Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:43, 7 November 2017

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Catalan-speaking countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Microstates: Andorra This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Andorra.

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.

Chronological Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Change name to Catalan-speaking territories or edit Lede to define as ideology/concept

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• Rename to Catalan-speaking territories as per WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE,WP:FRINGE

• 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. 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 Country and Sovereign state. Note that we refer on-wiki to the sub-parts of the UK as Countries of the United Kingdom (and Scottish attempts of independence have been as contentious in recent past).Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTCENSORED. Icewhiz hits the nail on the head, just because it offends certain sensitivities does not mean Misplaced Pages should be censored. WCM_email 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply: Google-count does not address the WP:POV issue. The WP:NOTCENSORED 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 irredentism and I will agree with you. There simply are none. WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABILITY and evidently, WP:FRINGE Sonrisas1 (talk) 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.Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok Icewhiz 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 The Independent 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. Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I would also point to the two articles Pan-Germanism (presented as an ideology - not a reality - there is no Greater Germany article) and to List of territorial entities where German is an official language. We must not conflate a (dangerous) ideology with a factual reality. Icewhiz the example you give of Countries of the United Kingdom 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. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
          • I was sloppy - I picked recent gNews hits. but what is being used? This is a Irredentism 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 Palestinian territories 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).Icewhiz (talk) 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 WP:COMMONNAME use for Germanophone countries/territories due to their Nazi past so Misplaced Pages has gone for the long-winded name of List of territorial entities where German is an official language (let's see how many google hits that gets!). There is an article named English-speaking world (oddly not one for French-speaking world), but calling it English countries 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 User:Asqueladd's explanations of why my article should be deleted. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Rename per WP:FRINGE. 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.Ariasju (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is about the concept of the "Catalan Countries" or "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 this Request for Comment in April-May this year. I will quote from my contribution to that RfC: "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, and in Frommer's Guide. There is no evidence that Joan Martí i Castell (Rovira i Virgili University), Creu Casas (Institute of Catalan Studies), Joan Albert López i Bustins (PhD student in geography, University of Barcelona), Clare Mar-Molinero (University of Southampton), Juan Cobarrubias (Seton Hall University), or Josep Llobera (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. Scolaire (talk) 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 WP:RELIABILITY 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 Òmnium Cultural 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 WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV issues. Either rename or totally re-write the lead so that the article describes the equivalent of the ideology of Pan-Germanism or the reality of the List of territorial entities where German is an official language. We cannot conflate the two.Sonrisas1 (talk) 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. Scolaire (talk) 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 German Question. 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The OP asserts that the term 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 four pages 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 Catalonia in Spain, Mediterranean Paradiplomacies, and Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models (in the acknowledgements, hardly the place you'd put a derogatory reference!). Examples of articles are "The Catalan Connection: Constructing the Catalan Countries through Architecture, 1950s-1980s", which uses "so-called" in the abstract but not in the title, and "Social context and key success factors of Catalan independence movement", 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. Scolaire (talk) 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. Sonrisas1 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sonrisas1: - what is missing in your whole line of argument here so far is a proposed alternative term that meets WP:COMMONNAME. 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.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposals Icewhiz Greater Catalonia would be massively POV (As I do also see now Catalan supremacism 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 Catalan-speaking territories 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 Pan-Germanism, define it as "an ambiguous concept which may have ideological, political or cultural meanings" rather than defining it as an actual existing territory. Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI,Icewhiz 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:

"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.

This could be a second sub-optimal way of dealing with the WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABILITY issues.Sonrisas1 (talk) 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. --Soman (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply:Soman 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So, edit the lede? For example, the flag should be in the infobox. --Soman (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

SomanI 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, es.wiki intro is no good. A better option is to state something like "Catalan Countries (Template:Lang-ca) is a proposed country in Europe, unifying all Catalan-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." --Soman (talk) 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! Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point 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? Scolaire (talk) 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. --Calthinus (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Are you serious? 98% of your edits on Misplaced Pages are about Catalan independence and you claim ignorance about this? Popular Unity Candidacy / Arran (organization) and Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya 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. Calthinus, Soman: 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?Sonrisas1 (talk) 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. Scolaire (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire 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 Sonrisas1 (talk) 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 AN/I. In the meantime I will ask you to strike through that sneer by putting a <s> before it and a </s> after it. Scolaire (talk) 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a sneer. "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. Scolaire (talk) 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? Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire 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.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sonrisas1 Responding to your ping, no, I disagree with you, the lede is fine. In its current form, it adheres well to WP:NPOV with statements like 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.. --Calthinus (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME --Panotxa (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME.---Leptictidium (mt) 08:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixing Lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No change to the lead at this time. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire, 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?Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we start by addressing the "fringe theory" question? WP:FRINGE 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?

• 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. Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire 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 Celtic nations, 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. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there are two ways to go about the Lede of this article and the current one is too similar to Celtic nations, which is inherently non-ideological. Forgive me, but that is effectively saying "the current lead is too NPOV; it should lean towards the view that this is an expansionist or irredentist concept." The lead clearly states – and more than once – that the term is used by Catalan nationalists. It is neither necessary nor desirable to state it again in the first or second sentence. That was the clear outcome of this Request for Comment in April-May this year. Out of 15 !votes, only one, the editor who had added the wording, agreed with its addition, and even he changed his !vote when he saw what way the wind was blowing. Several contributors stated that that wording was not neutral. Everything else you say is opinion. I respectfully disagree, as do others. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Yes, that is my point. "Catalan countries" is an POV name per se because it is a political concept which claims that other parts of Spain/Europe are "Catalan". Not Catalan/Valencian-speaking but actually Catalan. Its not like Celtic nations - celtic does not impose supremacy of one "nation" over the rest. Its more like calling Celtic Nations "Scottish nations" or "Irish nations". Do you get my point? Valencians have a distinct culture and history and, unlike Catalonia, were a kingdom in their own right, both before and after Catalan was spoken in that area. I didn't know you already had a discussion on this, I think it was perhaps not explained properly. The idea is that the Lede should describe the content and name of the article. Sentence number 1 geographically describes the Catalan-speaking territories. It doesn't describe the idea of "Catalan countries" which is essentially a minority political aspiration. That is why Spanish Misplaced Pages description "an ambiguous term..." is more coherent with both body and naming of article. Then again: If we renamed to "Catalan-speaking territories" none of these issues would exist... We wouldn't even have to discuss the political controversy in the Lede at all! Like this, the article Lede should follow the name. Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have misread what I said. I said that you were effectively saying "the current lead is too NPOV", i.e. too neutral, and that it needs to be more biased. I have taken what you say on board, but it is a personal view based on personal experience, and it doesn't allow for anybody else having a different view. As for I think it was perhaps not explained properly, your view was argued at considerable length, and in virtually the exact same terms as yours, by a (now retired) user in the RfC, so contributors had all the facts at their disposal when they !voted. If you want to see further discussion, see here, here and here. Those discussions were all on the talk page at the time the RfC was running, yet the outcome was as it was. I take it you do agree with WP:CONSENSUS? --Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I see Scolaire. I will look at those discussions. What is your conclusion then? Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, my conclusion is that the first sentence of lead is the best and most neutral that we can achieve, given the extensive discussions and the RfC. The kind of edit you propose would be against consensus. The political aspect, including the fact that the term itself is controversial, is adequately covered in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok its too small an issue to continue arguing over. I'll bow out of this discussion but that was my honest feedback for improving article stability.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Obstinately reverting corrections

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....'.

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.

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.

If you hear me, please speak up.

Nakashchit (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Nakashchit (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What is your proposal Nakashchit?Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i propose that 'Catalan-speaking areas simply added the word 'traditionally' to the sentence 'Catalan-speaking area in dark grey; light grey corresponds to non-Catalan sections of otherwise Catalan-speaking administrative divisions' be replaced by 'Traditionally Catalan-speaking area in dark grey; light grey corresponds to non-Catalan sections of otherwise traditionally Catalan-speaking administrative divisions'. This could be rendered more concisely but I will be content if the error is corrected. Nakashchit (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Although El Carxe is not "traditionally" Catalan-speaking. It became Catalan speaking in the late 19th/early 20th century due to immigration from Valencia and is no longer Catalan speaking. Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, some Catalan is still spoken in all of the dark grey areas. If I'm wrong, there should be a (suitably sourced) paragraph in the article to explain the true situation. Adding "traditional" to the image caption suggests that there is not now any Catalan spoken there, which is at odds with what the article currently says. In my opinion, the caption is already too long and involved, and adding more qualifiers doesn't improve it. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume some people in the Carxe must still speak some dialect of Valencian. Its population numbers in the hundreds, it is practically uninhabited now, which makes it strange that over a million euros have been spent on promoting Catalan in the area.Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the caption for grammar, which was becoming ever more appalling. I didn't bother to reply to the first comment here, if you come here accusing other edits of WP:OWN I see that as a declaration of bad faith. I have no interest in the topic other than writing a neutral encyclopedia. I'm still waiting to see evidence that backs up the personal opinion of the originator and will oppose changes till I do. WCM_email 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with those changes. "Catalan-speaking" should have a hyphen, whether alone or as part of "non-Catalan-speaking". Changing "otherwise Catalan-speaking administrative divisions" to "otherwise Catalan administrative divisions" is completely wrong. They are Spanish administrative divisions, not Catalan administrative divisions. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Catalan-speaking countries articles
• Unknown-importance Catalan-speaking countries articles
• WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries articles
• Start-Class Spain articles
• Unknown-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Start-Class France articles
• Unknown-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• Start-Class European Microstates articles
• Unknown-importance European Microstates articles
• Start-Class Andorra articles
• Unknown-importance Andorra articles
• Andorra articles
• WikiProject European Microstates articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics