Talk:Catalan Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


It's an interesting fact that the Catalan Wikipedia was the second to be created. Why was this? Was there some enthusiastic Catalan user involved in the early days of the English Wikipedia who put forward the idea? Everything from the early days seems to suggest that Wikipedia was never really conceived as a multilingual, international project (e.g., use of the US flag as the original logo, locating the English Wikipedia at while the other editions got language-specific subdomains, etc.), so I'd be very interested to know why it was Catalan specifically that changed this. I would have expected German or perhaps French or Japanese to have been the second language (those three were all created very early, but after Catalan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Just thought of the fact that the Wikipedia subdomains are language-centered, not nation-centered. Thus there is no, no And the has nothing to do with Canada. Maybe this was just a test when trying out the subdomain system back in 2001? With Wikipedia being a US invention, Canada is more present in a US mind than many other over-seas countries... Just my two (Euro)cents--Paracel63 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

German Wikipedia claims to be the second to be created, also in March 2001. French Wikipedia appeared in March 2001. I don't know how to unearth the history of Wikipedia, but were several languages created at once?--Omassey 08:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put the day of the first article, this could taked as the creating date of Catalan Wikipedia. German must search the first article's day and then we will see which the second Wikipedia is. German one takes a date of a message written by Jimbo as the date of German Wikipedia creation but that's not trustworthy for me. -- 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

catalan wikipedia[edit]

The debate of the second wikipedia is also held in catalan and german one, it depends on what do you think it's creation. I f you think it's having the main page and some other article, then the catalan is the second one. The relevance of this article comes from that fact and also for the importancie of wikiepdia amongst catalan comunitiy, there are several external fonts taht prove it

comments on its bias[edit]

User Dúnadan removed this whole section:

Catalan wikipedia arguably has a bias favouring Catalan nationalism and editors with opposed or more neutral views regarding some of the core topics of Catalan nationalism may be speedily disregarded by the consensus of an outnumbering majority with a nationalist bias. As an example, an article which reached the status of "quality article" disregards the official and most extended name for a territory while favours the nationalist version of it [1]
If it's the Catalan Wikipedia, why should they need to allow Spanish opinion. The so-called nationalist view is usually the real one (they know themselves better than anyone), but the information that reaches the rest of the world is what the Spanish say about Catalonia and the Catalan Countries. For example. Catalonia can be defined as a nation? Of course. Please read the Nation article.

While I have no problems in admitting the tone of this excerpt is less encyclopedic than desirable (it's called flexibility, you know?) however, I think all folks familiar with it (and user Dúnadan too) know very well by experience that the idea behind this is not so crazy, is it? I would salute a more encyclopedical redaction on the topic from any user, finding a suitable way to insert this comment in the article.

It's a tricky question, for, on the one side, Catalan wikipedia is in some topics a territory where only eagles dare (call me an owl, then) On the other side, I have no doubts that the Breton wiki, Basque wiki, Welsh wiki and so on (the self appointed "nations without state" pack) all of them have a serious nationalist bias and Catalan one shouldnt be the only one noted for this, it wouldnt be that fair...

I would like to hear how would you folks introduce the topic in the article or whether, actually, you think that there are the same chances for all points of view in ca. than, for example, in here. • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 10:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The example given it's not really good. Traditionally the officially called "Comunitat Valenciana" has been called "País Valencià" in Catalonia. So, it is normal that this name is given, as in many languages they refer to Republic of China with the name Taiwan.
Let's remark that a symilar paragraph was introduced in Spanish Wikipedia and later removed because the lack of sources. It was just considered an oppinion.
I wouldn't have anything against introducing a well contextualized paragraph refering to this matter. But it shouldn't be something as it was now (Catalan wiki is biased) but something more objective like "Some people, mainily Spanish nationalists and/or anti-Catalan nationalists, who usually don't even speak or understand Catalan, consider Catalan Wikipedia bla bla bla...". Ok, I admit that precisely this might not be the best writting, but something in this fashion...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hey, hey, I speak Catalan (prefer to call it Valencian, if you may ;) and I wouldnt say that I am neither a Spanish nationalist or anti-Catalan nationalist (is there an Anti-Catalan Nation? :O ;) but I do think that there is a strong bias there in when it comes down to some "sensitive" topics.
I dont want to start a discussion here on how Comunitat Valenciana should be translated there (this discussion belongs to, not here) however, an encyclopedia is supposed not to take sides and the best way of so doing is keeping the official political-administrative name conventions. "Comunitat Valenciana" is perfect Catalan, but Catalan wikipedia, in this particular case, ignores the official and standard by choosing the one you say is "traditional" in there, which, surprise-surprise, it's the same one used by Catalan nationalists (by the way, in my opinion, you can hardly call something "traditional" when it has been used for the last, say, 30-40 years, not more -and I mean extensive usage like the one registered these days).
Anyway, Xtv, after all it may or may not be a good idea to introduce the bias subject here: I am not sure myself. If we were to do it by "poniendo la venda antes que la herida" such as "usually anti-catalanists, Spanish nationalists, alcoholics and similar scum" ;) then better leave it as it is or we will start another (yet another!) endless polemics.
My point of view is already expressed in the opening post here, but it is not a strong one, not because I am not sure about it, but because I am aware of the consequences this could have, so dont really bother about this. • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
anti-Catalan nationalist should be readed anti-"Catalan nationalists". You know, C's and this kind of "other kind of" nationlists ;-). Moreover I didn't say "only by", but "mainly", in a kind of paraphrasing your words with "Catalan Countries is used mainly by Catalan nationalists". Not only, but mainly (by the way, as you have seen I already left the discussion after reaching my overflowing point).
I would like to reply your arguments about Comunitat Valenciana, but as you said this is not the place, so, I wait you in :ca if you want to propose the change... even I must admit you won't find a wonderful welcome from many users -not all- and I suppose this is precisely what you want to write in this paragraph (so, if this doesen't convince you and you want just to discuss for fun -I mean as an exchange of arguments-, we can do it also somewhere else XD). But as I said, if we want to introduce it, I think it must be contextualized.
So, if you ever want to open Pandora's box and try to introduce the paragraph, I'll be here waiting for you ;-)--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No tinc collons per passejar-me tot nuet per, de ben segur que hi ha molt de pervertit per allà que de seguida em tiraria al coll :D
No, seriously, I have made some shy attempts there, but I know my limits, I know where I am not a welcome guest and you guys keep me busy enough over here already anyway! :D
If you ever want to say hello out of here, I think I have my email abled, so I guess you can email me from here, but, of course, this invitation will be taken as some sort of conspiracy and it will bring us trouble in the end! :D • Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that hard to understand that something can have a name and an official name? The territory in Comunitat Valenciana is called País Valencià in Catalan. It has always been like this. Comunitat Valenciana is the name of the political administrative division for that territory in the Spanish Kingdom.

On the "Separatist bias" section[edit]

The "Separatist bias" section is a collection of biased sentences without proper references. Let me review them:

The Catalan Wikipedia has been accused repeatedly of presenting a separatist point of view in its information.<ref>ó:Futbol_Club_Barcelona</ref>

This reference makes no sense at all. All Wikipedia pages have a Talk page and many of them discuss whether the corresponding article is neutral or it has a biased point of view. That is precisely the function of the Wikipedia talk pages. Using this logic we can say that all Wikipedias are accused repeatedly of presenting a biased point of view in its information. Without external sources that back this, this article cannot claim that Catalan Wikipedia is being accused of presenting a separatist point of view .

This Wikipedia avoids the relationship of anything coming from Catalonia (municipality, people, organizations...) with Spain, giving the idea that Catalonia is a country in itself.

False and unreferenced.

Contrary to the way of introducing cities and towns by all languages (including Catalan when introducing cities outside Catalonia), Catalan Wikipedia doesn't mention Spain in the text as the country where the Catalan places are in.<ref></ref>

There is no "way of introducing cities and towns by all languages" so this sentence is false, because it implies that Catalan Wikipedia is violating a rule that does not exist.

According to this Wikipedia, famous people and organizations from Catalonia are not Spanish (e.g., Joan Oró,<ref>ó</ref> Josep Comas i Solá,<ref>à</ref> Salvador Dalí,<ref></ref> Joan Miró,<ref>ó</ref> Josep Carreras,<ref></ref> FC Barcelona...).<ref></ref>

None of the articles given as example say that. Furthermore, using Wikipedia as a source for this sentence is a terrible idea, because Wikipedia articles tend to change. Permalinks would still be a bad idea because they would not reflect the current situation for those articles. Without external sources that verify these statements they must be removed from the article --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 17:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's pure OR. We should also remember that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. I'm going to remove that section.--Fauban 08:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are a couple of reliable sources on the levels of Catalan Wikipedia bias which is actually surreal. Probably has no equivalent on any sister projects. The article on Catalonia LEDE literally says it is an independent country.

Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catalan Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)