Talk:Catalan Countries

Nonsense map

The map of the catalan countries is pure fantasy. There is actually a fascist current in Catalonia that wants to include territories as Valencia or Balears in a invented entity called Catalan Countries. Valencia and Balears are different countries and communities inside Spain, with their own governments.

Lots of people still speak Catalan in these regions, although they are now in minority. Hugo Dufort 03:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not any fascism. It's not an invented entity, because it existed: Corona d'Aragó. The idea is joining together those countries where catalan is spoken: Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Valencia, and a part of the Southern France. It's not fascism, it's a fully democratic proposal. It would only be possible if people wants it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.73.233 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Old undated remark

I removed the sentence

A large, very vocal minority of the inhabitants of the Catalan Countries fervently believe in this concept.

because

1. The meaning of "a large minority" is ambiguous.
2. The remark about fervency does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I don't see why his article and Catalan independence should be merged. They have different subjects.

confusing sentence

This sentence from the article

This concept is met with significant popular approval in Catalonia, peaceful indifference in the Balearic Islands and with resounding disapproval in the Valencian Community.

either has not much meaning or it is not true. Of course, any political idea is met with different degrees of approval at different places. But everywhere you may find people enthusiastic, indifferent and contrary to it. I understand the idea of the writer of the sentence, but as it is written it is not at all NPOV. In my experience, most Valencians I know are more enthusiastic about the catalan countries than most people from Catalonia. Lacking a rewriting or some justification (real data from somewhere, if it exists), I will remove it.

Don't know whom you know in Valencia, but surely they're not representative of Valencian people. Not having any opinion polls to draw from, I think results of elections are the best pxoy we can use- and PP's absolute mayority in Valencia one election after the other are not quite coherent with your point about Valencian support for the Catalan countries. Out of 89 deputies ellected in the 2003 regional ellections, 0 (zero!) belong to political parties that support the Catalan countries.

I'm not saying at all that most valencians support the catalan countries. It's just that, without appropriate data, the removed sentence held not much meaning. As a side note, I don't understand your point about the number of deputies. There are politicians in several parties with different degrees of support for the catalan countries, for instance in BNV, EU, and even in the PSPV, and this last party governed some years ago.

That is just nationalist propaganda. The reality is that in the Valencian Community, the groups that support the idea of Catalan Countries didn't get enough votes to be represented in the Valencian Parliament. Also in the Balearic Islands they hardly have representation. I restored the sentence as in This concept is met with significant popular approval in Catalonia, indifference in the Balearic Islands and with resounding disapproval in the Valencian Community.

"Support for the catalan countries" does not seem to be a main issue in valencian politics. Thus, it is difficult to measure its support using only electoral results, because the position of each political party is not homogeneous about this issue. Moreover, your claim about the valencian parliement is false. There are 6 deputies of the "entesa" (reference) some of which support the idea of the catalan countries. Also, note that BNV has almost 5% of the votes, which is indeed a significant proportion (albeit not enough to obtain representatives).

It would be nice to have some real data (like a poll asking for support of the idea in the catalan countries) to be able to report encyclopedic facts here. Then, we could forget this kind of discussion, as this is not a political forum. coco

For what is worth, here's a link of a recent polling (October 2005) about it [1]. In short, To the question, Do you think your community belong to the Catalan Countries, the answers were

Community	Against	For	N/A
Balearic Islands	66,2 %	24,6 %	9,2 %
Valencia	81 %	15,2 %	3,8 %

I don't put too much trust on polls, but it does gives some clue --Wllacer 10:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good link Wllacer. It would be interesting to have more data like this. The problem I see is that the reference article is strongly politically biased and particularly used as a political weapon against the Prime Minister of Spain. Toniher 13:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed biased, but the poll data can be serious. I don't know how to judge it. As a side note, the poll questions do not clearly separate the cultural and political meanings of "Catalan Countries". I believe that most people agrees in the cultural unity of the Catalan Countries and don't want (or don't see the need of) a political unity besides being inside europe. coco

I haven't had access to a printed edition of Epoca, so it's hard to judge the poll from a statistic POV (and sigma2 doesn't gives data on its web page), and for sure, wasn't as detailed as we need it (and lacked data from Catalonia proper). But for what I know Sigma2 is a serious company, so the data can be trusted on a first approach (±5-10%)--Wllacer 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not by repeating a lie much one becomes truth. You will be able to include it in all encyclopedias of the world, you will be able spend millions in propagating it in all the countries, you will be able to shout it until losing the voice, but NEVER, Something "Valencian" will never be something "Catalan". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.16.187 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.

Origin of the expression?

I've removed the sentence

"""Like the Germans this extremist movement defines the Catalan Countries from Salses to Guardamar and from Fraga to Maó."""

because the "like the Germans" doesn't make any sense and because I can't find the origin of the expresion. The original form was

"""A popular saying defines the Catalan Countries from Salses to Guardamar and from Fraga to Maó"""

The german ties are evident In the DeutschlandLied : "Von der Maas bis an die Memel/Von der Etsch bis an den Belt ...". But I think is just coincidence --Wllacer 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone confirm (and provide a link) whether the phrase is indeed popular or if it's tied to nationalistic culture? --Diego Moya 16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How does one prove that a saying is popular? I've heard it everywhere, but only orally. Maybe we should remove the adjective "popular" until we have a precise definition of it, but meanwhile I recover the sentence. coco

My doubt was wether this saying had extreme nationalist connotations or it was used by general public. If you have heard it everywhere, I think it's safe to recover it.

My first recollection is around 1975, and i have memories of beeing one radical catch-phrase. I have always associated it with Omnium Cultural (don't remember why) and the radical group PSAN who used it in its Propaganda--Wllacer 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand the polemics about this sentence. In some sense, it may be regarded a synonym of Catalan Countries. It is used mainly for emphasizing the geographic limits of the cultural and/or political concept. So, this would be considered as 'extremist' as Catalan Countries term might be. Catalan Countries term usage (and this saying as well) was initially minoritary and is nowadays increasingly widespread. This is because there is being a significant recovery of Catalan culture and also an increasing Catalan nationalism/independentism. Parallelly, nowadays Catalan independentism is mostly focused on Catalan Countries, not in Catalonia. All these facts may be reflected in different related articles.

The motto of Omnium is 'Llengua, Cultura, País' (Language, Culture, Country). Omnium acts mostly in Catalonia, but it frequently collaborates with analogous organizations in Balearics Islands (Obra Cultural Balear) and Land of Valencia (Acció Cultural del País Valencià). Toniher 11:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

(I've upgraded this from the last entry about the sentence) Probably your're right, the phrase doesn't go beyond the anecdotic (that was the sense i wrote my comment, just personal recolletion) but the fact is that the whole concept of Catalan countries is indeed still very polemic (just remember the show a couple of weeks ago in the "Nou Camp", and the reaction in Valencia). I think the whole entry should be marked as polemic and a thead could be started in the Talk Page about this polemics, to keep the readership informed as long as it keeps on an educated interchange of postures. I would throw then my two cents , What do other contributors think ? --Wllacer 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is no point in adding such a tag as you are suggesting. It's rather obvious that Spanish nationalists (and French ones) strongly refuse this. If added, such a tag should also be added to Euskal Herria, Kurdistan, Palestine, Israel, etc. or more if we considered all the different POV. I think it's better to further develop the topics I suppose you are suggesting in different articles such as Catalan nationalism, Spanish nationalism, Politics of Spain, Politics of France, etc.

