From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Catalan people)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spain (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject France (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject European Microstates / Andorra  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Andorra (marked as Mid-importance).

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Fair use rationale for Image:Josep Samitier.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Josep Samitier.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Catalan and who isn't[edit]

Apparently some radical editors have decided that the answer to that question is "everybody who speaks any given variety of Catalan, is Catalan". Unfortunatelly for them, this assumption doesnt stand the most basic reality bite: go and ask the random farmer in el Carche or the village guy in Alguer and tell them "did you know that you are Catalan?" answer is likely to be "Excuse me, I didnt get the question: Cata-what?"

I'd rather take it with a smile because, the alternative, the prospect of wikipedia being plagued by Catalan radical nationalists trying to impose here their wildest wet dreams is not really enticing. That claim is so absurd that it rings more like a mere hoax than POV pushing itself.

You guys have to understand that Catalan people are...Catalan people. That should be easy to understand, but, if examples are needed, for example, think of Spanish people: are Argentineans Spanish people? well, they speak the same language after all, don't they? so, total population of Spanish people is how many? 500 million? Are New Zealanders English people? and so on....

If you guys want to impose your views, you'd better try more delicate ways than this one, as seen elsewhere. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, take it easy. This is obviously a sensitive topic. But in this article political nationalism (in its different directions) should be distinguished from people and ethnics, and this also needs further improving. This happens for French people and German people as well. As a reference, I add a Borja image, which was referred by his opponents as "Catalano marrano". --Toniher (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking it easy I am, thank you ;)
It only takes a fast look at those articles to realize that neither the French people nor the German people cases have anything to do with this one. If you keep showing a radical fringe stance in this topic, refusing to accept reality, I'll have no other option but to report you. I am not willing to, for in (a rather distant already) past you've been showing a bit more of understanding of wikipedia (lately it's not like that, blame it on elections frenzy or what's going on? ;)
I yielded to your point in Catalan independentism, for the sake of good faith here. But whenever you turn to most obvious pov pushing, like in here (and believe me that this is one of the most staggering examples I've seen lately...probably the most) I have to react. I hope that, when you get discredited in this obvious POV pushing case, you dont shift to turn the article into the mess French people has been. It's up to you, anyway. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, do not theat :) You are assuming too many obvieties that I'm sure that from a non-Spanish (and non-Catalan) point of view are not as you regard in a simply manner as reality. As you can check, there is a warning in the very top of the page about the national identifcation, and I would favor this to be further developed within the article. --Toniher (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice the warning, I do!. It's saying: "warning: this is an article presenting the topic as seen by ERC and CUP" ;) which is maybe ok for (I won't dare to look at this article there today ;) but here, for the time being, some NPOV rules are enforced.
Oh, c'mon, is being touchy a Catalan nationalist thing or what? ;) that is not a threat, but a friendly advice so that you are aware of what is going on :) Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. A friendly advice about your (as Dúnadan would say) very strong WP:TEND across the catapov-related articles beyond THE gate... and a friendly advice about how this incites me to the strike (STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!).
Some questions: is this a catalan ethnogenesis in the wp:en? I cannot find the article in wp:ca nor wp:es. There aren't interwikis. Why?
How many times have you heard "ètnia" talking about la gent catalana or el poble català? How many times? I can bring here some sources from Sabino Arana talking about ethnicities in Spain. If this is a wp:en-catalan ethnogenesis, if this is the case, you, Antonio Hermoso Pulido (aka Toniher) wouldn't be catalan: you aren't de socarrel, you aren't de ceba. Where's the 'ol Pujol and his "those who live and work in Catalonia"? Or... may be the catalan ethnic group has arrived recently, and the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cite it... or I cannot find it. In the common knowledge, to be a catalan means coming from Catalonia. Catalan people is the people from Catalonia. The rest is filfa:
  • "The Catalan people continues today to proclaim liberty, justice and equality as higher values of its collective life, and manifests its desire to advance in a way which will ensure a dignified quality of life for all those who live and work in Catalonia" (Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006)
We could think reading the article that the statute is for the sardinian... the south-french people... or may be for the valencian people. Please... common sense and common knowledge. --Owdki talk 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You should not confound this article with ca:Condició política de català, which is an easier topic to tackle. I was not the creator of these ethnic series, but I have the impression that these kind of discussions are rather taboo or polemic depending on the culture. IMHO, under Catalan people article we would talk about those of Catalan descent, and also those who may regard themselves in the same cultural nation (in this case, mainly based on the language - see Joan Francesc Mira works). This could not be the same in other cases around the world and I consider this is regardless of their political national belonging feelings and other political attitudes, and they might even share others.
As you like to cite myself, I would fit in different ways both Castilian and Catalan people. --Toniher (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

This is, by far, the most controversial of all issues we have all dealt with, and a very delicate subject indeed. While I do not claim any particular POV, it is my opinion that:

  • Articles of XXXX people could refer to people living in XXXX area (as in Mexican people redirecting Demography of Mexico, i.e. parallel to the Condició política de català) or as a group of people linked by some cultural trait, not necessarily all the inhabitants of a particular territory (as in Irish people).

This article seems to be constructed à-la second option. However, the difference between "Irish people"—just to give an example—and "Catalan people" is that the Irish diaspora, whether having emigrated 10 or 200 years ago, self—but collectively—identify themselves as "Irish". The only Catalan diaspora that fully self-identifies as Catalan is the Catalan emigration from Catalonia exclusive to other countries. Arguably, the Catalan-speaking population in southern France (the Pays Catalan) and the small fraction of Catalan-speaking Algherese also identify culturally as Catalans. But that is not the case with the great majority of Catalan-speaking people of Valencia and the Balearic Islands. Therefore, it is only under a very specific POV that all Catalan-speaking individuals are Catalan. Is that sentiment valid or not? That discussion is beyond Wikipedia. We simply cannot ignore that while a few Valencians do consider themselves Catalan, the great majority do not.

It is therefore, my recommendation, that this article deal only with Catalans from Catalonia and their diaspora, and to some extent with Catalans in southern France and Alghero. Maybe, a brief note could be added that may explain that under a very specific POV, Valencians are included into a "Catalan identity", but with much opposition. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand you may want to be overzealous, but just a remark, I suggest you to take a look at Spanish people and Portuguese people. My point is trying not to mix this issue with political national identification or alike. For instance, Andorra could be considered as homeland as Catalonia for Catalan people, despite its different sovereign status since XIIIth century.
Despite this may fit better in other articles, I link you a poem of Pere Capella, so you can do further research. I would like to have more time to contribute myself ;) --Toniher (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your remarks User:Dúnadan, but I think we should keep the article the way it is. --Mhsb (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with your remarks. Mountolive and Owdki were right, in my opinion, when protesting against the inclusion of the total current population of the Catalan Countries in the group of catalan people considered in this article. This is against current common knowledge and surely cannot be the approach of an encyclopedic article nowadays. Nevertheless, I do not like the kind of reversions and the tone of the criticisms against Toniher's contributions. I think he is doing a valuable work but starting from a wrong point. He is been adding nice pictures and valuable historical information that must be definitely preserved in the article since it is relevant. My points are the following:
  • The 'Catalan people' nowadays refer to inhabitants of Catalonia and their diaspora. This should be the main definition in the article.
  • Historically this expression has referred to a wider group of people that can be identified as Catalan-speakers.
Therefore, I think that historical remarks in this article are fully pertinent, explaining the Reconquista process in the Valencia and Balearic Islands and how, in the first centuries after this process part of the inhabitants of these territories where considered catalan people (remember a famous fragment of Ramon Muntaner's chronicle or the fact, mentioned by Toniher, that Borgia family where known in Rome as "the catalan"). After some time this identification with the adjective "catalan" severely decreased as people identified themselves plainly as "valencian", "mallorquins" and so on. So, I suggest to preserve (probably expanded and better clarified) all this information in the article for the sake of completeness. --Cnoguera (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have started doing some changes in this direction, but probably more are needed. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing some crucial point in this discussion, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that the criticisms and the changes I started making are going in the direction of making this article more similar to Spanish people and Portuguese people. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was replying more especifically Dúnadan than you. I move the text a bit... --Toniher (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if, per Cnoguera, the tone of my criticism regarding Toniher's edit here was not right. This said, his edits in this article are probably the most extreme POV I've seen lately (and you get to see quite a lot elsewhere).

We can not use changing criteria depending on the ethnical, now historical, now political, then civic....all blended in a way as to annul the one which is widely accepted. All to serve the purpose and POV of including as much people as feasible under this concept.

And then putting a disclaimer in the top part of the article as a means of excusing for the mess.

It is simply not right, unacceptable and definitely unencyclopedic. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, I am quite shocked for the drastic edit you have just done, erasing completely my contributions. Maybe I failed completely in explaining my points, maybe you have not realized that the article was not last Toniher's version, but some substantial modification. I was trying to find a compromise between both positions. I was accepting your criticisms while keeping Toniher's work. Of course the disclaimer was unencyclopedic. I already erased it. Did you notice that the number of catalans in the table was again 7 million? Did you notice that they were again defined as those from Catalonia? Did you notice that the subsequent information was intended to be in a strictly historical context. Please, let us develop this discussion because otherwise I really do not know what to do. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I started from last Toniher's version, the available one this morning and I did several important changes to make it more acceptable. Of course I could be wrong, but if you think so please discuss it here and we'll surely construct something good together. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have reverted myself hoping to un-shock you ;).

