::: This is not a forum, Mauricio. In other side, the correct translation is "Juanito", and I will be pleased if you prefer this form. Feel free. --[[User:Joanot|Joanot Martorell]] <font size="+2">[[User_talk:Joanot|✉]]</font> 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
::: This is not a forum, Mauricio. In other side, the correct translation is "Juanito", and I will be pleased if you prefer this form. Feel free. --[[User:Joanot|Joanot Martorell]] <font size="+2">[[User_talk:Joanot|✉]]</font> 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
::::It is widely accepted everywhere that Catalonia is a nation--[[User:Miquel Girones|Miquel Girones]] ([[User talk:Miquel Girones|talk]]) 14:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
== About requesting move to [[Països Catalans]] ==
== About requesting move to [[Països Catalans]] ==
Revision as of 14:14, 24 December 2009
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
True. Though if a compromise is to be reached, and you want to use both terms, I'd rather use "sovereign state" in the phrase and "country" as the label of the column. --the Dúnadan22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, even though, if they can be used interchangeably, I dont get why you need it this way for a compromise to be reached...accusing others of political preferences is easy...
You may not know of our previous discussion regarding the use of "Spanish State" vs. "State" at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community). He opposed "Spanish State" based on political preferences, but accepted "State". Now he opposes the compromise we reached (i.e. "State"). So, no, I am not "accusing others" easily. But I will not take that light comment of yours as an accusation either. Peace.
May I also suggest changing Region for territories? If you disagree with that particular term, please feel free to change it back.
As Dunadan is starting again an egocentric little war with the denomination of these geographical/political areas I will only paste here how some articles in wikipedia do start:
Australia: The Commonwealth of Australia is a country...
Bangladesh: Bangladesh [...] officially the People's Republic of Bangladesh is a country in South Asia.
Belarus: Belarus [...] is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe.
Belgium: The Kingdom of Belgium is a country in northwest Europe.
Cambodia: The Kingdom of Cambodia [...] is a country in South East Asia
India: India [...], officially the Republic of India [...] is a country in South Asia.
Indonesia: The Republic of Indonesia [...] is a nation in Southeast Asia.
Israel: Israel [...] officially the State of Israel [...] is a country in Western Asia
Japan: Japan [...] is an island country in East Asia.
Pakistan: Pakistan [...] officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country located in South Asia
About Dunandan's oppinion "rv, not confusing to me, or to a Canadian, or Austrlian, or to dictionaries", let's see how some of those countries + UK and US are described:
Australia: The Commonwealth of Australia is a country in the southern hemisphere
Canada:Canada (IPA: /ˈkænədə/) is a country occupying most of northern North America
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain,[8] is a sovereign island country
United States: The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. The country is situated mostly in central North America
So, may I ask, if all featured articles about countries use the words country or nation, why does Dunadan feel in the right to impose his own oppinion?
8a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
8b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.
9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government
As Dunadan is the sole editor to keep adding the word state to define a country or nation (knowing very well the "government" meaning the word state has in english and that some editor have expressed the willingness to change it, I will again undo his edit. --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice, did you bother to check a dictionary? I guess not. Let me cite a couple for you:
country, state, land, the territory occupied by a nation; [1]
state, nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic [idem]
a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. [3]
Handpicking the definition that suits you best doesn't work. And citing Wikipedia doesn't work either. Or have you bothered to check state? The definition therein given is not limited to the political institutions, as you want to imply, but to the territory as well.
The problem is not imposing an opinion. The problem is that you impose yours into a uniformity to your own political preferences. But what bothers me the most, having said in a previous discussion that you were fine with the word "State", now you show now respect for your own decision. You should portray diversity. Not everybody thinks like you, and you are not always right.
And Dunadan... About your comment "Please stop your reversions based on political preferences. Wikipedia is not yours" I ask you to consider the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
"Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute."
Well I gave 14 examples (of which 10 are featured articles) in the "common usage on an objective basis" to describe those political territories.
Naming conventions refer to... well... naming articles. Titles of articles. Not to content. We are not discussing about the title. We are discussing about using a phrase that contains "State". A phrase. Not the title. Please review the guidelines you are citing.
Your examples are of, well, countries. You can also include Spain. But of course, we are not defining a country here. We are using it in a phrase, a single phrase, interchangeably with "country". Like I said, diversity, not uniformity to a single "preference".
So, please, read the guidelines yourself. Probably you didn't, and that is why you misquote them. I am, of course, assuming good faith, ignoring your previous comments at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community).
Please read the above, carefully. Reading comprehension. Let me explain. I am including an article to your list of articles of countries. Spain, in the introduction is defined as a country. To say, alternatively, in other sections, that Spain is a "state" is also correct, not only in English, but constitutionally, since the constitution of Spain, your country, uses the term "State" and the term you hate the most "Spanish State" dozens of times, but only once does the term "country" appear - even in English translations. I hope you understand now, that we are talking about using a phrase with the word "state" along with "country". Both are right. Not uniformity. Diversity. Not about definitions. Not about titles of articles. Is it clear now? --the Dúnadan23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the guideline that says that in the content of the articles one should avoid using the word State? No, because there isn't one.
