Talk:Nueva Planta decrees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Removed without comment

The following sentences were recently removed, anonymously and without comment: "With these decrees, the court of the Kingdom of Castile became the court of Spain." "These acts were the first realization of Spain as a centralized state." Both of these statements seem perfectly accurate to me. What is the argument against saying this? Jmabel | Talk February 7, 2006

Well, maybe that those are personal statements. Not all Historians think that, and it's not even taken as a fact. Oh, and it wasn't me. --80.103.138.223 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I see no "personal" element in these. And what would be the alternate view? That Spain was somehow already centralized before this? That abolishing the fueros etc. was not an act of centralization? I really cannot imagine. - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Several days, no real explanation, restoring. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not belong here

I have deleted: The repression in Valencia went so far that after burning the city of Xàtiva, Philip ordered that it would be rebuilt only under the name of San Felipe (the saint after whom Philip V had been named). In memory of the insult, the portrait of the monarch hangs upside down in the local museum of L'Almodí. [1] Since it doesn't belong here, but to the Kingdom of Valencia or Spanish Succession War articles. --80.103.138.223 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And the link provided is not a useful citation: it mentions nothing of the sort. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Recently re-added and, again, incoherently. This is off-topic. I am removing it again. - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain Close Up

On request, the Nueva Planta decrees' link has been added to the "Spain Close Up" template. Maurice27 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned languages

User Maurice27, who has been editing this article several times with no problem at all with the sentence he now is obsessed, took profit from an anonym vandalism to keep on with his Anti-Catalanism campaign.

That anon added Valencian language as one of the banned languages by the Nueva Planta decrees, alongside with Aragonese and Catalan. The problem is that Valencian is, actually, a dialect of the Catalan language. So there's no need to explain the whole language and one of its dialects are banned.

Otherwise, if Maurice27 believes Valencian is a different language than Catalan, I'll kindly ask him to prove SCIENTIFICALLY. Until then I'll revert his editions about that subject. And I keep believing there's BAD-FAITH and VANDALISM from him.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gva.es/cidaj/cas/c-normas/7-1998.htm <-- The LEGAL Proof... The SCIENTIFICAL one is for Biology or Quimics... Now, quit reverting without proving yourself. I've told you that before... You revert and demand for proves when you are the one not giving yours... --Maurice27 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The above "proof" is ludicrous. It is only the law by which the Valencian Academy of the Language (AVL) was created. This same Academy, the AVL, declared that both Catalan and Valencian are the same language. --the Dúnadan 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That source also states
Dins d’eixe conjunt de parlars, el valencià té la mateixa jerarquia i dignitat que qualsevol altra modalitat territorial del sistema lingüístic, i presenta unes característiques pròpies que l’AVL preservarà i potenciarà d’acord amb la tradició lexicogràfica i literària pròpia, la realitat lingüística valenciana i la normativització consolidada a partir de les Normes de Castelló. (para. 1)
És un fet que a Espanya hi ha dos denominacions igualment legals per a designar esta llengua: la de valencià, establida en l’Estatut d’Autonomia de la Comunitat Valenciana, i la de català, reconeguda en els estatuts d’autonomia de Catalunya i les Illes Balears, i avalada per l’ordenament jurídic espanyol i la jurisprudència. (para. 6)
which makes it rather less than suitable for supporting a systematic choice of the term "Catalan".
Another reason for including the two names is that they were the subject of two seperate decrees, over eight years apart. Physchim62 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, were are talking about apples and oranges here:

  • Catalan and Valencian refer to the same language, according to the aforementioned decree.
  • Dins d'eixe conjunt the parlars, that is, within the set integrated by the parlars spoken in Valencia, Catalonia, and the Balearic Islands, the Valencian parlar has the same hierarchical position as any other parlar (i.e. Balearic Catalan or Central Catalan). In other words, when the term "Valencià" is used as a parlar or modalitat territorial (i.e. dialect), then it is fully distinguished from the term "Catalan". Otherwise only one term (usually Catalan, as referred to by most linguists) suffices to refer to the language (sistema lingüístic) as a whole, comprising all parlars.
  • The fact that the languages were prohibited at different times in Catalonia and Valencia should not be a reason for including two names. English could have been prohibited from public use in Australia at a different time than in Canada, but they are still the same language.
  • Last, but not least (or maybe I should say, most importantly), the reverted sentence as at best ambiguous, at worst POV. The reverted sentence read: "The Aragonese, Catalan and Valencian languages were banned". This is not right: Catalan and Valencian are the same language. It would be equivalent to saying "The French, Spanish and Castilian languages were forbidden..", which is wrong by all accounts. It could be argued that an alternative sentence could say "The Aragonese language, the Catalan dialect and the Valencian dialect were forbidden..." justifying the inclusion of both names, referring to modalitats or parlars. But that is unnecessary (and complex) if just saying "The Aragonese and the Catalan language were forbidden..." is good enough.
  • At most, if the decree in Valencia used the word "Valencià" (I haven't read the decree myself, so I do not know; maybe it was just ambiguous and only said "Spanish should be the only language used", and made no reference at all to Catalan or Valencian), but if a specific term was used, then an footnote could be added saying "The decree of Catalonia used the term "Català" whereas the decree in Valencia used the term "Valencià").

--the Dúnadan 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the words "Valenciano" and "Catalán", in the circumstances :) In any case, the decree relating to Catalonia states "Las Causas en la Real Audiencia se substaciarán en Lengua Castellana, ..." (para. 5, page 3 of the facsimile), and I have proposed a modification accordingly. Physchim62 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. It was a smart choice. --the Dúnadan 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Physchim27 proposes to replace this sentence:
With these decrees, the court of the Kingdom of Castile became the court of Spain. The Aragonese and Catalan languages were completely banned from the legal system.
With this one:
Court cases could only be presented and argued in Spanish, which became the sole language of government.
I'm afraid they are not equivalent or a simple rewording. This proposal hides the fact that any other language than Spanish was banned, speakers were punished, culture prohibited.
The names of the forbidden language should appear. Otherwise it's acting like Spanish censors did: HIDING FACTS.
I'm sorry, I see no reason for this change. Could you please try to convince me? --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'm having internet problems at the moment (DNS server down). Firstly, may I point out that the version I altered said "The Aragonese and Catalan languages were completely banned from the legal system.": whatever other opinions may be, I was neutral on that point. Secondly, my edit was based on the text of the 1716 decree, which does not ban Catalan from anywhere except the sessions of the Real Audiencia. I don't dispute that the decree lead to a certain (and, fortunately, inefficient) official suppression of the Catalan language, but this was not a part of the decree as passed into law. My own opinion is that the later suppression is best discussed in History of Catalonia and Catalan language. If there is consensus to include it in this article as well, it should be in a seperate section (eg, "Consequences of the decrees") and comments should be be attributed (as there is no editor of WP who was alive at the time!). Finally, I should point out that I have also removed the comment that the Decretos de Nueva Planta instituted a centralized Spanish State, which again the text of the decrees does not support (see the second page of the facsimile of the 1716 decree): some editors who have been brought up in what was the Reino de Castilla may disagree, but again I have based my edit on what the drcrees themselves say, not on their subsequent effects. Further comments are welcome! Physchim62 (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely, by removing the Corts, Councils and the Generalitats, abolishing the Constitucions Catalanes, the laws and fueros of Valencia and Aragón and establishing a Captaincy General whose head of government was designated by the central government and not by the regions, and by which all regional laws and constitutions were replaced by the central (universal to all territories) Castilian law, means that the Decrees instituted a centralized state, even if the name "centralize" does not appear on the decrees. --the Dúnadan 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)