Now, sorry again, but it still does look disastrous to me. I think the version you were working from was so fundamentally biased that it affects whatever we may want to put on top of it...

So, I'm paying a look at the article again...."Catalans are an ethnic group" are they? so Toniher is not Catalan, while I am? (by the way, I am not)...that is if by ethnic you mean surnames...what is actually meant by "ethnic" here? ethnicity in western societies is a topic which shouldnt be dealt with in the same ways as with, say, ethnicity in America....someone may want to explain what is the Catalan ethnicity...and we may get to interesting -and disparated- conclusions...

roughly: "people from Valencia were defined in the middle ages as Catalans by some other Europeans"....ok. And now people from Catalonia are usually defined internationally as Spanish of French, people from la Franja as Spanish (or Aragonese), people from Alghero as Italians (or Sardinians), so? which is the value of that when it comes to the substance of those articles?

And what is even the mention of El Carxe doing here? (I admit this is where I stop reading the version I am reverting) El Carxe has been populated by some dozens Valencian speakers ever since the early 1900s...they have never been defined as Catalans by anybody...not the least by themselves.

Criteria were dismally mixed. If Catalans are those who speak Catalan (besides those "ethnically Catalan" ¿? and counting), then it is the name of the language which matters a lot. And neither Valencians, nor Balearics, let alone Carxenians (¿?) call their language "Catalan" but they call it "Valencian" or "Mallorquí" etc, which is, unsurprisignly, the way they call themselves also in ethnographic terms.

Taking the philological scholar definition of a language (Catalan) and then infer from that any kind of ethnography is a shocking step. All people speaking English are English people? No. Why Catalan should be different?

let me give it a thought to this subjective point of view question (as related to the people covered in the current definition): who is wikipedia (or some wikipedia users) to tell people from Carxe, Alguer, la Franja, Balearics...that they are Catalans or that they can be "perceived" as Catalans? Do they possibly care about some Italian author calling Pope XXXX "catalano marrano" back in the 15th century? is that rationale enough to spill the whole cup of coffee all over the article?

who is wikipedia (or some wikipedia users) to go round the legal definitions, received wisdom and common sense? "enlightened despotism" is -just to follow with the example- out of fashion since some time after Italian authors ceased to call Valencians "Catalans".

what about WP:FRINGE? do we care about it? we should.

You may want to work if you want on these "addenda" theories by creating a section for them. But its highly speculative and POVish approach will have to be noted.

As for now, I have no other option but to revert to a maybe not perfect, but for sure much more NPOV version.

Hope I have explained myself better now. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I was sure there was some misunderstanding somewhere. I already said this morning that I was just starting to lead to the NPOV and more changes were needed (this should not be difficult, as I realize that we agree in many fundamental points). Let me comment your remarks one by one and then propose something.
"The catalans are an ethnic group", yes this was a strange statement (nowadays completely false), which I wanted to reformulate in subsequent revisions.
"Catalans are perceived internationally as part of Spanish people". Definitely true (I am traveling often and I know it very well) and wikipedia must reflect this international common knowledge. In Spanish people you can find pictures of Dalí and Gaudí, and I will never complaint about it. Also catalan-speaking people were internationally perceived as Catalan people in Middle ages. That is another cold fact (and at that time the ethnical definition was still true perhaps). Why should not Wikipedia reflect it as well? (as a historical remark, not in the current definition, of course!).
The mention to El Carxe was completely out of place, you are right, and I did not notice when I was editing.
Not all people speaking English are English people, not all people speaking Spanish are Spanish people. I would never claim otherwise. But notice that in Spanish people entry they have no trouble in making interesting remarks about History and how the Spanish population was extended to other countries, even if nowadays their descendents are not considered Spanish.
I definitely agree with you in the fundamentals. Wikipedia is not here to stipulate any new meaning for any term, it should just collect already existing linguistical usages and knowlegde. Knowing these, and taking into account how analogous articles have been developed, we should be able to develop this one in the right way. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Be conscious that we are not discussing about Catalan people now, but about all other "people" categories, who should be redone maybe according to the outcome of our discussions :)
For instance, Italian people present header now is: The Italians are a Southern European ethnic group found primarily in Italy, Switzerland, France and, by virtue of a wide-ranging diaspora, throughout Western Europe, the Americas and Australia. Their native language is Italian, and historically Italian dialects and languages. Their religion is predominantly Roman Catholic.
By the way, the definition of "ètnia" (ethnic group) in DIEC2 Catalan dictionary.
Comunitat humana definida per criteris culturals o lingüístics.
Human community defined by cultural or lingustic criteria.
Cheers! --Toniher (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My humble proposal[edit]

Instead of arguing point by point, this is my proposal for all X people-type pages, whatever the X ethnicity. All of them should display a huge banner on top with something like It is impossible to establish objectively who is X people and who is not (unless it just means citizen of State X). And about taking Spanish people as a model page, please... (insert big laughter) Just prove that there are 25 million of Argentinians who are Spanish ! --Jotamar (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Cnoguera, it's great to hear that I explained myself better this time and that there are no misunderstanding between us. It is also good to hear that a plurality of users agree on the fundamentals here. That includes peoples from all point of views. Indeed I think the question is (if only this time) self-evident enough to gather and enforce a majoritary consensus.

As for other wikipedia entries (let it be Spanish people, Italian, or any other given), well, I think we would be in the wrong path if we tried to reproduce whatever their patterns are here. In the first place, it would be a self-referenced move (in the sense of wikipedia-centric). In the second place, even though I haven't studied them properly, as a matter of fact I assume that the patterns of similar articles greatly vary amongst them.

If we edited here having those in the rearview mirror, maybe we would be well end up comparing articles which were not that similar in the first place other than for their title names (as a side note, I dont think that Spanish and Catalan people are mutually excluding each other, Spanish would be the sum up of all regional identities, but that is another story and totally urelated to this discussion at this point).

I stand for a clear cut of this one article, more or less as it is now, "polished" in the details if you may. In my opinion, if we were to include things like "catalan-speaking people being internationally perceived as Catalan people in Middle ages", then we would be doing nothing but buying ourselves particularly difficult to solve dead-ends and problems. Then, most apparent dead-ends are also cooking round the corner with the ethnicity topic.

What I mean is that claims such as that one on "international medieval perception of Catalans" are bold enough to deserve a quote covering them, whereas the quote won't be handy. In other words, they are highly hypothetical and virtually unverifiable, since no one knows for sure about that (how Catalans were perceived by the rest of the world is not a major topic in any given historiography). And, well, they don't really add much to the substance of the topic. Backing claims like that one with a single (or handful of) medieval sources (such as "catalano marrano") as compiled by the usual supporters of a certain approach to the matter would be something of a "hand-picking" à la carte sourcing. It is sometimes easier to prove the exception than the rule, the news is a man biting a dog, not the other way around. We could be falling in presentism. Or we could end up endorsing an Italian author who maybe was the exception rather than the rule. It's trouble.

Adding is fine. But we have to draw a line or we will incur in breaches of WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, at first sight cold facts may very well end up overstating unduly any given stance which is neither widespread nor verified.

It's for reasons like these that I stand for keeping the article basically as it is, as lean as possible.

If you still think that alternative stuff deserves their space, then maybe an ok way to deal with it would be to creat another article covering them all, something like "Alternative Theories on 'Catalanity'" (sic) or something in the same fashion (but under a better name). As read in the UNDUE policy:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

This way we would have a clean cut article on catalan people gathering the widespread uncontroversial info and, alternative theories would have their own space.

Am I making any sense yet? Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your remarks make perfect sense. In fact, to my surprise I am realizing that we have crashed here into a quite complex general problem. Our colleague Jotamar was noting it in his comment above. It is really hard to write this kind of articles about groups of people. Because, what are thye real properties defining those groups: ethnics? language? culture? history? citizenship? Take a look at several analogous pages and you'll be amazed. As you predicted, there are great critical divergences. It shows that (even in its mighty English version) Wikipedia is still in its very first stages of development and almost all the work is yet to be done! It is completely inconsistent! By reading those entries you realize that Spanish people are a nation, while Italians are not. Germans are not a nation, but English people are. You can also learn that Welsh are a nation and ethnic group and the same for Scottish people, while Catalans are neither a nation nor an ethnic group. Galicians are an ethnic group and a nationality, but not a nation. You can even learn that the total population of (unmixed) Spanish people is 135 million, and 185 million in the case of Portuguese. Damn! What the hell does all this mess mean! It seems to me that someone should create a Wikiproject for those "XXX people" entries and put there some criteria, some order, some common ground! But what can we do? We are Catalan (or at least people highly interested in Catalan-related articles) and we have to deal with our own crappy entry ;) We should do some (at least semantical) research and learn what the hell we are (an ethnic group? a nationality? a nation? a group of speakers of some dialect? a group of people born in some autonomous community? a group of people that happen to be living in some autonomous community?). Well, I'd better stop my irony here (I hope you'll excuse me, it is just my natural reaction after realizing such a big chaos...) and start being constructive.
As I was saying, your remarks are very reasonable. Let us try to develop our entry step by step keeping in mind all Wikipedia policies (specially the relevant ones you mentioned), keeping in mind the current common knowledge about the expression, but also the history and well documented facts (and so I am not referring to a fistful of conveniently picked exceptions). And I will also keep in mind another piece of common knowledge which sometimes has been described by using slogans of the form mallorquins, catalans i valencians som cosins germans. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Rereading my own comments I realize that so much irony was hiding my real position: no matter how big mess there might be in analogous articles, we now should care only about this one and develop it the best we can as a result of a joint work by people coming from different backgrounds. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We may want to start by things within our capacities, such as cleaning a bit the all-important "diet&dishes" section, with interesting remarks such as Catalan people eat fowl more than the red meat of the English diet, and like to eat young cows (vedella), sheep (xai) and no bulls. The digestion of the English diet used to be considered hard by the Catalan people. Also we may want to put everything into 21st century context, for even if you dont have a light breakfast (preferably with pà amb tomaquet) that shouldnt eliminate you from the 'socarrel' Catalan stock ;)
As for 'cosins germans' and else, you know that family matters, when nasty, tend to get the most strained of them all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talkcontribs) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, those diet & dishes comments are funny :) Let's do it like this, first easy things, then we'll see what to do with more difficult stuff. And excuse me if I am still showing some language barriers, but I didn't catch your last comment about nasty families... --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough I have found the existence of the Wikiproject on ethnic groups. Maybe those guys could tell us whether we are to be considered under their scope... --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You have left a note there? I just try to start the discussion about rules, how to describe ethnic groups in the german wiki--CeGe (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert wars[edit]

The arguments and the revert wars that are going on here are very disappointing.

I wanted to write an article about Catalan people for the Hebrew Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is often a good source for translation, but when i translate from it, i still check the sources and do my best to ensure that the information is stable and verifiable.

Unfortunately this article is nowhere near that. The revert wars here are wrong. They are wrong because they are full of emotions. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't be about emotions, but about verifiability.

I don't know whether it is OK or not to say that Valencians are a part of "Catalan people". But in arguments such as this it doesn't matter what i know or don't know, or what any other editor knows or thinks. This article should say this: "Book X says that the definition 'Catalans' includes A, B, C and D; Book Y says that the definition 'Catalans' includes only A and B; etc.". That's the only solution for such arguments. Verifiability and reliable sources are the key to POV. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Since I'm coping with this I realize it is nearly impossible to have an emotion-free discussion, if you are a little pro-catalan the right wing pp or spanish nationalism people do their war, if you doubt some things, its the same with the catalan nationalists. Allthough, either castellan-originated as catala-originated people have many different point of views, not only extrems. Its maybe just the number of speakers is to high, so there are more loud. At least some modern definition of a spanish catalan can be found at: [1], Articel 7. And just before any edit-war starts-it is possible that people define people as part of their state or not-many years the preamble of the German Republic expressed, they were deciding for the german brothers in the east too.... Or based on the European definition about minorities it is a private decision, if you feel part of them e.g. in Germany, everbody is accepted as Frisian, when he decides to be one, unless his national identity... But surely there are people, who would like to define a Frisian only as pureblood, not muggelish or whatever. --CeGe (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Celts and Celtiberians in Catalonia ?[edit]

I've never heard of Celt or Celtiberian settlements in Catalonia. I think someone has mixed it up with other areas. Besides that, the Celtiberians were not a mixture of Celts and Iberians, that is a myth. --Jotamar (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Catalonia was invaded by Urnfield people (indoeuropeans) in 1200 b.c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead rephrasing[edit]

The new wording at the lead is ok with me if only historically. Indeed, the Principality of Catalonia used to include Roussillon and those were Catalan, culturally and politically, back in the day. However, I'd say that the primary identity of the Roussillon is not Catalan, but French. Very few of them will describe themselves as "Catalan".

That is why I still favour the previous wording (see below) which, while not denying at all the fact that "Catalanity" may be extended to that French part, it is more clear and it is much closer to reality.

The Catalans are the people from Catalonia, in Spain; this includes people originating in that region but living elsewhere. The inhabitants of the adjacent portion of southern France – known in Catalonia proper as Catalunya Nord (Northern Catalonia), and in France as the Pays Catalan – are often included in this definition.

I feel like changing it back to that one, would be good to hear other people, too, if only to improve the previous wording. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy is disputed[edit]

There are some disputes going on these last days about the leading paragraph of this article, and that is due to the unnacuracy of it proper.

The lead paragraph states the following: "The Catalans are the people from Catalonia, in Spain; this includes people originating in that region but living elsewhere".

The clue is the link to the article Catalonia, which is about the Autonomous Community of Spain. It does not say Principality of Catalonia or Països Catalans.

In that case the references given in the infobox ( incorrect as the joshua project is merely for Catalan language speakers and not for people originating in Catalonia. People born in Perpignan or Andorra are not related to the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. Because of this reason, the references should be revised.

If it is decided to "transform" this article from "the people originating in Catalonia" to "the Catalan-Speakers", I would like to make clear that in that case much of the data this article contains (about Catalonia proper) should be modified and improved to explain the history of the other regions such as Perpignan, Valencia, Balearic Islands and of course, Andorra.

About the interest in transforming this article in something about "the people originating in the Principality of Catalonia", I would like to make clear that it would imply the addition of data of both the Aragonese Crown and the French Kingdom (the De Jure governing entity over the principality)...

In addition, should I make clear that the language section would be to be completely modified in order to bring information about the language spoken in that principality, which was non other that Latin.

If after reading this, anyone has ideas to reach an stable version which satisfies all us, they are more than welcome. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really following the essence of the above comment, but as a side note regarding the anechdotal James I mention made by the anon in his edit summary and by Maurice above: I think we are not in the position to call James I of Aragon "Catalan" whatsoever. He was born in Montpeller (if I recall well) then he spent most of his lifetime travelling with his itinerant court in Saragossa, Barcelona and Valencia. A great deal of his life saw him fighting in Majorca and, especially, Valencia. On the face of it, there is absolutely nothing really conclusive as to say that he was "Catalan". He didnt even speak Catalan as we know it, but the vague "llemosí" which the nobility spoke back then.
Now, leaving aside the anechdotal mention, my point is that it is troublesome to assign modern concepts (nationality) to former realities (Middle Ages). That is why the article is alright as it is now, at least in essence. In other words, it is referring to modern Catalans, not speculating about history, something which, no doubt, would pave the way for quite some bickering and dead-end alleys. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm so sorry if Catalans history brought some headaches to you but you cannot deny that catalans existed long before 1492 (Granada War) or the Spanish Empire. Seeing Catalans just as inhabitants from a region appeared out of the blue since then or as inhabitants from an autonomous community since 1979 is nothing but a politically interested mistake. Catalan people come from the Principality of Catalonia(1137) "slighty" wider term than the autonomous community inside the nowadays Spain.--Jey86 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the reference to the "llemosí" languaje, I have to say that it is absolutely wrong, being that "llemosí" is, besides to a reference of a variant of occitanian languaje spoken in the south of france, also the name given in the 19th century to catalan languaje by those not knowing it was in fact a languaje, and not only a dialect of occitanian. So, James I did spoke catalan, as well as aragonese probably, and of course, in the middle ages latin had long disappeared, so the final sentence by Maurice27 is senseless-- (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you realize that your explanations are nonsense for a literate person? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you have the article from the Great Catalan Encyclopedia: Català -ana (the men and women belonging to catalan people not only in Catalonia) and here you have an automatic catalan-english translator. --CàlculIntegral (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We should focus on the point of the article. There's no point in writing about the inhabitans of a region. I think that what all these "people" articles go about is defining ethnic communities, wherever they live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Due the edition war in this article should'nt be the page be blocked? there is an anonymous reveting changes and deleting any occitan reference in the "related people" list, and trying to (ahistorically, imo) present as scientific an hispanocentrical point of view of catalonia. How could the Catalan people not being related to Occitania is there is a catalan region, Vall d'Aran where occitan is the historical language? --Coentor (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, were are not discussing about Catalonia, the region of Spain, this article is about the Catalan people. There is Catalan people in the French region of the Roussillon, who shares province with... Languedoc. --Coentor (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Catalans are the people from Catalonia, divided between France and Spain. The Spanish portion is officially called Catalonia while the French one is informally referred to as Pays Catalan. Catalan-speakers like Andorrans or Valencians are sometimes included in a Catalan ethnic group."

I think this is the best way of describing Catalans and Catalonia: Catalonia is not the same as the Autonomous Province of Catalonia but an ancient state known as Principality of Catalonia. People from this ancient region are Catalans. The nowadays Spanish part is also called Catalonia but it doesn't comprise all of it. Some people call all catalan-speakers "Catalans" just like before the unification of some German states into the German Empire, Austrians were called Germans. As this article is about "people" we should include all existent conceptualizations of what Catalans are.

This discussion has been running for several weeks. Maybe it's time we try to reach a consensus here. The last editions are in my opinion approaching an acceptable compromise. In fact, it is not much different from the quite stable version we had during some months. The only real addition is that comment of other Catalan-speakers being included sometimes in the definition. I think this can survive there if it can sourced.

