Revision as of 11:07, 6 November 2017 editSonrisas1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users846 edits →Obstinately reverting corrections← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:48, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,332,616 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 13 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 13 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries}}, {{WikiProject Spain}}, {{WikiProject France}}, {{WikiProject European Microstates}}, {{WikiProject Italy}}, {{WikiProject Geography}}, {{WikiProject Anthropology}}, {{WikiProject Ethnic groups}}, {{WikiProject History}}, {{WikiProject European history}}, {{WikiProject International relati...Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(96 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk page header}} | {{Talk page header}} | ||
{{Controversial-issues}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries|importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Spain|importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject France|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject European Microstates|importance=mid|Andorra=yes|Andorra-importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject History|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject European history|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = 4 | |counter = 4 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Catalan Countries/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Catalan Countries/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Catalan-speaker|class=Start}} | |||
{{WikiProject Spain|class=Start}} | |||
{{WikiProject France|class=Start}} | |||
{{WikiProject European Microstates|class=Start|importance=|Andorra=yes}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Controversial-issues}} | |||
== Tabarnia == | |||
{| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
|- | |||
{{U|Danielhythloday}}, {{U|Beethoven}}, please discuss your issues here, instead of edit-warring and discussing via edit summaries. For what it's worth, I don't think Tabarnia is an appropriate "See also". There is little or no connection between it and the subject of the article. ] (]) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
!align="center"|] | |||
] | |||
:I'm afraid it didn't work, {{U|Scolaire}}. That user with including Tabarnia here, while refusing to give rational argumentation as one can see in his last edit summary... --] (]) 22:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
|- | |||
::No, {{U|Beethoven}}, it didn't work because because ''you'' did not post here saying, "I believe that Tabarnia should not be added because...". Instead you continued to edit-war with him. Next time it happens I will report you both at the ], and you ''will'' be blocked. ] (]) 07:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
|align="center"|] | |||
|- | |||
Well, I was waiting for {{U|Danielhythloday}} to explain us here in Talk page in a rational way why he believes "Tabarnia" should be added on this article. It's not the first time we see IPs or users trying to include "Tabarnia" in different articles related with Catalonia, including this one. Those actions seem more related to vandalism than anything else. I honestly think the least he could do is to expose his arguments, before doing something that had already been reverted months ago. But since this specific user insists with it, I'm going to start exposing why I think there is no connection between Tabarnia and the Catalan Countries. Judging by his edit summaries, I think the issue here is more related with the particular conception he has of the Catalan Countries. And this is something that has already been discussed many times here, but it seems we are going to have to discuss it again: | |||
|align="center"|] | |||
|- | |||
* '''''Catalan Countries''''': the historic term used to designate those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken. The first use of the term dates back to the 19th century, by a Valencian jurist and historian. During the 20th century it became popular, specifically after Valencian writer Joan Fuster works. It's a term used when studying and analyzing linguistics related with Catalan language and its variations. For example on publications like this one: (2017). | |||
|align="center"|] | |||
|- | |||
* '''''Tabarnia''''': it's the name invented by a very small satirical/joke organization against Catalonia's independence, named "Barcelona is not Catalonia", that would want to create a new region inside Catalonia named "Tabarnia". That name was popularized in social networks a few months ago. Not a single political party supports them. At their they don't talk about Catalan Countries, because it's not related with their activity. Among the activity of this peculiar organization, one can see on their website: (until police kicked them) or ... Almost all of their content is related to jokes. | |||
|} | |||
I can't understand how one can make a connection between those two, rather than trying to advertise or popularize the organization activity. --] (]) 14:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
The term "Països Catalans" is a socio-political concept that uses arguments based in linguistic priors to draw a political argument. It is a loaded concept because it uses diacronic linguistic criteria to draw a map with political terminology used with political significance | |||
The term "Països Catalans" is said to be coined by the Spanish jurist ] (born ]) in his work (in Spanish) "Historia del Derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia". (I cant find the place where the phrase is used, and Misplaced Pages references are circular. Can you tell how did he used the term? All versions of Misplaced Pages ] on the man suggests his main contribution was precisely this coinage. oh well.) | |||
Anyway, the concept of "Països Catalans" had almost zero impact in Catalanism, not to mention the Catalan society at large, until 1962, when the essayist Joan Fuster i Ortells published the essay "Nosaltres, els valencians", an essay with no linguistic pretensions. | |||
Now, linguistic arguments, and the maps drawn using such arguments, never use the term "país", "country" or its synonyms to draw linguistic usage maps, because those are nor linguistic concepts. If you take a look at WALS maps, or the Ethnologue maps, or any cartography based on linguistic arguments, you won't see such terminology in use. | |||
So "Països Catalans" is a socio-political construct modernly (1962) built to project the image of a "large Catalan socio-political entity" based only on the maximal extension of the use of Catalan as a mother tongue. | |||
"Tabarnia" is a socio-political construct of a "large Catalan socio-political entity" modernly (2017) created upon the interpretation of the "identity" meaning of a large series of electoral votes in the last 20 years of Catalan elections. | |||
Both "Països Catalans" and "Tabarnia" are ideologically-built sociopolitical concepts; the difference is that "Països Catalans" is a concept used to be taken as a historical entity (which is debatable) and "Tabarnia" is a concept used to be used as a reflection on the utility of such concepts as "Països Catalans". | |||
Another way to put it is that defenders of the "Països Catalans" concept take it as a historically based entity while the advocates of "Tabarnia" says there's so much arguments in favor of the "tabarnia" concept as there is about "Països Catalans". As of today, "Tabarnia" is at least as an important a concept as it is "Països Catalans". So it deserves a "See also". OMG] (]) 18:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
:As best I understand it from reading the ] article and its talk page, the concept of "Tabarnia" is of a political entity juxtaposed with an independent Catalonia. "Tabarnia" is a contiguous area of land within Catalonia, which claims "independence" from Catalonia as Catalonia claims independence from Spain. It uses "Barcelona is not Catalonia" as Catalan independentists use "Catalonia is not Spain". It does not claim linguistic, cultural or political affinity with any other similar area of land, inside or outside Catalonia. Therefore it is not a reflection, negation or parody of the Catalan Countries. In other words, there is no connection between it and the subject of this article. ] (]) 11:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
::You don't fully get it ]: Tabarnia does claim a social, political (and even cultural and economical, as well as geographical) affinity of the territories comprising "Tabarnia" against the rest of Catalonia: they are (so the argument goes) the richest, best educated, more progressive and urbanite part of Catalonia; linguistically they represent those embracing bilinguism against the "Catalan only" or "catalan first" parts of Catalonia; as national identity goes, they identify as a nation with the rest of Spain, etc. Does it builds a solid argument for the independence of Tabarnia? You may well think it doesn't, but (so the argument goes) this is exactly the case with "països Catalans", a term used over and over again since 1965 to "build a nation" out of a concept that results from the mix of political terminology with linguistic criteria. In any case, if you can't see the linkage between both concepts, the defendants of the Tabarnia movement do see it very clearly, and I leave here just a bunch of examples to check it for yourself | |||
::* http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20180214/44779578180/tabarnia-firmas-nombre-plaza-paisos-catalans.htm | |||
::* http://tabarnia.org/web/blog/ | |||
::* http://www.outono.net/elentir/2017/12/29/5-motivos-por-los-que-tabarnia-desquicia-tanto-a-los-separatistas-y-no-solo-a-ellos/ | |||
::* http://www.bcnisnotcat.es/2017/06/la-vanguardia-se-hace-eco-de-nuestro.html | |||
::* http://ramblalibre.com/2017/12/31/elogio-de-tabarnia/ | |||
::* https://www.larazon.es/espana/puigdemont-vs-boadella-choque-de-legitimidades-HB17437365 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::This isn't the first time I've been told I "don't get it", and it's not the first time I've had a whole lot of links to Spanish newspapers/blogs/whatever thrown at me as though my idea of a fun evening is trying to make sense of a Google Translation of a load of propaganda. Yet somehow I've managed to make significant, encyclopaedic edits to at least four Catalan independence-related articles, all of which have stood the test of time, while others continue to edit by adding their POV personal views supported by citations to vaguely-related newspaper opinion pieces, blogs etc. | |||