Putting the tag is just a matter of editorial and informational nature, not to take a stance. If one tries to write a NPOV encyclopedia and you have entries about items currently in political/social discussion, i think it's well advised to flag them somehow; esp. for the benefit of readers which don't know anything about: the absolute majority of wikipedia readership (and "leech" sites). We should review how is this done in the rest of wikipedia, and their policies, and act accordingly

The reaction you comment about the celebration of Correllengua during half-part in Camp Nou was from the Valencian government and pro-Spanish parties, groups or media. Spanish nationalism in Land of Valencia is indeed stronger than in Catalonia and also less tolerant than it is in Catalonia (which, as a whole, has generally an Iberianistic trend). But this does not imply that all Valencian people are against it, as some media tend to suggest. Catalan Countries present concept is indeed born in the very Land of Valencia and later exported to the other territories. Just as an annotation as reference: there have been Correllengua events in 128 towns in the very Land of Valencia. It is indeed organized there by ACPV (Acció Cultural del País Valencià). I lament all the offtopic stuff I have written. However, I think this may be used as a starting point or extra information for related articles. Best regards Toniher 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

I might be wrong, but I have a very distinct feeling about the sentiments in Valencia, and I'm not by any means what's called a "blavero" (valencian anticatalanist). The situation there is (or was, since i'm not living there for years) extremely complex, worthy a lengthly topic. Joan Fuster was more right in discovering the divide between Valencia city and land than perhaps in any other thesis in his "Nosaltres els valencians" (I own a copy one since the 70's), and outside viewers might easly confused on causes and effects. And you might allow me to deeply mistrust any attempt to count the spreading of a normalized language as the support of a political agenda.

Toniher, your's aren't offtopic remarks and I fully appreciate your input, and if only for the sake of wikipedia, let's hope this (and other threads) could give a better understanding of the question. --Wllacer 10:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Answering Wllacer's request for opinions, I think that it can be interesting to have a section (instead of a tag) talking about the "acceptance" of the Catalan Countries in the different parts of the territory. However, the knowledge described in that section should be of an encyclopedic nature, and I've found it extremely difficult to find sources for that. I agree with Toniher in that the situation is analogous with te articles on Palestine, Kurdistan, Euskal Herria, etc.coco

I've revised wikipedia's policy, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, and coco is right, and I was wrong. Besides a carefull wording, we must somehow manage to get a "critical evaluation" or "controversy" section. I'd split it in two parts one refering to the cultural concept and one to the political to better reflect the dual nature of the term (at least i think it's worth)-Wllacer 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing that we must take into account is that this political-cultural dualism is often, de facto, more a continuum than a discrete reality. This is because Catalan nationalism, as a whole, has Catalan language as one of its pilars, Spanish and French ones do as well. There are other cases, such as Irish nationalism, which religion was especially more prominent. Please, see nationalism. Toniher 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

To make me better undestood, I'll try to explain my view of the "controversy" section, with a (not so casual) analogy. For the cultural aspect, do we speak of "Culture(s) in German language" or "German Culture", when studying german (proper), german-swiss and austrian culture(s)?. Given the second clause, in the most unitary sense, ¿do we want/need a polity unifying all areas covered by the "german culture"?. This is the political question. The last (in my analogy) is settled in the foreseable future, but not the first, at least in Switzerland.

Following the analogy, the different languages in Switzerland do make (at least) four diferent cultures or one (or several transversal) multilingüal culture(s)?. Substitute for the relevant terms (to us), and add a note to the "valencian is not catalan", and you'll have a script for a controversy section --Wllacer 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wllacer, I understand you. And it is a very interesting topic to deal about, and not only for the Catalan Countries, as you have noted. However, specially if we consider this case, we cannot forget the differences with the German world. In the political sense, Germany and Austria are independent countries, and Switzerland is a paradigmatic federal state with high respect for cultural-linguistic diversity. On the other hand, except for the tiny country of Andorra, most of the territory of the Catalan Countries remain under French and Spanish jurisdiction with a variable and limited sovereignty. Some consider this concept as a kind of solidarity call between formerly more sovereign territories with a common origin culture in order to fight back the assimilation of Spanish and French majoritary cultures, and usually associated with the wish of recovering a lost sovereignty. A more extreme and also close case is current Aragon, which has been more strongly assimilated than other territories of the very former Crown of Aragon. All these things can be much explained if we consider socio-historical aspects.

Specially militant Spanish nationalists or anticalanists refer to the idea of Catalan Countries as Pancatalanism in order to compare it to Pan-Germanism, and consequently to Nazism. They usually consider promotion of native languages and certain cultural representations (especially in Balearic Islands and Land of Valencia) as an imperialistic cultural and political invasion of Catalonia. Those who do not simply adhere to Spanish language and culture, follow to accentuate the local linguistic differences and propose more of less different alternative language norms which are usually closer to Spanish language.

This is the case of Valencian denomination polemics and blaverism, and it is one of the central points of much of the Politics of Land of Valencia since the end of the Franco dictatorship.

Apart from the obvious Spanish nationalist criticisms, there also some critics from Catalan/Valencian nationalist circles. For instance, some like the concept but find the name is not suitable because of the "Catalan" term. In English language is possible to differentiate between Catalan (Catalan language, culture) and Catalonian (country), but it is not possible in Catalan, Spanish and other languages, and so the term may be regarded as ambiguous. They would suggest other names, but there is not currently any strong proposed alternative. etc. etc. etc. Toniher 12:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... this pair of paragraphs you've wrote could make a valuable addition to the article:

"Some consider this concept as a kind of solidarity call between formerly more sovereign territories with a common origin culture in order to fight back the assimilation of Spanish and French majoritary cultures, and usually associated with the wish of recovering a lost sovereignty. On the other side militant Spanish nationalists or anticalanists refer to the idea of Catalan Countries as Pancatalanism in order to compare it to Pan-Germanism, and consequently to Nazism. They usually consider promotion of native languages and certain cultural representations (especially in Balearic Islands and Land of Valencia) as an imperialistic cultural and political invasion of Catalonia."

What do you think? 62.57.115.47 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I agree, I add it. Toniher 09:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with the reference to nazism. I've never heard (besides some ramdom trolls) anything like that, even from spanish nationalists. Does it really deserve a paragraph? I would leave only the first part of the paragraph about the solidarity call. However, the idea of confronting two views is valuable (without references to nazism. Seriously, ¿what does it have to do with the catalan countries??) coco

The spanish nationalists PP from Valencia, among others, do use the term nazism to refer to the cultural concept of Catalan Countries (history shows us this is the pot calling the kettle black, but in this case the kettle isn't even grey) they spread FUD by claiming the catalans are annexionists and things like that. You can google for it if you don't believe it, but remember to do it in spanish because they rarely use that ilusory language they claim it's theirs and sooo different to catalan, the Valencian. 62.57.115.47 22:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This comparison is frequent from these groups in opinion columns and even articles of daily published newspapers. It's not a nice fact but things are really this way. It may be considered that groups which may be regarded as 'blavers', which use a non-normative Valencian normally use this comparison as well, but they may be mostly regarded as a whole as anticalanist. Toniher 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was aware of the different actual political status on my analogy, but I chose it for several reasons

• It's true that none of the major "components" of the catalan countries are by itself subjects of international right since a long time, if ever (we can skip Andorra in this discussion), it's no less true that they have ever been, "de jure" or "de facto", acknowledged as separated entities from each other. The novelty of Joan Fuster's view was that he belived to have found a common ground enough to merge them in one (at least cultural) nation. In this sense it mirrors the seeds of XIX german nationalism
• For much of the XIX century and beyond, there was a discussion about the validity of the concept of an unified german cultural nation and what it meant to the political future (Klein vs Grossdeutschand, the Main divide, the status of german swiss, bavarian particularismus, the status of Austria, ...)
• Classical german nationalism (a la Savigny) did not needed statehood to define itself, so it's a better mirror to check the very existence of cultural catalan countries, which is a prerrequisite for any political aspirations which are not "imperialistic".
• The actual conformation of the german speaking states is in fact very modern, driven by nationalism, and I would say, the results are almost casual. Germany as such exists since 1871 (with very different borders), Austria since 1920 and Switzerland, as we know it, probably since 1845 (the Sonderbund war). This is the end result, but does not reflect the status in which german nationalism grew.

Related to our discussion, i just found an e-book about nationalism and history [2], in the article "Nacionalismo y ciencia histórica en la representación del pasado valenciano" from Pedro Luis Torres, you can find an interesting account on the historiographical debate sparked by Fuster's thesis, and it's evolution in the last years.

It's true the term "pancatalanism" is derogatory, but I'm afraid it's usage reflects a more than common perception in Valencia (as usual we see thing in a very different light) and doesn't limit itself to spanish nationalist circles (objectively, what's this anyhow in 2005?). And part of it is to be blamed to the "language zealots". Normative Catalan is closely modelled after the Central Catalan dialect (around Barcelona), and -willingly- expurged of shared vocabulary with spanish. When strictly taught in the Land of Valencia, it becomes an artificial language, both for native and for spanish speakers, dreaded in school as much as mathematics (it's a common conversation topic). I learnt it (and tried to use) in the early 70's, and can still remember the face of my grandmother, every time i used it to speak to her ...

I'd love to see statistics about the common day usage of the languages in Valencia now, compared to 1980, because the impression i get from my hometown (once considered a bulkward of catalanism) is of stability or even regresion in the day to day usage of valencian/catalan.

The history of the political turmoil around the "signs of identity" of Valencia, would make a great article in wikipedia, but sadly in the line of the Japanese Toilet article, as it was so shameful that it only deserves an humoristic article. The geography of the support to the extreme valencianist (anticatalanist) thesis (using the support to Unió Valenciana as token) reveals one of the internal contradictions of the region, Valencia city vs. the "hinterland" (the rest) . It was basically limited to Valencia city and its environs (the area where the very distinct "apixat" dialect is spoken). And was minimal in areas like Castellón -with an historical grudge against Valencia City- with the exception of the town of Burriana, which in turn has an anti-castellon tradition, ...

Thanks to the pragmatism of PSPV/PSOE and PP is a dead matter now, but for small groups on both sides. One can still hear some boos to the regional himn, but it's all what remains of that.

--Wllacer 12:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments about the language are interesting and and can be further discussed in Catalan or Valencian entries. These topics are commonly discussed among people interested in Catalan language. I personally agree in some things and not in others, but this would take me too long for today... :(

Have you seen the Talk:Valencian page ? NO thanks ;-) Btw. the article as such is superb in the phonological realm, which is not what worries me more (if i'm not accenting). But you're right is a loooong topic --Wllacer 09:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Valencian usage might have regressed considering two things: 1. The common global dynamics which favour extinction of minoritary or minorised languages in favour of majoritary ones. 2. A less devoted linguistic policy as in Catalonia. It makes sense since PP and PSPV/PSOE are political parties which are part of Spanish counterparts if compared to to Catalonia, governed by CiU (a Catalonian based party) since first democratic elections and until a couple of years ago.

As I wrote about it,(and remember it's just a feeling I have, no hard facts) I was thinking on a couple of other hypotesis:

• The gap between normative and "street" language (and the schooling difficulties associated) has created a disglosy in the body of native speakers, with some degree of rejection of the formal language, which is skipped where it should be used in favor of the other formal language (spanish). It links to your second point, as public administration in Valencia is/must be "language neutral"
• The usage of the normative Catalan is still/has become so politically laden, that it difficults a more widespread adoption.

This choices against the formal language might lead, sooner o later, to a more spreading of spanish as street/home language. Any thoughts /data about it ?--Wllacer 09:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the problem is so much about the normative, despite there are several discussions in this aspect; but maybe more about the association of Catalan usage to political positions (second point you comment), and that in spite of the language distribution of the historical regional distribution of Spanish and Valencian in Land of Valencia, Valencian governments have supported Valencian usage in traditional Valencian-speaking regions less decisively than in Catalonia. Despite I do personally consider that whole Catalan normative may be improved in terms of dialectal variety, I also think that it is indeed more tolerant than Spanish or French one if we consider linguistic variety, the French case is, for instance, an extreme. We must not forget that social usage of Catalan has been severely limited since Decretos de Nueva Planta, and this obviously have its consequences. Apart, we have other implications related to a current global world and media, so rural areas are not so much isolated as before. Hence, they are more prone to a higher Spanish linguistic assimilation. Toniher 11:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I must gently disagree about the tolerance, at least in regards to school class (for what i knew, things might have changed). And don't underestimate the rejection factor (the most hated class means something)--Wllacer 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As we have said before, there should be several articles about Land of Valencia politics in Wikipedia. There are several of them in Valencian and Spanish wikipedia. It may also be useful as a resource a documentary about Transition in this territory. Del Roig al Blau, produced by University of Valencia. mms://147.156.41.66/DO-del_roig_al_blau -> Streaming and it may be found in many other places, there are also Spanish subtitles around... Toniher 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm a bit disconnected from mainstream media. I would like to see some references of the comparison of catalanism with nazism, coming from serious spanish sources (say, online political fora don't count). Anyway, if only to avoid Godwin's law, I still think we should omit the word nazism in the article. If this relationship really does have to appear in an encyclopedia, maybe it deserves a separate article about anticatalanism. coco

Two newspaper references [3] [4]. If this paragraph is regarded as too strong for this article (despite being a fact) I would not personally mind it could be placed in another article such as anticalanism or pancatalanism. Toniher 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to cut the paragraph, but like User:coco and for the same reason, i'd omit the reference to nazism. Perhaps the two paragraphs need some more NPOV rewording, something like (I put the bullet just for clarity here):

• The term may be used with a strictly cultural rather than nationalistic meaning, somewhat analogously to Francophony or Hispanic America. In this case, the latter locations are also included within this definition.
• Some consider this concept as a kind of solidarity call between historically and culturally related territores, in order to counterbalance the assimilation into Spanish and French majoritary cultures. This view may usually be associated with the wish of attaining some degree or full sovereignty
• On the other extreme, some refer to the idea of Catalan Countries as Pancatalanism (with a distinct derogatory sense, as they are called anticatalanists). The latter consider the whole concept and certain related cultural activities, which could include the promotion of the normative Catalan language, (especially in Balearic Islands and the Land of Valencia) as vector of imperialistic ambitions from Catalonia."

What do you think ? --Wllacer 08:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine for me, I would personally change -> On the other extreme for on the other hand or somewhat. It is best not to describe one or other positions as extremist. I would remove the normative reference, because those who oppose are usually either non-Valencian speakers or simply consider that Valencian!=Catalan language. Many people who suggest changes in normative are indeed very happy with these promotions of Catalan language, because these are mostly centered on its usage and not in specific linguistic aspects. Toniher 11:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The funny thing is that in this survey of opinions we have left out my own (and probably of many valencians): I accept the unity of the language, but I reject the idea of the Països Catalans as a plain artificial construct (nobody noticed ? ;-) But let's stop now in this thread, we're running out of colons !!! --Wllacer 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the article accordingly, but I don't like the last sentence. Pls. feel free to better it.--Wllacer 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The absurdity of the term "Catalan Countries"

I stick to my previous comment about the absurdity of this term using a comparison with the Republic of Ireland (Eire). Why is it that nobody refers to the Republic of Ireland (Eire) as being part of the "British Countries" or "English Countries"? Why is it then considered logical to put an entry such as "Catalan countries"?