Can you point me to the guideline that says that common usage in Wikipedia (even though you compare apples to oranges) is more important that primary sources and WP:Verifiability (i.e. the constitution of Spain)? No, because there isn't one.
The only thing you've proven is:
You cannot abide by your own consensus and you recant on your own word. Having accepted State at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community), now you say it is not correct.
Because of your intransigent position, you oppose NPOV (i.e. diversity of opinions) to impose your own POV (i.e. national sentiment).
Please Maurice, let's take a break. Perhaps tomorrow you will review all the arguments we've presented so that you can rethink things over. Nobody argues against country. State is also fine. Both are fine. Both verifiable. Both correct. Do you get it now?
Cheers,
--the Dúnadan23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... Quit that demagogy with me. It just doesn't work. If, like you say, I do mix apples with oranges, well in your case, you are unable to see and accept the big watermelon.
Again, quit insulting me ("your intransigent position"). I ask you again to reconsider the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith urgently.
I don't have again to point you the guideline that says that in the content of the articles one should avoid using the word State' because ALL the featured articles about countries use the word country or nation.
let's see the definitions in the very first line here in wikipedia:
Country: In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government.
Nation: A nation is a defined cultural and social community. Inasmuch as most members never meet each other, yet feel a common bond, it may be considered an imagined community.
State: A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area.[...] the word is often used in a strict sense to refer only to modern political systems.
In casual usage, the terms "country," "nation," and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished: (and I love strictness as wikipedia demands)
Country denotes a geographical area. It suits perfectly 100% to the article
Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, origins, and history. However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law. It does not suit perfectly to the article.
State refers to the set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory. It does not suit at all in a strict usage
So I, as an editor, choose to use the word with a more common usage, a more suitable use in strict usage, with 0% ambiguity and the more common in international use.
Meanwhile, Dunadan choose the word with no usage at all in wikipedia to describe a country/nation, no suitability at all in a strict usage and with 100% ambiguity.
And that's not all, he keeps using as reference the Spanish Constitution usage of the word State, negliging that the template affects other countries like France, Italy and Andorra which, and that's sad, couldn't care less about how and why spaniards prefer the ambiguity of the word "state" to define their country. (nationalisms, regionalisms).
Again, in good faith, I have explained my point, I have given examples of the common usage in wikipedia, I have explained the reasons to choose "country" and not to choose "state" and a majority of users have expressed to be ok with my point.
I understand the concerns from both parts in this discussion. It is true that these terms have several possible usages and different people may have different preferences regarding how to use them. However, in this particular article the term country it is mainly used in the geographical, not political, sense (as long as the Catalan Countries are defined as a linguistical domain, not as a political entity). That's why I think the compromise solution proposed by Mountolive is very good: we keep the usage of country in the list of Andorra, Spain, France and Italy as Maurice likes, and we keep before "sovereign states" in Dunadan's style to make clear that they are not countries in the sense of Catalan Countries. Maybe in this way everybody can be happy, don't you think? ;) --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice,
You continue to be intransigent in your position, and it is you who negliges [sic, whatever that means], the arguments of other well-intentioned users, as well as contradicting your own word and compromised position when you accepted the word "State" in a previous discussion. You yourself use derogatory comments like "Dúndan... staring an [...] egocentric little war" (and this is one of your "mild" statements) but then you pretend to "assume good faith", and demand others to treat you with utmost respect. Enough said about that.
You continue to compare apples to oranges. You bring articles of countries and guidelines of naming conventions. Yet, this is not an article of a "country" (in the sense, of course, in English, of a sovereign-state), but of a concept. Therefore, and to avoid confusion it is necessary to use the word "State", especially when the concept is called "Catalan Countries". Is Spain a Catalan country? No, it is a sovereign State that contains a territory that is included in the concept known as Catalan Countries. Crystal clear. In your insistence -and your personal dislike of the term, as you yourself said at Talk: Madrid (autonomous community)- you are actually bringing more confusion to the reader my mixing two valid connotations. English speakers, like myself, know perfectly well that State can also mean country or nation. And the dictionaries agree. Enough said about that.
You cannot cite Wikipedia to define terms. I've cited dictionaries that define terms. And the Spanish constitution. But it surprises me, that you, being French, or at least, fluent in French, are implying that the French do not use the word État to refer to the entire country. They do, and very much so, probably more than Spanish-speaking people do in Spain, even in the French constitution. [As a side note, the Italian constitution also uses the word Stato to refer to Italy].
You continue to ignore that you are not the "majority of users". Mountolive also expressed that both words are synonymous and accepted a compromise. (Kudos to Mountolive!) Cnoguera also agreed with the compromise. Therefore, you [alone] are not the majority.
The truth is that, as you've pointed out in countless debates, you dislike the term Estado, because of your political preferences and the purported connotation it carries, and oppose its inclusion not in the title, not in articles about countries, but in any paragraph whatsoever, especially those related to Catalonia. As I've proven, there is nothing wrong with the word, in English. Moreover, it brings diversity and NPOV.
Cheers,
--the Dúnadan 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
todo lo que viene aqui de Cataluña es falso, Cataluña no es un pais, es una región de España y no hay mas que hablar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.179.175 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you changed the name of the article (here and here) in about 48 hours. Be warned that next time you decide to make that article name move without consensus and without following the guidelines for controversial moves explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves you will be reported. May this message and the one I will copy at your talk-page be the proof that you were warned of this disruptive behaviour of yours. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, can you both show me where's the consensus? The Dúnadan precissely noted you both were pushing an intransigent POV. You and Mountolive have moved the page without reached a consensus with The Dúnadan, so I've restored it to the stage before of the debate. So you shoud request the move first according Wikipedia:Requested moves, not me. A subject turned into controversial by you both it should to make a request on talk page. Cheers, Mauricio. --Joanot Martorell✉22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not touching that move tab! But I do think the article would be better at Països Catalans rather than Catalan Countries. I think this is a classic example where we shouldn't translate what is a precise term in a foreign language (here, Catalan) into an imprecise term in English. The translation is accurate, of course, but it still loses meaning. Països Catalans means something more than just "Catalan-speaking regions", as you can see if you try to translate it into other languages: Países Catalanes is understandable in Spanish, but países catalanes would be meaningless; Pays Catalans is a good translation in French, but pays catalans refers to what many or most Catalans would call Catalunya Nord. We would never dream of translating Generalitat into English, nor do we translate Francophonie: why should we insist on translating the term Països Catalans? Physchim62(talk)01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the banning attitude of Mountolive and Mauricio, the page is now blocked. I've argued my editings here, but you both preferred not to discuss. Here is one more source about "Catalan Countries" term:
"The Catalan countries project (1931-1939)"
Arnau González Vilalta
In the evolution of Catalan nationalism, as much politician as cultural, the period of II Spanish Republic (1931-1939) was essential. The obtaining of the Statute of Autonomy (1931-1932) supposed the beginning of a stage of expansion in multiple aspects. One of them were the contacts with the Catalanists nuclei of the rest of the cultural space of Catalan language in which, at that time, it would begin to call Catalan Countries (Balearic Islands, Valencian Country, Andorra, Rosselló, to l'Alguer). On Those Collaborations between cultural organizations, political and particular parties Catalonia always will be the model to follow. The Increasing connections will be visualized on press, as well as on cultural celebrations, policy of parties and Constituent Courts. This evolution will be cut by the Franco victory in the Civil War in 1939.
If you don't know, "Catalan Sea" (also called sometimes as "Balearic Sea" if it reaches to Minorca) is one of the "minor seas" of the Mediterranean, such the "Alborán Sea". The image map is correct, and Maurice used it to change the name to Pyrynées-Orientales for the "Northern Catalonia" pushing his very personal POV. --Joanot Martorell✉09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your reason to keep that "Catalan Sea" name, when the Balearic Sea is recognised by the International Hydrographic Organization (Catalan Sea isn't), or when Mediterranean sea is the logical option? Aren't you the one pushing your very personal POV? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given any source. The Spanish High Council on Scientific Research (CSIC) also uses the name of Catalan Sea. It's not personal anyway. It's also used by the Journal of Marine Systems. The Balearic Sea is a subsea inside of Catalan Sea, where only surrounds the Balearic Islands. The only personal thing here is your map changed with a lot of mistakens, such changing "Northern Catalonia" to "Pyrynées-Orientales".
I already said that you may be very well the Pope of Rome and you may have studied for decades marine geology. WE DON'T CARE! This is the ENGLISH wikipedia and so, YOU MUST use english Martorell, you keep lying, claiming false information and bringing links which just don't take us where or to what you claim.
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) for sure is part of the United nations on the contrary to what you claim. Let's talk about them:
"1.The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission established by resolution 2.31 adopted by the General Conference of Unesco (that's part of the UN) at its eleventh session, and in conformity with the recommenda tion of the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanic Research (Copenhagen 11- 16 July 1960) met for its first session in Paris at Unesco Headquarters from 19 to 27 October 1961" [4]
"2.By the end of the session, a total of 40 States had become members of the Commission. These are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, India, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet-Nam. [5]
3.Representatives and observers of the following intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations also attended the session: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Health Organization (WHO), Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), International Association of Physical Oceanography (IAPO), International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), Special Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), Permanent Association of Navigational Congresses. International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission." [6]
You may find its statutes here and its Rules of Procedures here.
Notice that the biggest Unions, Comittees, Asociations, Bureaux and Coucils related to Geodesy, Meteorology, Oceanography are present in this commision and that Spain (the country in which this Sea is "located" (international waters included) and that USA and UK (the most relevant english speaking countries in the world) are also members.
