Talk:Valencian Community - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maurice27 (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 9 April 2007 (→Just to make sure Maurice27 sees it: Reply to Dunadan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:45, 9 April 2007 by Maurice27 (talk | contribs) (→Just to make sure Maurice27 sees it: Reply to Dunadan)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Catalan-speaking countries Unassessed

	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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spain Unassessed

	Spain portal 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Talk: /Archive 1 Talk: /Archive 2 Talk: /Archive 3 Talk: /Archive 4 (name discussion&agreement)

Valencian Vs. Catalan Round 2507 and counting...

Is there any reason to have to explain than Valencian is the name by which catalan is know by its speakers in that territory in almost every single article where "valencian" word is used? Again, if someone wants to know what Valencian is, he can link in the name (that's why the "" are there...) --Maurice27 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say, it is not necessary on every article (I didn't include it in Names of the Valencian Community), but I do believe it is necessary to include it in this article, given that it is the main article about the Community in whose Statue the official denomination of Valencian is included. By the way, you cannot compare the case of Majorca, since the official denomination in its Statute is in fact, Catalan.--the Dúnadan 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ask a majorcan how they call the language they speak... But of course, that reality is not interesting for "the catalanist block", so, no one from that block has ever tried to explain in Balearic Islands' article that catalan is called there "Mallorquí" or "Menorquí" or "Ibicenc" by its speakers. If it is not important in majorcan articles, why should it be in valencian one?... Again, the Catalan-Speaking project is "not specially neutral". Every single autonomous community in Spain with various official languages has all the naming in those languages... But Valencia, which only has the Valencian one. (who cares if 50% of the pop. speaks spanish daily)... 100% of the catalan speaking community in Balears will say they speak "Mallorquí" or "Menorquí" or "Ibicenc", but NOT A SINGLE reference to those names are given... That's very encyclopedic. NPOV??... come on, give us a break!!! --Maurice27 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The main difference is that the official denomination of the language is the Balearic Islands is also "Catalan", and almost everybody reckons the dialects therein spoken as "Catalan" as well, even if colloquially they may refer to the local varieties by name (not that different from what Mexicans mean when they say that someone speaks "yucateco", which is quite a different dialect in intonation and vocabulary from the central Mexican dialect). If at all, for the inclusion of all points of view, the Balearic Island article should read that the official language is "Catalan" whose local varieties are colloquially or informally referred to as mallorquí, menorquí and ibecenc. Here, the article should say that the official language is Valencian (as the article already states), and then, given its importance as a central article and the first in which the term would appear, explain that it refers to the same language otherwise called Catalan (the only other official or statutory denomination). The rest of the article should use only Valencian. Like I said, both cases are somewhat different, but at least the lead section (and probably the demographic section) should explain the issue. In other articles (like the one I did on Names of the Valencian Community) --the Dúnadan 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

while I personally think it is giving in to a certain Catalanist POV, since, to anyone with the slightest curiousity, he finds out that Valencian is a Catalan dialect only by clicking in that word, then it is also true that there was some sort of loose consensus achieved maybe a couple months ago regarding making this mention to Valencian as a manner of speaking Catalan and then, the rest of the article, would read Valencian only.

once again, we could reopen the debate if needed, because, as mentioned above, knowing that Valencian is some sort of Catalan it is only one click away and, indeed, that interest in making very clear here that Valencian is Catalan rings somewhat POVish, given the fact that 99,9% of the Valencian population call it Valencian (that explain recurrent anon editing and some vandalism of this piece) and the relevant article is there to explain what Valencian is anyway. Mountolive | Talk 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, in fact, NPOV also requires that all information should be easily accessible and open, at least, in the main article of the Community (this one). If loose consensus was achieved, the debate can nonetheless be reopened, and this time a rough or a full consensus could be achieved, through polling. --the Dúnadan 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It could actually be argued that a click away is not enough. Not portraying the fact that both are the same language could be somewhat POVish (sic), or I would say more POVish that a neutral explanation of the fact. The 99.9%, other than your own personal assessment, is unsourced and far from true. --the Dúnadan 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's re-open it, because then, if not, we will have someone willing to add that "the official language of Monaco is French, shared with France, parts of Belgium, parts of Switzerland and many other territories". --Maurice27 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Far-fetched comparison. Most non-Iberian residents know that French is French (one single denomination), whereas few English speakers know that Valencian is Catalan, unless otherwise specified. --the Dúnadan 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it literally: Maurice is referring to a similar discussion held somewhere else where, again, there was some urge by some users to make very clear the Catalan domain. In that case it was quite more flagrant than here.