The term exists but I don't see why it deserves a place in Wikipedia. Assuming that in its effort to cover all subjects "objectively" why should such a comparison be ommited? After all, an entry in Wikipedia should present both sides of an argument!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.40.23.72 (talk • contribs) 26 Nov 2005.

"Why is it that nobody refers to the Republic of Ireland (Eire) as being part of the … "English Countries"? Possibly because the usual term is "The English-speaking countries", since "English" coupled with "country" only refers to one country. As an ethnicity, the Irish are clearly not English (nor are the Scots, the Welsh, the Ugandans, most of the Americans, most of the Australians, etc.). In the case of the Catalan-speaking peoples, it is much less clear that there is an ethnic distinction. Not that I'm saying there isn't one, just that it's much less clear. Also, Catalan national identity is largely defined by language, English national identity is more defined by ancestry. I have a co-worker with a Basque father and a Galician mother; she grew up in Barcelona and simply considers herself Catalan. A London equivalent might consider herself to be British, but probably not "English" (though this might change if she married someone more unambiguously English). "British", unqualified, does not usually include even Northern Ireland. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is Anglosphere. --Error 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The respect to the culture and the opinion of a community is the base of all knowledge. An encyclopedia and any person who boasts to defend the culture must fight by this.

Over any discussion with innumerable reasons it is the objective truth, and in this case it is that the Valencians never have felt nor feel Catalan. Any attempt to impose the opposite will be incorrect. Any attempt to put to the Valencians in a community (linguistic, cultural or political) under denomination of "Catalan" it will mean the elimination of a people and a culture. The Valencians have their own history as kingdom of Valencia (before the conquest of Jaume I already the Kingdom of Valencia even existed), its own Literature (innumerable examples, to only mention some: Ausias March and Joanot Martorell), its own traditions (that are not those of Catalonia), Its own culture (in all the scopes, that she is not Catalan), its own control systems (they are not a province of Catalonia and it has never formed part of no organization or Catalan nation) and its own language (of origin different from the Catalan language –provençal- with category of official language and the conscience of its speakers to speak "Valencian", independently of which it is looked like the Catalan).

If the Valencians never have tried to absorve the culture of Catalonia, nor to distort the history of Catalonia, nor, really to eliminate Catalonia like independent reality of Valencia, why the Catalans yes do all this, and they do not respect the Valencians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.16.187 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.

To our anonymous vandalizer

Please if you don't believe in the idea of the "Països Catalans" (neither do I, read my previous contributions), don't substitute the whole article. Log into wikipedia, come here to the talk page, put your statements in a way suited for academic discussion, and be open for it. I'm pretty sure we'll find a way your vision will be reflected in the article, as mine had. Sometimes you'll have my support, sometimes not.

Otherwise i'll consider you a vandal, and i'll request your IP to be banned. This is not the wikipedia way ... --Wllacer 07:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that it could be the same user that's participating agressivelly on Wikipedia in Spanish under the username account es:User:Fuster. In summer an administrator had to block it through two IP ranks (81.41.234.0/24, and 81.41.232.0/24). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Language Policy

Joan sense nick removed the sentence "It also can refer to those territories where a language policy has been set up in order to favor the preferential (and, in many cases, exclusive) use of the Catalan language." I had just recently changed it for clarity of concept. I completely agree that it shouldn't belong in this article but in a separate one, or perhaps as an example in language policy. --Mankawabi (16 Jan 2006)

Citations

As for the request for citations, well, I would remove the one after "not present at all" and the one after "claims to include".

I'd do so based in the electoral results, which give us a very good idea of the "sentiment" in this regard: in the Land of Valencia's regional parliament there is no nationalist party who succeeds to overcome the 5% votes threshold; besides, the one which has been historically in close of so doing is Bloc, which is not a really "Catalan countries" supporter.

In the Balearics, the PP (a staunch anti-Catalan countries party) holds an absolute majority (just like in the Land of Valencia, by the way), while there are two small nationalist parties in the regional parliament, PSM (4 seats in the autonomous parliament) and UM (3 seats in the autonomous parlimanet, the total number of seats is 59).

UM is in a similar situation to the Bloc's: while being a nationalist party and not denying the unity of Catalan language (something which other minoritary parties do), they are not really supportive of the idea, seen as a 'cheeky' attempt from Catalonia's to overspill the limits of its own Autonomous Community and enter local politics in some others. PSM is indeed mildly supportive of the Catalan Countries idea, but his electoral success is quite limited.

I have no data about this one, but I'm guessing that in La Franja municipalities (let alone the Aragonese regional parliament), there are no nationalist parties achieving representation or, if they did, it would be quite minoritary.

Looks like the factuality of this is strong enough to get these two request for citations removed.

Mountolive 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about l'Alguer?

Everybody knows there is a little village in Sardinia where they speak a dialect of catalan (alguerese). Shouldn't the map be changed?

Onofre Bouvila 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alghero is not usually counted as one of the "Catalan Countries", though it would be included in the "Catalan-speaking world". - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would not this apply to Andorra as well? This hole concept of "Catalan Countries" seems weak to me. - Tony

The Catalan is co-official in L'Alguer and there are catalans living there. I've always heard about it as a part of the Catalan Countries, and you just have to search "catalan countries" at Google to see it, so I really don't know what are you talking about. Your point of view is quite subjective. I've added it to the article. Here you can check what I am saying: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The fact that many people does not add it to the "usual" list of Catalan Countries is due to their ignorance. Onofre Bouvila 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-Name

OK, maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. Catalan Countries is a term I've never heard used in public discourse in English, nor is it used in academic circles, where the original "paisos catalans" or descriptive phrases like "regions in which Catalan is spoken", "traditionally catalan speaking regions" are used. Having an article with this name amounts to wikipedia creating an English term, and then importing a definition of that term that is highly controversial in Spain. Is wikipedia creating the Catalan Countries, rather than describing them? Sorry for going all french and post modern there: But if that was in any way comprehensible I'd like your feedback, with a view to changing the name of the article to "paisos catalans".

I know its not good to use a foreign word as the title for an encyclopedia article, but the translation is ropey as a sail-boat anyway: Mallorca, Valencia and Menorca, by the English definition of the word, never have been, nor ever will be, countries.

080107 boynamedsue

I'd have no real problem with that. Elsewhere, we've used "Catalan-speaking world", but that is probably wrong here: the article is really about the (basically political more than academic) use of "paisos catalans". - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I never realized of how odd "Catalan Countries" may sound in English and it makes sense what you point out about "Catalan Countries" creating an English term which is obviously out of the scope of an encyclopedia. In other words, yes, looks like re-naming to "Països (don't forget the umlaut) Catalans" is best, in the fashion of similar difficult to translate concepts such as Anschluss, which are kept in the original German here. Mountolive 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I have edited restoring some parts which had been removed over the last weeks without -I believe- further explanation or discussion. Also I removed Josep Guia and Vicent Partal because their relevance is quite limited, but I guess I wouldn't have a problem in seeing them back if someone thinks is very necessary. Mountolive 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ps. I am restoring myself Josep Guia, as he even has an article...he's not that relevant anyway, but...Mountolive 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think they are relevant in this topic. Of course, Vicent Partal has not the media influence of the Spaniards Jesús de Polanco or Pedro J. Ramírez, but he is, no doubt, one of the major referents of Catalan media. Toniher 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies: I didn't have any idea that Mr. Partal is the mastermind behind Vilaweb, that makes him somewhat relevant indeed in en.wiki, (I don't think the same for Mr. Guia, but I wouldn't dare to remove one 'blue link', in spite of being obvious that articles for example like Guia's can be written by mere whim). So, we're good here.

