Talk:Catalan people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Catalan people is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_Countries This article is part of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking Countries. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.
Catalan-speaking Countries Portal
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 2006-2007

Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Josep Samitier.jpg

Image:Josep Samitier.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Catalan and who isn't

Apparently some radical editors have decided that the answer to that question is "everybody who speaks any given variety of Catalan, is Catalan". Unfortunatelly for them, this assumption doesnt stand the most basic reality bite: go and ask the random farmer in el Carche or the village guy in Alguer and tell them "did you know that you are Catalan?" answer is likely to be "Excuse me, I didnt get the question: Cata-what?"

I'd rather take it with a smile because, the alternative, the prospect of wikipedia being plagued by Catalan radical nationalists trying to impose here their wildest wet dreams is not really enticing. That claim is so absurd that it rings more like a mere hoax than POV pushing itself.

You guys have to understand that Catalan people are...Catalan people. That should be easy to understand, but, if examples are needed, for example, think of Spanish people: are Argentineans Spanish people? well, they speak the same language after all, don't they? so, total population of Spanish people is how many? 500 million? Are New Zealanders English people? and so on....

If you guys want to impose your views, you'd better try more delicate ways than this one, as seen elsewhere. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, take it easy. This is obviously a sensitive topic. But in this article political nationalism (in its different directions) should be distinguished from people and ethnics, and this also needs further improving. This happens for French people and German people as well. As a reference, I add a Borja image, which was referred by his opponents as "Catalano marrano". --Toniher (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking it easy I am, thank you ;)
It only takes a fast look at those articles to realize that neither the French people nor the German people cases have anything to do with this one. If you keep showing a radical fringe stance in this topic, refusing to accept reality, I'll have no other option but to report you. I am not willing to, for in (a rather distant already) past you've been showing a bit more of understanding of wikipedia (lately it's not like that, blame it on elections frenzy or what's going on? ;)
I yielded to your point in Catalan independentism, for the sake of good faith here. But whenever you turn to most obvious pov pushing, like in here (and believe me that this is one of the most staggering examples I've seen lately...probably the most) I have to react. I hope that, when you get discredited in this obvious POV pushing case, you dont shift to turn the article into the mess French people has been. It's up to you, anyway. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, do not theat :) You are assuming too many obvieties that I'm sure that from a non-Spanish (and non-Catalan) point of view are not as you regard in a simply manner as reality. As you can check, there is a warning in the very top of the page about the national identifcation, and I would favor this to be further developed within the article. --Toniher (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice the warning, I do!. It's saying: "warning: this is an article presenting the topic as seen by ERC and CUP" ;) which is maybe ok for ca.wiki (I won't dare to look at this article there today ;) but here, for the time being, some NPOV rules are enforced.
Oh, c'mon, is being touchy a Catalan nationalist thing or what? ;) that is not a threat, but a friendly advice so that you are aware of what is going on :) Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. A friendly advice about your (as Dúnadan would say) very strong WP:TEND across the catapov-related articles beyond THE gate... and a friendly advice about how this incites me to the strike (STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!).
Some questions: is this a catalan ethnogenesis in the wp:en? I cannot find the article in wp:ca nor wp:es. There aren't interwikis. Why?
How many times have you heard "ètnia" talking about la gent catalana or el poble català? How many times? I can bring here some sources from Sabino Arana talking about ethnicities in Spain. If this is a wp:en-catalan ethnogenesis, if this is the case, you, Antonio Hermoso Pulido (aka Toniher) wouldn't be catalan: you aren't de socarrel, you aren't de ceba. Where's the 'ol Pujol and his "those who live and work in Catalonia"? Or... may be the catalan ethnic group has arrived recently, and the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cite it... or I cannot find it. In the common knowledge, to be a catalan means coming from Catalonia. Catalan people is the people from Catalonia. The rest is filfa:
  • "The Catalan people continues today to proclaim liberty, justice and equality as higher values of its collective life, and manifests its desire to advance in a way which will ensure a dignified quality of life for all those who live and work in Catalonia" (Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006)
We could think reading the article that the statute is for the sardinian... the south-french people... or may be for the valencian people. Please... common sense and common knowledge. --Owdki talk 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You should not confound this article with ca:Condició política de català, which is an easier topic to tackle. I was not the creator of these ethnic series, but I have the impression that these kind of discussions are rather taboo or polemic depending on the culture. IMHO, under Catalan people article we would talk about those of Catalan descent, and also those who may regard themselves in the same cultural nation (in this case, mainly based on the language - see Joan Francesc Mira works). This could not be the same in other cases around the world and I consider this is regardless of their political national belonging feelings and other political attitudes, and they might even share others.
As you like to cite myself, I would fit in different ways both Castilian and Catalan people. --Toniher (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

This is, by far, the most controversial of all issues we have all dealt with, and a very delicate subject indeed. While I do not claim any particular POV, it is my opinion that:

  • Articles of XXXX people could refer to people living in XXXX area (as in Mexican people redirecting Demography of Mexico, i.e. parallel to the Condició política de català) or as a group of people linked by some cultural trait, not necessarily all the inhabitants of a particular territory (as in Irish people).

This article seems to be constructed à-la second option. However, the difference between "Irish people"—just to give an example—and "Catalan people" is that the Irish diaspora, whether having emigrated 10 or 200 years ago, self—but collectively—identify themselves as "Irish". The only Catalan diaspora that fully self-identifies as Catalan is the Catalan emigration from Catalonia exclusive to other countries. Arguably, the Catalan-speaking population in southern France (the Pays Catalan) and the small fraction of Catalan-speaking Algherese also identify culturally as Catalans. But that is not the case with the great majority of Catalan-speaking people of Valencia and the Balearic Islands. Therefore, it is only under a very specific POV that all Catalan-speaking individuals are Catalan. Is that sentiment valid or not? That discussion is beyond Wikipedia. We simply cannot ignore that while a few Valencians do consider themselves Catalan, the great majority do not.

It is therefore, my recommendation, that this article deal only with Catalans from Catalonia and their diaspora, and to some extent with Catalans in southern France and Alghero. Maybe, a brief note could be added that may explain that under a very specific POV, Valencians are included into a "Catalan identity", but with much opposition. --the Dúnadan 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I understand you may want to be overzealous, but just a remark, I suggest you to take a look at Spanish people and Portuguese people. My point is trying not to mix this issue with political national identification or alike. For instance, Andorra could be considered as homeland as Catalonia for Catalan people, despite its different sovereign status since XIIIth century.
Despite this may fit better in other articles, I link you a poem of Pere Capella, so you can do further research. I would like to have more time to contribute myself ;) --Toniher (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your remarks User:Dúnadan, but I think we should keep the article the way it is. --Mhsb (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with your remarks. Mountolive and Owdki were right, in my opinion, when protesting against the inclusion of the total current population of the Catalan Countries in the group of catalan people considered in this article. This is against current common knowledge and surely cannot be the approach of an encyclopedic article nowadays. Nevertheless, I do not like the kind of reversions and the tone of the criticisms against Toniher's contributions. I think he is doing a valuable work but starting from a wrong point. He is been adding nice pictures and valuable historical information that must be definitely preserved in the article since it is relevant. My points are the following:
  • The 'Catalan people' nowadays refer to inhabitants of Catalonia and their diaspora. This should be the main definition in the article.
  • Historically this expression has referred to a wider group of people that can be identified as Catalan-speakers.
Therefore, I think that historical remarks in this article are fully pertinent, explaining the Reconquista process in the Valencia and Balearic Islands and how, in the first centuries after this process part of the inhabitants of these territories where considered catalan people (remember a famous fragment of Ramon Muntaner's chronicle or the fact, mentioned by Toniher, that Borgia family where known in Rome as "the catalan"). After some time this identification with the adjective "catalan" severely decreased as people identified themselves plainly as "valencian", "mallorquins" and so on. So, I suggest to preserve (probably expanded and better clarified) all this information in the article for the sake of completeness. --Cnoguera (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have started doing some changes in this direction, but probably more are needed. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I might be missing some crucial point in this discussion, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that the criticisms and the changes I started making are going in the direction of making this article more similar to Spanish people and Portuguese people. --Cnoguera (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was replying more especifically Dúnadan than you. I move the text a bit... --Toniher (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if, per Cnoguera, the tone of my criticism regarding Toniher's edit here was not right. This said, his edits in this article are probably the most extreme POV I've seen lately (and you get to see quite a lot elsewhere).

We can not use changing criteria depending on the convenience...now ethnical, now historical, now political, then civic....all blended in a way as to annul the one which is widely accepted. All to serve the purpose and POV of including as much people as feasible under this concept.

And then putting a disclaimer in the top part of the article as a means of excusing for the mess.

It is simply not right, unacceptable and definitely unencyclopedic. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive, I am quite shocked for the drastic edit you have just done, erasing completely my contributions. Maybe I failed completely in explaining my points, maybe you have not realized that the article was not last Toniher's version, but some substantial modification. I was trying to find a compromise between both positions. I was accepting your criticisms while keeping Toniher's work. Of course the disclaimer was unencyclopedic. I already erased it. Did you notice that the number of catalans in the table was again 7 million? Did you notice that they were again defined as those from Catalonia? Did you notice that the subsequent information was intended to be in a strictly historical context. Please, let us develop this discussion because otherwise I really do not know what to do. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I started from last Toniher's version, the available one this morning and I did several important changes to make it more acceptable. Of course I could be wrong, but if you think so please discuss it here and we'll surely construct something good together. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have reverted myself hoping to un-shock you ;).

Now, sorry again, but it still does look disastrous to me. I think the version you were working from was so fundamentally biased that it affects whatever we may want to put on top of it...

So, I'm paying a look at the article again...."Catalans are an ethnic group" are they? so Toniher is not Catalan, while I am? (by the way, I am not)...that is if by ethnic you mean surnames...what is actually meant by "ethnic" here? ethnicity in western societies is a topic which shouldnt be dealt with in the same ways as with, say, ethnicity in America....someone may want to explain what is the Catalan ethnicity...and we may get to interesting -and disparated- conclusions...

roughly: "people from Valencia were defined in the middle ages as Catalans by some other Europeans"....ok. And now people from Catalonia are usually defined internationally as Spanish of French, people from la Franja as Spanish (or Aragonese), people from Alghero as Italians (or Sardinians), so? which is the value of that when it comes to the substance of those articles?

And what is even the mention of El Carxe doing here? (I admit this is where I stop reading the version I am reverting) El Carxe has been populated by some dozens Valencian speakers ever since the early 1900s...they have never been defined as Catalans by anybody...not the least by themselves.

Criteria were dismally mixed. If Catalans are those who speak Catalan (besides those "ethnically Catalan" ¿? and counting), then it is the name of the language which matters a lot. And neither Valencians, nor Balearics, let alone Carxenians (¿?) call their language "Catalan" but they call it "Valencian" or "Mallorquí" etc, which is, unsurprisignly, the way they call themselves also in ethnographic terms.

Taking the philological scholar definition of a language (Catalan) and then infer from that any kind of ethnography is a shocking step. All people speaking English are English people? No. Why Catalan should be different?

let me give it a thought to this subjective point of view question (as related to the people covered in the current definition): who is wikipedia (or some wikipedia users) to tell people from Carxe, Alguer, la Franja, Balearics...that they are Catalans or that they can be "perceived" as Catalans? Do they possibly care about some Italian author calling Pope XXXX "catalano marrano" back in the 15th century? is that rationale enough to spill the whole cup of coffee all over the article?

who is wikipedia (or some wikipedia users) to go round the legal definitions, received wisdom and common sense? "enlightened despotism" is -just to follow with the example- out of fashion since some time after Italian authors ceased to call Valencians "Catalans".

what about WP:FRINGE? do we care about it? we should.

You may want to work if you want on these "addenda" theories by creating a section for them. But its highly speculative and POVish approach will have to be noted.

As for now, I have no other option but to revert to a maybe not perfect, but for sure much more NPOV version.

Hope I have explained myself better now. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your detailed explanation. I was sure there was some misunderstanding somewhere. I already said this morning that I was just starting to lead to the NPOV and more changes were needed (this should not be difficult, as I realize that we agree in many fundamental points). Let me comment your remarks one by one and then propose something.
"The catalans are an ethnic group", yes this was a strange statement (nowadays completely false), which I wanted to reformulate in subsequent revisions.
"Catalans are perceived internationally as part of Spanish people". Definitely true (I am traveling often and I know it very well) and wikipedia must reflect this international common knowledge. In Spanish people you can find pictures of Dalí and Gaudí, and I will never complaint about it. Also catalan-speaking people were internationally perceived as Catalan people in Middle ages. That is another cold fact (and at that time the ethnical definition was still true perhaps). Why should not Wikipedia reflect it as well? (as a historical remark, not in the current definition, of course!).
The mention to El Carxe was completely out of place, you are right, and I did not notice when I was editing.
Not all people speaking English are English people, not all people speaking Spanish are Spanish people. I would never claim otherwise. But notice that in Spanish people entry they have no trouble in making interesting remarks about History and how the Spanish population was extended to other countries, even if nowadays their descendents are not considered Spanish.
I definitely agree with you in the fundamentals. Wikipedia is not here to stipulate any new meaning for any term, it should just collect already existing linguistical usages and knowlegde. Knowing these, and taking into account how analogous articles have been developed, we should be able to develop this one in the right way. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Be conscious that we are not discussing about Catalan people now, but about all other "people" categories, who should be redone maybe according to the outcome of our discussions :)
For instance, Italian people present header now is: The Italians are a Southern European ethnic group found primarily in Italy, Switzerland, France and, by virtue of a wide-ranging diaspora, throughout Western Europe, the Americas and Australia. Their native language is Italian, and historically Italian dialects and languages. Their religion is predominantly Roman Catholic.
By the way, the definition of "ètnia" (ethnic group) in DIEC2 Catalan dictionary.
Comunitat humana definida per criteris culturals o lingüístics.
Human community defined by cultural or lingustic criteria.
Cheers! --Toniher (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My humble proposal

Instead of arguing point by point, this is my proposal for all X people-type pages, whatever the X ethnicity. All of them should display a huge banner on top with something like It is impossible to establish objectively who is X people and who is not (unless it just means citizen of State X). And about taking Spanish people as a model page, please... (insert big laughter) Just prove that there are 25 million of Argentinians who are Spanish ! --Jotamar (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Options

Cnoguera, it's great to hear that I explained myself better this time and that there are no misunderstanding between us. It is also good to hear that a plurality of users agree on the fundamentals here. That includes peoples from all point of views. Indeed I think the question is (if only this time) self-evident enough to gather and enforce a majoritary consensus.

As for other wikipedia entries (let it be Spanish people, Italian, or any other given), well, I think we would be in the wrong path if we tried to reproduce whatever their patterns are here. In the first place, it would be a self-referenced move (in the sense of wikipedia-centric). In the second place, even though I haven't studied them properly, as a matter of fact I assume that the patterns of similar articles greatly vary amongst them.

If we edited here having those in the rearview mirror, maybe we would be well end up comparing articles which were not that similar in the first place other than for their title names (as a side note, I dont think that Spanish and Catalan people are mutually excluding each other, Spanish would be the sum up of all regional identities, but that is another story and totally urelated to this discussion at this point).

I stand for a clear cut of this one article, more or less as it is now, "polished" in the details if you may. In my opinion, if we were to include things like "catalan-speaking people being internationally perceived as Catalan people in Middle ages", then we would be doing nothing but buying ourselves particularly difficult to solve dead-ends and problems. Then, most apparent dead-ends are also cooking round the corner with the ethnicity topic.

What I mean is that claims such as that one on "international medieval perception of Catalans" are bold enough to deserve a quote covering them, whereas the quote won't be handy. In other words, they are highly hypothetical and virtually unverifiable, since no one knows for sure about that (how Catalans were perceived by the rest of the world is not a major topic in any given historiography). And, well, they don't really add much to the substance of the topic. Backing claims like that one with a single (or handful of) medieval sources (such as "catalano marrano") as compiled by the usual supporters of a certain approach to the matter would be something of a "hand-picking" à la carte sourcing. It is sometimes easier to prove the exception than the rule, the news is a man biting a dog, not the other way around. We could be falling in presentism. Or we could end up endorsing an Italian author who maybe was the exception rather than the rule. It's trouble.

Adding is fine. But we have to draw a line or we will incur in breaches of WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, at first sight cold facts may very well end up overstating unduly any given stance which is neither widespread nor verified.

It's for reasons like these that I stand for keeping the article basically as it is, as lean as possible.

If you still think that alternative stuff deserves their space, then maybe an ok way to deal with it would be to creat another article covering them all, something like "Alternative Theories on 'Catalanity'" (sic) or something in the same fashion (but under a better name). As read in the UNDUE policy:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

This way we would have a clean cut article on catalan people gathering the widespread uncontroversial info and, alternative theories would have their own space.