Well, indeed "it could be argued that a click away is not enough"...from a certain POV. And so it is argued here indeed. As for neutrality, there can't be anything more neutral than saying that "Spanish and Valencian are the official languages". It can't get more neutral than this, because that is how the Estatut puts it.

As for assessing percentages, I conceed that I may indeed have been wrong and the number of people in the Valencian Community calling Valencian "Catalan" may be as high as, say, around 3% of the population, from my previous 0,1% guessing. But that leaves my reasoning pretty much intact, or so I believe.

This said, I guess I won't make a case of maintaining that POVish (sic) statement, but it would be nice if the guys supporting it admitted that they are not free of POV, like everybody else, I guess... Mountolive | Talk 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get confused. All claims are POV. The inclusion of all claims makes the article NPOV (see: WP:NPOV). That is why advocate for the inclusion of the sentence that explains that both are the same language, by NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages.--the Dúnadan 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral enough without the explanation. There is no reason to hide the explanation that Catalan and Valencian are the same under NPOV.--the Dúnadan 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, 3% (even if true, which I doubt) is still your assessment. My assessment could be as high as 30% (mostly in the northern region of Valencia). Even if the 3% is true, setting a threshold of 3% to determine whether an argument is valid or not is still arbitrary. --the Dúnadan 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to invite you for a trip in Northern Castelló: it might be disappointing for you, but I think your vision on the matter will largely improve: Dúnadan, your assessment doesn't appear not even in Agustí Cerdà's wildest dreams! In any case, I agree that setting thresholds for this question is useless and it won't work. However, the Valencian Statute is self evident...

No one would be hiding any explanation if they article read "Valencian is one of the official languages". The Statute doesn't say "Valencian, which is a part of Catalan".

So it only reads like that as a concession to the many Catalanists around here. I guess that, without this concession, the anon users coming would be substituting Valencian by Catalan, which is worse than the current anon users erasing that part, that is why I won't make a point of it and I will not object to the present redaction, as a lesser evil.

But, in any case, it is also true that the more I hear the provided reasons to have the Catalan reference, the less necessary and the more biased I find it... Mountolive | Talk 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An agreement was reached for the formula:

The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known by its speakers in this territory).

Maurice27, if you disagree that consensus then re-open the debate here in the talk page, but don't simply reverse. That's not nice of you.

The Balearic Islands Estatut says that their own language is Catalan with the proper and traditional Balearic dialects. And Balearic people don't discuss they speak Catalan. No way, don't lie.

Valencian Estatut says the ONLY official name for the region is Comunitat Valenciana.

Maurice, I'd invite you to think twice before acting your usual way. While you weren't here many people talked, collaborated and got an agreement. Dúnadan helped everybody by moving the names debate to their own article (Names of the Valencian Community), and after a long while this page was calm. Please don't disrupt as you use to do, and if you keep disagreing, please open a debate in the talk page before reverting what people peacefully agreed.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra, it was you yourself who started this round of reverting here, with the edit summary "rv blavarist vandalism". You may disagree with the opinion of the anonymous editor, but the edit in no way amounts to vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion and an agreement for this formula. Everything that don't follow it has to be first discussed. Otherwise, can be considered vandalism, since is going against the stablished concensous. I think we found already an unconfortable position to everybody. I think we won't go further discussing always the same points when you don't find them as nice as they could be. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a dispute involving this issue, although the only traces I can find are various spikes in the eternal Castilian/Spanish debate. We didn't agree, we just went on to argue about something else. Ho hum. Physchim62 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive, be fair:

As for neutrality, there can't be anything more neutral than saying that "Spanish and Valencian are the official languages"

We may say Spanish and Catalan or we may say Castilian and Valencian. But that's another debate.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you keep telling Maurice how bad boy he was, you are actually giving him little chance to turn into a good boy... Mountolive | Talk 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not a bad boy, I still am, the same way I was a good boy and I still am. Let's start point by point:

I reverted because you, Casaforra, decided that your POV IS the good one, and as far as I'm concerned nobody entitled you that right. So, if I think I should revert, I will. I was only asked to comment it in the talk page, which I did.

Why is it so important, Dunadan, to make clear that Valencian is catalan in this main article, and is not important at all to mention that catalan is called in Majorca "mallorquí" by its speakers? Not even to mention it ANY SINGLE TIME? If you think it is important to mention that valencian is what catalan is called in valencia, then it should be equally important to mention that mallorquí is what catalan is called in Majorca. You see my point? Or your "encyclopedic neutrality" does not let you?.

"Not neutral enough without the explanation" are Dunadan's words. Well I think it is not neutral enough to "mysteriously forget" about "mallorquí, ibicenc or menorquí" either. And you are a member of the catalan-speaking project?