::::Now, you didn't address my point at all, which was that "Tabarnia" is a ''contiguous'' area of land that is compared to the contiguous area of land that is Catalonia, as opposed to the area of land, the islands, the sovereign state, and the parts of other countries that are the Catalan Countries. When you can show that the Tabarnia movement has designated a number of different areas as {{lang|es|países Españoles}} explicitly as a counterpoint to the {{lang|ca|països Catalans}} (and please have the decency to translate the relevant part into English for me), then I will accept that the one is the counterpart of the other. But seeing as you have failed to do that at ] and ], it's unlikely you can do it here. ] (]) 19:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
Actually, ] "got it" perfectly. His sentence «the concept of "Tabarnia" is of a political entity juxtaposed with an independent Catalonia» is totally correct, as this is how it has been established by the Tabarnia organization. Honestly, I'm having a hard time assuming good faith ], after having read your first sentences. Thus, before addressing the links you shared, I'm going to comment a little on what you said at the beginning, which is just straight propaganda. First, an obvious clarification: there's no way to know how many Catalans "support" Tabarnia, because a survey/study on this has never been done. We can only look at support from political parties resulting from last ]; in this sense, the support for Tabarnia would be 0%, because all Catalan political parties have publicly rejected the Tabarnia idea. There are only 2 political parties that have publicly expressed support for Tabarnia (] and ]), but none of them contested the last Catalan elections. They are practically non-existent parties. It is important to keep this in mind, because everything about Tabarnia comes from the same Tabarnia organization, which is also a very small one. On the other hand, it's important to remember that the territory they created (Tabarnia) doesn't correspond to any social, linguistic, political, cultural, economical or geographical affinity different from the rest of Catalonia. The Tabarnia organization created a territory based exclusively on manipulation of electoral results. This Misplaced Pages compares the Tabarnia region (as defined by the organization) with the Catalan election results. You can clearly see the arbitrariness and artificiality of Tabarnia, which has no uniformity. They include in Tabarnia Catalan regions where there is a clear majority of votes in favor of Catalonia's independence parties. And of course, the vote in favor of unionist parties does not imply that they are in favor of Tabarnia. This is the reason why Tabarnia has been defined as a an attempt at ] (). Now, reviewing what you have commented: no, the territories comprising Tabarnia aren't the richest in Catalonia (Girona and Lleida have higher GDP per capita and EU NUTS 3 regions GDP (PPS) shows Lleida is also higher). No, they are not "best educated" (in fact shows that those supporting Catalonia's independence have a higher level of studies compared with those that are against it). I could continue, but I think you got the point (kinda ironic attributing the "defense of bilingualism to Tabarnia", when the organization promotes monolingualism in Spanish only). | |||
Now, in your comment you also deformed the concept of Catalan Countries like you did in the past. In an attempt to compare "Tabarnia" with the Catalan Countries you literally said: «''Does it builds a solid argument for the independence of Tabarnia? You may well think it doesn't, but (so the argument goes) this is exactly the case with "països Catalans", a term used over and over again since 1965 to "build a nation"''». Catalan Countries defines a linguistic reality, like "Francophonie" does with French. Catalan Countries is not a term designed neither to "build a nation" nor to declare independence from Spain, France and Italy (and eliminate Andorra?). It is a synonym of Catalan-speaking territories. This is exactly how it is defined, for example, at the United States Library of Congress book . And, since I'm a Catalan, I can affirm this is exactly how this is studied in Catalan schools: Catalan Countries as a linguistic area, to analyze Catalan language and its variations depending on the territory. But they do not teach it to us "as a nation" or "project of independence". Simply because it is not this. | |||
==Change name to Catalan-speaking territories or edit Lede to define as ideology/concept== | |||
{{closed rfc top|1=parties agreed can be dealt with another way since lede is main point of discussion }}. | |||
*Rename to Catalan-speaking territories as per ], ],] | |||
Now finally at last, regarding your links... In ] you were already told that none of the links you shared affirm what you say. You also included again the link of the signatories to change the square name. The majority of your links come from blogs or opinion pieces, where they barely mention Catalan Countries (most of them one single time). For example at your "ramblalibre.com" link titled "Praise of Tabarnia", this is literally all they say about Catalan Countries (translated to English): «''Tabarnia is the rational thing in front of the irrationality of the Catalan Countries and that Catalonia that has a cowardly and deliquescent president in Flanders and a party of failures like the CUP''». | |||
*'''Rename/Support''' "Catalan countries" is a highly politicized and controversial name which is used in most English and Spanish language sources as "so-called Catalan countries" - normally referring to Catalan political expansionism. It is highly controversial in most areas it purports to include and its use is avoided even by many Catalan nationalists to avoid alienating its neighbors. As such it is a POV term. I don't think the article should be deleted but title should at least be NPOV. There is no such thing as Catalan countries except as an irredentist political project which is extremely unpopular everywhere outside Catalonia. However, there are territories where Catalan is spoken - this is a reality. The only sources which use it without a qualifier (which implies it is controversial) are those under the orbit of the Catalan independence movement. So rename as per WP:NPOV.] (]) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' - per ]. This fails the simple google-test - "Catalan country"/"Catalan countries" has a hit count of 10-100+ times larger than "Catalan territory" or "Catalan territories" (in normal google, in google books, google news, and scholar). OP is perhaps confused between ] and ]. Note that we refer on-wiki to the sub-parts of the UK as ] (and Scottish attempts of independence have been as contentious in recent past).] (]) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' per ] and ]. Icewhiz hits the nail on the head, just because it offends certain sensitivities does not mean Misplaced Pages should be censored. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
**'''Reply''': Google-count does not address the ] issue. The ] argument is not even worth addressing. Not '''ONE''' credible English-language source uses this term without a qualifier specifically stating it is a POV concept pushed by Catalan nationalists. All sources in Google-count are simply referring to ideology of most extremist Catalan nationalists or directly quoting them. Please find us one single source in the English-language media or academia (by that I mean not from organizations or institutes funded by Catalonia's nationalist/secessionist government) which uses the term without qualifiers or quotation marks, or specifically linking it to Catalan-nationalist ] and I will agree with you. There simply are none. WP:NPOV and ] and evidently, ] ] (]) 08:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*** Some recent use in news - , , , . Again - country and even less so countries does not say an independent state(s). You'll be more persuasive if you can show a COMMONNAME here that is accepted by outside sources - if there is one - I'll be easy to flip.] (]) 09:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
****Ok ] that was a miserably failed attempt at trying to find reliable sources: '''Source 1''' is an interview on Skynews with a pro-independence Catalan woman who is quoted as saying she "would like to live in a Catalan country" (presumably an independent Catalonia), '''Source 2''': is Euronews referring to a campaign in France to rename Rousillon as Pays Catalan ("The Catalan country") '''Source 3''': The only you provided which refers to it as a reality is an opinion piece by activist-journalist Creede Newton on Al Jazeera (questionable at best) '''Source 4''' is a news piece on ] discussing extremist organization Arran's attacks on tourists and is literally quoting their statements on their desire to liberate the Catalan countries. Either you are being sloppy or dishonest. I'm assuming sloppy. Please find serious '''RELIABLE''' sources using this fringe concept as a reality. e.g. BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Economist... ANYTHING! You are literally proving my point. ] (]) 09:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*****I would also point to the two articles ] (presented as an ideology - not a reality - there is no Greater Germany article) and to ]. We must not conflate a (dangerous) ideology with a factual reality. ] the example you give of ] does not make sense. They '''are''' countries and they '''are''' part of the United Kingdom. What is done here is more akin to calling Scotland or Wales "English countries", not just POV but actively supporting an expansionist ideology by a fringe minority of Catalans. ] (]) 10:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
****** I was sloppy - I picked recent gNews hits. '''but what is being used'''? This is a ] claim to begin with, used presumably by those who refer to "some greater Catalonia" (if you are pro united Spain, one would assume you'd just use the province names or north-eastern Spain, and not attribute to Catalonia any greater territorial extent than the actual present day province). I don't see use of territories in this context almost at all (and if you were trying to take the ] as inspiration - the etymology there harks back to '''occupied territories''' - with occupied replaced with Palestinian - I don't think there is a similar etymology here, and usage does not support this).] (]) 10:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*******I'm not saying there is a more widely used alternative name: Germans are evidently really touchy about having a ] use for Germanophone countries/territories due to their Nazi past so Misplaced Pages has gone for the long-winded name of ] (let's see how many google hits that gets!). There is an article named ] (oddly not one for French-speaking world), but calling it ] would be a bit too much, don't you think? I don't think the Americans would like to be referred to as being an English country anymore than the Valencians enjoy being referred to as a Catalan country. And yes, (on a personal note) you know I'm against Catalan independence - not against a legal referendum, and certainly not against self-rule, but I'm not being a POV-warrior in this case. This is a ''real'' problem. Paisos Catalans is a deeply political and divisive term as the article content itself shows. The name + article lead matter-of-factually claims Valencia is "Catalan" when Valencians feel an aversion to be referred to as such, to the point they refuse to call their language Catalan (yes, it is Catalan). The article is taking sides with a minority view - which undoubtedly has been promoted from Catalan institutions over the past few years with public funds. Note: I ''do'' think the ''concept'' of "Catalan countries" should have a prominent place in this article. I just don't think the article itself should be '''named''' as such. We could also have a separate article on the ideology/concept of Paisos Catalans as well, which would be fine, so long as it is clearly discussing the ideological concept, not the territorial/linguistic reality. I hope you agree that, in this case, I am being reasonable according to Misplaced Pages's internal logic and rules. I concede that I may have made basic mistakes with my 1st article on Misplaced Pages but I did end up up agreeing with ]'s explanations of why my article should be deleted. ] (]) 11:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Rename''' per ]. Even among Catalonian nationalists this is considered a fringe ideology let alone the rest of the world. Fails basic reliability: it is ideological fiction presented as fact in the article. There is no such thing as ''Catalan Countries'', only a fringe pan-Catalan irredentist ideology. Either rename or change the article is written.] (]) 09:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. This article is about the concept of the "Catalan Countries" or "''{{lang|ca|Països Catalans}}''". It's not a general article about Catalonia, Valencia, Majorca, Andorra and other Catalan-speaking countries, which an article named "Catalan-speaking territories" would be expected to be. Until very recently the first sentence said, "Catalan Countries...''refers to'' those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken", and I have reverted to that now. It was agreed in ] in April-May this year. I will quote from my contribution to that RfC: "Catalan Countries" is used repeatedly in a British publication, '''', written by Helena Bufferty, an Englishwoman, and Elisenda Marcer, a Catalan, and edited by ], an American. It's also found in '''', by a Welsh writer, and in . There is no evidence that (Rovira i Virgili University), (Institute of Catalan Studies), (PhD student in geography, University of Barcelona), (University of Southampton), (Seton Hall University), or (Goldsmiths, University of London) belong(ed) to any "sector of Catalan nationalism" . It is a commonly enough used term to merit an article saying what it is, and the title should be the common term used in sources. ] (]) 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::'''Reply''':Interesting, Scolaire. I see you have been very involved in similar discussions here in the past and I can only be surprised by your sudden low standards for ] when it comes to defending nationalist discourse. ''Qui et veu i qui t'ha vist'' as we say in Catalan. :-) Your need to dive into the depths of the internet for sources to justify this article describing the Catalan Countries as '''a tangible reality''' rather than an ideology only reinforces my point. Let's look at your sources: '''Source 1''' is basically an overtly sympathetic guide to Catalan nationalist movements and Pan-Catalanism with a detailed account of the marginal or defunct political organizations which have supported the concept outside Catalonia in the past. '''Source 2''': Is a sentence in a Guide to Barcelona written by an unknown expat "Peter Stone" living in Barcelona. (Really?) '''Source 3''' is a lengthy historical discussion on Catalan nation-building by an academic from an openly pro-independence Catalan Rovira i Virgili University (Rovira i Virgili was an early Catalan nationalist who called on "erasing" Catalan history for the sake of the cause). It is basically a defense of pan-catalanism by a Catalan nationalist ("the Catalan countries, threatened as they were by the policies of centralist governments, which did their utmost to further their division, p.62), '''Source 4''': One of hundreds of PhD thesis (in this case in meteorology) put online as standard practice by Barcelona University. Not quite a reliable or notable source but it must have given this student a thrill to use the word "Catalan countries" in the title of his Phd thesis. '''Source 5''': Is a book by Clar Mar-Molinero, who does seem to mention the Catalan countries as a "reality" in p40 of her book on language and nationalism. But her book since her book is about nationalism and language, this is my point: it is a nationalist concept. '''Source 6''': A book on types of moss in the Iberian peninsula by the private Institute for Catalan Studies created by the Catalan Nationalist government in 2001. Is the Catalan government really leveraging moss to further the Catalan Countries cause??? '''Source 7''' An international colloquium on language planning in Quebec which Quebecer linguist Lorne Laforge quotes (and misspells the surname of) pro-independence Catalan writer Josep Vallverdu who quite typically describes "Castilian oppression of the Catalan countries following the war of Spanish Succession". Note Vallverdu recently received a prize from ] which has spearheaded the recent Spanish constitutional crisis. '''Source 8''': Is literally saying that the concept of "Catalan countries" lost credence in nationalist Catalan leadership except for small groups within ERC. A statement which is exactly my point but certainly needs updating, particularly with you running the show on this article! Jokes aside, the very fact that you need to delve into the depths of the pro-independence universe to find a sentence or paragraph to support an implied historical reality of the Catalan Countries rather than just another irredentist ideology should be proof enough that we are dealing with serious ] and ] issues. Either rename or totally re-write the lead so that the article describes the equivalent of the ideology of ] or the reality of the ]. We cannot conflate the two.] (]) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::I began by saying, "This article is about the concept of the "Catalan Countries". I said nothing about "tangible reality". I provided nine reliable sources – books written by academic (many outside Catalonia, some not Catalan) and/or published by reputable publishers that use the term "Catalan Countries". I found them by doing a Google search; I wouldn't even know how to go about "delving into the depths of the pro-independence universe". That the concept is tied in with Catalan nationalism is adequately explained in the article, but the sources show that it can also be used in a non-political way, in talking about e.g. mosses, meteorology and cooking. Ranting against the sources because you don't like what they say does not alter their value as reliable, published, English-language sources. That's what we use on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::'''Reply''' Sure, that's why Misplaced Pages has no wikipedia article for Greater Germany (or Großdeutschland), even though it has 7 million hits on Google - it redirects to the ]. Exactly how Misplaced Pages works...As I have demonstrated, your sources using them "in a normal way" are neither reliable nor non-political. Those for ''Catalan-speaking territories'', however, on major news outlets, international organizations and by the Catalan government itself, are.] (]) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::'''Comment''': The OP asserts that the term {{tq|is used in most English and Spanish language sources as "so-called Catalan countries"}}. Googling "so-called Catalan countries" initially told me it had 14,500 hits, but in fact there were only of ten results each, i.e. 40 results in total, the great majority of which are sites that take their content from Misplaced Pages. None of the remaining pages use "so-called" in the sense of "bogus", but rather in the sense of "which are called by the name of". Book examples are , , and (in the acknowledgements, hardly the place you'd put a derogatory reference!). Examples of articles are , which uses "so-called" in the abstract but not in the title, and , which uses "so-called" at the start, but uses "Catalan Countries" several times more without the qualifier. It's a classic example of stating opinion as fact, on the assumption that people will take your word for it. ] (]) 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::'''Reply''': This is clutching at straws Scolaire. If we are going to write an article on the so-called Catalan countries and mention them 20 times. We don't need to write "so-called" beyond the first time. Would look weird stylistically speaking. Its like the "so-called Islamic State", same idea. ] (]) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::: {{reply|Sonrisas1}} - what is missing in your whole line of argument here so far is a proposed alternative term that meets ]. You won't convinced