--Carles Noguera (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nosaltres els valencians, page 64 on where Joan Fuster said that famous phrase of "From Salses to Guardamar we are a nation". It's easy to find more examples like this of Catalan speaking people (in this case, not from Catalonia, as Long as the autor was from Sueca, Land of Valencia)) talkig about the other speakers as their own people. Josep Pla also said that his country is wherever he says "Bon dia" and the people of there answers "Bon dia" (being bon dia the Catalan word for "Good moring" used as hello.)
Notice than even despite some Andorrans, Balearics or Valencians do not consider themselves as "Catalan People", in this article we use the sentence "Other Catalan-speakers like Andorrans or Valencians are sometimes included in a Catalan ethnic group."--Coentor (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added the encyclopedical reference that had been provided some lines above in this discussion and tried to improve the wording. --Carles Noguera (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I created this section and added the tag in the article, there has been a bunch of users who have, step by step, started to change (again) the article in some sort of political pamphlet:
  • The article now describes the Catalans as the inhabitants of the Principality of Catalonia, an entity which ceased to exist (even if it only existed in a de facto form) in the XVIII century instead that the AC, which is not only leading to mistakes but just plainly false. It is like describing modern day mexicans as "the people from New Spain". It is exactly the same nonsense case, and is to be removed from any logical encyclopedia.
  • The article now gives (AGAIN) preference to the name used by Catalans to describe the french portion (Northern Catalonia) over the official one (Rousillon) and the native one (Pays Catalan). That is POV and is to be changed. I always wondered why Rousillonese people are called Northern Catalans and not Catalans called South Rousillonese if neither region as EVER prevailed over the other. Again the power of Catalan politics and media is the answer, but, thank God, Wikipedia is not obliged to follow GREC, TV3, Avui or ERC's statements. I cannot understand why people keep imposing a foreign name over the native or the official one. It is just outside my understanding.
  • About the reference added by Cnoguera, I may say that if GREC defines Andorrans or Valencians as Catalans, I may bring lots of links from other encyclopedias which just deny that statement. I may also bring the Andorran Constitution or the Valencian Statute...
For this reasons, I am reverting back to a previous stable version in which I will keep the reference brought by CNoguera as it is true, but making clear that there is ONE SINGLE Catalan encyclopedia to support that statement.
Meanwhile, the article is still unnacurate about whether it is about "the people originating in Catalonia" or "the people speaking Catalan language"... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that, sincerely, far from wanting to impose, I would love to see this matter reaching a consensus. So I'm open to hear other (non-referenced-Catalan-imperialistic-unable-to-be-backed-with-facts apart) opinions. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To Mauritius: people from the Roussillon call themselves Catalan, so your argument about "South Rousillonese" is all but neutral. There're no "South Rousillonese" as Rousillon was a county of the old Principality of Catalonia. Ethnic groups don't adjust to political borders so saying Catalans are just people from the Spanish portion of Catalonia is quite biased. A Catalan living in Argentina is still a Catalan as Catalans with a French passport still Catalans. I've noticed the difficulty Spanish nationalists have of accepting Catalans are not the same as Spaniards but something else. Whatever contradicts their axiomatic thinking is to be silenced. I think the most neutral point of view is to say Catalans are the people from Catalonia (the historical region) and to make clear that the Spanish portion of it is also called Catalonia. As we are talking about ethnic communities we can also write some people view Catalans as more than just the inhabitants of the historical region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maurice! First of all let me say that I salute your commitment with neutrality and consensus. I think this is what the majority of users are trying to obtain here. Just observe that, at least in recent edits, nobody is trying to propose a definition such as "The Catalans are the inhabitants of the Catalan Countries or people originating there and living elsewhere" (which you could rightfully challenge as POVish), but there is instead an attempt to cover all points of view on their due weight for the sake of neutrality. This said, it is obvious that reaching the best wording is not an easy task, so collaborative work should be always welcome. In order to reach it we should be very careful with some too drastic statements. For instance, we cannot claim that the identification of 'Catalan people' and 'people from the Catalan linguistic domain' is only made in the Catalan Encyclopedia. A couple of illustrative examples in English: [2] (Anthropology Dictionary which gives a definition equivalent to that of Catalan Encyclopedia) or even in the Encyclopedia Britannica we can find [3] Ramon Llull defined as "a Catalan mystic and poet" instead of something like "a Majorcan mystic and poet who wrote in Catalan language". Of course, we can easily find many other definitions that support your point of view. But, to be rigorous, I propose to slightly modify your current version in order to avoid a misleading impression. Let me know. Cheers! --Carles Noguera (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Carles, your are using an example from Britannica (Ramon LLull), for someone who lived in the XIV century! The world has changed since then. Borders are not the same, languages (at least the officials) are not the same. if he is defined as "a Catalan mystic and poet", we can both agree that they are talking about his language, not his origin. Ramon LLull was Majorcan. What would you sincerely think if I said that Charlemagne was french? You could say, "well yes, if your are teaching a pre-school class..." (and I can assure that he is added in the list of "French Kings" as I was thought in school). But an encyclopedia is to be rigorous. The correct way is to describe it is as Frankish for the sake of exactitude.
About the identification of people as catalan, some users in wikipedia are only backing their edits in that a part of the population in Rousillon define themselves as Catalans, but their are not making clear that it is only 1/3 (IIRC) of the population of Rousillon and that that doesn't mean in any way that they are not describing themselves also as french citizens (of course that is never explained in wikipedia). Same thing can be argued for valencians, andorrans or balearic people.
I said again, the problem is that the article is still unnacurate about whether it is about "the people originating in Catalonia" or "the people speaking Catalan language"... Let's start by making this clear, and then we can start making changes.
About your proposal "to slightly modify (my) current version in order to avoid a misleading impression", I have to admit I don't see where to change it in order to be more rigorous... Let me know your ideas... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mauritius: go to Roussillon and you will see wheter they considere themselves Catalan or not. There are more Catalan flags and "Catalan cafés" (and pubs, and whatever) in the city of Perpignan alone than in the rest of Catalonia.

I agree with Mauritius: first let's make clear what are we talking ABOUT. In the other hand, I hardly disappoint in their appreciations about the Rosselló. After all, the Catalan people has not a state (except if you consider Andorra a "Catalan Country") and, even despite the important independetist movement, they have not necessarily to question the state on where they live. In other words: The "Catalanity" is not incompatible with being Spanish or French. As I have understood, this article does not talk about the "Catalan inhabitant", does talk about the Catalan people understood as the people of Catalan culture. That sure includes the northern Catalan people, and is very closely related (sometimes impossible of split) with the Valencian people. The Catalan people (that doesn't mean the people that lives in the Catalan Autonomy) has a culture relatded with Spain, but not all the people that lives in Catalonia are Catalan people (as I believe is understood in this article now, and as is understood in the other articles of XXX people) --Coentor (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, before starting editing we should find a consensus about who are the Catalan people. IMO this article refers to the people from or with origins in the historical Principality of Catalonia, and we cannot reduce the Catalan people at the people of the Spanish Autonomy because there's people who considers themselves Catalan in the Northern Catalonia and even in the other Catalan Speaking Countries --Coentor (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem of taking the decision of choosing that particular historic territory and not choosing present day ones is that, other people may ask why weren't the Laietani, Tarraconensis, Taifa of Zaragoza, County of Barcelona, Crown of Aragon historic territories chosen... Describing someone from a territory which ceased to exist centuries ago is a nonsense. Again, you cannot describe mexicans as "the people from New Spain" nor venezuelans as "the people from Gran Colombia". It just lacks from any structural veracity. I would like someone to point me some reasons to make an exemption in this particular case... Because there are no reason of pointing at it for independence reasons, as it never was. It would be helpful to point another case in world history where some inhabitants may be considered as the people from an extinct territory.

Coentor said: "there's people who considers themselves Catalan in the Northern Catalonia and even in the other Catalan Speaking Countries ". That said, even if there are people considering themselves as catalan in Rousillon, Valencia or the Balearic Islands, I would like to know how many are they?... Yes, we have numbers about how many understand, write or understand Catalan language, but from there, to clasify them as Catalan people there's a long long way. There are no studies, no census ... nothing about that matter. So, how can people be so sure about that statement?

Wallons and Swiss do speak French language, there are even inside an organization called la Francophonie (an organization which has an status of officiality that the Catalan Countries could only dream of...). Is somebody here so lunatic so as to consider Wallons and Swiss as French? No! right? Well, "and we cannot reduce the French people as the people of the French Republic because there's people who considers themselves French in Wallonia and even in the other Francophonie countries" (Sicum dixit Coentor)

And I have another question... How can we describe Valencians or Majorcans as the people originating in the Principality of Catalonia if those territories were NEVER part of that principality? How can we? They were independent kingdoms. So, the sentence: Catalans are "the people from or with origins in the historical Principality of Catalonia" is even historically false. The armies of the Crown of Aragon may have very well brought the Catalan to Valencia in 1237 (when this Kingdom was created), but the Principality had ceased to "exist" (it really never did, but heck) when unified dynastically in 1137 to the Crown of Aragon. How can you chew that???? That's ONE HUNDRED years of muslim ruling in Valencia and ONE HUNDRED years of dynastic union with Aragon that some Catalanists are just "forgetting" for the sake of claiming a political ideal.