You said, Casaforra, that "after a long while this page was calm"... Of course, at least while nobody changed "your" edits. You ask me to "open a debate in the talk page". Well, that has been done many times in the past with:
- The Naming of the community also in Spanish (because half the pop. do speak that language). The Catalan name is also the official in "Comunitat Autònoma de les Illes Balears", but only the "illes balears" part... Spanish, is also present with "Comunidad Autónoma de las Illes Balears". Then, why your "neutrality" doesn't let us, poor wikipedians, to write the name in spanish?
- The flag ratio (which I proved to be 2:3). Nobody talked about it... And a wrong one is still used.
- The use of "english" naming (i.e Alicante is used by english speakers). Alicante is constantly changed for Alacant even if, when linked, turns to be Alicante in the article's title. Again this is the english wikipedia, not the spanish nor the catalan.
- Valencia is constantly changed to València. Why? if this is the english wikipedia? If Valencia (in english) turns out to be written like Valencia (in spanish) I'm so sorry... It is just the way it is.

So, if neither of these matters (all of them exposed in the talk page long ago), which are opposed to your "ideals", have never been discussed by you, why should I take the time to write them? You just don't care to argue matters you know you will lose. Therefore, I do the same thing. I prevail my opinion to undo or revert others edits if I think they are wrong, just the same way you do it.

--Maurice27 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered your questions enough, but I will rephrase this time. Please note that using "bold" characters (as with capital letters) implies shouting. To keep the debate cooled down and in full respect of all members, I kindly ask you to refrain from using it, unless it is to highlight a specific word or phrase in an argument.

To answer again to your question as to why it is important to specify that Catalan and Valencian are the same language here, but not in Balearic Islands:

I never opposed specifying anything in the Balearic Islands. Just be reminded that the situation is not equivalent, and therefore any comparison between both purported POVs or NPOVs must take the differences into account. The only statutory denomination of the language in the Balearic Islands is "Catalan". Most of the residents agree, even if they have specific names for the local varieties. As such, even if we do not mention the names of local varieties, the article would be NPOV. However, the article in the Balearic Islands could read: "The co-official language in the Balearic Islands is Catalan, whose local varieties are called mallorquí, menorquí and ivecenc." This is acceptable and appropriate, and I think we should add it. But as you can see, the phrasing is different, adequately portraying the statutory denomination of the language.
In the case of the Valencian Community the statutory denomination is "Valencian". In order to specify that we are referring to the same language here, we should add a phrase explaining so: "The co-official language is Valencian (which refers to the same language called Catalan).

Finally, Maurice, I did not understand what you meant by "mysteriously forgetting". Per, WP:Etiquette, please be reminded to assume good faith.

--the Dúnadan 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In first place, try not to write in the middle of other's comments... It makes it difficult to follow. I hope me moving it to the bottom does not bother you.

The sentence: "The co-official languages in the Balearic Islands are Spanish and Catalan (i.e. mallorquí, menorquí and eivissenc, as Catalan is known by its speakers in this territory)." seems very good to me. If you never opposed to specified the names of catalan in the balears, you will be ok with me to add it.
If, instead than reverting other's edit (I'm not talking about you), some people used their time to improve other articles, wikipedia would improve a lot.
About the " "bold" characters (as with capital letters) implying shouting"... I'M SORRY IT DID UPSET YOU SO MUCH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT MORE VISIBLE, BUT WHEN SOMEONE TELLS ME ABOUT WP:Etiquette TO SHOW RESPECT TO SOME USERS THAT KEEP OBSTRUCTING OTHER'S WORKS (AGAIN, NOT REFERING TO YOU PRECISELY), I CAN'T REFRAIN MYSELF... Sorry again, Dunadan --Maurice27 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm... it's all about nuances. Notice the difference in the sentence I wrote about the Balearic Islands and the sentence you wrote. My sentence reads: "whose local varieties are called...", whereas yours reads: "as Catalan is known by its speakers as...". The meaning is quite different. The first sentence implies that the speakers know their language as Catalan, and that different names belong to dialects. The second implies that the language that is elsewhere called Catalan, is not known as such in the Balearic Islands but as Mallorquí, Menorquí and Eivissenc. That is not true. Catalan is known as Catalan in the Balearic Islands (as the same Statute of Autonomy portrays), and the variety (i.e. dialect) they speak could be known as Mallorquí, et al. Again, you cannot compare the Valencian case with the Balearic case. In Valencia, Catalan is known as Valencian. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27, just an(other) example of your Anti-Catalanism:

I really love that sentence! :)

Physchim62, that's not fair. Why do you accuse me of re-opening a war? :O

Before the blaverist revert you point there were 8 editions for a week, and none of them changed the "troublesome" sentence!