the convinced. But for those of us who are !voting due to the RfC showing up on various lists - that's the real decider. When dealing with irredentist notions, often the terms are used and coined by irredentists, and if that's the case we use them here. If this area of "Greater Catalonia" is referred to by some other established term, you should clearly point out what that term is in English and present evidence that the use of it is widespread.] (]) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::'''Proposals''' ] Greater Catalonia would be massively POV (As I do also see now ] had POV/SYNTH issues). Greater Catalonia is equally ridiculous and the other side of the spectrum in terms of trying to be controversial. I see two reasonable options: One calling it ] which is widely used by, for example, the BBC , The Express , Al Jazeera , The Guardian , CatalanNews , the European Union , the Herald Tribune and then the hundreds of other academic and non-academic sources which use this term in a normalized, non-politicized way, including Barcelona university and the Catalan government itself . The other option is to rewrite the lead and make it similar to the Spanish wiki or ], define it as "an ambiguous concept which may have ideological, political or cultural meanings" rather than defining it as an actual existing territory. ] (]) 17:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Just FYI,] Spanish language Misplaced Pages (which is pretty neutral on matters of Spanish identity politics since there are plenty of experienced pro Catalan, Basque etc. independence editors on it), tackles the lead of Catalan Countries with the following definition: | |||
It seems you are trying really hard to make a connection between two subjects that are objectively different. You try it more than anyone in the Tabarnia organization, because they have always declared (and this is how it appears on their website) that their goal is to avoid the independence of Catalonia and that they will use satire, humor against the independence movement. Its activity and objective simply has nothing to do with the Catalan Countries. Although in the past there have been movements and concepts that tried to imitate or were based on the Catalan Countries, like the "Madrilenian Countries" (''Países Madrileños''; you can check it, it's real), Tabarnia is simply not one of them. --] (]) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::::::''"Catalan Countries (in Catalan Països Catalans) is an ambiguous term, which may refer, in linguistic and cultural terms, to those territories where Catalan is spoken, or well in terms of politics and sociology, to a national project which would encompass both territories of the Catalan linguistic domain and, often, other territories where Catalan is not traditionally used.'' | |||
== Catalonia is not a country, why are we using that term? == | |||
::::::::This could be a second sub-optimal way of dealing with the WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABILITY issues.] (]) 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''': Països Catalans is a political concept, and fairly notable. PP.CC. is a key element on Catalan nationalism, and deserves an article of its own. PP.CC. cannot be reduced to simply 'Catalan-speaking territories' as the term is linked to a certain political project. --] (]) 19:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::'''Reply''':] The fact that it is a political concept and an element of Catalan nationalism is exactly my point! It is not defined as such in the lead. Please read the discussion.] (]) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::So, edit the lede? For example, the flag should be in the infobox. --] (]) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::]I would be content with something on the lines of the proposed text above for Lede (based on Spanish wiki). As I mentioned it would resolve most issues flagged here. I'm changing title of RfC to include that option.] (]) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::No, es.wiki intro is no good. A better option is to state something like "Catalan Countries ({{lang-ca|Països Catalans}}) is a proposed country in ], unifying all ]-speaking areas. The territories claimed as parts of the Catalan Countries include areas under Spanish, French, Andorran and Italian administrations. Some Catalan nationalist groups work to establish a Catalan Countries state, but this is not a universal feature of Catalan nationalism." --] (]) 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::Whoa! Can we have refs for all of that? Who is currently proposing it as a country in Europe? Who is claiming Andorra or Alghero? What groups are currently working to establish a Catalan Countries state? The article (and the lead) currently state verifiable facts. This is pure fantasy! ] (]) 21:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''': At we had six !votes on a single proposal: a page move. We now apparently have two alternative proposals. Can anybody tell me how that's supposed to work? ] (]) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' while many inhabitants of Valenca and the Balearics do not identify as Catalan, that doesn't change the clear existence and relevance of Paisos Catalans as a political concept. --] (]) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
] Are you serious? 98% of your edits on Misplaced Pages are about Catalan independence and you claim ignorance about this? ] / ] and ] were all actively working for the political unity of the "Paisos Catalans" as an independent republic. The liberation of the Catalan countries is in the Statutes of the CUP and ERC has regional federations in all "Catalan countries". Even though they get few votes outside Catalonia. they make a lot of noise. ], ]: Then we agree that the Lede has to change and define it as a political concept/ideology not a territorial/cultural reality (which creates the WP:FRINGE issue)? You both vote '''oppose''' to changing the title, what is your vote on changing the Lede?] (]) 07:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:(1) Please stop personalising this. I'm not "claiming ignorance" about anything, I'm discussing the issue in a civil manner. Please try to do the same. I asked for sources (= reliable, third-party sources, preferably in English), that describe in detail how CUP, Arran or ERC are working for the political unity of the Catalan Countries as an independent republic. I've been looking for these sources for a year, and a lot of people have shouted at me, but nobody has shown me the sources. | |||
:(2) If you're now accepting that there is a consensus against renaming, can you close this RfC and open a new one on the lead? This re-factored RfC can only create confusion. An RfC should have a single, clear question. ] (]) 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::: ] I am not against the existence of this article under its current name. I am against the misrepresentation of what Paisos Catalans is. But I'm convinced that if I create an article called "Catalan-speaking territories" you will immediately call it a WP:POVFORK and try to get it deleted on an AfD. I don't want to waste hours of my time but two separate articles are required. Before that, this article has to stop misrepresenting reality and pretending a fringe ideology is a political, historical or cultural reality.] (]) 08:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::] If you are honestly unaware of this fact, then I apologize. But its just hard to believe that you don't know this. If the language barrier is such a massive impediment for you to grasp the basics of the topic at hand, you shouldn't be editing these articles at all! Its on the level of saying you need a source to prove UKIP was in favour of Brexit because "it is sheer fantasy". Here you are: page 3 "Principles": http://www.esquerra.cat/documents/fulleto-esquerra-ang.pdf ] (]) 08:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::I asked you to stop personalising this. Apologizing and then sneering at the fact that I don't have fluent Spanish is uncivil in the extreme. If you persist I will report you at ]. In the meantime I will ask you to strike through that sneer by putting a <nowiki><s> before it and a </s></nowiki> after it. ] (]) 08:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::It is not a sneer nor a jibe Scolaire. It is a serious concern for me. 95% of credible sources on this topic are in Spanish or Catalan. As I just wrote on your talk page, you have to make a minimum effort to overcome language barriers. There are resources for it on the internet: Just google translate - it works just fine and takes 30 seconds of your time. What worries me is not that you don't speak Spanish or Catalan, it is that you dismiss sources off-hand which you don't want to contradict your POV rather than taking the time to read them. Fortunately, I found a source for you in English. What if I hadn't been able to? We would be arguing here eternally on this topic.] (]) 09:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It ''was'' a sneer. "{{tq|If the language barrier is such a massive impediment for you to grasp the basics of the topic at hand, you shouldn't be editing these articles at all!}}" is not a simple or civil expression of concern about my language skills. In any case, you're wrong. I didn't say that Spanish or Catalan sources are unacceptable to me because I can't be bothered to read them; I said that English-language sources would be nice, seeing as this is English Misplaced Pages. I have read through Google Translate translations of many, many Spanish and Catalan sources. They haven't answered my questions any better than the English ones. ] (]) 09:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::P.S. Thank you for removing the tag. Will you now consider my suggestion that you close this RfC and start a new discussion in a new thread where we can arrive at a consensus on the lead through civil discussion? ] (]) 09:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::::] Yes ok. But I'm giving Misplaced Pages a break for today. I'll open a new RfC. Please send me a message in my talk page (or on yours which I will follow) explaining to me how. I don't know how to do so.] (]) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{u|Sonrisas1}} Responding to your ping, no, I disagree with you, the lede is fine. In its current form, it adheres well to ] with statements like {{tq|The Catalan Countries do not correspond to any present or past political or administrative unit, though most of the area belonged to the Crown of Aragon in the Middle Ages. Parts of Valencia (Spanish) and Catalonia (Occitan) are not Catalan-speaking.... The "Catalan Countries" have been at the centre of both cultural and political projects since the late 19th century. Its mainly cultural dimension became increasingly politically charged by the late 1960s and early 1970s, as Francoism began to die out in Spain, and what had been a cultural term restricted to connoisseurs of Catalan philology became a divisive issue during the Spanish Transition period, most acrimoniously in Valencia during the 1980s. ... The term "Catalan Countries" is itself controversial, and even pro-Catalan Valencian nationalists avoid using it.}}. --] (]) 20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' - per ] --] (]) 10:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' - per ].---] ('']'') 08:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
Why are we translating Països Catalans to "countries" in English? They don't meet the accepted definition in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/Country Right? We should consider a different term, or adding a section in the article to clarify the etymology. ] (]) 14:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
==Fixing Lede== | |||
:"''We''" are not translating ''Països Catalans''. Reliable english language sources do it so. Insofar those reliable English language sources presenting the "Catalan countries" do not divagate about what you are mentioning, "''we''" shouldn't do it (it's ]). That's independent of whether the concept behind is politically charged or not (it is, but the extent that should be reflected in the lead is a hotly-debated subject in this talk page).--Asqueladd (]) 15:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
], I let you start off. The issue I have with the LEDE is relatively small and requires minimal changes. It does not require an RfC at this stage. What is your opinion based on what we have discussed till now?] (]) 09:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::It's not original research. What reliable English sources do so? ] (]) 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Can we start by addressing the "fringe theory" question? ] tells us that a fringe theory is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It goes on to say that "a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." So what exactly is the fringe theory that this article promotes, or makes appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is? | |||
:::, to name a few..--Asqueladd (]) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
:*That the territories named in the second sentence exist? Hardly. All of them verifiably exist, and each has its own article. | |||
:*That some people refer to those territories as the "Catalan Countries"? Again, this is verifiable. There are multiple sources, and no "mainstream view" denies that some people call them that. | |||
:*That these people are right to call them "Catalan Countries"? The article doesn't say that they are. It only reports the fact that they do. | |||
:*That the "Catalan Countries" form a political entity? The article doesn't say that they do. | |||
:*That the "Catalan Countries" ''ought'' to form a political entity? The article doesn't say that they ought. It does say that some people would like them to. It also says that a lot of other people disagree. | |||
:*That the Autonomous Community of Catalonia has or ought to have control over the "Catalan Countries"? The article doesn't even hint at such a thing, except in the negative, when it says that "outside Catalonia...it is viewed as an expression of Catalan expansionism." | |||
:So what is the fringe theory? And is this fringe theory promoted only in the lead, or in the article body as well? If in the lead only, how is it promoted there? In order to address your issue, I need to have a clear idea of what your issue is. ] (]) 10:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::They are not really reliable English-language sources, they are produced by non-native speakers and translate the term, it has little currency in English. The translation sounds really weird because whatever Catalonia may or may not be, Valencia, Algherro and the Baleares clearly aren't "countries" in the English sense of the word. I believe the article refers to an essentially Catalan concept ''Països Catalans'' and should be entitled that, with the translation mentioned in the lede. ] (]) 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::] The content of the article I think is more or less fine. What I think is problematic is the first couple of sentences. I think there are two ways to go about the Lede of this article and the current one is too similar to ], which is inherently non-ideological. If we want a thoroughly non-ideological, purely cultural/linguistic article it would be best to have a non-controversial name for the article focusing on the cultural and linguistic similarity between these regions (hence my original request for name change). In the long run, it will bring stability. No angry Spaniard/Valencian/Majorcan will ever come to this article saying the Catalan-speaking territories don't exist. They do and they will be fine with it. You have to understand the political context/subtext of the '''term''' Paisos Catalans - it is extremely charged politically - because the term is leveraged as a political project within Spain. It is a term which cannot be used "innocently". I honestly favored splitting in two separate articles or having paisos catalans being a large section of this article. If not, then give more prominence to it being an ideological concept in the Lede/first sentence. ] (]) 10:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::There is no single "English sense of the word". It has multiple meanings (see ]). In this article it is used in the sense of an area that has a distinctive nature or characteristic. The ] is an area in England; it is not independent of the UK, nor even in any way autonomous. '']'' was a film about the American West, not a sovereign state. The ] is a region that includes two Autonomous Communities in Spain and an area of France. As regards sources by native English speakers, "Catalan Countries" is used repeatedly in a British publication, '''', written by Helena Bufferty, an Englishwoman, and Elisenda Marcer, a Catalan, and edited by ], an American. It's also found in '''', by a Welsh writer, in , and on the . --] (]) 14:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Obstinately reverting corrections == | |||
::::::None of those sources use Catalan Countries without first glossing it into Catalan after, I think there may be a case for a dual English/Catalan title in that format. The Basque Country is very much an anomaly, it is a translation from French with long currency, not a neologism. The Big Country is a poetic term for an imprecisely defined area, and so is not analogous. The structure (The-demonym-Countries) exists nowhere else in English. | |||
Twice I have corrected the caption to the map. It reads 'Catalan-speaking area in dark grey; light grey corresponds to non-Catalan sections of otherwise Catalan-speaking administrative divisions)'. This is completely incorrect. Unfortunately, over much of the area covered by the map, Catalan is now a minority language. In Roussillon, which is shown on the map as Catalan-speaking, just 1% of the population speak Catalan socially and only 8.5% regard it as their native language, as set out in the Catalan Language article in great detail, with sources. I accordingly corrected the caption to read 'Traditionally Catalan-Speaking area....'. | |||
::::::--] (]) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::]? I know "Low" isn't a demonym, but it does describe a grouping of heterogeneous areas (states and parts of states), and it shows that the structure "The-descriptor-Countries" is perfectly good usage in English, so your argument about "the English sense of the word" doesn't stand up. See also the use of "The Anglophone Countries" , and . I don't understand "''without first glossing it into Catalan after''". Do they do it first or do they do it after? Frommer's Guide and the BBC don't mention {{lang|ca|Països Catalans}} at all! And what difference does it make anyway? We know that it's {{lang|ca|Països Catalans}} in Catalan. We know that {{lang|ca|Països Catalans}} translates into English as "Catalan Countries". And we know that it's called the "Catalan Countries" by reliable sources written in English by English speakers. That is a good and sufficient reason for naming the article "Catalan Countries". ] (]) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
My edit has been reversed twice. The second time by someone who has done over 21,000 edits. This is not the first time that I have run across people who are clearly obsessed with controlling a particular article, and willing to revert any edit, whatever it's merit, just to 'defend the territory' as it were, with no thought whatsoever to promoting learning. | |||
:::::::: The question is whether "Catalan Countries" is current English usage, more so than "Països Catalans", and I'm not convinced that it is. "Catalan-speaking regions" would be the more natural form in English. But this is partly about a political concept that is wholly Spanish, the idea that the regions in which Catalan is spoken have a commonality that can be expressed in a political way. This concept is translated into English by the organisations that feel this is important as "Catalan Countries", and I really am not convinced that academia or general usage outside of Spain has truly adopted this use. If we take out wikipedia derived sources and those that are published by organisations on the public payroll in Spain, particularly Catalonia, there's very little left. | |||
:::::::: The Low Countries '''are''' countries; Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. No equivalent statement can be made about the component regions that make up the Paisos Catalans. Only one is definitely a country ], whereas another (]) is arguably one. I haven't got access to Frommer's guide, but it is a guidebook, and so perhaps of dubious use for wiki, and the BBC puts it in quotations, showing it is not a familiar English term.--] (]) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
If this continues, Misplaced Pages will be progressively destroyed. Is there anyone reading this who cares? Or should I just give up? If Misplaced Pages is to go down the drain anyway, why bother. | |||
:::::::: Just re: Anglophone countries, I have never said that groups of countries cannot be grouped together using (the+adj+countries), this is obviously true. But to do that, all the things being described need to be countries, and only one or two of the things grouped in "Catalan Countries" are countries in the English sense of the word.--] (]) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::"The Low Countries" ]. | |||
If you hear me, please speak up. | |||
:::::::::At any rate, I have stated my reasons why the article title is appropriate and you believe you have demolished them one by one. Give yourself a clap on the back. There is no point in continuing this discussion. Goodbye and happy editing. ] (]) 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
== The Map and Roussillon being Described as Catalan Speaking == | |||
Nakashchit (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
The map describes Roussillon aka ] as being Catalan Speaking, but doesn't provide a source. I used to live in Barcelona, and have visited Pyrénées-Orientales, I find that extremely hard to believe. The best source I could find was from the Generalitat of Catalonia, which means its reliability is questionable. It's all in Catalan but it says they sent out a couple thousand questionnaires to Roussillon, their results are that 34% can speak Catalan, which seems high but the number who say that they usually use Catalan is only 1.2% of respondents, and 4.4% say they generally use French and Catalan, by comparison 87% of the respondents say they usually speak French. If Catalan Speaking means that there are people who happen to speak Catalan located in the area, then I guess it makes sense but otherwise to me it seems like it's a French speaking region, and the maps legend should be modified. ] (]) 22:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
What is your proposal Nakashchit?] (]) 11:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
: Catalan is the traditional local language of Roussillon, which means that about one century ago the number of speakers was 100% of the population or very close to it. The decrease in the number of speakers is due to ] and immigration, as it also happens with so many European ''regional'' languages. --] (]) 23:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I don't disagree with that analysis, however where I currently live for instance the traditional language would be ] but today it would be described as ]. I guess then the question is how long ago would the language have to have been spoken in order for the reclassification to take place? I think there'd be little disagreement in saying that today the language of ] is French and not Catalan same as with the rest of ]. Also looking at the age demographic data from Gen Cat's study I'm thinking you would have to go back further than a hundred years to get close to 100% Catalan speakers. "Catalan speaking" could be changed to "Historically Catalan speaking" to better reflect the present day situation. ] (]) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::''"Historically Catalan speaking"'' could be interpreted as meaning that there are no Catalan speakers left, however that's not true. Native people of Roussillon call themselves ''Catalans'' and I guess that they consider the Catalan language a part of their identity, even if they might not speak it often. --] (]) 11:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Shouldn't that be reflected by a source though if such is the case? The article as a whole seems to lack sources and seems to have two arguments: one that there is a catalan cultural domain, and then two Catalan independence. I mean the article as a whole has six images, two are maps, and four are for Catalan independence, this is kind of weird. Be that as it may, Pyrénées-Orientales does not speak Catalan, there is a minority who do but the vast majority speak French, and this is backed by Reliable Sources, so it is incorrect to say it speaks French. We could say instead that the Dark Grey represents the "Catalan Cultural Domain" this would probably more representative and more for other domains in the Dark Grey area where Catalan is not the main language, such as Barcelona. ] (]) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::The concept of ''Catalan Countries'' is indeed linked to Catalan nationalism, no doubt about it. What exactly would you change in the article? --] (]) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:48, 12 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catalan Countries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tabarnia
Danielhythloday, Beethoven, please discuss your issues here, instead of edit-warring and discussing via edit summaries. For what it's worth, I don't think Tabarnia is an appropriate "See also". There is little or no connection between it and the subject of the article. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it didn't work, Scolaire. That user insists with including Tabarnia here, while refusing to give rational argumentation as one can see in his last edit summary... --Beethoven (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, Beethoven, it didn't work because because you did not post here saying, "I believe that Tabarnia should not be added because...". Instead you continued to edit-war with him. Next time it happens I will report you both at the Administrators' noticeboard, and you will be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was waiting for Danielhythloday to explain us here in Talk page in a rational way why he believes "Tabarnia" should be added on this article. It's not the first time we see IPs or users trying to include "Tabarnia" in different articles related with Catalonia, including this one. Those actions seem more related to vandalism than anything else. I honestly think the least he could do is to expose his arguments, before doing something that had already been reverted months ago. But since this specific user insists with it, I'm going to start exposing why I think there is no connection between Tabarnia and the Catalan Countries. Judging by his edit summaries, I think the issue here is more related with the particular conception he has of the Catalan Countries. And this is something that has already been discussed many times here, but it seems we are going to have to discuss it again:
- Catalan Countries: the historic term used to designate those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken. The first use of the term dates back to the 19th century, by a Valencian jurist and historian. During the 20th century it became popular, specifically after Valencian writer Joan Fuster works. It's a term used when studying and analyzing linguistics related with Catalan language and its variations. For example on publications like this one: Etymological dictionary of the scientific names of the birds of the Catalan Countries (2017).
- Tabarnia: it's the name invented by a very small satirical/joke organization against Catalonia's independence, named "Barcelona is not Catalonia", that would want to create a new region inside Catalonia named "Tabarnia". That name was popularized in social networks a few months ago. Not a single political party supports them. At their website they don't talk about Catalan Countries, because it's not related with their activity. Among the activity of this peculiar organization, one can see on their website: Disguising as Civil Guards to visit Puigdemont's home (until police kicked them) or talking about the alleged genetic origin of Tabarnia, such as Homo Tabarniensis... Almost all of their content is related to jokes.
I can't understand how one can make a connection between those two, rather than trying to advertise or popularize the organization activity. --Beethoven (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The term "Països Catalans" is a socio-political concept that uses arguments based in linguistic priors to draw a political argument. It is a loaded concept because it uses diacronic linguistic criteria to draw a map with political terminology used with political significance
The term "Països Catalans" is said to be coined by the Spanish jurist Benvingut Oliver i Estellés (born Bienvenido Oliver y Esteller) in his work (in Spanish) "Historia del Derecho en Cataluña, Mallorca y Valencia". (I cant find the place where the phrase is used, and Misplaced Pages references are circular. Can you tell how did he used the term? All versions of Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages entry on the man suggests his main contribution was precisely this coinage. oh well.)
Anyway, the concept of "Països Catalans" had almost zero impact in Catalanism, not to mention the Catalan society at large, until 1962, when the essayist Joan Fuster i Ortells published the essay "Nosaltres, els valencians", an essay with no linguistic pretensions.
Now, linguistic arguments, and the maps drawn using such arguments, never use the term "país", "country" or its synonyms to draw linguistic usage maps, because those are nor linguistic concepts. If you take a look at WALS maps, or the Ethnologue maps, or any cartography based on linguistic arguments, you won't see such terminology in use.
So "Països Catalans" is a socio-political construct modernly (1962) built to project the image of a "large Catalan socio-political entity" based only on the maximal extension of the use of Catalan as a mother tongue.
"Tabarnia" is a socio-political construct of a "large Catalan socio-political entity" modernly (2017) created upon the interpretation of the "identity" meaning of a large series of electoral votes in the last 20 years of Catalan elections.
Both "Països Catalans" and "Tabarnia" are ideologically-built sociopolitical concepts; the difference is that "Països Catalans" is a concept used to be taken as a historical entity (which is debatable) and "Tabarnia" is a concept used to be used as a reflection on the utility of such concepts as "Països Catalans".
Another way to put it is that defenders of the "Països Catalans" concept take it as a historically based entity while the advocates of "Tabarnia" says there's so much arguments in favor of the "tabarnia" concept as there is about "Països Catalans". As of today, "Tabarnia" is at least as an important a concept as it is "Països Catalans". So it deserves a "See also". OMGDanielhythloday (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- As best I understand it from reading the Tabarnia article and its talk page, the concept of "Tabarnia" is of a political entity juxtaposed with an independent Catalonia. "Tabarnia" is a contiguous area of land within Catalonia, which claims "independence" from Catalonia as Catalonia claims independence from Spain. It uses "Barcelona is not Catalonia" as Catalan independentists use "Catalonia is not Spain". It does not claim linguistic, cultural or political affinity with any other similar area of land, inside or outside Catalonia. Therefore it is not a reflection, negation or parody of the Catalan Countries. In other words, there is no connection between it and the subject of this article. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- You don't fully get it Scolaire: Tabarnia does claim a social, political (and even cultural and economical, as well as geographical) affinity of the territories comprising "Tabarnia" against the rest of Catalonia: they are (so the argument goes) the richest, best educated, more progressive and urbanite part of Catalonia; linguistically they represent those embracing bilinguism against the "Catalan only" or "catalan first" parts of Catalonia; as national identity goes, they identify as a nation with the rest of Spain, etc. Does it builds a solid argument for the independence of Tabarnia? You may well think it doesn't, but (so the argument goes) this is exactly the case with "països Catalans", a term used over and over again since 1965 to "build a nation" out of a concept that results from the mix of political terminology with linguistic criteria. In any case, if you can't see the linkage between both concepts, the defendants of the Tabarnia movement do see it very clearly, and I leave here just a bunch of examples to check it for yourself
- http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20180214/44779578180/tabarnia-firmas-nombre-plaza-paisos-catalans.htm
- http://tabarnia.org/web/blog/
- http://www.outono.net/elentir/2017/12/29/5-motivos-por-los-que-tabarnia-desquicia-tanto-a-los-separatistas-y-no-solo-a-ellos/
- http://www.bcnisnotcat.es/2017/06/la-vanguardia-se-hace-eco-de-nuestro.html
- http://ramblalibre.com/2017/12/31/elogio-de-tabarnia/
- https://www.larazon.es/espana/puigdemont-vs-boadella-choque-de-legitimidades-HB17437365 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhythloday (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time I've been told I "don't get it", and it's not the first time I've had a whole lot of links to Spanish newspapers/blogs/whatever thrown at me as though my idea of a fun evening is trying to make sense of a Google Translation of a load of propaganda. Yet somehow I've managed to make significant, encyclopaedic edits to at least four Catalan independence-related articles, all of which have stood the test of time, while others continue to edit by adding their POV personal views supported by citations to vaguely-related newspaper opinion pieces, blogs etc.
- Now, you didn't address my point at all, which was that "Tabarnia" is a contiguous area of land that is compared to the contiguous area of land that is Catalonia, as opposed to the area of land, the islands, the sovereign state, and the parts of other countries that are the Catalan Countries. When you can show that the Tabarnia movement has designated a number of different areas as países Españoles explicitly as a counterpoint to the països Catalans (and please have the decency to translate the relevant part into English for me), then I will accept that the one is the counterpart of the other. But seeing as you have failed to do that at Tabarnia and Talk:Tabarnia, it's unlikely you can do it here. Scolaire (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Scolaire "got it" perfectly. His sentence «the concept of "Tabarnia" is of a political entity juxtaposed with an independent Catalonia» is totally correct, as this is how it has been established by the Tabarnia organization. Honestly, I'm having a hard time assuming good faith Danielhythloday, after having read your first sentences. Thus, before addressing the links you shared, I'm going to comment a little on what you said at the beginning, which is just straight propaganda. First, an obvious clarification: there's no way to know how many Catalans "support" Tabarnia, because a survey/study on this has never been done. We can only look at support from political parties resulting from last Catalan election; in this sense, the support for Tabarnia would be 0%, because all Catalan political parties have publicly rejected the Tabarnia idea. There are only 2 political parties that have publicly expressed support for Tabarnia (PxC and VOX), but none of them contested the last Catalan elections. They are practically non-existent parties. It is important to keep this in mind, because everything about Tabarnia comes from the same Tabarnia organization, which is also a very small one. On the other hand, it's important to remember that the territory they created (Tabarnia) doesn't correspond to any social, linguistic, political, cultural, economical or geographical affinity different from the rest of Catalonia. The Tabarnia organization created a territory based exclusively on manipulation of electoral results. This Misplaced Pages map compares the Tabarnia region (as defined by the organization) with the Catalan election results. You can clearly see the arbitrariness and artificiality of Tabarnia, which has no uniformity. They include in Tabarnia Catalan regions where there is a clear majority of votes in favor of Catalonia's independence parties. And of course, the vote in favor of unionist parties does not imply that they are in favor of Tabarnia. This is the reason why Tabarnia has been defined as a an attempt at gerrymandering (La Vanguardia). Now, reviewing what you have commented: no, the territories comprising Tabarnia aren't the richest in Catalonia (Girona and Lleida have higher GDP per capita and this EU NUTS 3 regions GDP (PPS) shows Lleida is also higher). No, they are not "best educated" (in fact CEO data shows that those supporting Catalonia's independence have a higher level of studies compared with those that are against it). I could continue, but I think you got the point (kinda ironic attributing the "defense of bilingualism to Tabarnia", when the organization promotes monolingualism in Spanish only).
Now, in your comment you also deformed the concept of Catalan Countries like you did in the past. In an attempt to compare "Tabarnia" with the Catalan Countries you literally said: «Does it builds a solid argument for the independence of Tabarnia? You may well think it doesn't, but (so the argument goes) this is exactly the case with "països Catalans", a term used over and over again since 1965 to "build a nation"». Catalan Countries defines a linguistic reality, like "Francophonie" does with French. Catalan Countries is not a term designed neither to "build a nation" nor to declare independence from Spain, France and Italy (and eliminate Andorra?). It is a synonym of Catalan-speaking territories. This is exactly how it is defined, for example, at the United States Library of Congress book Subject Headings. And, since I'm a Catalan, I can affirm this is exactly how this is studied in Catalan schools: Catalan Countries as a linguistic area, to analyze Catalan language and its variations depending on the territory. But they do not teach it to us "as a nation" or "project of independence". Simply because it is not this.
Now finally at last, regarding your links... In Talk:Tabarnia you were already told that none of the links you shared affirm what you say. You also included again the link of the signatories to change the square name. The majority of your links come from blogs or opinion pieces, where they barely mention Catalan Countries (most of them one single time). For example at your "ramblalibre.com" link titled "Praise of Tabarnia", this is literally all they say about Catalan Countries (translated to English): «Tabarnia is the rational thing in front of the irrationality of the Catalan Countries and that Catalonia that has a cowardly and deliquescent president in Flanders and a party of failures like the CUP».
It seems you are trying really hard to make a connection between two subjects that are objectively different. You try it more than anyone in the Tabarnia organization, because they have always declared (and this is how it appears on their website) that their goal is to avoid the independence of Catalonia and that they will use satire, humor against the independence movement. Its activity and objective simply has nothing to do with the Catalan Countries. Although in the past there have been movements and concepts that tried to imitate or were based on the Catalan Countries, like the "Madrilenian Countries" (Países Madrileños; you can check it, it's real), Tabarnia is simply not one of them. --Beethoven (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Catalonia is not a country, why are we using that term?
Why are we translating Països Catalans to "countries" in English? They don't meet the accepted definition in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/Country Right? We should consider a different term, or adding a section in the article to clarify the etymology. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- "We" are not translating Països Catalans. Reliable english language sources do it so. Insofar those reliable English language sources presenting the "Catalan countries" do not divagate about what you are mentioning, "we" shouldn't do it (it's original research). That's independent of whether the concept behind is politically charged or not (it is, but the extent that should be reflected in the lead is a hotly-debated subject in this talk page).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not original research. What reliable English sources do so? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- , to name a few..--Asqueladd (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's not original research. What reliable English sources do so? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- They are not really reliable English-language sources, they are produced by non-native speakers and translate the term, it has little currency in English. The translation sounds really weird because whatever Catalonia may or may not be, Valencia, Algherro and the Baleares clearly aren't "countries" in the English sense of the word. I believe the article refers to an essentially Catalan concept Països Catalans and should be entitled that, with the translation mentioned in the lede. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no single "English sense of the word". It has multiple meanings (see Wiktionary). In this article it is used in the sense of an area that has a distinctive nature or characteristic. The Black Country is an area in England; it is not independent of the UK, nor even in any way autonomous. The Big Country was a film about the American West, not a sovereign state. The Basque Country is a region that includes two Autonomous Communities in Spain and an area of France. As regards sources by native English speakers, "Catalan Countries" is used repeatedly in a British publication, Historical Dictionary of the Catalans, written by Helena Bufferty, an Englishwoman, and Elisenda Marcer, a Catalan, and edited by Jon Woronoff, an American. It's also found in The Welsh Language: A History, by a Welsh writer, in Frommer's Guide, and on the BBC website. --Scolaire (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- None of those sources use Catalan Countries without first glossing it into Catalan after, I think there may be a case for a dual English/Catalan title in that format. The Basque Country is very much an anomaly, it is a translation from French with long currency, not a neologism. The Big Country is a poetic term for an imprecisely defined area, and so is not analogous. The structure (The-demonym-Countries) exists nowhere else in English.