Regarding the rest of your edit I have some objections for some parts. I don't agree with removing "very" behind minoritary nor "not present at all". The fact that ERPV has three city councilors in Sueca well...with the due respect, I don't think that is some sort of representation whatsoever but the regional elections data give a more appropiate image of the situation. Also is important to restaure "not present at all" which is the case in -but not only- the Spanish speaking areas of the Land of Valencia. I believe concealing this information is quite misleading in this case.

Hi Mountolive, I removed those elements that I thought that they may confer an opinion. I must admit I was not aware of the Spanish-speaking comarques, in those cases, I might also add elements such as "not present at all" providing the referent, those comarques, is specified. I have included the fact about the actual political representation and explicitness when talking about ERPV, because there are supporters of the Catalan Countries idea which are not actually in ERPV, but in Bloc or even PSPV, or also no affiliated to any political party at all. In those latter cases, they may have a more cultural than political founding, or the political issues are put off because of strategical or political reasonings. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reference to the Constitution clause and its unsupported, somewhat speculative reasoning, well, again with the due respect what seemed to be the rationale behind that clause was a possible federation of Navarre and the Basque Country, not the Catalan Countries case, for obvious reasons. I am for removing this part.

You may take a look at the fourth transitional provision of the Spanish Constitution, where Navarre and the Basque Autonomous Community are actually an exceptions to Chapter III. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, as for the Bacàvia thing, is good and I appreciate that you provided the quote, still, since that is a concept which by all accounts hasn't been successful and has been forgotten, I'd go and remove the whole line (including the Catalànic thing) because the only concept which has had some fortune is Catalan Countries. If you still think that these past alternatives are necessary, I don't think is a major issue and I wouldn't object if you want to leave them in place, but it may be interesting not to add what to me seems quite secondary info here.

Well, I only included it for sake of a historic account, I did not pretend to make it primary. Instead of removing it, which I regard that is against trying to build up an encyclopedic resource, I would contextualize it more, for instance stating that they were unsuccessful proposals. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear your opinion before editing. I try to be as good willed or impartial as possible, I dont have a doubt you will be also. Thanks.

Here you have. Thanks as well. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Transitional Provision and the article in the Spanish constitution barring federation amongst Autonomous Communities clash. In other words, I still think that what the Constitutionalist had in mind at the time of issuing the legal impossibility of federating was Navarre and the Basque country because what the Transitional Provision is doing is allowing a merging between those two communities. Given the historical entity of Navarre and a so far majoritary rejection to this idea, then it was implemented the prohibition of a federation which would have allowed a de facto merging while formally respecting Navarrese institutions and autonomy. Anyway, since looks like neither you nor I can provide cold facts, I have reworded the sentece instead of removing it. I have removed indeed the allusion to the 23-F, which happened well after the Constitution was passed and so is out of place there.

I have restored the "very minoritaty" and "not present at all". I understand your concern about these conferring an opinion but, given the political support obtained (0,32% of the total votes) in this case is merely descriptive. I am against mentioning the Spanish speaking areas, for these are not the only ones: think for example of L'Alacantí, from a total population of say 500,000 the number of supporters of the Catalan Countries are how many? 1,000 at its best?

I have also reworded it in order to note that there are other smaller parties than ERPV which support this concept.

I have cut

In the 1980s, Josep Guia proposed in his book "És molt senzill, digueu-li Catalunya" (It's very easy, call it Catalonia) that independentists should prefer the term Catalonia for referring to the whole Catalan Countries as the latter might be too cumbersome and hence less encouraging. Nonetheless, in those very groups, Catalan Countries remain being the most preferred term. Guia's proposal is actually slightly more popular in English-written references than in Catalan ones.

because, as is stated, this proposal didn't get approval nor even the concerned groups. If we are to quote all of the unsuccesful steps of the debate, I think we are messing the article and making it lose its point. I agree with you with the Bacàvia thing: it was probably only misplaced in the article which made it look weird (I have placed it in what I believe is a more relevant context).

PS. Actually I am cutting

Whereas Joan Maragall and Francesc Cambó wrote about the "Greater Spain", Enric Prat de la Riba published his article "Greater Catalonia" in 1906, where he suggested the term "Catalunya Gran" for the whole Catalan Nation, taking as a model the Greater Britannia and the Commonwealth. However, that term soon got associated with Bismarck's Grossdeutschland and later with Nazism; because of all those imperialism connotations, many of its defenders preferred to abandon it.

for similar reasons.

PSS. Does the PSAN still exist or has informally merged into ERPV? do you know? (I see they maintain a website based in Barcelona but do you know if they have run recently in Valencian elecions?)

Hope you pretty much agree. Mountolive 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't disagree too much ;) In the future I might even contribute more about the history of the idea, and I feel it is a shame not to offer it to people who may be academically interested in this topic. So, maybe in a few months I will restore and improve those issues.

About ERPV representation facts, I agree, but consider what I have said about the transversalism of the idea (compassing all the cultural to political spectrum) beyond parties. This may be even shocking to me, but it's not somewhat only present in Valencian Country, but in other territories. Anyway, if I made any edit, I would try to provide some good references. On the other hand, despite Valencian Country is surely where the Catalan vs Spanish national ideological front is harsher, and so its interest, the discussion is too much centered on that territory and ignoring others, so that should be improved.

About the army, I think it is necessary to provide a context to readers in order they may understand why this statement, especially in those times, when certain military sectors even disagreed with the very new constitution. A link to 23-F in "military pressures" suffices.

About PSAN, it exists, but as far as I know, they have less support than in former times (because of splits and new groups emerging) and I do not think they will present in any elections. At most, they have partially supported, and might personally contribute to, electoral coalitions such as the Candidatures d'Unitat Popular.

Toniher 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IN VALENCIA WE SPEAK VALENCIAN, NOT CATALAN.VALENCIAN LANGUAGE EVEN HAD A GOLDEN CENTURY, AND WAS THE FIRST LITERARY ROMANCE LANGUAGE. HOW DARE YOU REFUTE SUCH FACTS???

STICK YOUR CATALAN IMPERIALIST DREAMS UP YOUR ARSE. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE HOW RIDICULOUSLY  BIASED WIKIPEDIA IS, AND HOW IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY A BUNCH OF IDIOTS SPREADING LIES.

No!!

Hello British, American, Australian, Canadian and all the people who speak English and consult this article: This article this writing by Catalan nationalists and does not mark the true situation of Catalonia and Spain.

A greeting from Spain: Jluisrs

Article reflects true situation

I think it reflects well the true situation and the hostilities which some historical truths arouse. Small nations always have a bad time when interfacing with empires. In a recent poll made in Russia it came out that the biggest enemy of Russia was ... Latvia!

The Spanish empire and its supporters erased many languages, and obviously its spirit continues to do so by creating division and sowing discord. The fact that some people react rudely just confirms that truth hurts certain vested interests.