I really believe some people should really give up trying to claim those nonsenses. They really lack some basic culture. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 16:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Peoples and political organisations never fit. Never. The use of the principality of Catalonia is just an attempt of finding a cannon. Are Spanish people only the spanish citzens? no. Were Catalan the tarraconensis? no, why? easily: the Catalan people is a ethnic group with definied cultural acts. Notice that nobody discusses the cultural acts or the history of Catalonia: the only problem seems to be the territorial extension on where the Catalan people and their culture seems to be relevant, if not hegemonical. The aparition of the Catalan culture is a process definied in time that starts in the IX century and ends in the XI, with the aparition of the Homilies d'Organyà. The political institution that appeared as consequencie of the "independence" of the catalan counts is the principaty of Catalonia. The people of New Spain cannot be considered Mexicans because the "mexicanity" apperars after the disapparition of New Spain, and it appears as consequence of the existence of a state called Mexico. The Catalan culture is an european ethnia, and their apparition cannot be compared with the "criollo" nations.
We have no reliable sources of the Catalan feelings of Valencian and Rossellonese... but we only have to go to Perpinyà to see that the nord-catalñan people, even when they mostly speak and considern themselves French, thay ALSO consider themselves catalan. The USAP is known over France as the "Catalan Team". All over the cities of the Northern Catalonia we can find senyeres and catalan simbols as folklorical expressions. The simple search "Perpignan Catalan" gives to us 4 pages of business and organisations in Perpignan that have the word "Catalan" in their name. [4]. There are no studies, but seems obvious that more than 400 years their split, the People of the "Principat" stil shares some ethnical unity.
Valencia and Majorca: How can balearic people be considered PEOPLE WITH ORIGINS in that principality? very easily: repopulation. Nearly 100% of christian repopulators (and lots of jews) were Catalan, they came from that Principality. In Valencia happens the same, with a considerable proportion of Aragonese people. But the Valencian people (as I am) have a separate article in the wiki, were it's told the origins of our Kingdom, and notice that the article says (or said) that we are SOMETIMES considered Catalan people, as long we share (even in the places were spanish is spoken) most of cultural facts in this article descrived. The muslim issue is unrelevant , as long the muslim population was expulsed of Spain. In other words: before 1239 there was no Valencia, as we understand nowadays.
And walking about Wallonia... there is a political movement, Rattachism that claims that you just defined as "lunatic": they consider themselves French. Well is fact, all Walloon Movement is Francophilic (logical: they share language!) , The Rattachists just want to "re-attacher" themselves in the French State. --Coentor (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I already said: "and we cannot reduce the French people as the people of the French Republic because there's people who considers themselves French in Wallonia and even in the other Francophonie countries". Yes, but, are the people supporting rattachism enough to consider all Wallonia as wanting to merge in a new french "empire"? No! Well, same happens with the principality. Nobody denies that some people agree with the països catalans idea, but there is not a single study to prove them as even a tiny minority. I'm sorry, I beg you to believe that I'm not against those feelings appearing in wikipedia as nobody denies their existance, but, only making fully cristaline that it only represents a minority of the population. Why don't we also add that the aran valley is part of the occitan or gascon countries? The numbers and the studies are the sames... To speak the same language does not mean the same culture. There are no castellers or sardanas in Alicante. There are no moros & cristianos in Vic either. So that leaves us only with a small cultural attachment between Catalonia and Rousillon, just that! Claiming that Andorra, Balearic Islands and Valencia have a Catalan culture is just not provable. Now, how to prove that the 1/3 of rousillonese that understand (not even write it) catalan are enough to consider all Rousillon a Catalan country?

BTW, Coentor, I'm forced to erase one of your references (Enlexica) as it clearly states: "Some descriptions may have been derived in part from Princeton University WordNet or Wikipedia", making it not suitable. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the point of the question should not be focused in how majoritarian of minoritarian is certain political idea (the Catalan nationalism) due it's not related to this article (or should be), in other words ... That most "catalan" do not consider themselves part of a national unity does not mean that the Catalan people dosen't exists. I don't believe that you can find in Catalonia nobody that discuss that The Aran Valley has Occitan Culture, and the Catalan parliament has pronounced in supporting the Occitan culture in Aran several times. Obviously the Catalan Parliament has no interest in splitting Aran, but There is a difference between nationality/citzenship and ethic culture. Other example could be the Swedish people, with 300.000 of them in Finland. They're recognised (by themselves and by the other Finns) as culturally Swedish, even they legaly are Finns and most of them have zero interest in joining Sweden. Also the protestant North-Irish are recognised as Irish, even when nobody would doubt that they want to stay in the UK.
In Alacant the're no Castellers. But the castells are known also in Catalonia as Valencian dance (ball dels valencians). In Valencia the Castells are known as ... Muixeranga very popular in Algemesí but also practised in Sueca or the City of Valencia. But you cannot compare regional facts as Sardanes (in the Land of Ebre, Catalonia, there are no Sardanes, but they share some folkore with Valencia, as jotes (also shared with Aragón). Southern Valencia shares a language with Catalonia, they pray to the same saints (Sant Jordi; the several Mare de déus (mother of god) and not virgins, as in the other catholic countries) A culinary culture based on vegetables and poultry (when the north of Spain eats more beef) The botifarres (when we eat the pig mostly in sausages, the rest of Spains makes ham) the allioli shared with southern France; the barretina, very popular in the coastal ports of the actual Alicante province until the beginning of the XX century, A music based in little drums (tabal) and that wind instrument known as dolçaina or gralla...
I don't know if a 1/3 of rosellonese people understands catalan, or more, or less, but just like nobody is going to says that Dublinese people are not Irish because thay don't speak gaellic, I'm not going to say the same for the Rossellonese. Seems obvious that, even despite the language is almost lost, the same Rossellonese people have not denied their Catalanity. But if even in their touristical website they have a space for Catalan culture!!! not surprisng, for a citu known as "la catalane" I've attached the French version because reforces my claim: Speaking French (or spanish, or even Italian) and considering yourself French citzen, or spaniard, or even Sard, does not deny that you are catalan people.--Coentor (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But I haven't denied that at all! I am myself a subject who considers himself both french and spaniard... with both breton and Asturian roots... So what? Of course there are roussillonese who may consider themselves catalan without stopping feeling french... I'm just saying that there are no references of studies or scholars (apart that GREC article) to back the sentence in the lead of the article: "Other Catalan-speaking people from the Pays Catalan in southern France, Andorrans or Valencians are sometimes included in a Catalan ethnic group". That sentence is so freely included in wikipedia is just doesn't fit. We could also said that 3/4 of the spaniards may "also be included in a Almoravid ethnic root"... I'm sorry, but that is just too POVish.

Let me copy/paste here the first paragraphs of the "Explanation of the neutral point of view section" in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

  • "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
  • "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides."

So, this said, again, I'm not against including that some sources claim the other regions to have some degree of Catalanity, but, as the guideline states "Articles should provide background on who believes what and why". So, my addition that is only the GREC who includes all territories as catalan is correct and, even, necessary in order to let "Readers [...] to form their own opinions". The same way the article should include sources to back that some people consider all territories as catalan, it should also include sources that some others don't.

Do we agree on this? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)



Pour Perpignan, être pour un an la capitale de la culture catalane revêt une dimension symbolique toute particulière. C’est tout simplement voir reconnu à nouveau par toute la Catalogne son statut de Fidelíssima Vila de Perpinyà, que lui valut en 1475 sa résistance héroïque face à aux assauts du royaume de France.

Perpignan, capitale catalane depuis 1000 ans. A la création du Comté du Roussillon, Guilabert Ier (991-1013) choisit Perpignan pour capitale. Ruscino cède alors sa place à une capitale moderne qui va jouer un rôle prépondérant dans l’histoire de la Catalogne. Capitale politique, religieuse, scientifique et culturelle, la Fidelíssima n’a cessé tout au long de ce millénaire d’apporter une contribution essentielle à la pensée occidentale, tant à partir de son fort enracinement identitaire qu’à partir de l’ouverture que représente sa diversité culturelle. Capitale d’exils et d’accueil, de controverses et d’adhésions, de conflits et de paix, elle a été le champ d’action d’hommes d’exception. Le Meïri, penseur de la Tolérance, Francesc Eiximenis, militant pacificateur de la Renaissance, Miquel de Giginta, père de la paix sociale, Père Pascual, auteur au XVIIe siècle de l’un des premiers manifestes pacifistes, Pau Casals, ou une voix pour accompagner un message de paix venu de l’exil…

La Catalogne du Nord, voulue d’abord comme marche, puis déchirée entre les grandes puissances européennes et enfin terre d’accueil, a tout au long de son histoire, constaté à quel point la lutte pour la paix lui était consubstantielle Un message et une mission proclamés depuis la création même du Comté du Roussillon.