- --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Low Countries? I know "Low" isn't a demonym, but it does describe a grouping of heterogeneous areas (states and parts of states), and it shows that the structure "The-descriptor-Countries" is perfectly good usage in English, so your argument about "the English sense of the word" doesn't stand up. See also the use of "The Anglophone Countries" here, here and here. I don't understand "without first glossing it into Catalan after". Do they do it first or do they do it after? Frommer's Guide and the BBC don't mention Països Catalans at all! And what difference does it make anyway? We know that it's Països Catalans in Catalan. We know that Països Catalans translates into English as "Catalan Countries". And we know that it's called the "Catalan Countries" by reliable sources written in English by English speakers. That is a good and sufficient reason for naming the article "Catalan Countries". Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The question is whether "Catalan Countries" is current English usage, more so than "Països Catalans", and I'm not convinced that it is. "Catalan-speaking regions" would be the more natural form in English. But this is partly about a political concept that is wholly Spanish, the idea that the regions in which Catalan is spoken have a commonality that can be expressed in a political way. This concept is translated into English by the organisations that feel this is important as "Catalan Countries", and I really am not convinced that academia or general usage outside of Spain has truly adopted this use. If we take out wikipedia derived sources and those that are published by organisations on the public payroll in Spain, particularly Catalonia, there's very little left.
- The Low Countries? I know "Low" isn't a demonym, but it does describe a grouping of heterogeneous areas (states and parts of states), and it shows that the structure "The-descriptor-Countries" is perfectly good usage in English, so your argument about "the English sense of the word" doesn't stand up. See also the use of "The Anglophone Countries" here, here and here. I don't understand "without first glossing it into Catalan after". Do they do it first or do they do it after? Frommer's Guide and the BBC don't mention Països Catalans at all! And what difference does it make anyway? We know that it's Països Catalans in Catalan. We know that Països Catalans translates into English as "Catalan Countries". And we know that it's called the "Catalan Countries" by reliable sources written in English by English speakers. That is a good and sufficient reason for naming the article "Catalan Countries". Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Low Countries are countries; Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. No equivalent statement can be made about the component regions that make up the Paisos Catalans. Only one is definitely a country Andorra, whereas another (Catalonia) is arguably one. I haven't got access to Frommer's guide, but it is a guidebook, and so perhaps of dubious use for wiki, and the BBC puts it in quotations, showing it is not a familiar English term.--Boynamedsue (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just re: Anglophone countries, I have never said that groups of countries cannot be grouped together using (the+adj+countries), this is obviously true. But to do that, all the things being described need to be countries, and only one or two of the things grouped in "Catalan Countries" are countries in the English sense of the word.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- "The Low Countries" refers to a coastal lowland region in northwestern Europe forming the lower basin of the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt delta...Geographically and historically, the area includes also parts of France and Germany such as the French Flanders and the German regions of East Frisia and Cleves.
- At any rate, I have stated my reasons why the article title is appropriate and you believe you have demolished them one by one. Give yourself a clap on the back. There is no point in continuing this discussion. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The Map and Roussillon being Described as Catalan Speaking
The map describes Roussillon aka Pyrénées-Orientales as being Catalan Speaking, but doesn't provide a source. I used to live in Barcelona, and have visited Pyrénées-Orientales, I find that extremely hard to believe. The best source I could find was this from the Generalitat of Catalonia, which means its reliability is questionable. It's all in Catalan but it says they sent out a couple thousand questionnaires to Roussillon, their results are that 34% can speak Catalan, which seems high but the number who say that they usually use Catalan is only 1.2% of respondents, and 4.4% say they generally use French and Catalan, by comparison 87% of the respondents say they usually speak French. If Catalan Speaking means that there are people who happen to speak Catalan located in the area, then I guess it makes sense but otherwise to me it seems like it's a French speaking region, and the maps legend should be modified. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Catalan is the traditional local language of Roussillon, which means that about one century ago the number of speakers was 100% of the population or very close to it. The decrease in the number of speakers is due to language shift and immigration, as it also happens with so many European regional languages. --Jotamar (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that analysis, however where I currently live for instance the traditional language would be Tupi but today it would be described as Lusophone. I guess then the question is how long ago would the language have to have been spoken in order for the reclassification to take place? I think there'd be little disagreement in saying that today the language of Perpignan is French and not Catalan same as with the rest of Pyrénées-Orientales. Also looking at the age demographic data from Gen Cat's study I'm thinking you would have to go back further than a hundred years to get close to 100% Catalan speakers. "Catalan speaking" could be changed to "Historically Catalan speaking" to better reflect the present day situation. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Historically Catalan speaking" could be interpreted as meaning that there are no Catalan speakers left, however that's not true. Native people of Roussillon call themselves Catalans and I guess that they consider the Catalan language a part of their identity, even if they might not speak it often. --Jotamar (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be reflected by a source though if such is the case? The article as a whole seems to lack sources and seems to have two arguments: one that there is a catalan cultural domain, and then two Catalan independence. I mean the article as a whole has six images, two are maps, and four are for Catalan independence, this is kind of weird. Be that as it may, Pyrénées-Orientales does not speak Catalan, there is a minority who do but the vast majority speak French, and this is backed by Reliable Sources, so it is incorrect to say it speaks French. We could say instead that the Dark Grey represents the "Catalan Cultural Domain" this would probably more representative and more for other domains in the Dark Grey area where Catalan is not the main language, such as Barcelona. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- The concept of Catalan Countries is indeed linked to Catalan nationalism, no doubt about it. What exactly would you change in the article? --Jotamar (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be reflected by a source though if such is the case? The article as a whole seems to lack sources and seems to have two arguments: one that there is a catalan cultural domain, and then two Catalan independence. I mean the article as a whole has six images, two are maps, and four are for Catalan independence, this is kind of weird. Be that as it may, Pyrénées-Orientales does not speak Catalan, there is a minority who do but the vast majority speak French, and this is backed by Reliable Sources, so it is incorrect to say it speaks French. We could say instead that the Dark Grey represents the "Catalan Cultural Domain" this would probably more representative and more for other domains in the Dark Grey area where Catalan is not the main language, such as Barcelona. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Historically Catalan speaking" could be interpreted as meaning that there are no Catalan speakers left, however that's not true. Native people of Roussillon call themselves Catalans and I guess that they consider the Catalan language a part of their identity, even if they might not speak it often. --Jotamar (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that analysis, however where I currently live for instance the traditional language would be Tupi but today it would be described as Lusophone. I guess then the question is how long ago would the language have to have been spoken in order for the reclassification to take place? I think there'd be little disagreement in saying that today the language of Perpignan is French and not Catalan same as with the rest of Pyrénées-Orientales. Also looking at the age demographic data from Gen Cat's study I'm thinking you would have to go back further than a hundred years to get close to 100% Catalan speakers. "Catalan speaking" could be changed to "Historically Catalan speaking" to better reflect the present day situation. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class Catalan-speaking countries articles
- Top-importance Catalan-speaking countries articles
- WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries articles
- C-Class Spain articles
- Top-importance Spain articles
- All WikiProject Spain pages
- C-Class France articles
- Mid-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- C-Class European Microstates articles
- Mid-importance European Microstates articles
- C-Class Andorra articles
- Top-importance Andorra articles
- Andorra articles
- WikiProject European Microstates articles
- C-Class Italy articles
- Low-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- C-Class geography articles
- Unknown-importance geography articles
- WikiProject Geography articles
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- Low-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class European history articles
- Unknown-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- C-Class International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- C-Class Libertarianism articles
- Unknown-importance Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Unknown-importance sociology articles