Isn't it true that general Franco forbid printing in Catalan and teaching Catalan in schools? Isn't it true that he hated the Catalan language and not only denied Catalan official status, but he even persecuted those who stuck to it?

Therefore the hurts carry on and are not near to be resolved. There is a struggle between those who want to allow Catalan to continue and those that would rather erase it for ever if they could, using whatever instrument at hand to do it. Most Valencians are willing istruments for the eventual erasing of their own tongue in the future. The Catalans come first, Valencians will not be spared later.

I do not where are you from, I hope that you are not a foreigner, because I would not want you to have this idea about the linguistic situation in Spain. You speak aobut Franco (Do you know that he died more than 30! years ago?). The spanish Constitution recognice all languages in Spain, they are official, used everywhere, even you can learn these languages in all the spanish universities (not only in Catalonia). The only linguistical hostility in Spain is that done by anti-spanish nationalists against the spanish language and spanish-speakers in Catalonia. There are a normal situation in Galicia, Valencia, Aragon, Asturias and so on. There are anothers languages in that places, but there are not conflicts, bacause they do not use the language as a weapon. The idea of "Catalan Countries" is against the valencians, that consider themselves valencians and spaniards, with a history and culture different from the Catalan one. Why is this not respected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.24.67 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The only linguistical hostility ?

Can you, unsigning one, provide proof of the hostilities by anti-spanish nationalists? Small nations located between greater empires have always been accused of what you say. Do Spanish-speakers living in Catalonia or Valencia respect the local language? Can you provide proofs that they do? Can you prove that the Spanish state is innocent? You need to be reminded that Polish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian people were also accused of being "anti-Russian nationalists" and many died in the Gulag at the hands of Stalin. Your voice sounds so much like the Voice of the Empire. I know well that Franco is dead, but Franco's legacy is alive and well with your opinions!

I very much doubt that the Spanish (Castillian) language needs defending. It's preposterous! This is like the story of the wolf being mistreated by the lamb. Regarding the Valencians "suffering" at the hands of the Catalans, can you provide tangible proofs of all your accusations? Can you prove that The only linguistical hostility in Spain is that done by the smaller Catalonian nation against the greater Spanish state and its formidable linguistic legacy in the ex-Spanish colonies? Or is that only your own opinion?Mohonu 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png

Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who disagree or dislike this article

A message for those who disagree or dislike this article, being them Spanish nationalists or Valencians blaverists, please remember that your contributions on this talk page are not helping to improve its quality, but only expressing your own political points of view, and that's not the purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not an edit-war either...Should you need to take a look at this. Before giving advices to other users, you should better "Practice what you preach/Lead by example" ;) --Maurice27 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry?

Are you trying to tell me how to behave?

Compare my block log [10] and yours [11], please.  :)

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference... I don't preach anybody how to behave... See the difference? Eh? Do you see it? ;) --Maurice27 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Globalize

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

Could you explain please which perspective is missing? I think it is well explained that it is a concept that includes some territories and also the controversy behind it. Which section is missing?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the template! "This article [...] deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". Any perspective or section is missing. But, as you know perfectly BTW, the Catalan countries subject is only used in Catalonia. Neither in Valencia, Andorra, Southern France it is used. Therefore, "This article [...] deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". --Maurice27 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Only used in Catalonia? "As you perfectly know", this term was born in Valencia because many Valencians felt that they also belonged to the "Catalan nation" that was being claimed by nationalism in Catalonia. And actually it is very used in Valencia (maybe even more than in Catalonia) both by those who support the idea and those who do not. In the rest of Catalan-speaking area, it is the main word used when refering to this territory, as none of the alternatives (Catalanofonia, Comunitat Catalànica, Bacàvia...) has reached such popularity. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I think the template has a point, even though you are right when you say that the concept is known also outside of Catalonia...i.e. in Valencia and the Balearic islands. So, I guess the template should read "this article deals primarily with the "Catalan Countries" (sic) and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". That may sound a bit absurd, but, actually, the concept is, I'd dare to say, quite out of fashion ever since the 80s (at least in Valencia) and has become mostly self-centered as well, with virtually no factuality outside of discussions like this one.

I support the tag because I actually have an issue with the "Catalan Countries" ill translation from Catalan. That is why I stand by the tag unless the article name is changed to "Països Catalans", because "Catalan Countries" doesn't make any sense in English and, in the worst case, it may even be misleading.

If "Valencian Country" already doesnt make sense (check the relative discussion in the relative talk page.... if you dare and have a lot of time to read circular so called reasoning) go figure out "Catalan Countries" which is even more odd, because this moniker is suggesting that a "country" (like, for example, Valencia, which, let's not forget about it, is not a "country" whatsoever in the English language sense) is defined by another "country", Catalonia. Altogether, it is very uneasy English, to say the least. As I wrote elsewhere in this talk page, in English they (I'm not a native speaker myself) don't say "English Countries" for countries speaking English, nor "Spanish Countries" and so on....so why should be Catalan be different grammatically?

Should the name of the article be changed to "Països Catalans", I'd probably support untagging it for, that way, the oddity of the concept when directly translated is lost while the integrity of the article is preserved.

See, for example, a similarly irredentist concept such as anschluss which is not translated in the English wikipedia, I guess because any attempt would be uneasy and tricky.

Mountolive | Talk 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacking myself the grace to explain it the way he does it, just wanna to quote in this regard that Seventh Force of nature called user:boynamedsue

OK, maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. Catalan Countries is a term I've never heard used in public discourse in English, nor is it used in academic circles, where the original "paisos catalans" or descriptive phrases like "regions in which Catalan is spoken", "traditionally catalan speaking regions" are used. Having an article with this name amounts to wikipedia creating an English term, and then importing a definition of that term that is highly controversial in Spain. Is wikipedia creating the Catalan Countries, rather than describing them? Sorry for going all french and post modern there: But if that was in any way comprehensible I'd like your feedback, with a view to changing the name of the article to "paisos catalans".

I know its not good to use a foreign word as the title for an encyclopedia article, but the translation is ropey as a sail-boat anyway: Mallorca, Valencia and Menorca, by the English definition of the word, never have been, nor ever will be, countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hadn't notice the "Catalan Sea" thing...that is some geographic discovery, to say the least! I never heard of that even if I am quite (and dangerously) familiar with Catalan nationalist speech...I guess I need some doctrinary refreshment by now, for the boys keep working and don't bother to check with their older daddies ;)

Now, more seriously, even though my issues with the tag may be more related to other reasons than the ones exposed just above (those are worth looking at, too, BTW) I have to agree that the sole mention of a so-called "Catalan Sea" blessing the coasts of Castelló and the Balearics probably justifies the tag, because the so called "Catalan Sea" for the so called "Catalan Countries" is certainly too self-centered in Catalonia.

In Catalonia proper or Valencia and Balearics too? well, you just can't tell it easily; this is a good example of my problems with the direct and ill-fated translation. I may agree with someone who wants to call the tract of the Mediterranean sea before Catalan coasts "Catalan sea" (a quite parochial POV anyway, but if that makes him happy...). However, in the map the "Catalan Sea" goes beyond and sucks some water (soon to be desalinated, I guess) from the Balearic one. Indeed, "Catalan sea" may not represent a worldview, the worldview knows it as "Balearic Sea". Mountolive | Talk 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree absolutely the way Maurice27 is managing the things here:

Without any previous discussion he decided to put that Globalize tag. And that's what I'm reverting.

First discuss your change, try to reach a consensus, and after that, put the tag.

Regarding the reasons he now gives about this article, juts a brief answers:

* The term "Països Catalans" was spreaded by Joan Fuster, a Valencian. I don't know if he created it or not, but it's used not only in Catalonia, also in the places where Catalan is spoken, and not only by nationalists but also by linguists, for example.

* The political feeling of the "Països Catalans" is due to the linguistical fact. That is, Catalan nationalism is not based on religion, ethnics or whatever, but on the fact that Catalan is spoken in those places.

* "Northern Catalonia" is not Rosselló, but also Alta Cerdanya, Capcir, Conflent and Vallespir.

* If that pic is not proper feel free to change it for another one.

So, in short, Maurice27 your reasons are false, politically biased and motivated by your Anti-Catalanism, which has been proven blatant by the RfA that blocked you.

By the way, Maurice27, I'm still waiting for your excuses for your lies about me: My edits on the article of Catalonia for months, and me calling you fascist.

Lies, Maurice27, lies, Maurice27, lies, Maurice27, ...

And I won't recall again your linguistical theories about Valencian and Catalan... :D

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not clear: I revert your tag because you didn't discuss it, you just imposed it and now you want to keep it without any discussion.

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

:D Casaforra, my beloved "extremist collaborator", finally you decided to participate!!!! hurra!!! That's a good start!

• I would like to point you that I'm not "changing", but adding
• All your allegations are lovely ones... But once again, DO YOU HAVE REFERENCES? Algo de "chicha" para apoyar tus propuestas...? I would love to read more about the "The political feeling of the "Països Catalans" being due to the linguistical fact". Catalan Imperialists Graffitis pictured from Majorca or el Carxe could also defend your point... Give us (the community) references!
• If you don't bring references or sources to back your point, how are we supposed to even take care of it?
• I'm not even going to answer to your "Northern Catalonia" ridiculous excuses...
• I wasn't blocked for my anti-catalanism... I was blocked for defending the truth! Because your "CAT-TEAM", instead than look for solutions to our controversial matters, just wanted to get me banned. Am I wrong? Am I?
• Why are you allowing me to change the map (I guess because you admit it is biased and incorrect) and you prevent me to warn other users about the biased and incorrect content in this article?
• If I may "feel free" to change the map, Why do I need your consensus to add the tag? See the irony, Casaforra? Do you see it?
• And finally... I would like you to post or link here WHERE does it say that I must reach a consensus with you in order to keep the tag. If you fail to give it to me, the tag remains! I'm not here to lose my time with incongruent discussions with someone like you.

• If you are still waiting for my excuses, I can only tell you that if it is itching you, then you should start scratching yourself. See, life for us, french fascists, it's all about us and our belly buttons. --Maurice27 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Flag

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

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

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

Particular point of view

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

Hi Dúnadan.

I guess in the first place I have to admit that I don't like to be simply reverted as you did, because I like to think there is some point in my contributions that can always been salvaged, and don't like being treated like a mere vandal. But this is a matter of manners and not really your problem, just spare the "sorry" for I guess it is more like my own problem.

After this unproper autobiographic comment, well, it looks like you didn't get the point behind my "guilders" comment. As a matter of fact, being Catalan nationalist is not a guilder in itself, is it? (I may have suspicions it may have become so in some mancomunitats, specially at the time of public funding distribution, but I'd still rather think it is not).

I guess the constraints of a summary edit didn't show the point of my edit (let alone the irony) and I apologize for that. What I do mean is that a plumber, a fireman and, why not, a linguist, may be, besides, Catalan nationalists or assuming concepts from Catalan nationalists, even though they are not assumed by the whole linguist community. For example: Carod-Rovira is a Filologia Catalana bachelor (thus, he's roughly a linguist) and a Catalan nationalist as well. Please don't bite the hook of the example, because it may not be the best anyway, but I think you get the idea of what I mean: one thing (guild) doesn't exclude the other (political adscription).

That is why I think I'll come back to my previous version ("primarily by Catalan nationalists") because it is both the most inclusive (all guilds, including linguists) and the most descriptive. I may do so unless someone changes my mind with some reasoning other than the one provided so far.

Moreover, ok Kathryn is one linguist, many other linguists won't call it "Catalan Countries" (that's by the way, a really odd wording in English, and that is another story, but for sure is not widely accepted in English-speaking communities, and I guess it is less so among linguists if only because they are supposed to have a superior command of English). I'd say that, actually, most linguists (let alone English-speaking ones) may call this the "Catalan domain" or something alike. Therefore, mentioning "linguists" is not a good idea, for, then, it should also be mentioned that "most linguists don't use this term" unless a reference was provided proving that there is general consensus among linguists designating this as "Catalan Countries". And that is not the case.

On the POV thing you note above, well, you'd say its usage is first linguistic and cultural while, myself, I'd say that, at least for Valencians, has become (regardless the original usage of the term) almost an exclusively political one. Opinions are like arses, everybody's got one, after all. In any case, feel free to overhaul accordingly to debase that political so called POV you feel. Actually, you have called my attention in this regard and I may also make some contribution debasing the linguistic POV, for the equivalence with the Lusofonia, Francophonie and the like stated in the lead is, to say the least, vague and not necessarily good enough.

Mountolive | Talk 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

HI Mountolive,

I must say that reversion does not imply that the previous version was the work of a vandal. In fact, I did not use the abbreviations "rv" (revert) much less "rvv" (reverting vandalism). Reversions are, for the most part, if backed up with a solid reason -like mine- valid editions, especially if a reversion reverts (pardon the redundancy) deletion of content.

I did understand your arguments, albeit constrained by the limited space of the edit summary. And I disagreed, as I still do. Now that you say you even want to debase the linguistic POV by eliminating the only reference to linguistics in the introduction (that of comparing the Francophonie to the Catalan Countries), the article will be simply reduced to an [anti]-nationalistic POV of a term that originally started as a linguistic concept that evolved into a cultural identity -one advocated by the Valencian Joan Fuster. If you do so, I am afraid I -as well as other users with knowledge of the term- will most probably revert you. As you know, WP:NPOV does not mean simplification, but the exposition of all different POVs whether contradictory or inclusive. As such, the linguistic meaning of a term which originally started as a linguistic term, must be preserved, as long as with the politically charged connotations it has acquired amongst some sectors of the Spanish society.

As for the inclusion of a "better" term, such as "Catalan domain", unless properly backed up by a reference, it would most probably violate WP:OR. Citing a linguist -amongst many- who make us of the term Catalan Countries, in spite of the apparent "oddity" of the term (which, as a Native English speaker I fail to see such "oddity"), complies with WP:CITE (obviously) as well as WP:OR. If you do have references to back up the apparent "guess" (citing) that the term is less "widely accepted in English-speaking communities", then by all means add it. If not, then, for the sake of maintaining the article free of personal POVs, we should avoid it. If a reputed linguist uses it, then its inclusion complies with WP:CITE.

Finally, your argument that claims that all linguists who make use of the term are a subset of nationalists, and therefore to simply state that "nationalists" use the term suffices is not correct. I assume you see the fallacy of it, for many linguist who use the term -especially non-Spaniards such as Mrs. Woolard- are evidently not nationalists (how could they, of a country they are not even part of!). In other words, there is an intersection of the set of nationalists who are also linguists but the set of linguists is not a subset of nationalists. Granted, you might argue that so is the case of the subset of plumbers, but the term Catalan Countries is not a term related to plumbery, nor did it originate by that guild. What a reputed economist has to say about a Mixed Market Model is relevant to that subject, and not what a plumber says. In the same way, what a linguist has to say about the linguistic meaning of Catalan Countries is relevant to the article, but -as you pointed out- what the plumber says is quite irrelevant.

I maintain my position: the article must properly explain the origin and evolution of the term: a linguistic term that evolved into a cultural one, and finally advocated by a group of nationalists. It must also explain why the term, today, if politically charged... in fact, the article does good job at that already, but a very poor job of the linguistic connotation of the term.

I hope this comment may serve to enrich our discussion and to improve the quality of the article.

--the Dúnadan 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

Well, since I have never seen you neither moving nor giving up from your initial positions ever since we have crossed ways (a few times, not many anyway) I didn't have any reason to believe that this one was going to be anything different, so, at least, this keeps the discussion in the "business as usual" level which we are used to (is this really good? I don't think so, but that's what we have and we have to get along with it). In any case, neither I am a good example of changing my mind (other than a couple times, to Xtv, I think...hello, Xtv! :) However, it has become more frequent that I end up, if not conceding, then just giving up, such as in Valencian topics (to Joanot aka Benimerin, once to you as well, in Names of Valencian Community) for the sake of my sexlife's quality (when I feel myself spending too much time around here with circular arguments, then I close my eyes and...quit).

Now, still generally speaking, but more focused in what matters here: when I suspect that the editor I'm discussing with, s/he knows about the factuality of my claim as much as I do, but, instead of conceding, s/he chooses starting listing all the wiki guidelines (WP:CITE, WP:OR, WHATEVER) then I know I am in trouble, for it looks like s/he wants me to bother in googling something that we both know about, instead of dealing about the topic in some other more constructive way. This, unfortunatelly, doesn't enters me in "consensus mood" because there is nothing more futile than discussing to someone who won't change their views. Excuse this another unrequested autobiographic note, Dúnadan, I just mention it because, in all honesty, I'm sorry to say that it looks like you are acting like that.

Anyway, despite all the above, I normally bite the hook, play the game if only for a while, before giving up. Therefore, here I am, googling "Catalan domain". Many entries appeared but, since neither in the first two pages had these two words next to the other but just very close and knowing by experience that, when people enters this mood of asking for the other about references on obvious facts, they will want it exactly that way, then I looked for an alternative "Catalan speaking areas". These are just 3 entries from the first two pages [12] [13] [14]. They prove nothing but the fact that Kathryn used "Catalan Countries" in this paper doesn't mean that she is using the standard linguistic parlance on the matter. Period. And (lacking references) let me say that Ms. Kathryn's (hello, Kathryn! :) was not using the standard this time. If you have references proving that the international linguistic community refers to that as "Catalan Countries", please bring them here.

But I won't make you look for references proving that Països Catalans was originally a linguistic only term (this seems to be central in your reasoning). I could ask you for that, "just to confirm", but I don't need to ask for what I already now and I don't want to make you busy unnecessarily. But then I also know that, at least in Valencia (and some noticeable tracts of Catalan society and elsewhere) it has evolved into a mainly politic one ever since the 80s. But this is another discussion and should be shelved.

(By the way, let me just point out that I could also provide references "proving" that either Elvis is alive, Hitler didn't order any genocide or stating that Valencian is not related to Catalan in any way. Therefore, let me please give a mere relative value to references, specially interenet ones. But this is just another side note, so please don't bother with this one, but go about the points you missed, please).

I can't see why the article would be reduced to an "[anti]-nationalistic POV" such as the one you fear after an eventual edit from my side. I wouldn't make assumptions on how an article it's going to look like before someone else edits it: it's risky and not really inviting to consensus. Actually I think it will be quite easy to open two sections, one Països Catalans as a linguistic community and another Països Catalans as a political desideratum instead of keeping it as it is now, with both approaches mixed in a rather messy way (BTW, I can't see why you place [anti] before the nationalist dimension. If you do assumptions of what people will think on something before it is even made, then it may look like you are acting under a POV yourself as well; I just mention this as a friendly note to improve your reasoning, don't get me wrong, as I know it is easy to be misunderstood over written stuff...hello Dúnadan! :).

I read you elsewhere saying that you were also a native Catalan speaker. I think that would explain that you fail to see the "oddity" of Catalan Countries, don't you think? You have dealt with both languages from a tender early age and so your brain keeps up with the whole thing at ease. But other English native speakers already said where it was pertinent that "Valencian country" didn't make sense at all (ask, for example, user:Boynamedsue in this regard, he knows better than I do...hello, BNS! :) let alone "Catalan Countries".

Take it this way, if you want: do we say in English "French countries" for countries speaking French? "Spanish countries"? "English countries"?. I can't see why Catalan language should be an exception when it comes to English grammar. The translation is obviously direct and, therefore, not particularly fortunate. But that, once again, is another story, I am biting the hook here regarding something inessential to the present dicussion and I had enough anyway with the qüestió de noms in my native language to try translating it into English. Really, I have better things to do.

As for I assume you see the fallacy of it, for many linguist who use the term -especially non-Spaniards such as Mrs. Woolard- are evidently not nationalists (how could they, of a country they are not even part of!) I indeed notice the phallacy of quoting me à la carte, since I actually wrote "a linguist, may be, besides, Catalan nationalist or assuming concepts from Catalan nationalists". I find it particularly useless to have to explain this part, but I will for the sake of...whatever. Anyway, why getting grumpy when it is not hard to neither explain nor understand: the fact that I am not Berber, doesn't mean that I can be sympathetic for Berber's, say, demand of autonomy or Berber's traditional hunting methods. I don't have to be native Berber to have my own opinion on their things, right? This is a particularly weak part of your reasoning and I invite you to delete it along with this paragraph, for this discussion is already acquiring the typical frustrating traits of Catabrawling: much talking, little action, (slightly)Catalanist POV 1 - neutrality in wikipedia 0, well, that is just how I see it, of course (sorry if I sound harsh, not meant, really, it is just that the whole thing is getting reminiscent of the reasons why I took a long wikibreak and this dejà vu is not so nice, just seeing me soon running away from wikipedia, like a chicken, once again).

Well, after all, maybe the above clear up is not so insignificant, for this is where you magnificently missed the point in my post above. The fact that one linguist (for the time being, we only have one) chooses the "Catalan Countries" moniker doesnt mean that this is the standard name in the linguistic community. And the fact that she is a linguist, doesn't mean that she can't be sympathetic to Catalan nationalism either. Therefore, writing "primarily Catalan nationalists" is more inclusive, for it includes Catalan nationalists and other people, such as plumbers or linguists (whether sympathetic or not to Catalan nationalism).

Please don't miss the primarily word; it wasn't included in the previous version, I added it after Pmmollet (hello Pmmollet! :) opened the question, for, while not agreeing with Pmmollet's edit, I think I understood his point (that not only Catalan nationalists use this moniker) and so I think this word makes the whole thing more exact or bearable to everybody.

So, all in all, after all the bla bla, and waiting for your reply to the above main point I think you are missing (just skip all the rest if you may: we are making it ridiculously long once again, aren't we?) I also maintain my position and I'm therefore editing the short passage which started this discussion. In days to come I will go about the Political/Linguistic distinction. I don't think it is particularly troublesome to split these in two clearly distinct sections, feel free to work on that yourself if you don't trust me. I hope this one is not casus belli, even though, sometimes, I have the feeling that anything with the adjective "Catalan" around it, becomes so....don't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (definition) Catalan countries 1
• (geomorphology) Catalan countries 2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

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