En cette année 2008, la ville de Perpignan qui voit reconnu son statut de capitale, entend revenir sur la scène politique catalane, par l’action de l’un de ses pères fondateurs et par le message universel qu’il a transmis à l’Europe toute entière: il s’agit de l’Abat Oliba. En 1008, Oliba en devenant abbé de Cuixà et de Ripoll entame une vie et une action publique qui déboucheront sur la proclamation de la Pau i Treva de Déu d’Elne (1022) et de celle de Toulouges (1027). Rapidement le message pacificateur de l’Abat Oliba s’étend des terres nord-catalanes au sud de la Catalogne (1030), puis aux terres narbonnaises et à partir du Synode de Nice (1041), grâce à l’ordre fondé par Odilon de Cluny, à toute l’Europe occidentale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to source any info given in the discussed part of the article. I've choosed offical links of northern-catalan institutions. In the other hand I've avoided to use any controversial term, so the Catalan people are the people of Catalonia (with link to the historical Catalonia, that's true) and Valencians or Andorrans are t in the polysemical Catalan countries, but the link is renamed as "wide catalan ethnic group". I have no more time, but I believe that we are close to a consensus, and maybe we only need a specifical section for the criticism to "Catalanity" in the wide meaning, that maybe we could find in the Catalan countires article or in a specifical anticatalanism one. --Coentor (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I made some twicks to your version... we should rather continue the changes in the talk page so as to prevent many changes in the article. I also should add some more references... What do you think of this new one? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite good version, despite the edition war. I can only argue in the last part of the paragraph, the one that says that there is no officality of the "catalanity" in those territories. Well, I don't remember any specific sign of catalanity given by the governments of Andorra or the B.Islands (and we have some of anticatalanism in Valencia) but The catalan language is official in all those territories, both Andorra and the Balear goverment (the second as founder) are part of the Institut Ramon Llull which mission is: The Institut Ramon Llull's mission is to promote Catalan language and culture internationally, in all of its variations and methods of expression. (By the way, València is represented by several local goverments of important cities as Morella or Sueca). Well, I cut that I always start writting and I can't stop. All this is just for saying that maybe the last sentence can be confusing or misunderstood. --Coentor (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my point is that Navarre (for example) has indoubtly links to the Basque Country (some parts do speak basque, some historical links...) and even have another association much related to the IRL called EUSKARA KULTUR ELKARGOA. But that doesn't mean we should link both regions in the same basket. The navarrese government has never expressed any intention of reducing its own political or social identity, the same way Andorra, Balears or Valencia haven't either. Participating in a single cultural project such as the IRL, doesn't mean that suddenly those territories have renounced to their own identities (so close or so distanct to the Catalan proper). We are not even explaining that it is just a part of the population which may be considered as catalans... We are not talking about the spanish-speakers (around 50% of all the inhabitants of these regions), the french-speakers or simply all the foreigners living for years in these territories:

  • Balearic Islands: 21% of the total pop. (that's 224K)
  • Catalonia: 15% of the total pop. (that's 1,1 million)
  • Valencia: 17,7% of the total pop. (that's 866K)

They sum up as 2,2 million people who don't consider themselves neither Catalan nor Valencian nor Balearic. Then, add the national population which don't speak a word of the language (2,6 million link) or even the ones who can speak it but don't use it as primary language (it roses up to around 50% of the total pop.)...

So, because of that, I keep thinking that putting ALL the inhabitants of these territories (or just the name of the regions) in the same basket is so so so "dangerous"... We are talking about figures ranging between 30% and 50% of people who may have a much doubtly catalanity... And that's a LOT of people. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that in nowadays societies We cannot talk that all the inhabitants of wherever are part of a same culture, specially when we are talking of nations without state, minorities or whatever the catalans are. Maybe we should look how has this been solved in similar societies, but IMO talking that not all inhabitants of certain territories are Catalan is a point for considering Catalans only the people with origins in the Principalty more than in the actual Catalonia. Because Valencian people has no origin in the Autonomous Catalonia, we have in the old counties. About the IRL ... I believe that we are talking about different things again. One thing is to accept that The Balearics and Catalans (from the autonomy) have a common culture (Catalan culture) and other is to renunce to their own sovereignty in order to became bigger (let's call autonomy or state). In other words, the desire of continuing being separate autonomies is not incompatible with the recognition of mutual culture. And that's what can be misunderstood in the actual paragraph.--Coentor (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Protection[edit]

Coentor, following the continuous vandalism the article is suffering in these last days from those anon users, I asked the admins to partially block the editing to anon users. Meanwhile, we should continue proposing a consensual lead paragraph here in the talk-page without touching the article proper. ok? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 11:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This admin has denied that request. This is a content disupute. Please observe Wikipedia's policy on edit wars and dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am really thinking about topic banning a few editors from editing the Catalonia topic and that includes the IPs of course. I am now having a look at the 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia. I've tried already Talk:Països Catalans#Page move and edit warring before and believe it is time now to apply serious measures. So whether the parties engage in a serious discussion and leave the article alone until they arrive to a consensus or restrictions will become the norm. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You tell us Fayssal, because that's exactly what Coentor and I (a serious discussion) were doing until these anon users arrived. What I find incredible is that an admin like Toddst1 finds ¡¡¡10!!! removal of references a "a content dispute". He just gotta be kiding us all! With resolutions like that what do we need the Administrators' noticeboard for? Meanwhile, the anon keeps reverting even after your comments in this talk page... Way to go Toddst1! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since the anon keeps reverting, how many more reverts do we have to wait until admins stop finding it "a content dispute"? 1, 3, 10 more? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected[edit]

I'm sure consensus can be reached on this page as to which version is appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's find the final version[edit]

A good beggining could be this version, I would put directly the bar of the right of this version in the final one. In religions appears the catholicism, the traditional religion of the Catalan people but also the two majoritarian aconfessional movements in Catalonia/Europe. For the language part, we first find the Catalan language, but there's also mention for Spanish and Occitan, also official in all Catalonia (autonomy) but also to French, spoken in northern Catalonia, very present in Andorra and a quite popular language in southern Catalonia. Fort the related ethnic groups, no surprise, in preferent side the Valencians and Balearics, peoples/autonomies sometimes includen in the Catalan people, and that if considered by separate share most of the cultural behavior of the Catalans. This can be explained by the repopuilation of those territories in the middle ages. Then the Occitan people, de luenh, ò fraires that says the song. The relationship between Catalonia comes from afar, Occitan was the cult language in the Catalan counties in early middle ages, Northern Catalan share province with Occitania, Aran is part of Catalonia, the relationships between Catalan and Occitan movements are fluid and spontaneous , as seen in the whole history of the Félibrige etc... by last, the undeniable relationship with the Spanish Peoples, with special mention to the people who shared Crown with them, the Aragonese.

For the first paragraph of the text, I'll use this version it's mine, but it was written basically by Mauritius. I've only added that Catalonia is "nowadays and autonomous community", I like this phrase because links past and present, and there is no way of misunderstanding as long there is a link to the Article of Catalonia. In the other hand, I would try to re-write the last sentence that says that Catalanity in Valencia and Balearics has "any degree of officiality by part of the authorities of these territories." as long as, If it's true that those Autorities don't consider themselves Catalan, support institutions who are for the Catalan culture as the Ramon Llull institute. We should mention that consider themselve Valencian or Majorcan is not incompatible with supporting the Catalan culture. --Coentor (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible new version: "Other Catalan-speakers like Andorrans, Balearic people, or Valencians are sometimes culturally included in a wide Catalan ethnic group, even despite the fact of sharing cultural behaviours, and the promotion of those doesn't means the acceptance of the political idea of the Catalan Countries."--Coentor (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note the fundamental problem brought by this proposal: your "are sometimes culturally included" conveniently skips fundamental questions:
  • how often?
  • by who?
  • what does "culturally" mean here?
if you get these questions cleared, then you realise you are brought back to the uncontested starting point again. That is: the Catalan people are those born in Catalonia. The rest is speculation, and not an innocent one, by the way. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coentor (cool user name, by the way).
I've been following the discussion from a safe distance and I guess by now I can already dare to touch it, if only with a barge pole.
So, I've been thinking about it for a few days already and, in my opinion, the most aseptic and free from POV wording would be close to this

The Catalans are the people from, or with origins in, Catalonia, an Autonomous Community in Spain. The inhabitants of the adjacent portion of southern France – known in Catalonia proper as Catalunya Nord (Northern Catalonia), and in France as the Pays Catalan – are often included in this definition.

That definition is good because it is fact and because it is non controversial (most of the Catalonia born think themselves as Catalans). Some in the Roussillon may, too (even though this is debatable and, actually, should be quoted by an impartial non Catalan nationalism-related source).
This said, it is well known that there is a Catalan nationalist POV urging to feel represented in here (and everywhere in wikipedia). In this particular case, it is more questionnable than ever whether that point of view is relevant enough as to deserve inclusion (without hurting fact).
Let's suppose for a moment that we decide that those theories extending "Catalanity" to, say, anybody whose name starts by C are worth the mention, because we found sources, etc.
In that case, to salvage cold fact (represented in my proposal above), we could use a similar manoeuver as in Catalan cuisine to keep it as simple and NPOV as possible. By using that trick you get a clean lead with what is accepted by absolutely everyone and then, in the following section, you can place the rest of theories, including those who think that everyone who has a stopover for their connection flight longer than 3 hours at El Prat, those are Catalans, too.

It would go like this, more or less


Other Catalan-speaking people like Andorrans or Valencians are sometimes included in a so-called Catalan ethnic group by some, including a major Catalan Encyclopedia [6] and various Catalan nationalist sources, but this approach it is not widely accepted.

However, this is still on the breach of breaking WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. Please read those two policies, since they seem to apply just so nicely in here.
As for FRINGE, let me quote just this excerpt, from the many potentially appliable to this case in that guideline

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects.