Even more, Mountolive himself edited twice but he didn't change that sentence! Why? Maybe because he assisted in the previous debate? The discussion about that sentence was talked here and everybody agreed. Maurice27 didn't take part, but he is free to re-open the debate once again in the talk page. My complain is that reverting the consensus reached by every other users involved is not very civil from him.

Regarding flexibility, I'd invite Maurice to come and take a look at the articles related to Valencian pilota. I wrote them and I tried them not to be politically biased, but anyway, I invited Mountolive to clean them up grammatically and to remove any bias. We worked in the discussion pages, we talked and we reach an agreement. Isn't it an example of the way things should be done here?

When a certain peace was got on this page I asked Dúnadan for help in translating the article Names of the Valencian Community. I naively thought that by having that article the tiring debate about the names would be moved there. Now I know I was wrong, there won't be peace over here until the article says what Maurice27 wants. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 11:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra, do you want me to explain AGAIN the truth and show everybody how you are lying with "that" sentence? There's no problem with me. It's up to you to dig your own grave... Oh, and BTW, If you had manage to include political biased opinions in a sport article, I would have admired you. About the discussing, talking and agreement reach with Mountolive, maybe you want us to give you a candy for being a good boy or something... --Maurice27 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Round 2508

At present, we are "not allowed" to put the Spanish name for the autonomous community on the infobox because it's not official, dispite the fact that half the population of the País Valencià speak only Spanish. At the same time we "must" explain to people that Valencian is actually Catalan and that it is those mischievous politicians who drafted the Statute of Autonomy (and established an Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua, the sneaky buggers) who are trying to lead the rest of the world astray. Am I missing something, is it still April 1? Physchim62 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, that is rather discouraging indeed, but, unfortunately, that's the state of things in the Land of _______ (fill in blank with your prefered joke).

I guess you will have to eventually feel resigned, because the problem is that they won't change: they are equipped with a semi-religious feeling suggesting them that, regardless whatever evidence is provided to the contrary, they are right and everyone else is wrong (and, those who resist, biased, unlike themselves). Since the general populace doesn't seem to like their truth (at least they don't vote for it), then they found wikipedia to try to spread the word. Ca:wiki soon became rather monolithic in these topics and so much nationalist consensus eventually was boring for some of the most valid editors there, then, the stronger and fittest, by virtue of their Nietzschean Wille zur Macht, felt the urge to come to the English version for some natural expansion. Some of their points were interesting indeed, but, at some moment, hordes of unfit elements followed, compensating their lack of ideas or flexibility (I can hear them: "flexiwhat??") with an uncompromising enthusiasm for the cause...I guess it was in that moment when the whole wikipedia idea met its limit (because they are smart enough to come equipped with one source or two...) Mountolive | Talk 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AMEN to that! --Maurice27 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested in discussing the article or exposing theories of conspiracy? Remember, wikipedia is not a forum. --the Dúnadan 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I do believe we are much more interested in improving wikipedia article's in general. Sadly, some people like ________ (fill the blank with your prefered user name) get bored from time to time and decide to destroy other's work. --Maurice27 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is? Users with different opinion (or point of view) are not vandals, and they work, while controversial, is not destructive. Reiterated reversions of other user's work (under the banner of "yours is biased mine is not") are uncivil. We should strive to discuss all matters that are controversial and include all points of view, regardless of our own opinion. However, official definitions and statutory articles are primary sources.

If the Statute of Autonomy does not include the name of the Community in Spanish, then the table (which by convention includes only official names in native languages) should only include the name in Valencian. However, the first paragraph, or lead section, of the article, should include both. In the same way, the infobox should only say that the official language is Valencian (the only official statutory name), whereas the lead section includes the explanation that Valencian and Catalan are the same language. Same policy for both issues: official (statutory) names in the infobox; all names in lead section. Isn't that acceptable? -the Dúnadan 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Asturian is not official in Asturias (only "protected", Art. 4.1, Asturian Statute of Autonomy), but the name of the autonomous community is still given in Asturian on the infobox on that page.
Nowhere in the Catalan Statute of Autonomy does the term "Comunautat Autonoma de Catalonha" appear, yet it is cited on the infobox on Catalonia because Aranese is now official throughout Catalonia (Art. 6.5, 2006 Estatut).
Spanish is official in the Valencian Community (Art. 6.2, 2006 Estatut). "Comunitat Valenciana" is not Spanish, "Comunidad Valenciana" is.

All this without mentioning the fact that Comunidad Valenciana was the legal name of the entity until the very recent past and is still very widely used to refer to the autonomous community, including I don't doubt by the half of the population who are not valencianophone. Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Misplaced Pages is not censored for the benefit of minors, nor catalanists. Physchim62 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting your arguments here and not reverting. I commend your willingness to debate and not to engage in an edit war. I will try to respond to your arguments in a clear way.

Your argument is external not internal. I have never said (or even mentioned) that the Asturias and Catalonia articles are an example to follow or perfect or right. In fact, whatever they do there, does not justify what we must do here, and its discussion is beyond the scope of our debate. If what they do there is also wrong, then it needs to be changed, and you should discuss those issues there, not here. Presenting an external article that is wrong or that does not follow convention does not prove my argument wrong. It only proves that other articles could be wrong too. Why don't you pick articles that do follow convention? For example, Venezuela. The name was recently changed to "República Bolivariana de Venezuela", yet the old name is not included in the infobox, just the current official one. Why didn't you pick Mexico? Almost everybody in Mexico refers to it as "México" not as "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". Moreover, a considerable percentage of Mexicans use the phrase "República Mexicana". Moreover, the 62 indigenous languages are "national" languages by law. But the infobox only shows the official version. But I will not use other articles as my argument either.
My argument is simple. I will present it in a schematic way:

(1) If infoboxes are to contain only the official name in the official language then only the name in Valencian is to be presented, because it is the only official name both in the Spanish and the Valencian version of the Organic Law of the Autonomous Community.

(2) We are not being offensive in any way, neither are we being "catalanist" by presenting the official name in the infobox in Valencian as shown in the Spanish version of the Statute of Autonomy. (I suppose you need to say why we are being offensive, in the first place). If it had been "offensive" or catalanist, then I suppose the Statute wouldn't have been approved by the Spanish Parliament in the first place (not to mention that it was also approved by the Corts Valencianes).

(3) We are not censoring anything: the lead section will include the name in Spanish: Comunidad Valenciana. All POVs are presented and given their due weight. The only difference lies in the fact that one name is official, the other one, like you said, is widely used by half of the population, in spite of not being official anymore. We present the name in Spanish too, but in the first paragraph, or lead section. We give both their due weight: the official name is presented in the infobox, the unofficial name, yet highly used, and the former legal name, is presented in the lead section or first paragraph. Credit where credit is due.

(4) By imposing the unofficial (yet widely used) Spanish version of the name as if it were official we are either contradicting the ultimate statutory law of Valencia, presenting new proposals as to what we think should be official or giving undue weight to an unofficial version. We must include the name in Spanish, yes, absolutely. The name in Spanish must be included in the lead section of the article. But we must not say or imply that it is official, if it is not.Therefore, it should not be included in the infobox.

I hope I have been clearer this time.

--the Dúnadan 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if all this is not just a case of xenophobia rather than official naming... I just cannot understand the great effort some people do just to erase as many traces of spanish culture as possible in some articles... I just can't understand... Now, let's see how long it takes for anybody to remind me to assume good faith according to WP:Etiquette. --Maurice27 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if all this is not just a case of Anti-Catalanism rather than official naming... I just cannot understand the great effort some people do just to erase as many traces of Catalan culture as possible in some articles... I just can't understand... --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC) HAHAHAHA :DD

Accusations of xenophobia do not prove my arguments wrong. They constitute ad hominem arguments. In lack of your willingness to debate properly (answering arguments instead of attacking other users), your reversions will be considered vandalism, in that they are detrimental to the project. --the Dúnadan 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Maurice27 stop reverting, your actions are vandalism, and reverting them does not constitute 3RR. Unless you are willing to debate friendly instead of bringing spurious ad hominem accusations of xenophobia, your edits are considered vandalism. Even if the issue was discussed before, it can be brought up again. Please stop reverting. --the Dúnadan 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Vandalism... As per WP:Etiquette, please be reminded to assume good faith. --Maurice27 09:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

hahaha... you accuse other users of xenophobia and then want them to assume good faith?Do you really have an argument or not? Otherwise, yes, I am sorry, your edits are vandalism, based on insults and not on solid arguments. If you wish to debate, I will be most willing to do so. Until then, and based on your previous remarks, your edits are detrimental to the project. --the Dúnadan 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this sentence "I sometimes wonder if all this is not just a case of xenophobia rather than official naming" justify so much politically correct whining? It may not be a fortunate wording, but we are expected to improve the conversation and cry wolf or playing the victim is not likely to help either... Mountolive | Talk 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, would you at least discuss the subject? Neither accusations of xenophobia nor those of "playing the victim" help in the conversation. I have asked you to stop using ad hominem arguments to refute my proposal, and instead focus on the proposal itself, and whether you find any logical inconsistencies in it. I am open to discuss it, but I am absolutely not open to accept ad hominem arguments as valid points to discredit it. --the Dúnadan 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

so are you now saying that I am "accusing" you of playing the victim? you must be a sensitive bloke indeed, man. I reccomend that you increase your tolerance threshold, at least when editing this article, because everyone has strong feelings about it...

as you may have noticed already (because I assume you are following discussion thoroughly), I am not willing to dispute your edit, that is why I am not engaging in any discussion nor reasoning. Is that ok? I hope so.

I only said that, to ease things, accusing people of accusing you (sorry for the weird sentence) is probably not a good idea Mountolive | Talk 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, that is the way your comment can be easily interpreted. Unless you were talking about somebody else who might be "playing the victim", but you happened to write that just after my comment. I do get your advise (stop accusing each other, and start discussing), but that was precisely was I was suggesting myself (and asking the other party to do so to) all this time. In fact, I would appreciate if you would participate in the discussion too. --the Dúnadan 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

on vandalism

I have seen defined as "vandalism" the edit removing the "reassuring" statement "(as Catalan is known...)".

While I particularly won't edit like that (nor, it is fair to say, revert it either) I think it is time to make clear that "what we don't like" doesn't necessarily equate to "vandalism".

Because, as Dúnadan said, all claims are POV, and this one dicussed is particularly so, since it is based on a Catalanist reassuring need (apparently for them is not enough with having Valencian's filiation in Valencian so they need this reassuring statement here).

I may -against my better judgment- agree with keeping that POV statement here. But calling the inverse POV "vandalism" doesn't make sense, because they are both legitimate POVs and none is vandalism Mountolive | Talk 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review the history of edits as well as the above discussion thoroughly. While I do believe it is important to clarify (not "reassure") that Valencian and Catalan are the same language in the lead section, I am not referring to that particular case as vandalism. I am referring to the continuous reversions of the elimination of the purported Spanish official name of the Autonomous Community (because it is not official) in the infobox. I explained why they are detrimental (WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability). While I am open to discuss them, by accusing me of xenophobia and reverting the edits without discussing the subject itself, the edits of the user who reverted are considered vandalism. --the Dúnadan 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

what made you think that I was talking to you? check the article's very recent summary edits' history (you won't even need to make it throughly) and you will see what I am talking about.

take it easy and happy editing Mountolive | Talk 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the words ...as Dúndan said and the lack of other user to which your comment was specified made me think you were talking about me. No worries, though. Thanks for clarifying. --the Dúnadan 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that Mountolive was referring to me.

I am who is reverting anon users whose only purpose is erasing the word Catalan or removing any mention that Valencian is a part of the Catalan language.

I'd encourage those anons to log in to the wp and explain the reasons to do so. Otherwise, and since their only edits are deletions, I revert them.

As far as I remember there was a debate in this talk page about that sentence (as Catalan is known...), and we looked to agree. I guess it's a duty of every user to maintain the consensued edition unless a proper debate is re-opened and a new agreement is reached. That's what I am doing.

Btw, if there's any POV attack (which Mountolive seems to intend that's what I'm doing) I'd say the blaverist editions ARE a POV attack. With one main difference:

The fact that Valencian and Catalan are the same language is a scientifical truth. No matter if blaverists believe otherwise or pro-Spaniards-Frenchies feel uncomfortable.

Do you want a POV attack proof? Here you have it:

The previous attempts of removing any mention to País Valencià and its proper translation into English. This has one word: Censorship.

It doesn't matter if we like, prefear or hate terms such as PV, Regne de València, Comunitat Valenciana or Levante feliz. We are here to explain them.

So, in one word, I'll keep reverting editions that remove that sentence until a new debate about it happens to reach a consensus. In the meanwhile, or until a new agreement happens, I'll keep regarding that kind of editions as vandalism.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Proportions of the Valencian autonomous community Flag (2.0 version)

(JUST TO MAKE SURE JOANOT READS IT)

After a quite extensive search throughtout the whole internet, I haven't been able to find any single source to state that this flag has 1:2 proportions. No laws, no estatutes, no decrees... nothing. I have to say, that I ALMOST couldn't find anything to state it is 2:3 either... Only the source I gave some weeks ago, and that "some users" didn't believe... BUT, then, I thought about where to adress to ask for a confirmed source. And what better choice than the Spanish Vexillological Society (the SEV, see ]) which, BTW is a member of the Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques. So, I believe this source to be the most trustworthy of all.

This said, I went to SEV site, ], and found a "banderas" (flags) link on the left. Then, I clicked on the "Comunidades Autónomas" link, see ], and then on the "Comunidad Valenciana/Comunitat Valenciana" one see ], to get here: ], where it clearly states a proportions of 2:3.

But, maybe this society simply had these same proportions for all spanish autonomous communities flags... WRONG! let's see some examples:

CASTILLA Y LEÓN: proportions 76:99. See, ]
CASTILLA-LA MANCHA: proportions 1:2. See, ]
COMUNIDAD DE MADRID: proportions 7:11. See, ]
PAÍS VASCO/EUSKADI: proportions 14:25. See, ]

Being ALL OTHERS of proportions 2:3.

I sincerely hope this FINALLY ends the fight about the proportions. I gave the most trustworthy source available, which NO ONE can doubt. --Maurice27 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure Maurice27 sees it

Since Maurice27 says I am "erasing without debating" (in spite of having opened a debate above). I will copy/paste my arguments, so that he (and other users) can see it. I am not erasing without debating. He is, in fact, not debating. However, I invite him and all users interested in this subject to participate in this debate.

First: even if the issue has been discussed, by this policy, consensus (even though what was achieved was a loose consensus in which users decided to stop arguing) can be discussed again and could be reverted. I am opening the issue again. The fact is simple: the only official name is the one in Valencian, regardless of the fact that both Spanish and Valencian are the official languages. I repeat my arguments. I am open to debate this. I am not open to accept ad hominem arguments (as the above, by Maurice27), but I am most willing to have a civil debate. Unwillingness to debate, and reverting out of stubbornness is detrimental to the project, and as such, reversions without justification are vandalism.

My argument is simple. I will present it in a schematic way:

(4) By imposing the unofficial (yet widely used) Spanish version of the name as if it were official we are either contradicting the ultimate statutory law of Valencia, presenting new proposals as to what we think should be official or giving undue weight to an unofficial version. We must include the name in Spanish, yes, absolutely. The name in Spanish must be included in the lead section of the article. But we must not say or imply that it is official, if it is not.Therefore, it should not be included in the infobox.

I hope I have been clearer this time.

--the Dúnadan 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well let' get some ground rules clear first:

There has not been a consensus reached to remove "Comunidad Valenciana" (or to keep it for that matter);
Either removing the Spanish term or replacing it is NOT vandalism, and should not be referred to as such. It may, however, be a breach of other policies, such as WP:POINT or WP:3RR.

Now Comunidad Valenciana can hardly be said to be original research or unverifiable. Reference 1 of the article is to the Ley Orgánica 1/2006, de 10 de abril, de Reforma de la Ley Orgánica 5/1982, de 1 de julio, de Estatuto de Autonomía de la Comunidad Valenciana. For editors who have access to La Vanguardia, you will find two references to "Comunidad Valenciana" on page 14 (other, web-accessible references here). Otherwise, you will find over 1.6 million references on Google (as against 1.1 million for "Comunitat Valenciana"), the first one being from... the Conselleria de Turisme of the Generalitat.

But is it WP:UNDUE to include the term Comunidad Valenciana as one title to the infobox. From that policy page (second paragraph):

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Speakers of Spanish cannot be described as "a small minority" in the Valencian Community—they arguably form the majority. It is not including the term which, IMHO, gives a misleading impression of the linguistic situation in the Valencian Community and of the name used to refer to it by its residents. Removing the Spanish name gives WP:UNDUE weight to the point of view that "Comunitat Valenciana" should be the term used in non-legal Spanish, which is a view held by a small minority of people.

The supposed convention of "official names only" on infoboxes is honoured in the breach as well. "Comunidá Autónoma del Principáu d'Asturies" is not an official name, but it appears as a title to the relevant infobox, rightly IMHO as Asturian is spoken by a significant minority of the population in the Asturias (10–45%, rather more than speak Aranese in Catalonia as a whole). The official status, where (as here) it is non-evident to the reader, is best discussed in the article text than left to the vagueries of an infobox.

For these reasons, I am restoring the Spanish name to the infobox title. Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you restore, let's reach a consensus, otherwise we will have an edit war. Thank you for participating. I appreciate your attitude and your willingness to reach a consensus. I have answered some of your concerns before. Let me explain:

Yes the version in Spanish (Comunidad Valenciana) was official, as you pointed out, in the 1982 Statute. It is not official in the 2006 Statute. It is not official now. See: . Even in the Spanish version, the name is Valencian.

The First article in Spanish reads: El pueblo valenciano, históricamente organizado como Reino de Valencia se constituye como Comunidad Autónoma adentro de unidad de la Nación española, como expresión de su identidad diferenciada como nacionalidad histórica y en el ejercicio del derecho de autogobierno que la Constitución Española reconoce a toda nacionalidad, con la denominación de Comunitat Valenciana.

When I talked about "undue weight", I am not referring to the "opinions" of majorities or minorities, but about giving a name the undue status of "official" either implicitly or explicitly through its inclusion in the infobox. Only the Valencian name has that status. Giving the Spanish version the "official" status is giving it undue weight.
The fact that more people speak Spanish than Valencian does not prove that more people believe that the Spanish name should also be official. (Unless a survey has been made and you can provide a source for that). Of course, even if everybody believes that the Spanish version should be official, or even if all Google entries show the name in Spanish, by WP:OR that does not make it official, until it is approved by the Corts Valencianes and published in the Statute of Autonomy.
Finally, like I said before, even if other autonomous communities include the unofficial names, that doesn't mean they are right. That means they are wrong too. Only the official versions should be included.

--the Dúnadan 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that "Comunitat Valenciana" is the legal denomination: I prefer the link to the Ley Organica because I think it is more convincing for people who might be inclined to dispute this than the Corts text (which misstates the title of the Ley 5/1982 in at least one footnote). However we obviously disagree over the "convention" of "official names only". "Remember that the main purpose of Misplaced Pages is being useful for readers." I have mentioned the example of Asturias above: I think that it is correct to include the Asturian translation on the infobox even if it is not official, because Asturian is a significant minority language in that AC. Let me give another example. The only official transliteration of the official name of Japan is Nippon, but this pronunciation and transliteration is only rarely used by Japanese people (it can have imperialistic overtones), who prefer by an overwhelming majority to use the pronunciation and transliteration Nihon: hence, both are correctly given in the header to the infobox on that article. Not to do so would give a misleading impression, as I think the omission of the Spanish language name for the AC from the infobox gives a misleading impression on this article. I am somewhat surprised by this edit, where you remove the Spanish name but leave the (unofficial) English: doesn't this illustrate the absurdity of only keeping the Valencian name? Finally, might I say that it takes two sides to edit war, and editors who object to the presence of the Spanish name in this position in the article could also discuss their resaons rather than simply reverting edits, especially if the reverts are made with distinctly uncivil edit summaries as has often been the case. Physchim62 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the name in Spanish and added the English translation because Maurice27 had pointed out that the translation of the official name in English is included in all infoboxes, since this is the English wikipedia. (see the history of Catalonia). While I hadn't realized that before, it is indeed the case (see: Mexico, Venezuela, France, et al.). That's all. No absurdity.
Yes, you are right, per convention, names that use other alphabets are transliterated. The name in Valecian, however, uses the same alphabet. Moroever, the name in Spanish is not a transliteration.
I guess the point here is whether the infobox should contain only the official name, or whether it should contain all possible names in all possible languages spoken in that region/country. If it is just a matter of convention, then this issue is debatable, and I propose a poll. If it is not convention, but a decision that has already been taken when creating infoboxes, then only the Valencian name should stay, since it is the only official name. If you wish to challenge that consensus then the appropriate place to do would be there (wherever the decision was taken), not here. So the question is, is convention mandatory or not? I will research on that. I ask you to do the same.

--the Dúnadan 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I read the "Ley Orgánica" link that you provided, but I couldn't find, within the legal text, any reference to the "Spanish" translation of the name. Like I said, within the legal text. --the Dúnadan 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I will make this clear. The ONLY official name for the Autonomous Community of Valencia is "Valencia", the same way that in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, the only official part is "Catalunya" or in the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands, the only official part is "Illes Balears". Now, if this is understood, let's get to the next point.

If you take a look at the Balearic Islands, you will see that the lines in spanish do use also the official name (Comunidad Autónoma de las Illes Balears). The "Autonomous community of" is just an extension to the official part. Therefore, not suitable to the laws.

It is not my problem if you didn't realize that "Valencia" spells the same way in Valencian and spanish, but, Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia is pretty much correct! And that's the way it is. I'm sorry if it spells the same way.

Now, if Mr. Dunadan has so strong feelings against the words in spanish "Comunidad Autónoma de" to soil this article, well that's another story...

About reporting me at the noticeboard... Well, you aren't the first and you probably won't be the last, But you were wrong, and I wasn't. This debate is futile as all this was already explained by me before and you are making us all lose our time. So, if you are reporting me for insults, fine, but, I can't understand the strong feelings some people show against Hispanidad or anything related to Spain (AKA. Xenophobia. OOOOPS I did it again). Once more, Misplaced Pages is not a political pamphlet and much less racist. Yes, Mr. Dunadan, it is up to you, after knowing you was wrong to be included in that group. Stop erasing the Spanish naming in the infobox. --Maurice27 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: