Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 20 October 2019

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. 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

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. On the attitude of the OP, I am in complete agreement with you. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The other question is, do we need all the verbiage at all. It seems to me that the version that was there until September was clear enough. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Oh ok so you agree with me on this?Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire's proposal. The coloring of the map is self-evident. Doesn't require such a complex explanation so old version is fine.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK I'll revert it back to before all the editing started. WCM_email 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

• All unassessed 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