Now, let's ask ourselves, how many Catalans think that Balearic or Valencians are Catalans or even a vague "Catalan-ethnic" group? I'll tell you the answer: very-very few. If the question is how many, say, Valencians, identify themselves as "Catalans" or "Catalan-ethnic", then it gets even worse: the answer is around zero (but not exactly, there is always a, say, 0.02% in life for anything). Neither Valencians nor Balearics need to think themselves as Catalan, because they already have their own regional identity (Valencian and Balearic, respectively...yes, this is hardly news, but sometimes you get reduced to state the obvious here in wikipedia). In other words, the "Catalan-ethnic" group is a (near) fringe theory.
So, why if it is a (near) fringe theory we still have some sources out there quoting that? For most of them, because they are Catalan-nationalist related and support this irredentist view.
A more troublesome case is presented by the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, which, overall, is a good encyclopedia. So why is it taking this so-called "Catalan-ethnic" position? Because, whereas it is overall a good source, when it comes to Catalan-nationalist topics it has a clear Catalan nationalist bias which I'd say is even systemic. In other words, in this particular case, the GEC quote is, to say the least, less than perfect.
As for UNDUE, I will quote this one (which is basically a reformulation of FRINGE)

articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

As suggested before, I think none of us –not even die-hard Catalanists– will dare to say that the view of a "Catalan-ethnic group" including Valencian people, Balearic people (and that old lady you met today at the shop –if she can read "bon dia" from a paper) is widespread. They –everybody– know this view is very minoritary. Thus, as per the guideline, we "should not give as much or as detailed a description" as the widely accepted definition of Catalan, which is the one I propose in the lead of my version. Whether this "Catalan-ethnic" view is just minority or actually tiny-minority, I really couldnt tell.
All in all, my proposal is just to use that lead I formulated on top of this post. Then I know there are always the die-hards who will fight till the last drop for inclusion of the Catalan nationalist view. For those, I guess I could settle for the sake of wikipeace (but poor fact suffers) with the -scope- section I also mentioned above.
But the latter is a really half-hearted offer. I still think that UNDUE and/or FRINGE make this inclusion very-very troublesome, if not plainly deceptive.

MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely time to try to get some reasonable stable version for this unfortunate entry, something that hopefully could prevent reckless anonymous vandals to keep on edit warring. Luckily several users are agreeable to reach some kind of consensus (including Coentor and Maurice, who were seriously working to reach it during the last weeks). I must say that I essentially share Coentor's point of view on the topic, while I partially agree with some practical proposals by Maurice and Mountolive. But first I beg to disagree in one particular aspect of the last "half-hearted offer". Knowing that the subject (and the dispute it brings forth) is very delicate and willing to be fully compliant with WP policies, I would like to complement the policies underlined by Mountolive with a few more (boldfaces are mine):

From WP:NPOV: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

From WP:NPOV: All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

These excerpts show us something missing in the above reasoning: what matters in order to get NPOV are the published sources. So there is no point in speculating about majority-minority opinions on self-identification by common people (the lady on the bus stop, those who say "bon dia", those who feel they are this or that,...). This is an article (look at the categories) about an ethnic group, i.e. a scientific article relevant to Anthropology and History and as such it must be based on the corresponding sources. As any other scientific article nobody expects it to reflect common people opinions but specialized viewpoints published by experts.

Therefore, focusing on references and analyzing Mountolive's propose, I have no problem on accepting the first part: The Catalans are the people from, or with origins in, Catalonia, an Autonomous Community in Spain. The inhabitants of the adjacent portion of southern France – known in Catalonia proper as Catalunya Nord (Northern Catalonia), and in France as the Pays Catalan – are often included in this definition. The extension of the definition to people from, or with origins in, the Catalan Countries is problematic and definitely not the most common view on published sources. But, still, it is one of the published perspectives and hence a verifiable one. We can find it not only in the GEC (I already provided some English example above) and even understand why it is so: a group of people (those from the Catalan Countries) sharing a common historical heritage, with undeniable cultural links and a common language may well be considered an ethnic group by some scholars. I don't see why we should neglect this verifiable point of view (well, I probably understand why some people don't like it: it is probably a problem of terminology. It would be wonderful if some of those scholars had coined a new fresh name to denote the wider group). Thus, I would accept the structure proposed by Mountolive and discuss about the proper wording and referencing. What do you guys think of that? --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found it very interesting, Mountolive, even despite I believe that I haven't still understood at 100% the politics of the FRINGE. I'll put in work right now. But you're right, the point of the Catalanity of the other "Catalans" has been based fundamentally in the GREC entry, even despite with North. Catalonia We've found official websites talking about the Roussillon (and the other counties) as a "Pays Catalan". I've remembered a map that I saw some time ago. Now I've found it. It's from Eurominority All the "Catalan Countries people" appear as Catalans. In their Catalan People/Catalonia section We can see that they consider Catalans all the Catalan speakers. Notice that in important cities they Ignore Valencia and Majorca (Included in a Catalan Countries Map and also mentioned their territories in a Historical and/or cultural regions section) but they Include Perpignan. I'm looking for more research. --Coentor (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Now by reading the Cnoguera's answer I've thought that maybe it could be easier for all of us just to add a little aproximation to the Catalan Countries idea, both the "cultural" -yes, a wide term- and the "political". The problem it's that that will take more time, and probably we will find the same variety of POW --Coentor (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Carles, Your notes on published evidence are worth the mention. Somehow, I still feel like they don't address my point (of GEC being systemically biased when it comes to these topics) but this is not the main topic now, let's focus on what matters and discard main from secondary topics at this point of the discussion. Then secondary topics may get main, but let's put everything in its right place by now.

I am happy to see that you seem to basically agree on a significant part of my draft. That is a great start and I appreciate your ever effort to understand and cooperate.

Coentor, It is important that we go step by step. The worst we could do now is to entangle with a "Catalan Countries" thing (you dont extinguish a fire with gasoline ;) but of course it can always be mentioned. Actually, it must be, somehow. Apparently you dont refuse my draft either, so we maybe could start work.

As for the sources, yes, there are sources, but be warned that their neutrality and representativity are definitelly to be challenge. I mean, there are sources for Valencians being Catalans and for the contrary. It is a matter of due weight and representativity, I guess.

Anyway, we should get some work done. But for that I guess some Mandarin should unblock the article if they want us to work, though...And Maurice should be unblocked too (if he is still blocked) because I dont think he was making any harm here before, on the contrary. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm around again... Thanks for the comments --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the anon continues to revert, so let's please continue the discussion in order to reach a consensus as fast as posible. Or the vandalism will continue. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We can argue for ever if you'd like to, still, I think my proposal is more or less correct and puts things more or less in due perspective. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see at first sight any problem with your proposal. I could vote to keep it that way. Let's see... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 05:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I believe that we, the people who has participated in the discussion, have arrived to a consensus, as long as all our apportations go in the same direction and we're sistematically reverting any vandalical attack. The first part of the article has remained as now by days, with the only changes of the Vandal, and some sources that there are no longer (too much references, I presume) Now We have a new extended concept section... Let's see if we arrive to a final version. I have significantly changed the last version, but as long as I have keept most of the previous text for sure soon we would have the definitive version. --Coentor (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coentor. In my humble opinion, the last two paragraphs you added were rather out of place. They fit better in the Països Catalans article (where that info is already) but here, let's not lose sight that this is an article about the Catalan people and, therefore, mentioning the 2008 Frankfurt fair, Ferran Torrent and the like is of, at best, anechdotical value, at least for this article. However, I think your reference to the Països Catalans was pertinent all the same and I have kept it in the newer version. Salut. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are right in that this info went better in the Cat.Countr. article (in fact, it already says basically the same). But despite the previous version was too extended I believe that a little mention to the "cultural catalanity" should appear, with a redirection to the "cultural dimension" of the Catalan Countries idea. Let's see how this last version works.--Coentor (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Another article destroyed by Nationalist propagandists[edit]

The article starts stating that Catalonia is an area divided between France and Spain. Another piece of crap in Wiki. Why dont we state that Spain is itself divided between Europe, America, inclunding the US, etc, including all the territories that were once part of Spain. Or why dont we do the same with any other country, Germany, for example, and when do we draw the line historically. I am disgusted with these nationalists who use Wiki for their propaganda. There are areas of France who are historically linked to Catalonia, and to Italy and to Germany, etc, but there is no single region in France that is called Catalonia. Enough with these types of political propaganda and enoug with people who confuse desires in Nationalism and reality. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There do is a region in France called by most people northern Catalonia. People who live there are said to be Catalan people, historicly and nowadays. It is the same case as Castilian people when they were invaded by the Napoleon forces: they stilled being Castilian. But what you said have been already said in this talk page and correctly answered, I wouldn't like to repeat discussions.--Ssola (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Catalonia is not just the Autonomous Community of Catalonia as many spanish nationalists try us to believe. Catalonia is not what spaniards want it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitve version?[edit]

Seems that we have arrived to a stable version, the users who have been involved in the discussion have found some kind of consensus, as long as for a week the only edits has been vandalism and reversion of it. I don't know who We have to ask for a semi-protection of the page, which, in my opinion should be enough for avoiding any anonymous vandalism. Somebody has other opinion? --Coentor (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ask for the protection. Since the anon is continuously vandalising you shouldn't have problems to get it. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 11:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems User:Toddst1 has a personal fixation against me... So if you guys want to get this article fixed, do it yourself. I'm thinking about opening an Appeal to the Arbitration Committee against Toddst1 myself.--MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Coentor (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Coentor. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is not about consensus, it should try to be reliable. If people in the Roussillon believe themselves Catalan, because they are culturally Catalan, there's nothing else to say. Catalans are not people from the "autonomous community of Spain" but people with Catalan ethnic traits. And it's stupid to say Spanish is the language of catalans when many of them, the roussillonaise ones, don't even understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This one is about consensus and verifiability. If you don't understand that you should not be editing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's about verifiability, just verify this and make sure the article is reliable:

Semi-protection isn't an option, but full protection is[edit]

If you want me to fully protect this article to prevent further edit-warring while you discuss the matter here, I will gladly do so. However, semi-protection is expressly forbidden as a means of winning a content dispute between established editors and IP editors, so don't ask for it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To fully protect the article would not allow good willing editors to improve it. In my opinion that is not an option. If the semi-protection is forbidden, what about warning the anon? Followed by blocking the IP's ranges if the disruption continues? (as in fact it does continue). Sincerely SheffieldSteel, thanks for the information about the protection policy. If only all administrators acted and informed other editors as fast and clearly as you just did... Sincerely, THANKS for taking care!--MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you can continue to improve a protected article, by using the {{editprotected}} template to request an edit - assuming there is consensus - and an admin will make the edit for you. Of course, that is far less convenient than being able to do it yourself. However, it might be worth going through this inconvenience in order to encourage discussion with this IP editor, and to prevent further edit warring, which benefits no one.
Blocking the IP is feasible, and justified by the disruption they have cause by edit warring against consensus, but only provides a temporary solution, since IP addresses tend to be assigned dynamically (and the three I've looked into seem to be dynamically allocated by Telefonica de Espana).
More than one of the IPs has posted above, which is a good sign that they are willing to talk about this issue. If they can be included in a compromise, then protection can be lifted and normal editing can resume. Our dispute resolution guidelines recommend that everyone is as polite and constructive as possible; my personal advice based on my own experience is to ignore everything that everyone has done and focus on what sources are available and what they say about the subject.
I'm happy to offer any other assistance or advice if I can. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's wait to see what the other editors involved think. Thanks again. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Theorically, the anonymous are welcome to join the discussion. The problem is that now the only thing thay have done is to complain about the consensual version and starting a edit-war. Let's wait a little to see if they have a real intention of joining the discussion. If they don't, We have arrived to a cul-de-sac. --Coentor (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

English adjective[edit]

I thought that the sentence the extended concept is minority is ungrammatical in English, as minority is a noun and cannot be used in predicative functions. Anyway, I'm not a mother-tongue speaker, so I'd like a native to comment on this question. Thanks . --Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a native English speaker myself, but, as far as I know, 'minority' works as and adjective as well (see [5] and the 'minority sport' example) MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 20:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a good example, in minority sport the word has attributive and not predicative functions, in English those functions can be carried out by a noun. Check this: In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". From Adjective. --Jotamar (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I change the sentence today. --Jotamar (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Catalan or Catalonian[edit]

According to my dictionary, we can say Catalan or Catalonian when it is an adjective or a noun. For example, "Catalan/Catalonian culture" or "I'm Catalan/Catalonian". But, when it's the language we can just say Catalan. For example, "I speak Catalan" (NOT I speak Catalonian). So, probably we have to say just "Catalan-speaker". But, I'm wondering if we can say "Catalonian language"... then we could say "I speak Catalonian language". It's strange, isn't it? I think it's easier for foreigners to remember that people from Catalonia are Catalonians (or Catalans) and they speak Catalan.-- (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that Catalonian is just for things or people about Catalonia (land), and catalan is the language but also the ethic group of the catalan people of everywhere. An article about the catalonian people is for people that live in Catalonia, then an andalusian than live in Catalonia can to be there but a catalan that don't live in Catalonia can't to be there. If it's necessary maybe we can create other article about it. -- (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

References Please[edit]

How about you lot include some actual references supporting whatever you feel like putting in this article? That would surely take a lot of strain off this discussion page where people are by and large spouting off any old crap they have been fed in their own cultural environment (Spaniards: that means you, mostly) and in some cases questioning what are basic and very obvious facts to those with any familiarity with the subject matter. Case in point: I identify myself as a Catalan person (non-exclusively, but that's not the point) through acquired cultural and linguistic traits, and I'm recognised as such by other Catalans; however, as I was neither born in Spain, nor have any Spanish ancestry, or familial, cultural (that includes linguistic), or residence links with the country I resent any attempts at implying that the Catalan people are merely a subgroup of Spaniards/French and that anyone saying otherwise must be a nationalist zealot.

So if you lot are thinking of trying to push a point of view, at least do some fucking homework and come up with some proper references which actually support whatever it is you are trying to wedge into the article, else say nothing at all. By way of example, the sentence I have removed in this edit is not supported by the adjoining reference, which in fact appears to be the source for the opening paragraph in that section instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Being a Catalan has nothing to do with citizenship. The main trait of Catalans, the one which makes them so, is language. The box is also wrong: being able to speak Spanish or French has nothing to do with one's catalanishness. I'm fed up with Spanish bigots spouting a Catalan must be a Spaniard yes or yes. When evidence strikes them, as the fact that there are Catalans in France, they put it as a triviality. "The adjacent part of France also claims". Bullshit. Catalanishness has nothing to do whith "adjacing parts" or land at all, it has relation with people. This page is about PEOPLE, not Spanish legal definitions of what a Catalan is. Many Catalans in the diaspora have children who are able to speak our language and are considered Catalans, without that meaning they have any kind of relation to Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You must stop removing referenced content because you don't agree with it. I am sure that the article could do with more coverage of Catalan communities outside of Catalonia but that doesn't mean that you can can try to change the entire basis of the article. Besides your version was close to being incoherent. Please stop resubmitting it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was me who referenced the content which I am trying to correct. Look at references and you will see they are about non Spanish Catalans. Some people here denied there where any Catalans in Southern France and I referenced it. Then they just put it as a triviality, when it is the most important point. And I see no incoherency in what I've said. I've just said that what a Catalan is is not defined by law but by language. Then, it's not correct to say "Catalans are people whith origins in the Spanish region of Catalonia". Catalans are people who speak Catalan, and they are not all natives of Spain (some of them are natives of France and some are in the diaspora). As I said the article is about people, ethnics, not Spanish legal terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While you keep pushing an extemely biased POV, you are unable to understand that the lead paragraph is claiming your very same opinion, but in a neutral way. You say that the inhabitants of Roussillon are also catalans, and many other people believe they do not...
In addition, I point you to the fact that both references in the lead paragraph are either broken or leading to nothing related.
We had many fights in the past to get a neutral lead paragraph for you to come and blow up everything. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: One abusive comment removed. Comments should be about improving the article, not questioning the integrity of other editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What about modifying this nonsense about Catalan people being "people with origins in the Spanish province of Catalonia". There are Catalans in France - this point about "people from Roussillon are SOMETIMES included in this definition [of what a Catalan is]" is bullshit, as natives of Roussillon are all Catalan without any kind of doubt -and Italy. And Andorrans are Catalans, you just check their names. Catalan people are not defined by citizenship but by ethnics.


French Catalans are not "sometimes" considered catalans as you can see in the official webpage of the local administration they are officially considered Catalans by their own administration. (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, The concept of Catalan Countries comprises territories whose inhabitants are not and were never called "Catalan". The reference added is not neutral and is heavily politically influenced in nature (as the whole GREC editorial group) for this particular matter. This information is simply misleading and offensive to some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Exclusive vs. Inclusive identity[edit]

What percentage of Catalans also consider themselves Spanish? (have dual identities). 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll by GESOP said the vast majority. Only about 22% didn't.--Cymru123 (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if that means anything. All citizens in the autonomous community of Catalonia are legally Spanish, so some of them may call themselves Spanish and at the same time be supporters of the independence of Catalonia, for example. On the other hand, polls count as Catalan any Spaniard living in Catalonia, when a lot of them are immigrants who don't regard themselves as Catalan. Jotamar (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


I reinserted the following sourced sentence: Catalan is sometimes used to define people from Catalan Countries, which include other areas where the Catalan language is spoken. This claim is logically proved by just finding one source which uses the word Catalan with that meaning, and the source is provided. Furthermore, the source fits confortably in what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources, even though that wouldn't be needed in strict logic. Jotamar (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept of Catalan Countries comprises territories whose inhabitants are not and were never called "Catalan". The reference added is not neutral and is heavily politically influenced in nature (as the whole GREC editorial group) for this particular matter. This information is simply misleading and offensive to some. A single website of bias editorial group which is ideologically very close to independetist and irredetism political ideologies DOES NOT "fits confortably in what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
If offensive or not, it's irrellevant. It is a fact that the term "Catalan" is used in some kind of context and/or by some people for refering to Valencian and Balearic people too. I'm Valencian, I'm against the idea of Catalan Countries, and I know that. Besides, I disagree with quoting GREC or Enciclopedia Catalana group as "heavily politically influenced". It is not more influenced than other sources.--Coentor (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Added 2 people to the infobox[edit]

I added José Carreras and Quim Monzo due to the fact they are the two most famous living Catalans (besides the squad of Barcelona).

(Removed per WP:NOTAFORUM) Danton's Jacobin (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but for some reason when you go over the Carreras pic with the "hand" it says Salvador Dalí instead of J. Carreras. --E4024 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

1738 Catalans in USA?[edit]

The number of Catalans in USA (1738) looks awfully low. For comparison purposes, the Basque people page mentions 58,069 Basques living in USA (this is, 33 Basques for each Catalan!)