Am I making any sense yet? Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes, your remarks make perfect sense. In fact, to my surprise I am realizing that we have crashed here into a quite complex general problem. Our colleague Jotamar was noting it in his comment above. It is really hard to write this kind of articles about groups of people. Because, what are thye real properties defining those groups: ethnics? language? culture? history? citizenship? Take a look at several analogous pages and you'll be amazed. As you predicted, there are great critical divergences. It shows that (even in its mighty English version) Wikipedia is still in its very first stages of development and almost all the work is yet to be done! It is completely inconsistent! By reading those entries you realize that Spanish people are a nation, while Italians are not. Germans are not a nation, but English people are. You can also learn that Welsh are a nation and ethnic group and the same for Scottish people, while Catalans are neither a nation nor an ethnic group. Galicians are an ethnic group and a nationality, but not a nation. You can even learn that the total population of (unmixed) Spanish people is 135 million, and 185 million in the case of Portuguese. Damn! What the hell does all this mess mean! It seems to me that someone should create a Wikiproject for those "XXX people" entries and put there some criteria, some order, some common ground! But what can we do? We are Catalan (or at least people highly interested in Catalan-related articles) and we have to deal with our own crappy entry ;) We should do some (at least semantical) research and learn what the hell we are (an ethnic group? a nationality? a nation? a group of speakers of some dialect? a group of people born in some autonomous community? a group of people that happen to be living in some autonomous community?). Well, I'd better stop my irony here (I hope you'll excuse me, it is just my natural reaction after realizing such a big chaos...) and start being constructive.
As I was saying, your remarks are very reasonable. Let us try to develop our entry step by step keeping in mind all Wikipedia policies (specially the relevant ones you mentioned), keeping in mind the current common knowledge about the expression, but also the history and well documented facts (and so I am not referring to a fistful of conveniently picked exceptions). And I will also keep in mind another piece of common knowledge which sometimes has been described by using slogans of the form mallorquins, catalans i valencians som cosins germans. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Rereading my own comments I realize that so much irony was hiding my real position: no matter how big mess there might be in analogous articles, we now should care only about this one and develop it the best we can as a result of a joint work by people coming from different backgrounds. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We may want to start by things within our capacities, such as cleaning a bit the all-important "diet&dishes" section, with interesting remarks such as Catalan people eat fowl more than the red meat of the English diet, and like to eat young cows (vedella), sheep (xai) and no bulls. The digestion of the English diet used to be considered hard by the Catalan people. Also we may want to put everything into 21st century context, for even if you dont have a light breakfast (preferably with pà amb tomaquet) that shouldnt eliminate you from the 'socarrel' Catalan stock ;)
As for 'cosins germans' and else, you know that family matters, when nasty, tend to get the most strained of them all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, those diet & dishes comments are funny :) Let's do it like this, first easy things, then we'll see what to do with more difficult stuff. And excuse me if I am still showing some language barriers, but I didn't catch your last comment about nasty families... --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough I have found the existence of the Wikiproject on ethnic groups. Maybe those guys could tell us whether we are to be considered under their scope... --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You have left a note there? I just try to start the discussion about rules, how to describe ethnic groups in the german wiki--CeGe (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars

The arguments and the revert wars that are going on here are very disappointing.

I wanted to write an article about Catalan people for the Hebrew Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is often a good source for translation, but when i translate from it, i still check the sources and do my best to ensure that the information is stable and verifiable.

Unfortunately this article is nowhere near that. The revert wars here are wrong. They are wrong because they are full of emotions. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't be about emotions, but about verifiability.

I don't know whether it is OK or not to say that Valencians are a part of "Catalan people". But in arguments such as this it doesn't matter what i know or don't know, or what any other editor knows or thinks. This article should say this: "Book X says that the definition 'Catalans' includes A, B, C and D; Book Y says that the definition 'Catalans' includes only A and B; etc.". That's the only solution for such arguments. Verifiability and reliable sources are the key to POV. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Since I'm coping with this I realize it is nearly impossible to have an emotion-free discussion, if you are a little pro-catalan the right wing pp or spanish nationalism people do their war, if you doubt some things, its the same with the catalan nationalists. Allthough, either castellan-originated as catala-originated people have many different point of views, not only extrems. Its maybe just the number of speakers is to high, so there are more loud. At least some modern definition of a spanish catalan can be found at: [1], Articel 7. And just before any edit-war starts-it is possible that people define people as part of their state or not-many years the preamble of the German Republic expressed, they were deciding for the german brothers in the east too.... Or based on the European definition about minorities it is a private decision, if you feel part of them e.g. in Germany, everbody is accepted as Frisian, when he decides to be one, unless his national identity... But surely there are people, who would like to define a Frisian only as pureblood, not muggelish or whatever. --CeGe (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)