This said, this gentlemen decided that this sea in question, was to be named in ENGLISH Balearic Sea (Balear Sea, Iberian Sea)[7] with the following codes:
28 (c) using IHO 23-3rd: Limits of Oceans and Seas, Special Publication 23, 3rd Edition 1953, published by the International Hydrographic Organization. [A preliminary revision of SP 23, dated 1986, is widely cited on Internet websites.
B9 using ACIC M 49-1: Chart of Limits of Seas and Oceans, revised January 1958, published by the Aeronautical Chart and Information Center (ACIC), United States Air Force; note - ACIC is now part of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA).
8J using DIAM 65-18: Geopolitical Data Elements and Related Features, Data Standard No. 4, Defense Intelligence Agency Manual 65-18, December 1994, published by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
So, my dear martorell, let us IGNORE your original research of marine geology and let us IGNORE your lot of scientific literature about the Catalan Sea. Even if you are the Pope of Rome, here in wikipedia, we love references, we love facts and above all, we love the truth.
And the truth is, that in english, that sea is called Balearic Sea.
You use as references google scholars and other institutes which are either:
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"
The following convention on geographic names represents what Wikipedia actually does, and reflects lengthy discussion on the talk page. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it.
This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government.
In general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
Please remember that Google Scholar and Google Books are largely random selections out of the whole corpus of English writing. If the results could easily have arisen by chance (for example, if there are only half-a-dozen or so valid hits on all the alternatives combined), this is not a good indicator of widespread English usage.
Notice that a search in google scholars for Mediterranean Sea shows 408,000 results.
There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. So, Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority
And how does the "linguistic majority" reach a consensus? Pacta sunt servanda ("pacts must be respected"). International treaties under the International Law are there to guide us all, my dear Martorell. Not just "per què te es passis pel forro dels collons" (to ignore them). If they are signed, you, as an individual, must RESPECT THEM.
And the most known supranational organization, the UN, did a treaty on the sea naming matter. Let us please ignore if you believe that a reference from 50's and 60's "really needs an update". As far as I'm concerned, a law or a treaty does not have a date of lapsing. If the treaty is effective to this date, you must accept it, because it is an International agreement.
International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
So, my reference here above is far more respectable than your "google scholars" which can/may fail reach NPOV (if only in the naming). An International Agreement will NEVER.
United Nations view on the importance of Hydrography.[8] (Location: Home > Background)
On 23 December 2003 (that's not from the 50's and 60's anymore, right?), the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/58/240 on Oceans and Law of the Sea that dealt, in large part, with safety of navigation. In this resolution, the General Assembly:
Welcomes the work of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and its 14 Regional Hydrographic Commissions and encourages increased membership of the IHO by States, noting that organization’s capacity to provide technical assistance, facilitate training and identify potential funding sources for development or improvement of hydrographic services; and calls upon States and agencies to support the IHO trust fund and examine the possibility of partnerships with the private sector;
Invites IHO and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to continue efforts and to jointly adopt measures with a view to encouraging greater international cooperation and coordination for the transition to electronic nautical charts; and to increase the coverage of hydrographic information on a global basis, especially in areas of international navigation and ports and where there are vulnerable or protected marine areas;
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) (which you fail to accept, even if the International community does), and which is encouraged by the U.N, does have a publication section inside their site [9] (go to Home > Publications > IHO Download Section), and how funny, it has charts in it (Special Publications > Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953). Sheet maps 1, 2 and 3). Click on "Sheet 2" [10]. Again, you will see that it clearly states Balearic (Iberian) Sea. Even more, "your" subdivision of this sea as "Catalan Sea" is not even accepted nor mentioned.
Now, while you recover your breath, take a little advice. Inform yourself and read carefully the references you bring. You must be prepared to bite the dust when playing with the big boys.
I've just protected the article against editing and moving it. This is to give it a chilling effect. Can we start with the page move first? Is there someone who can point me to a consensus to keep it at "Països Catalans"? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, after having spent so many hours in this talk page just months ago, I dont have the stamina to go over the very same reasons once again just because one guy came with the same old POV. If again a plurality of users proved here their point for this article to be named Països Catalans, who would assure them that next time a Catalan nationalist comes with a different idea they wont be having to go through all the fuzz again? So, what is the point in discussing for days, then?
Anyway, if you are willing to, the reasons of a series of users including myself are in this talk page already. Just look at the first sections and you'll see a huge discussion split in no less than three different sections, more or less consecutive.
As for now, I can't see the point nor I have the energy to engage in that hell again. There's no bloody reason for so doing if nobody is going to protect whatever the results anyway, like it just has happened this time.
Is it a democratic votation about wich POV should show in the article? According to WP:V you should give some kind of external source supporting somewhat "Països Catalans has no exonym in English". I understand that "non-existent" things can't be verified, but since I've given several sources that shows in English the name of "Catalan Countries", thisdemocratic sort of POV is not acceptable. But as it dislikes so you say it is not "reliable" for you, but, again, you are not giving any external reference or sources supporting this lack of trust claimed by you. Instead of it, you ban edits of mine at the very first chance.
Don't say "honestly" because you aren't being honest, Mountolive. Your attitude (together with User:Maurice27), again, and again, mainly from Valencian Community article is banning all editings from Catalan-speaker users, since a lot, many lot of times. There are also a very HUGHE debates in Valencian Community, but it never was taken care by you. You also go ahead pushing you ideological POV in all Valencian and Catalan related articles. --Joanot Martorell✉23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) PD: Sorry because of my bad English.[reply]
Mountolive, if you feel you are getting exhausted and that you'd only be repeating your arguments then please relax and let others discuss the issue.
Joanot, I am sure if you refrain from personalizing the debate things would become much more easier to be sorted out. Comment on content and not on contributors please.
It's is quite a long text to read, but here it goes... (link 1 and link 2). I consider it is really necessary to fully read both links in order to get an idea of the controversy.
At the end of link 2 section, we can read:
"But please note that I am not trying to convince you to rename the article back to Catalan Countries (I did not start this thread of discussion) so please let's end this discussion. As long as the article is truly NPOV, I'm happy with the compromise. --the Dúnadan 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)"
"Cool, if you don't want to change the name then we have consensus.[...]Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)"
May this be the proof that user Martorell lies accusing Mountolive and myself of defending this article to stay as "Països Catalans" without a consensus being reached in the past. His only point to support this move (Not having reached a consensus) is false.
I quote him:
"It's a restoration of the name used until this user and User:Mountolive turned it into controversial. But both they moved the page, altough a consensus was not reached about the title page. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)"
The move (the renaming to "Països Catalans") was proposed on the talk page.
The move was dicussed for a long time and by many users.
Both "sides" brought references
Both "sides" finally reached a consensus in naming the article as "Països Catalans" (as proven by the above link on the talk page)
In my humble opinion, Martorell's attitude towards other editors in wikipedia is becoming dangerous. Not only he doesn't follow wikipedia guidelines before making a major change in an article, but he even lies to the admins accusing other editors with falsities. A consensus was reached!. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I insist that it didn't reached a consensus, since three of users from one side (and now me, the fourth), expressed their disappointing (again and again). Wich was the reaction from them both? Not to discuss, and adopt an intransigent POV. I've seen the references given by them supporting leaving it as "Països Catalans". But, again, it's only opinion and primary research aboust linguistics, politics and the gender of angels or whatever. There isn't discussing about the usage of "Catalan Country", they only make opinions about if it's applicable or not according to their personal opinions when it's shouldnt be accepted according to WP:NOR.
The only thing that should be taken in care is about the usage of the term to refer to Catalan Countries in English. New references were given, my editings were explained here without any response from the M&M tandem, but wich was the reaction from them? Do not discuss, do not want to assume good faith, and revert-banning my editions (and from any Catalan-speaker wipikedian). And if it isn't enough yet, I've asked for the consensus, and altough they would be able to show me where is it, as they are doing with you, Faissal, they preferred not to say anything and force it into a loud-crying to admins, to make me the troll-beast apparently. They make conflict interessedly. They are not honest, they are pushing a sectarian POV.
A exemple of it, Mauricio changed the image map of the Catalan Countries, in order of the followin reasons:
He dislikes that it appears "Catalan Sea", altough it's correct. It's one of the sub-seas of the Mediterranean.
He dislikes that Northern Catalonia is captioned instead of the name of Pyrynées-Orientales. The latter is not correct because Northern Catalonia doesn't not include the Occitan comarca of Fenolleda and, so, it's not the same borders of the French department. Altough of it, it's about the Catalan Countries, and names used by Catalan-speakers should be focused in this article.
He dislikes the form of "Valencian Country" that is being used by Catalan-speakers (as the title from Catalan Wikipedia is ca:País Valencià) and, specially, from those people that assumes the conception of Catalan Countries. It's backed by he latter external reference given above by me, "The Catalan Country project" also uses "Valencian Country" form in English.
But M&M also revert these edits, instead reverting only editings related to the subject under dispute, about the term of "Catalan Country". Consensus are not binding-POVS. And neither are should used to ban other users to provide new references and new improvements. And neither to bring incorrect and biaised information. It should be used to engage discussion and not to make fake victimism. --Joanot Martorell✉13:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology: Please bear with me... I've had a very busy day in real-life. I promise to deal with this before the end of the week-end. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about your time. This problem exists from more than two years, so if you answer one or two weeks more later there's no problem. At least for me. --Joanot Martorell✉11:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intervention here has been purely administrative and I'd have no reason to make it otherwise. For this reason, I'd urge the parties to follow one of the following non-binding ways to sort the move issue out:
keep discussing while avoiding personalization of the issue;
request a third party opinion. You've been heavily involved and there are less chances that you'd reach a compromise if you abstain from presenting this case to third and neutral opinions. I've read through the old and recent discussions but I prefer not to state my view since it would be just one more view instead of many --unless you'd ask for it of course;
Dont get me wrong (in written, things tend to sound a bit over-the-top, but that is not my intention). There's so much more you can do for this article than just blocking it in a particular version (which isnt the one gathering the most consensus at this point) and remind people over here a few guidelines.
