and culture. Moreover they have cultural collaboration at many levels, being prominent examples institutions like IRL or Xarxa Vives. Those institutions are mentioned here (at least this was my intention according to the requirements made) as data to support one fact: the existence of cultural collaboration among territories falling under the Catalan Countries concept. Nothing more, nothing less. This is a fact that has been proved. However, it seems that you would like those data to support also another fact: the expression 'Països Catalans' is used in a linguistic-cultural sense. I thought this was already accepted. But, don't worry, even if these institutions are not using the expression in their statutes (for some pragmatical reasons, as yesterday we agreed) there are uses of the expression in their official documents. A fast proof of this fact: [87] and [88] (do the search on the documents; it was easy to google them). Conclusion: of course they recognize the catalan cultural reality, since this is what they work for, and they do use several expressions to refer to these territories depending on the context being 'Països Catalans' one of them. Hence, luckily we have verified what yesterday seemed just an opinion of mine.

As regards to the second one, you are right and well informed, Owdki. From the very beginning of the history of this expression the second meaning has also been there, i.e. there have been uses of the expression in this meaning. In fact, there have been several different political interpretations. That's true and, of course, it is something we are supposed to explain faithfully here. I suggest that we should revise and expand some information about this second meaning. But let us go step by step (a poc a poc i bona lletra).

You know what is extremely good in these kind discussions: we force each other to look for factual support for his own claims, and in this way we obtain more and more knowledge about the topic. So, let's continue this fruitful cooperation. :) --Cnoguera (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a nice sunny weekend. You've cited "polysemy" as a fact and anybody has replied you =D. And we have some other facts:
  • The Ramon Llull Institute doesn't cite the term "Països Catalans" in its official webpage nor their statutes.
  • Instead of, they cite "The linguistic domain of the Catalan language"
  • They cite "Països Catalans" in their official documents (you bring another official webapge where PPCC is used)
You've ignored completely some important point that we've touched in this thread. And please, keep in mind the "New article" thread:
They use "The linguistic domain of the Catalan language". We agree on "because of the political controversy" (pragmatical-neutral point of view). That's enough for reflecting about what's happening here, in the PPCC article. And this is a "red light" fent pampallugues for us, here in Wikipedia. As you have ignored it, I can imagine that you think "we aren't in danger of controversy" or "the RLI didn't the right thing". False assumptions. Right now we are in controversy. The fact that the RLI avoided this term indicates the level of political denotation of the term in the common knowledge. Is this false?
"Those institutions are mentioned here (at least this was my intention according to the requirements made) as data to support one fact: the existence of cultural collaboration among territories falling under the Catalan Countries concept" Yeah! The analogy (Spanish Empire-Hispanophonie-Instituto Cervantes). Well, if you search in Hispanophone or Spanish Language, you'll find that it ("Instituto Cervantes") is cited there only once, and obviously not as a FACT of unity of the Hispanosphere-Spanish Empire, or collaboration between territories. Do you get the point? That's the problem we have here. Knowing the political controversy... what are you looking for with that fact "of cultural collaboration among territories" or the past unity fact? That plus the flags, the graffiti images, the political meaning... Some lucid wikipedian mind could think: "somebody are very interested in reflect the unity of those territories above the geopolitical reality because of the cultural reality... living under oppression". Note that we have here SEVERAL other cultural realities (andorran, french, italian and spanish... valencian, balearic, murcian, catalan, sardinian, aragonese). We should be aware of this. On the other hand we know that there are a lot of politic collaborations falling under the Països Catalans concept, and most of that politic collaborations are signed over cultural areas. And we know that catalan nationalism is not ethnic nationalism.
It's proved that the RLI recognices the PPCC. I have no problem to accept this fact (knowing that Josep Bargalló has the presidency, with the inestimable help of Mr. Rovira, both from ERC... i que Déu els guardi). That link is enough for me. But there, where supposedly we'll find a reference th the PPCC, there, there aren't any reference to the term.
Now proposals. You introduce a new idea in our discussion: polysemy. Man, I've tried that logical and reasonable path before (comparing this case with mouse≠mouse), and when I proposed it somebody answerd me: "Ludicrous. The arguing can be applied to the evolution of a single term (like republic) and not to two separate objects albeit homophones". I propose, once again, to split the article and manage it as a polysemy case in order to:
  • Stop mixing politics with culture/linguistic meanings in the same article. As any other polysemic case, one article for each meaning.
  • Defining clearly, in a diaphanous and cristalline way, WHEN we are talking about politics and when about culture/linguistic. We need it for cross references, wp links between articles... and for avoiding futures controversies. The current "embolica que fa fort" is a nice and ambigous backdoor for politic pov-pushers. We don't like them. We must close this backdoors. I cannot understand why some editors reacts against this normal and reasonable clarity desire, defining it as "reduce the article to a particular POV". Now we know that RLI had the same problem and they chose "pragmatism" (neutrality). Since Cnoguera recognizes it as a polysemy case, I propose managing the case in this direction, splitting the article, as any one other polysemy case. I'd wish the same description as the RLI, neutral and concise as linguistic/cultural (far from the strictly political). And on the other hand, the politic meaning (neutral and concise, knowing that it's linguistic and cultural nationalism). --Owdki talk 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Owdki, first I apologize for giving the impression I was ignoring some of your comments. It was not my intention. It is just that I like discussing step by step and not everything at once. Anyway, I'll try to address all your concerns right now. By the way, let me state that I appreciate them as really good faith concerns as they always seem to be guided by the desire of clarity and faithful knowledge. As usual, let us go for the facts:

  • The IRL is using the term "Països Catalans" in his (one and only) official site (www.llull.cat) as synomym expression for "domini lingüístic del català" and similar ones.
  • The IRL is not using the term "Països Catalans" in its statutes, but some other equivalent expression (our interpretation, not a fact: because a too explicit usage of "Països Catalans" could be an obstacle for the Valencian government to join the institute in the near future).
  • "Països Catalans" is used in different contexts with similar but not identical meanings that can be roughly classified in two groups: cultural-linguistic and political (I can provide dozens of examples for each case if you wish, but I guess you already know it). Therefore it is a case of polysemy (but not homonymy!).
  • There is cultural collaboration based on the common Catalan language and culture at many levels (including governments, universities and scientific societies) in the context of Catalan Countries.

Those are the basic facts I wanted to be taken into account here for our discussion. Now let me consider your proposals. Based on the polysemy of the expression you propose two split into to two different articles, something like "Països Catalans (linguistic domain)" and "Països Catalans (political projects)". Well, it can be appreciated as an interesting proposal for the sake of clarity, but I see some problems. The present case is very different than that of mouse≠mouse. In the mouse case you can understand each entry without any need to read the other one, in fact (except for the metaphor which originated the second name) there seems to be no semantical relation at all between both concepts, so it is a case of homonymy, rather than polysemy, which fully justifies the splitting of entries. But, let us wonder, is our case like this? It seems clear we should answer "No", we are dealing right now with a polysemy where both meanings have a strong dependence. You seem to be well informed about that and here there is another fact we can easily agree with:

  • The political projects for uniting under some political figure the territories of the Catalan Countries are based on the linguistical fact.

So, don't you think that in order to understand really what is going on here a newcomer to the topic should read about both meanings and their relations?

You suggested, if I understood it properly, we should do the same thing the IRL did when redacting its statutes: try to avoid the usage "Països Catalans" (even in its cultural meaning) as much as possible to avoid political connotations. But, you must admit our tasks and aims here are much different than those of IRL statutes. We are not founding an organization to foster collaboration between territories while being pragmatical to achieve it. We are following an encyclopedic enterprise which must grasp reality as it is. We have to explain all the possible meanings of the words, with their due weight, their denotations and connotations. In my opinion, the clarity and faithfulness to facts you claim to be pursuing can be better achieved in the one-comprehensive-article form better than in the splitting proposal.

Therefore, as you can see (if I succeeded in making my points clear), our positions are not distant. In fact, we seem to disagree only in the forms (one entry or two) but not in the content. Moreover, I can assure the embolica que fa fort is not my style, it is rather the opposite thing. --Cnoguera (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cnoguera, I think youre missing the point. Youre wording the facts with a presupposition: the RLI uses Països Catalans as the first term. If you want to find a explicit definition about "territories of Catalan language and culture", and the consequent term that is used to designate them, you won't go to a secondary page (as "areas"). There's only one official webpage in his (one and only) official site, and that webpage is that in which the territories are explained. If you doubt about this (??), please, look at the MAP. So... we have the fact:
  • The first term used explicity to designate the territories of Catalan language and culture is: "The linguistic domain of the Catalan". Nothing more nothing less. PPCC is used as synonym of the first term.
The first term that is being used IS NOT Països Catalans (again, the question of this thread: why?). We are in the wikipedia, and we have to look for the first term. Knowing this, you should rewrite "your facts", and reread the whole thread.
Mouses? No, my friend, mouse example is a blatant case of polysemy. If someone talks to me about "mismo significante y varios significados", I'll point up polysemy. Anyway, no problem with maintaining the current situation. We have this thread and we should rewrite the intro according to the RLI (very representative institution for this article) and the "new article" (what do you think about the nation PPCC, THE country?, you haven't commented yet).
About my proposal: I've suggested one action IN ORDER TO AVOIDING... You can read it again. If you have another idea in order to avoiding..., please express it here. Because we have a problem, and it's not "how a newcomer will understand the topic". We have the same problem as the RLI faced. And I'm sure we can explain it, all things, from a neutral point of view (pragmatical, if you want). Look at Catalan people. Look this chain (catalonia-related articles, spain-related articles, PPCC-related articles) and its links. May be the "embolica que fa fort" is not your style, but that's what is happening here. That's what we have here. It's easy to see a blatant parallel structure mounted, and how it's overlapping the geopolitical-cultural-linguistic reality. The manual of the perfect-catapov-pusher is very simple. Two actions (add and erase) and three methods (reinforcing, weakening, and entangling), with a pattern like this (cross references, articles, flags, infoboxes, image texts...):
And if you think that it's my personal concern, you're wrong.
BTW: as curious thing, they translate Països Catalans as "Catalan-speaking lands", no as "Catalan Countries". --Owdki talk 03:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that those discussions are constructive in the sense that we keep approaching little by little to some agreement on which are the basic facts upon which we can build a good article. So, with the help of your last comments let me try once more to improve the presentation of facts we are investigating here, as required. I think I should reword my formulation like this:
  • The IRL is not using the term "Països Catalans" in its statutes, but some other equivalent expression. So, it is not using "Països Catalans" in the first place.
  • However, the IRL is using the term "Països Catalans" in other texts on his official web site (www.llull.cat) as synomym expression for "domini lingüístic del català" and similar ones.
  • In general, "Països Catalans" is used in different contexts with similar but not identical meanings that can be roughly classified in two groups: cultural-linguistic and political. Therefore it is a case of polysemy (but not homonymy!). Notice that cultural use of the expression appears even in the most relevant institutions.
  • There is cultural collaboration based on the common Catalan language and culture at many levels (including governments, universities and scientific societies) in the context of Catalan Countries.
Please, notice that everything appearing in the official website of an organization is an official writing that must be taken into account. Notice, also, that the meaning of an expression is not defined only by the usages of governmental institutions, but by the usages of the whole community of speakers of a given language. Nevertheless, I agree with you, we cannot ignore the relevant fact that "Països Catalans" is not used in the statutes of IRL and Xarxa Vives, as it is an interesting symptom of some aspects of the reality we are dealing with (we surely do not want to miss anything relevant). We have to find some way to incorporate these facts in the content of the entry.
Even if the mouse case is a polysemy one (thank for the source, where I have learnt about the technical classification of some cases as metaphoric polysemy), I was arguing (and you have not shown otherwise), that it is still very different from our case. As I said, we need to deal with both meanings of our expression together in the same article, as they are closely related with some clear semantic dependencies.
I do not think we can identify being pragmatic and being neutral. Indeed, being pragmatic sometimes forces one to change slightly (or even drastically) normal linguistic usages, for instance by changing one expression by another with the same denotation but different connotation in order to avoid inconvenient expressions. Being pragmatical could even enforce the omission of some aspect of a subject in order to obtain the desired goals. But here we are pursuing a different thing: neutrality. And neutrality cannot admit any (not even slight) distortion of common language, not any omission of any relevant fact. That is why, I do not think our task can be compared with that of redacting IRL's statutes. That is why we must not be afraid of considering all the meanings of expressions and explaining their relations.
After all, we seem to agree that it will be easier to achieve our encyclopedic goal in one single entry. Of course, we want to avoid confusion of ideas (embolica que fa fort style), omission of important aspects and manipulation of truth. We can work out together some consensual reformulation of the entries in order to fulfill these constraints. I will think about and make some proposals. --Cnoguera (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

I found the most updated article of the GREC about the Països Catalans. For those who speak the language, here is the link: [89].--the Dúnadan 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! WOW! Have you noticed the left side drop-down menu (hierarchy)?
  • Europe > States and nations from Europe > The Països Catalans
At the same level: Spain, The Paisos Catalans and the rest of Europe. I'll try to contact with l’Enciclopèdia to claim some tags there (NPOV, globalize...). Thanks for the link. Check this:
"If we want to get close to the Països Catalans concept from a scientific point of view, definitively, what we should do first is bringing us closer to the nation concept"
Those guys wrote the geography section of the PPCC article for the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (i.e. l'Enciclopedia). Illustrative, isn't it? --Owdki talk 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the rather unfortunate hierarchy used, I wanted to point out the definition they are giving: territories of Catalan language and culture. Another interesting link, the Municipal Council of Perpignan is using a .cat address along is .fr address: www.perpinya.cat --the Dúnadan 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha! XD Please, we cannot read the sources in that way, Dúnadan (with "despite" here and there, according to our convenience). The definition that you brings is INSIDE political context (nation). Read our past discussions about the "old article", the "country" concept. Now we have:
  • It's an european nation, a country, the set of territories of catalan language and culture, the concept of country that joined the Catalan nation.
Obviously, I'll need treating my "Blindness". Can you help me, please? --Owdki talk 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite, doesn't mean "blindness". I really don't understand the intention of your comment, Owdki. --the Dúnadan 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youre right. I hope you understand my comment now (please, confirm that you've understood it). --Owdki talk 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it seems rather that you didn't understand mine, and I have repeated extensively. The "first meaning" of the Catalan Countries is cultural and linguistic, as proven by the link, which does not mean that it does not carry a political, and even nationalistic connotation. I do not have an issue with the political connotation, but this "national identity" springs out of the linguistic unity of the territories. --the Dúnadan 22:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further development and improvement of the article

[edit]

Dear all,

those last days only Owdki and myself have been following some constructive discussions in order the improve the article. It seems we are reaching some consensus about important facts upon which we should ground the further development of the entry. He made me realize some facts, I made him realize some other facts. Does your silence mean a tacit agreement on our conclusions? As Dúnadan placed a neutrality tag (and Owdki's agrees with the need for the tag), it turns out we still have to spend some time working on a better text. On one hand, Dúnadan argued that the paragraph in the preface about the political interpretations of the term and their opposition was too imprecise. On the other hand, Owdki has argued that the article is not distinguishing clearly enough the cultural aspects from the political ones. Both concerns lead to the same (good) direction: clarify and improve the text. To this end, I wish to make some proposals here and start making little changes accordingly, hoping to receive everybody's help in such a task. My suggestions:

  • The current content and references of the entry are quite OK, so it seems better to preserve as much information as possible. It is more a matter of reformulations, further precisions and expansions than a problem of substituting content.
  • The preface should be more explicit on the polysemy of the expression.
  • Maybe the paragraph on transregional cultural collaboration should be expanded, but in my opinion the most relevant institutions are already there. Do you think it would be pertinent to add there information about .cat domain or annual capital of catalan culture for instance?
  • The section about the political meaning of the expression seems quite poor in my opinion. There are several ways to defend PPCC as a political project, and also several ways to oppose it and this is not reflected in the text (for instance in the case of Valencia, why referring only to ERPV and not to the much more relevant and moderate BNV?). We could do some research on the topic (I mean searching for facts and sources, not original research of course) to expand this information and provide a comprehensive and faithful picture of the whole issue.

As usual, I will salute any constructive criticism or support to my proposals. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cnoguera. First, I would like to express my appreciation for your attitude and work so far.
I haven't been following the discussion that closely lately. I seem to infer that Owdki advocates for a thorough revision of the concept (I may be completely wrong). You also seem keen on more intensive work.
Both options are fine if conducted appropiately. But, the thing is that we shouldnt lose sight of the article having being quite intensively worked on. Further precissions, additional nuancing, citations from the fringe and others....they may end up have a less than beneficial effect on this brittle article. Please don't take me wrong, I am not saying anything else than what I have said: that the article is a hot spot and we may want to keep it as cool as possible.
As a side note, I have made some minor tweaks to your revision. Still, I would like to hear Owdki's opinion, since he has showed being more deft than myself in this article. In any case, you two guys seem to be working ok together. I hope you work it out fine, amending each other when it takes, and taking the lead in this article, which has been a bit headless chicken lately. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mountolive. Thanks for your kind words and for your changes in my latest contributions which have improved the presentation. I am aware of the huge work already done in this article and I do not intend to waste or harm it in any way. That is why I was advocating for a conservative mood in editing the entry. Following your side note, I also have some minor issues about the edits you just did, namely the removal of some occurrences of "cultural" (I think that claiming a Catalan cultural reality associated to language does not contradict the other obvious fact that there exist plenty of other cultural realities living together in the same territories, so I would keep the word in the text as more descriptive than the mere linguistical fact). Of course, anything can be kindly discussed here as we are doing lately. --Cnoguera (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know your intention is the best possible as proven so far, so no worries about my comment, is not meant at you or at anybody in particular, but as a general reminder.
As for the topic you mention, I just find "cultural" too vague. What is culture and, so, what is cultural? sardanes, barretines....calçotades? falles? la Dama d'Elx is "catalan culture" as I have seen it quoted somewhere? To which extent these territories can be defined as a shared culture? and, if they do share one, which one is that? Catalan culture or rather Spanish one? European culture? "Mediterranean" one? It's just too vague to be included, IMHO.
In contrast, "linguistic" is for sure a shared cultural trait and not just a randomly picked one, but the one chiefly defining the Països Catalans concept since its inception, whereas "cultural" as a whole is a further enlargement of the concept which may be advocated by the political promoters of it, but it is not a cold fact, but entering the realms of POV. That's how I see it and that's why the edit. Hope it makes more sense for you now. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand your point and, actually, I can easily agree with the fact that a language is by far easier to identify than a culture. I was more thinking of culture in the sense of those thesis that claim that using a given language determines a way of understanding and interacting with reality. Anyway, this is not a central discussion here and it would get involved with difficult anthropological and philosophical issues, so I will not develop it here. Let us leave by now the text as you propose, as your position seems to be sound and reasonable. --Cnoguera (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. By the way, we may also agree in that the article is looking better lately: indeed your input so far has been one of the good ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

[edit]

I think you guys are doing a very good job in the article. Congratulations to Cgnoguer and Owkdi are in place. --the Dúnadan 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catalan_Countries/Archive_2&oldid=1136303091"