You may see it differently, but I think you could also
refer this article yourself to people who could help us, rather than relying in ourselves doing it (not the least because, as an admin. you are supposed to know wikipedia's corridors better)
unblock the current disputed version, which, regardless of the commendable good intentions, it's becoming endorsed by the sole fact of being the one displayed, whether we like it or not. Blocking is the easiest part, but if you really want to help to solve this once for all, you will have to invest time here and get mud in your hands yourself or, alternatively, get someone willing to. Otherwise, you will only bring partial justice here, which, sometimes, is the biggest of the injustices MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF, I support Mountolive's opinion. You could be of great help. I would also ask you to present us your opinion (even if it's only one more, it could help if we ask for mediation later). The problems in the article argued by Martorell had been discussed for years and until he arrived a week ago, the article had been quite stable for months. We are not talking about a multiple users discussion, but about one user wanting to bypass the consensus reached by all in order to get his own POV reflected in the article by force, resulting in the article being protected to other peaceful editors. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to assist all the parties in reaching a compromise. For a start, the protection of the article is meant to reach that goal. Leaving it unprotected would only have led to blocking users edit warring and that would include most of the users editing lately. Note that some other administrators would have applied the no entitlement rule instead. Because of those two main reasons I am not willing to un-protect the page until I see some kind of assurance that you are ready for a stable solution.
Policy
even if there were some consensus, the policy states that consensus can change;
My notes as an administrator
Martorrel original move edit is within policy. Please refer to the chart at the right. I'd still —as this is a collaborative project— not agree with the way Martorrel did it (etiquette - just a minute after a 3 line comment at the talk page) but we can never assert it has violated any policy. However, his second page move with the content reverts before it were very disruptive. Marking his edits here and here as minor are very misleading as well. The rest of edit warring by all of you is disruptive as well. I preferred protection of the article (to encourage discussions) than sanctioning or warning users because that would just be unhelpful;
My protection is within policy. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus.
My opinion
I fail to see a previous clear consensus per se. What I have seen is a kind of non-interest in going on with discussions as there has been some calm reigning over discussions for a couple of months. But that is only my opinion;
Most editors —if not all— agree that the article refers to a concept and that it doesn't have any legal entity. I haven't noted any objection to that so far. In my opinion, if that is a 100% fact then edit warring over the title is just lame.
Article titles serve for one purpose (not many)... They serve to help english readers to easily recognize articles or find what they are looking for... Not all english readers know that the Spanish language name is 'Castellano' or 'Castilian' but most readers know that it is called 'Spanish langauge'. Note that this is not merely my opinion but that is written in Wikipedia:Naming conventions which is not a guideline anymore. I am including it here and not at the policy section above because it is still something relative (an example is Perestroika);
Now, let's see how to move this forward:
The article gets back to its stable version before the page move by Martorrel (that goes with the flowchart above) and come here seek a compormise (an RfC could help though you have to mediatise it to get as many editors as possible to participate);
I have doubts that a compromise would be reached at this page so I'd suggest you go for the 3O. It is very easy to find third party and neutral users —WikiProjects such as Europe, Politics, Spain, Catalonia, Countries, etc... You can cross-post a call for third parties opinions,
If that doesn't work, try the mediation. People there are very skilful and may help you overcome your status-quo. Make sure that no arbitration would help you since ArbCom cannot rule on content. However, they may just sanction rules' violators and refer the case to a WikiProject (seen the case of the Ireland-related naming case?) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal of FayssalF because I'm tired to meet always M&M in all the disputes related to Catalan Countries articles (such as Valencian Community, Valencian, and etcetera), and because of the intransigent POV of both them forces these articles to become controversial artificially. As they are very persistent users, they meet every moment with different other Catalan-speaker users with another POV who finally decide not to continue struggling (like User:Dúnadan, User:Casaforra, User:espencat, User:Xtv, myself, and some others users more). I'm not personalizing, I'm telling a fact. Since these disputes exist, the list of members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries stopped increasing since June 2008. So, for me, a third party opinion could bring new airs, and it would be very fine.
One thing to add about the Catalan Countries concept. This is not illegal. In the constitution of the Institut d'Estudis Catalans there exists in Spanish laws a decree that explains this entity covers an area called concretely as "Países Catalanes", in Spanish. Obviously, this refers to a cultural concept, but not to politics.
And finally, if I only could give few lines to the talk page it's because my skillness of English language is not good enough and I can't contribute such as native or advanced English-speaker. And in adding to this handicap for me, as this is very hard to work because of disruptions, lack of respect and intransigent POV (such the Spanish Inquisition), I can't contribute so well. Altough of it, there were several users with very good usage of English, and they finally decided not to contribute anymore because of M&M sectarian struggling. --Joanot Martorell✉07:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments seem interesting, but those are tasks that Martorell has to undertake by himself if he is decided in changing the name of the article and the map, as he is the one who unilaterally changed them. If we are to be fair, the article should be taken back to the previous version before Martorell changed it and then, it is his job to follow all these necessary steps you explained to us in order to reach a new consensus.
IMHO, a consensus was already reached, probably not a "clear consensus per se", but the editors reached an understanding which led to the longer period of stability of this article until Martorell arrived.
Now, make no mistakes, I really appreciate your good intentions in this mediation but I would like you to undertand my point. I will try to explain myself:
You are "making clear" that it is now Mountolive or myself duty to look for third party opinions, mediators etc.. if wanting to change the version back to what it was before. Martorell is not going to move a single finger as the version now portrayed is the one he made.
Now, let's imagine that none of us 3 participate in this "new consensus"... In some days/weeks time some admin will presumably unblock the article. Since Martorell attitude (even if not technically breaking any guideline, hasn't strictly followed etiquette and was "very disruptive" (your words Fayssall)), hasn't been "penalized" or warned, what prevents me to act in the same way changing the name again?
What moral right could an admin have to prevent me in doing so?
I just want you to understand that the logical thing to do is to get back to the previous version, and then, Martorell is the one who will have to look for third opinions and mediations in those wikiprojects, just as Moutolive did in the past when he asked to rename the article to "països catalans" in the talk-page. Why are we allowing to Martorell to act differently now?
This article is taged in the talk page as "controversial". the tag reads: This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
So, resuming, Martorell bypasses all guidelines and makes a mayor change in this article like changing it's name without following the steps described by the tag. He commits a 3RR imposing his change when reverted. He escapes unwarned and unblocked. And now, you ask us to follow those guidelines and steps that Martorell didn't in order to get the old version? Excuse me Fayssal, but I sincerely found this terribly unfair.
In fact, that is exactly what I explicitly said. Please refer to my the first point in the [Now, let's see how to move this forward] section above. I've just been waiting for the parties' comments and have their opinions so we won't have this kind of problem again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry, I missed that very and important line. If the article gets back to the previous version and if is Martorell's duty to start a third opinion debate, I won't have any problem. I support you on this fayssal. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks to everyone for all this calm discussion. I hope you work out your differences as discussed above. Please feel free to involve me anytime you need help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Exclusion of Aragon and other parts of the former Kingdom of Aragon.
Because of the language. Aragonese (other than those living in the adjacent areas to Catalonia) do not speak Catalan, while the Catalan nationalist movement is certainly based on the language. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On "crusades"
After this bold edit and its surprising summary, I would like to make some general comments:
This article has a very long history. It is the result of the collaborative effort of many editors with different perspectives on the matter that managed, through a very long discussion as witnessed by this talk page and its archives, to reach a solid consensus. This makes it probably a nice example of the outcomes of neutral point of view policies (see WP:NPOV).
Consensus is not immutable. Any article may always be further improved and any consensus further revised (more details at Wikipedia:Consensus). Nevertheless, prudence dictates a careful approach to an article which bears such a long history of discussion and consensus with it. Bold constructive edits should be always welcome (see Wikipedia:Be bold), but when they find some reasonable opposition one should open a discussion rather than engaging in an edit war.
And, about this particular series of bold edits, I want to make the following points:
The definition in this source refers to the territories where Catalan is nowadays spoken. So, why should we write this definition in the past ("territories where it WAS spoken")?
The extension of the concept to the whole political entities where Catalan has some official status was already explicitly explained in the lead paragraph. This addition is clearly redundant.
The hints to the associated political controversy are already developed in extenso in a subsequent section of the article. The lead should stay at the general level, as polisemy and further details on each particular meaning are discusssed afterwards.
It'll be pretty hard for you to disagree with your alter ego/comrade Cnoguera. Anyway, I've said like a million times I'm not willing to discuss (ATTENTION: METAPHOR INCOMING) Creationism with creationists. If you want to try whether you're lucky enough to get your propaganda here, just call an administrator and I'll state my arguments. --Taraborn (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Maurice. If Taraborn's point is so unstoppable, then discussing it should not be a problem, because truth, in the end, prevails (well, oughtta...). So far, he has to still realise about how wikipedia works. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attesting some objective points
The writing of this article is not exactly neutral, but lightly biased against the concept it discusses. It emphasizes the conflictive aspects of the question, as if there were not a mass behind it. –and there is. It even seems to imply that the political concept of the Catalan Countries unilaterally stems from Catalonia proper to (or against) the other Catalan-speaking regions. This is not true, because:
a) the political concept of the Catalan Countries has and has always had proponents from (and inside) every one of the territories concerned. As an average it is more present outside Catalonia proper than inside it. In particular, the autonomous institutions of Catalonia proper, alongside the leading political parties there, are not supporters of the Catalan Countries at all, and usually have a penchant to ignore the rest of the Catalan-speaking territories –in fact, all those parties, from the instauration of the new Spanish regime on, abruptly broke with their already timid concept of the Catalan Countries (or with the Catalan Countries altogether) and have silently repressed it (not to tell promoted it) since then.
b) the political concept of the Catalan Countries has always been a national concept which seeks plain equality for all the parts within. By the way, what we may call “Pancatalanism” (or patriotism of the Catalan Countries) has always been a democratic, progressive and modernizing movement –as Catalanism in general--, not a reactionary or authoritarian one. At any rate, as the community of (the same) language and culture in a compact territory with the same historical origins and a deep socioeconomic interrelation is the objective basis of the argued nation, it is difficult to discern which kind of “dominance” could any of the parts exert over the others.
Therefore, one may accept the political concept of the Catalan Countries or else refuse it –but to treat it as being, so to say, “imperialist”, is just a crude distortion of real facts, both historically and nowadays. As a matter of fact, both in Catalonia proper as elsewhere in the Catalan Countries, there are those who accuse Catalan Countries of being an “imperialist” moneuvre from Catalonia proper, but they are simply lying (often consciously) –they are not usually “defenders” of these or those regional peculiarities (against a presumptive “Catalan imperialism”), but typically hardcore Spanish nationalists who also refuse the Catalan language and culture as being an “imposition” in the very same territory of this language and culture.
One last thing. The citation from a Catalan writer dubbing “inconvenient” the concept of Catalan Countries and “attesting” it (is it not an opinion?) counter-productive, is out of context as it tends to suggest to the reader this must be a usual opinion “even” in many Catalan intellectuals. In reality it is the personal opinion of Valentí Puig, a right-wing ultraliberal which is little representative of Catalan intelligentsia, as he is more sympathetic to anti-Catalan Spaniolism than to any kind of autochthonous national identification.
I insist: I'm no trying to convince nobody on the existence of the Catalan Countries as a nation, or not --I'm just trying to clarify some objective points, precisely in the name of "neutrality".
--Joan Rocaguinard (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe it is not exactly neutral, I don't know, but I can assure that it is the result of several years of discussion by people coming from quite different points of view and there is a strong consensus for the current version. However, as said above, no consensus is immutable. So if you feel that the article needs a further improvement you should better make yourself precise about exactly which parts of the text you think should be changed, how should they read and why. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll study that and maybe try to make calibrated proposes. Anyway, the mean point would be to clearly state that:
the controversy about the Catalan Countries has nothing to do with tensions between territories, but moves around national projects (that’s the core of the question). It’s the usual kind of problems which arise in every argued nation without a state, for instance with people defending the own language, culture, etc., of this territory, and members of the same community referring all their fidelity to the State-sponsored language, culture and national feeling, etc.
the political concept of the Catalan Countries as being a nation has nothing to do with any “attempt by a Catalonia proper centered nationalism to lay a hegemonic claim” to the rest of Catalan speaking territories, because: a) the concept is not sponsored “by Catalonia proper”, but by private supporters which goal is the national unity of all the territories, not the hegemony of anyone of them; b) there are supporters of the Catalan Countries all through the territory (and not mainly in Catalonia proper) ; c) there is not, neither has been, any kind of official support to the political conception of the Catalan Countries coming from the governing institutions of Catalonia proper, neither from its leading parties.
For instance, it is an error to say: “This confrontation between politicians from Catalonia and Valencia very much diminished in severity during the course of the late 1980s (...)”. That's simply not true: the confrontation was inside the Valencian Country –the politicians from Catalonia proper were looking other way.
Those cited are the mean points I should like to see reflected in the article, though I’m not prepared in this precise moment to propose a concret rewriting.
I am interested to hear whatever proposals you may have. This article would benefit from fresh air by other users. Maybe Taraborn will come back with a different approach and you seem the type with whom one can discuss things in a civil way.
The only thing I ask you please is that, whatever changes you may want to have in the text, please implement them incrementally, illustrating them as good as possible here at the talk page, and then, if they make it, bring them to the main text. This is so much better than including a few different things all at once (like sometimes users have tried, and failed to). That way the discussion can be kept both focused and productive.
As Cnoguera said, this is not by any means the kind of article which no one cared about until the most recent user came to find it (if the concept itself enjoyed even half popularity as its wikipedia article, many would be just happy). The current wording is not a random one, but, actually, the result of quite intrincated (ok, nasty sometimes) discussions. Welcome. MOUNTOLIVEfedeli alla linea00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"map" of the so-called Catalan Countries
The article states that the concept refers to the territories where Catalan is spoken, whereas the map shows places where that language has never been spoken. Someone should correct this. --Belchman (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers to this possible wider usage of the expression in this paragraph of the lead: "The Països Catalans do not have any legal entity nor is there any universal territorial definition of the scope covered by this concept. It may refer strictly to the territories in which the different varieties of Catalan are traditionally spoken, or it may be extended to the entire political entities in which Catalan has some official status, in spite of the fact that those entities include areas where Catalan is not spoken (the map to the right covers this latter usage)." --Carles Noguera (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
