Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Name Again 2 Disambiguate Help 3 History is History. 4 Revision by Maurice27 4.1 Biaised POV by Maurice27 4.2 Biaised POV by Joanot 5 The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed 6 Let's start over 7 Kingdom of Valencia 8 Why totally disputed? 9 He has done it again 10 Add template 11 remove land of valencia and valencian country 12 "The text of the Boletín del Estado is the whole Statute of Autonomy" 13 Last revert 14 alteration of 1st paragraf, land of valencia and valencian country 15 llengua propia 16 Last rv 17 Valencian - Catalan / Spanish - Castillian 18 Electoral support

[edit] Name Again

This article needs to be titled "Valencia (autonomous region)" or "Valencia (autonomous community)". "Land of Valencia" is not used in English and sounds awful. Obviously changed by one side or the other in the great Spanish debate about what a country is. Living in Barcelona, a city where old people often can be found looking for food in bins, this constant debate about semantics seems like a massive waste of a "nation"s time.

[edit] Disambiguate Help

Hello everyone, there is a current need to help disambiguate the term Valencia. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, Valencia is one of the disambiguation pages with the most links, and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages. So if possible, please take a look at the links, and disambiguate to a more correct location. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History is History.

Regarding your page on Valencia: 1) let me explain to you that Valencia and Cataluña are neighbour lands (autonomous communities). Full stop. It is incorrect to mix both when you speak about Valencia. Therefore, trying to create confussion and to build common Institutions (except Spain, as a nation)between Valencia and Cataluña , is simply false and misleading.

2) the problem with catalans is that are desperately trying to invent their history "a la carte". Till the XIX century they have no literature (all the classics are written in valencian language, not in catalan); no flag (it is the flag of the Aragon kingdom); no local heros (Wifredo for example was French from Carcassonne; Ramon Lull was from Mallorca, Roger de Lauria was Italian, etc. etc..). Therefore, they can only try to absorb other's history by saying that "catalán language " is the common umbrella for them and their neighbours, and therefore "all" is catalán. May I remember you Hitler's statement "if Austrians speak german, they are germans".

The problem is that neither Austrians are Germans, nor Valencians or Mallorquins, are Catalans (thanks God, I must say, because we have a different culture and respect for the others).

Wikipedia can go on including informations that are not true and do not correspond with the History or the legal&real situation, or can gain prestige by informing correctly.

Hi everyone, im from Valencia and im a bit concerned with that that Joanot has tried to state. Valencia is no country and not a "land" probably Joanot has a certain particular and not at all popular political opinion. There are heated debates around spain for the diferent names that comunities should have. Inthe end there are oficial names, and only those ones should be used. Also i'll like to remiind that Valencia was founded in teh year 138bc by Junio Bruto Galaico, and named the city VALENTIA EDETANORUM. Sadly the definition at wiki is quite inexact on many aspects and probably manipulated by the noisy minority of independentist political parties.

         Thanks for your time. Bele

[edit] Revision by Maurice27

I'm listing the revised facts in the article:

1.- In english word for "Castilian" has not the same meaning than in Spain and it always redirects to "Spanish language", then I edited to "Spanish".

2.- Valencian language has official status in Spain and even its own Academy (the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua), then I edited to Valencian all the "Catalan" synonims.

3.- In the History section, Catalan colonization is mentioned. Being James I an aragonese king, a french (Montpellier) -born from an aragonese king and a french princess, why is there always the need to described his troops as catalan? That is not only unaccurate, but simply and completely FALSE. Troops from Aragon, Catalonia, Roussillon, Valencia, Balears or Sardinia from the XI to XVIII centuries (XVII for Rousillon) HAVE TO BE described as ARAGONESE. For this reason I erased "Catalan colonisation".

4.-I have also edited some other unaccurate or even false history facts (i.e. Phillip V of Spain, Senyera...)

5.- And Last, but not Least, I have erased the "The Catalan-speaking territories" Table because:

This table, which includes the following subdivisions: (History of Catalonia · Treaty of the Pyrenees · Catalan constitutions · Generalitat de Catalunya · Govern de les Illes Balears · Consell General de les Valls (Andorra) · Politics of Catalonia · Catalan nationalism) among others, has nothing to do with this Autonomous Community of Valencia wikipage. For this reason, I am erasing it. For the Valencian speaking demographics and Valencian government facts inside the table, I believe it is already correctly explained in the normal text.

To finish, I would like to kindly ask all the contributors which feel the "urgent need" to fool and fill the Wikipedia world with Pan-Catalanism, Catalan Countries wannabe, Catalan nationalism and just plain false pseudo-Catalan History to restraint themselves from doing it. Not all the surrounding lands to Catalonia feel the need to become part of it, and the english Wikipedia will not become a highway to "export" their history "a la carte". Giving for right the fact that we should not generalize, I often wonders if these people suffer from the well-known "Catalan Small Penis Syndrome" (Are we allowed to say "penis"?)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PRO-CATALAN POLITICAL PAMPHLET Maurice27 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In general I agree that your edits reduce some catalanophil POV and are correct. But in the case of the Senyera it would also be misleading to say that its name come from old Spanish, when obviously comes from Catalan (and, anyways, Senyal Real is perfect Catalan all the same).

I think is also important to refer to the new Bourbon dinasty and the changes they brought. For some people they may be good, for others bad, but at least one thing is clear: those changes are undisputed and should be displayed in the article.

Mountolive 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You did some quite good arrangements, thanks. But as you explained the changes brought by Phillip V, you used de De facto expression, while they were a perfect example of a De jure movement (A decree is an order made by a head of state or government and having the force of law). See Nueva Planta decrees. I think that "De facto" should be changed ;) Maurice27 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that "correct spelling" in catalan should be "Senyal Reial". Don't forget that both Catalan and Spanish were being born in those ages. Even in present-day, but far far more in those years, they are pretty similar. The reason for spelling it in "old spanish" is not other that Kings of Aragon from the House of Barcelona had the Kingdom of Aragon "official" Spanish language taken as their own and their vassals, therefore the use of the old spanish "Senyal Real" Maurice27 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand now your point with the de facto thing. But what is meant is that it started the CENTRALIZED de facto Kingdom vs. the de jure centralized Habsburg Spain which, actually was not even de jure centralized. In other words, the de facto is referring to the administrative organization, not to the Spanish Kingdom itself. I'll try to reword this part.

p.s. actually you are right: the de facto allusion is incorrect; hope the new wording is ok.

Mountolive 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biaised POV by Maurice27

Maurice argues he revised facts in the article because of:

1. In english word for "Castilian" has not the same meaning than in Spain and it always redirects to "Spanish language", then I edited to "Spanish".

   I'm sorry, but it's not true. "Castillian Spanish", briefly "Castilian" often refers to the Spanish spoken in Spain. In spite of it, "Valencian" isn't neither a traditional English name but it's often called Catalan. Both are recently used as literal translation because of legal reasons of Autonomous Charts. In Spanish language case is the same case, this language isn't being referred as is, but "Castilian". A NPOV would be one of both two ways: refer those languages in English traditional names, it's Spanish and Catalan, or translate the names according legal reasons, it means it's Castillian and Valencian. I prefer both solution, is most informed and doesn't gives any doubt abut what it's telling about.

2. Valencian language has official status in Spain and even its own Academy (the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua), then I edited to Valencian all the "Catalan" synonims.

   I'm sorry, but it's not true. AVL academy stated officialy that Valencian is the same language used in Catalonia and called Catalan. The use of a different name because of traditional and historical reasont doesn't imply the status of different language. See Valencian for further info.

3. In the History section, Catalan colonization is mentioned. Being James I an aragonese king, a french (Montpellier) -born from an aragonese king and a french princess, why is there always the need to described his troops as catalan? That is not only unaccurate, but simply and completely FALSE. Troops from Aragon, Catalonia, Roussillon, Valencia, Balears or Sardinia from the XI to XVIII centuries (XVII for Rousillon) HAVE TO BE described as ARAGONESE. For this reason I erased "Catalan colonisation".

   I'm sorry, but it's not true. The colonisation is about christian people over muslim people, and among the christian people the main nations are came from Catalonia and Aragon, in this order. The charts or "population" in Middle Ages, such "El Llibre de Repartiment d'Oriola" states it. As a proof that Catalan Chrsitians colons were majority is that the 85% of the territory was Catalan-speaking area in XVI century (according to language used in postal correspondence between Valencian churches during this century).

4. I have also edited some other unaccurate or even false history facts (i.e. Phillip V of Spain, Senyera...)

   I'm sorry, but here you aren't giving any reason.

5. And Last, but not Least, I have erased the "The Catalan-speaking territories".

   I'm sorry, but it isn't unreasonable. This is a template of the territories where Catalan is spoken, not about Catalonian territories. I'm not consider as Catalonian, but a Valencian Catalan-speaker.

6. To finish, I would like to kindly ask all the contributors which feel the "urgent need" to fool and fill the Wikipedia world with Pan-Catalanism, Catalan Countries wannabe, Catalan nationalism and just plain false pseudo-Catalan History to restraint themselves from doing it. Not all the surrounding lands to Catalonia feel the need to become part of it, and the english Wikipedia will not become a highway to "export" their history "a la carte". Giving for right the fact that we should not generalize, I often wonders if these people suffer from the well-known "Catalan Small Penis Syndrome" (Are we allowed to say "penis"?)

   This is a futile argument largely used by Anti-Catalanism ideologies. And the latest sentence shows a lack of respectful. It shows that he doesn't accept to discuss several POV to achieve a NPOV.

--Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biaised POV by Joanot

I will try to answer without rewritting everything, if missing anything, refer to previous section:

Castilian/spanish argument:

You said that "Castilian" often refers to the Spanish spoken in Spain". --> So you mean people from Havana speak cuban? What a nonsense!

Besides, Valencian has an english wikipage and Castilian does not, being redirected to [Spanish language]]. Therefore, using castilian is an unproper use of English language.

Valencian/Catalan argument:

You deny the AVL to state the difference between both languages. I quote from [[1]]: "L'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua és una institució de caràcter públic creada per la Generalitat Valenciana i adscrita a Presidència. Té per objecte determinar i elaborar la normativa lingüística del valencià" --> I don't see any reference to Catalan here... Maybe I'm blind...

You ask me to see in Valencian wikipage to endorse your arguments. I did... An look what I found in the last paragraph of the "Language or Catalan Dialect?" section: "The Autonomy Statute (of Valencia) refers to the Valencian language as valencià"--> Too bad for you. Even the Valencia Autonomy Statute (some laws quite importants for you pan-catalanist people), described the official language as "Valencià"

History section argument:

Nobody is denying that a vast majority of aragonese colons were from Catalonia (which lets not forget DID NOT exist as such until centuries later), or from the Principality of Catalonia (Which is a legal term (in Latin principatus) that appeared in XIV century to name the territory under jurisdiction of Catalan Cortes, the sovereign of which (in Latin, princeps) was the king of Aragón, without being formally a kingdom). The problem is the use of "Catalan people" and redirecting that to "Catalonia". That is simple historically unaccurate in those ages. You could change the sentence to "James I "the Conqueror" led Aragonese colonization of the Islamic taifas of Valencia and Dénia with colons of catalan origin", for example. That, could be accurate.

History facts argument:

You tell me that I am not giving any reasons for the changes. --> Well, then what have I been doing with Mountolive last 48 hours??? Playing poker maybe?

The Catalan-speaking territories table argument:

Ahhh, my favourite! What has to do a completely pro-catalan biased table in this page? Ok let's see it:

The Catalan-speaking world Language Grammar Phonology and orthography Institut d'Estudis Catalans Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua History History of Catalonia · Counts of Barcelona Crown of Aragon · Military history of Catalonia Catalan constitutions · Furs of Valencia Treaty of the Pyrenees · Nueva Planta decrees Geography Països Catalans Catalonia · Valencia · Balearic Islands Northern Catalonia · Franja de Ponent Andorra · L'Alguer · Carxe Government and Politics Generalitat de Catalunya Generalitat Valenciana Govern de les Illes Balears Consell General de les Valls (Andorra) Politics of Catalonia Catalan nationalism Traditions Castells · Correfoc · Falles · Sardana ·  Moros i cristians · Caganer · Tió de Nadal Botifarra · Barça · Paella · Rumba Myths and legends Arts Catalan literature · Antoni Gaudí · Modernisme La Renaixença · Noucentisme Salvador Dalí · Joan Miró · Antoni Tàpies This box: view • talk • edit

Your words now, I quote: "This is a template of the territories where Catalan is spoken, not about Catalonian territories[...]. --> Ok, I could accept that... If only the "language section" was included. But, then, we have the "History" section, one of my favourites, where we can see links to History of Catalonia, Counts of Barcelona, Treaty of the Pyrenees, Catalan constitutions (All of them REAAAALLY connected in ALL ways to Valencia) and Crown of Aragon (Thank God, at least one with ties with Valencia).

Next Section, "Geography". Here we can find some WORLWIDE KNOWN valencian territories such as Catalonia, Balearic Islands,Northern Catalonia, Franja de Ponent, Andorra (My GOD, this should be studied by the UN, being Andorra an independent state, it becomes valencian!!!), L'Alguer and Carxe. Some of these are even using improper catalan names instead of the official ones, (but of course, I am an "anti-catalan"...).

Next section, "Government and Politics". Here we can find some ABSOLUTLY related links for Valencia, such as Generalitat de Catalunya, Govern de les Illes Balears, Consell General de les Valls (Andorra), the funny Politics of Catalonia and the hillarious Catalan nationalism

Last two sections, "Traditions". We have links to DEEP IN THE HEARTvalencian traditions such as Castells, Sardana, Caganer or Tió de Nadal (ALL OF THEM BEING -->UNIQUE<-- to Catalonia. We can also look for some fantastic valencian artists links, such as Salvador Dalí, Joan Miró and Antoni Tàpies all of them being born in....... Gentlemen, I let you guess......... Right!!! Born in Catalonia!! Not a single valencian artist is mentioned.

I hope these proofs the completely biased content of this table, and wish it to be ERASED from all non-catalan wikipages.

My GoodBye paragraph argument: It is described as a "futile argument largely used by Anti-Catalanism ideologies" --> Well, D'oh!, this is what is all about. Preventing you, Pan-Catalanists to poison the english wikipedia with your "à la carte" history.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT TO BECOME A PRO-CATALAN POLITICAL PAMPHLET! Maurice27 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

About the template, if you dislike it, please, discuss first it on the template talk-page, but you have no reason to remove this template of every page. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss it on the template talk-page as there is no problem with the template itself. The problem is this template to be included in this page. Maurice27 12:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Cubans speak American Spanish, not Castilian Spanish. It states your missaknowledgement about Spanish language. Call Valencian would be also unproper use of English language because it's Catalan. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I swear that's the MOST STUPID COMMENT I've EVER seen in wikipedia!!!. Please show us what's the difference between spanish from Spain and spanish from Cuba. The "s" or "z" pronunciation? ROFL. You just lost all the credit you could have in wikipedia. Maurice27 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny anything. AVL itselfs stated officially that the language proper of the Valencian people talks is Catalan, but it's called traditionally as Valencian [2]. If you have external references that doesn't support it, please, first change the introduction in Valencian before changing it in this article. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could, but then I will have all the pan-catalanist imperialism against me. But, in the link you just provided it is said in : ". La denominació de valencià és, a més, l’establida en l’Estatut d’Autonomia de la Comunitat Valenciana. Per tant, d’acord amb la tradició i amb la legalitat estatutària, l’AVL considera que el terme més adequat per a designar la llengua pròpia en la Comunitat Valenciana és el de valencià."--- I translate: "The Valencian denomination, is established by the autonomous statute of the C.V. Following tradition and the statute legality. the AVL considers that the most accurate term to refer the own language for the valencian community is Valencian" --> I hope there is nothing more to say... Maurice27 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Valencians aren't Aragonese. Catalonians aren't neither Aragonese. There were Catalonians and Aragoneses. The political relation between Valencia and the Crown of Aragon is the same between Australia and the Queen of England. This person is Head of State of UK and of Australia, but both are independent countries with their own laws, courts, parliament, money, etc... England was the core heart of the British Empire as Catalonia was also the core heart of the Crown of Aragon. The first documented mention to Catalonian people is very early in Middle Ages, from XIIth Century. A poem wrote by Laurentius Varonensis, "Liber Maiolichinus de gestis pisanorum illustribus", tells the conquest of Majorca island by pisans and catalonians, commanded by Ramon Berenguer III (the grandfather of James "the Conqueror", the founder of the Kingdom of Valencia). In this text the author refers this person and the soldiers commanded by him "catalanicus heros", "rector catalanicus", and "dux catalanensis". --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My God, I can't believe it... Of course, now in 2007, valencians and catalans aren't aragonese. But how in hell can you deny the fact that both Valencia and catalonia were integrated in the Crown of Aragon in the XIV century????? It is VOX POPULI! Maurice27 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In XIV century Catalonians aren't Aragonese. The "Crown of Aragon" ( = "United Kingdom") is not the same as the "Kingdom of Aragon" (= "Kingdom of England"). And you avoided this reference I've gave here, this poem by Laurentius Varonensis in XIIth century. In the same century of Laurentius no exists yet any Kingdom of Aragon, but a County of Aragon dependant to the Kingdom of Navarre (Sobarbe, I'm not quite sure). Meanwhile, altough there wasn't yet any Principality of Catalonia, in the same territory existed several Catalan Counties, all those dependant to the County of Barcelona. Your edits are completely biaised by ideological reasons. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the last time I lose mine to answer such stupid and completely false arguments. "You say that in the XII century (the same as Laurentius Varonensis) no exists yet any Kingdom of Aragon"????--> Take the time to read some history before saying stupid things. I quote from the very Kingdom of Aragon wikipage: "The county of Aragón was split from the kingdom of Navarre in 1035, and elevated into a kingdom by Ramiro I.". I don't know in which year this Laurentius lived, but he suren't had any idea about the world around (thank God for the CNN). Kingdom of Aragon existed since 1035 (at least 100 years before Laurentius, probably almost 200). The UK has Q.E.II as head of state, so does Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, apart England. And, while having different parliaments, Q.E. II IS STILL the head of state of all of them. And Scotland is now part of the UK, the same way the "the-still-to-be-know-as-Catalonia-territory-which-didn't-have-indepence-as-Scotland" was integrated to the Crown of Aragon.

Any other stupid argument, dear Joanot, or would you rather go have some drinks with your friends and leave Wikipedia to cultivated people.

Maurice27 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed

This is what Mr. Joanot is claiming. He is in his right, but, where are the explanations in this talk page to do it? This user is not using the right channels that wikipedia demands. This is a proof that how he considers his opinion OVER the others. Just by taking a look at his userpage talk page, or even this own Valencia talk page, you may see that the naming discussion has been around for a long time. Contributors decided to use both valencian and spanish namings because that's what the LAW says. I'm not the only one, many others confirmed it. There is even links in the article to the government of Valencia to prove it. People who understand Spanish can go to the spanish valencian discussion page and see that the name appearing is none other that "valencian language", not "Catalan". In fact the spanish article had to be protected because of his continuous edits and reverts against the Will of the Majority.

I would like him to explain why the use of spanish and valencian namings are to be disputed. One being the name in english for the language spoken in Spain and the other one being the name given by the government of Valencia to his OWN language. When is Joanot going to understand that "castellano/Castilian" is a word people in Australia or Pennsylvania DO NOT KNOW! Who is Joanot to revert those FACTS. I consider this vandalizing Wikipedia.

I would like him to explain why to erase the spanish naming "Comunidad Valenciana" from the infobox claiming that only official datas should be included, while ALL THE OTHERS autonomous communities in Spain with two official languages (see Basque Country (autonomous community), Catalonia, Balearic islands and Galicia) DO KEEP the spanish naming in the infobox. I consider this vandalizing Wikipedia.

I would like him to explain why a template about Spain is not suitable to a spanish territory article (erasing it), while the Catalan-World one is. This morning, when I woke up, any newspaper said that Valencia had become a catalonian province. I consider this vandalizing Wikipedia.

I would like him to explain why this sentence in the history section is to be changed:

"James I "the Conqueror" led Aragonese colonization of the Islamic taifas of Valencia and Dénia with Catalan speaking people. So the Kingdom of Valencia has been an independent country under the sovereignity of the Crown of Aragon."

For this one:

"The King of Aragon James I "the Conqueror" started Christian colonization of the Islamic taifas of Valencia and Dénia with Catalonian and Aragonese people in 1208. In 1238 the Kingdom of Valencia has been founded by the same king as an independent country under the sovereignity of the Crown of Aragon. "

This last version by Joanot is clearly using a bad use of english grammar, repeting the same thing (mentioning James I again, "the same king"). The catalan language of the colons is already explained in the first one. Then why change a correct paragraph just to say the same thing in an incorrect way. I consider this a bad use of english wikipedia.

And finally I would like him to explain why did he include the dispute template without even taking the time to explain his reasons in this talk page. Proving with links, argumenting his beliefs to convince the other contributors that the changes made are to improve the article. This is something Joanot has not done much, and when done, it was giving unaccurate facts and lacking of any consideration against the established order or laws. Again, none of this has been done, while all the changes made by me are proven. People may not like many things they read, but that's because of the influence of personal beliefs on logic. I consider this a bad use of Wikipedia.

I hope that now, with the dispute template, Admins. will kindly explain to this contributor how to use Wikipedia in a correct way.

Regards, Maurice27 12:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, and block such a unpolite user as Maurice27, who doesn't respect non-native English speakers, insults others' ideologies and shows repeatingly his lacking of knowledge about History and Linguistics, at least regarding Valencian History and Valencian dialect of the Catalan language. I'm surprised that somebody who claims to speak French, Spanish and a bit of Occitan might give any credit to non-scientifical theories about Valencian and Catalan being two different languages, so I guess he is just a GOOD Frenchie-Spaniard, that is, a high-handed guy who despise minorized languages and people who try to revitalize them. According to French laws there is no other language spoken in the Hexagon than French, but we all there are many more: Catalan, Basque, Breton, or Corse, for example. So, Maurice27, don't use laws to annoy us. We do know laws are written by the winners of past wars, that is, Frenchies and Spaniards. You are just carrying to the Wikipedia your French-Spanish nationalisms which, as History has proven, mean obliteration or genocide. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 13:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"A patriot is a man who loves his country, whereas a nationalist is a man who hates everybody else's country" - Samuel Johnson (or possibly Oscar Wilde)- Maurice27 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, I am aware of this dispute. All parties are requested to try to find a compromise: I have already warned one party about his or her behaviour, but that doesn't mean that other people involved are "innocent". All the time which is spent reverting eachothers' edits is time which could be better spent adding new material to the articles, probably to the eventual benefits of both sides of the current argument and certainly to the benefit of our readers. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's start over

Ok guys, is high time to try to find some consensus here, because we are making the article a mess and each time worse.

And is really a pity -because the article is quite skinny and we should be working on making it better in the fundamental- to be discussing about inessential matters when essential aspects to the article are missed. For example, there is almost nothing said about Geography (main mountainous ranges, minor rivers, river basins), a more in depth description of the Economy and some other fundamental issues. On the contrary: we are barking here at the wrong tree, at least while the article is still in that basic appearance.

Maurice's straight style has fueled controversy and put people on the defensive, and that is not good. However, regardless his manners, his point seems to be at least partially correct at times.

Indeed it looks like there are some users who seem a bit obsessed in marking the articles they think appropiates with the word "Catalan" and, after this is done, they couldn't care less about the rest.

Otherwise I can't see the point of this edit

"In spite of this, there is an important number of Valencian private and civil entities such syndicates See logo of one of the most important syndicates, culture associations (...) wich represents more than 15% of votes in Autonomous Elections in 2003 wich are using simply the senyera as Valencian flag".

I mean, is this really essential? and, even if it was, isn't this just biased? We can discuss this later if you want, but in the meantime, we should start finding common ground with some other basic stuff

• Territory Name: there is absolutely no point in placing in the lead that "it is also called, Región de Valencia, Land of Valencia, Valencian Country, Regne de Valencia, Levante, just Valencia..." and so on. Really: it does not make any sense to put this in the leading. The lead should only use the official name. This should be self evident for everyone.

If someone wish to open a whole section with the different names, I think it should be hold until the article has reached consensus and has grown in the right direction (in the one of enlarging the undisputed facts).

• Language names.

There's no point in calling Spanish "Castilian" because, in English, Castilian doesn't simply mean "Castellano" in the Spanish sense. It is referred to the history of Castile and, in the linguistics scientific parlance, just a few of them use them as an alternative to Spanish, but using this 1% of the international users in this context is, obviously, POV pushing and not good faith.

"Catalan". I don't see the problem in using the official name and, not only the official, but the one used by say 99% of the speakers, which is Valencian, specially if we take into account that, when directed to this article, it is clearly stated that is a Catalan dialect which has gained relevance of its own, but still a part of Catalan. Again, keep pushing for Catalan again and again is POV pushing and not good faith.

I'm hoping that the nationalist users are more flexible and less politically oriented than so far. I'm also hoping that Maurice goes to civil manners and shows some flexibility as well.

So, please, let's all change our attitude and try to do a better job than so far: that is what we are supposed to be doing here, cooperate and make good articles.

Let's go for it.

Mountolive 02:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as a neutral, accurate and encyclopedic tone is used, I would be glad to cooperate to build it; To give a final read to the article and be able to click the unwatch buttom to dedicate myself to other articles in my spare time. I just don't want some articles to become a political pamphlet. You will have all the flexibility from me as long as I don't receive simple, non-explained reverts as an answer from the "opposite side". As for my part... "GO FLIGHT!" Maurice27 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I added Geography, thank you Maurice27 for adding Demographics. Now mostly Economics is missed. Mountolive | Talk 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why to avoid using names that are being used in English language in an Enciclopaedia in English. There are no name most used than one but simply "Valencia". I gave external references about it, so this information should be included. The argument about "Levante", "Regne de València" etc can be taken in count if we're discussing about the name in Spanish or in Catalan, but not in English, and these names not only have a very-very minority usage, but are also discouraged because these are vague concepts.

And about the name of "Catalan", I don't understand neither that you can take in count the legal/political reasons to use Valencian instead of Catalan, but you aren't taking in count that the name "Valencian" in English is not used to refer Catalan. In Spanish case, there are several legal and political reasons to use "Castilian" instead of "Spanish", but you prefer to despise these reasons because "Castilian" isn't being used to refer Spanish. I think that the last version I've left was more neutral about this topic, putting the native name in each language, but respecting English usage. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is discouraging to see that, despite a call to be cooperative and work in the undisputed aspects of the article, there is still people who seem obsessed to go back in circles with the same controversy arising topics. You are one of these users who come back again and again with the same issues instead of, for example, doing some translation effort like Maurice27 or myself. You are perfectly free to choose your topics but then please don't whine if you are labeled as a Catalanist POV pushing.

As for the names issue, I think you are being a bit optimistic about the English usage of Comunidad Valenciana, I mean, these are not words frequently used in English, neither Valencian Autonomous Community nor the others.

So, from the ones you suggest, I'd challenge you to prove how popular Valencian Country and Land of Valencia are in an English non-wikipedian project. You can spare the effort if you want: they are virtually unknown. Simply "Valencia" is probably more used, but this is as vague or even more as Kingdom of Valencia or Levante -which you don't seem to like- may be.

In the lead section, since this is an obscure subject in English (and a controversial one in Spanish and Valencian) only the official name should be included and so I am reverting back.

I'd rather not open a silly edit war with the Valencian Community name, but if you want to open a new section with names (out of the lead), I guess that is ok, but before you do that, you must be aware and weigh the controversy this involves and the fact that, possibly, it may not end looking as you wish. It for sure would be much more productive for the article if you translated either ca.wiki or es.wiki Economics section into English. Mountolive | Talk 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Economics added! Maurice27 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Valencian Symbols also added Maurice27 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this section is a great idea or not, as it will be soon predated by the "symbol people"...anyway, it might be positive as it would limit the controversy to a particular section instead of the whole article. Mountolive | Talk 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And, as I was getting hungry... I also added Gastronomy. Maurice27 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the turrón picture features a brand name (Picó 66), I don't know if this is ok with guidelines and, if not, whether it should be removed...what do you think? Mountolive | Talk 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I see in both es.wiki and ca.wiki a very cool NASA caption of the territory. I tried to "import" it myself to be displayed in the geography section where it belongs nicely but I couldn't. The thing is that I am a 'dummy' with the whole pictures thing and I may be doing something wrong. As I see you have imported a couple images...can you try the same with this one? I think it would look terrific in the Geography section. Thanks, Maurice! Mountolive | Talk 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And there's no way to place the flag a bit more apart from the frame? yes...same dummy for templates here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The satellite image is added (You're welcome) and the flag is now better looking. The problem was the flag was too long. I uploaded another one. About the satellite picture, mountolive, you have to take the spanish description (Imagen:Land of Valencia, NASA satellite image.jpg) and just erase the "N" in bold to have a suitable picture in english wikipedia. Maurice27 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense, thanks a lot for the very useful hint! Now, about the flag, the colours seem to me more true to the real ones in the older version which I have restored (the new one seems a bit "washed up") even though you are right in that it is too long if compared to the original. The best thing would be to keep this one but get it a bit more centered, but I guess is not possible due to some...unknown for me technical detail :D Mountolive | Talk 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the older version flag to the correct Flag ratio: 2:3. The colours are still the sames as it is also a PNG and not a GIF like my previous try. let me know your impressions Maurice27 23:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My impressions is that you are being of great help with the article now and I thank you for that. The flag is perfectly fine now. Thanks!

[edit] Kingdom of Valencia

Hey guys, shouldn't we start translating the Kingdom of Valencia article once for all? I see there is such an article in ca.wiki, es.wiki and fr.wiki which makes it a shame to be redirected to Crown of Aragón when we click on Kingdom of Valencia here. I think this info has more than enough notoriorety to be translated now. Mountolive | Talk 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree Physchim62 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

GO FLIGHT! Maurice27 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why totally disputed?

User:Joanot, would you please explain why you used the Totally Disputed template after making some six or seven edits regardless of my comments above, which you haven't replied yet?

For your names quirk and the rest of your nationalist views I suggest you use "Valencian Symbols" as your playground. Feel free to use this section to display there all your nationalist claims, including your multi-name obsession instead of messing the whole article by displaying that template and the names mess in the very lead, ok? After, if the section is not satisfactory for anyone, the disputed template could be displayed there.

For the moment I am leaving in place the name Catalan for Valencian, I might revert after. I wonder how deep is your knowledge of English as to determine that Valencian is not used in English for the language while you support Land of Valencia which is not acceptable (please look into the archived talk page to see the opinion of a native English speaker referring to Land of Valencia and how laughable he finds that...he might be telling that to you already back in the day, but, apparently, what you don't like to hear, it doesn't exist for you and you just remove it). I might revert to Valencian because that's the name used in the Valencian Autonomous Community, both legally and popularly: it goes without saying that pushing for Catalan again and again is POV, specially if, as I said before (do you really read any of these comments?) when you go to the Valencian article, it is clearly stated that is a Catalan dialect.

A few sections have been translated so far from other languages wikipedias and your only "contribution" so far has been change de names and delete "See also: Economy of Spain". What's your problem with getting a more enlarged info with more statistics and general overview in that other article?

It would be nice if don't limit your contributions here only to names: please feel free to do something productive and enlarge content and facts which are undisputed: your País Valencià would be proud of you. Mountolive | Talk 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ps. One of the many ways you could start a more productive stage would be translating the Kingdom of Valencia article.

pss. By the way, your POV pushing altering the timely order of wikiprojects by placing the Catalan Countries wikiproject before the Spanish one (which was previous) is noted as well.

It's very easy to understand: I gave external references of names used in English, the only one requisit to add information in Wikipedia (see WP:VERIFY). You haven't given any external reference, only POV. If "Land of Valencia" is laughable for you, I respect your personal POV, but it's used by official government in English, as you can see in given external references. And it's a common sense that the lead article must start with the name in English in an Encyclopaedia in English. You have no reason to omit this information, these names aren't incorrect, are being used, are in English, and are supported by external references.

In the other hand, the "See also" links is usually included in briefly info about some topic and the link gives you further, extended, and detalied information about this topic, a "main article". If here exist Economics of the Land of Valencia, it could be the "see also" link. Economics of Spain is not the "main article" here but for Spain. About the language, I know that Valencian is a group of varieties of Occidental dialect of Catalan, but it's not enough important reason to call it in English Valencian to the whole language. In EEUU page there isn't referring their language as "American English", and in UK there isn't neither referring their language as "British English", but both are referring simply as "English". And the official Valencian linguistic academy stated very very-very clear that Valencian is Catalan, so there's no problem to call it Catalan, altough they say "valencià" when speaking in Catalan:

"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"

Rough translation: "it's factual that in Spain there are two legal denominations used to refer this language: "valencià", stablished in the Statute of Autonomy of Land of Valencia, and Catalan, recognized by the Statutes of Autonomy of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands" source: [3]

It ins't telling about dialects, but referring to one language. In English, "Catalan" is mainly and more commonly used to refer to this language than Valencian, in the same case of Spanish and Castillian. And yes, this term is also used in English (see wikt:Castillian), but Spanish is more commonly. And last, about the flag, it's legal and official here that the proportions used for the flag is 1:2. See the photo of the Torre dels Serrans in the article, or any phoyo of the Generalitat Palace tower. It shows clearly 1:2.

It's totally disputed because any external reference is given to made the changes that you and Maurice are doing across the entire article. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we really need references to say that Horchata is made in valencia and that there is a lot of tourism there in summertime...

About the flag, giving the fact you don't want to inform yourself before posting or reverting, read this: "the flag of the Comunidad Valenciana is defined in the Organic Law 5/82 of July 1st 1982, published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado number 164: Article 5, 1: "The traditional flag of the CV is made up of four red stripes on a yellow field crowned over a blue band by the hoist." 2. "A Law of the Cortes Valencianas (the autonomous parliament) may determine the heraldical symbols of the Community which shall contain those (arms) of the provinces of Castellón, Valencia and Alicante, and its incorporation to the flag over the stripes". The drawing with a ratio of 2:3, the precious stones are -E-S-E-S- (E: emerald or green oval; S: sapphire or blue quatrefoil; each hyphen would represent a pearl or white circle), from bottom hoist to top. The width of the blue band (including the thin red stripe carrying the jewels) is about 1/5th of the fly.".

In addition, Flag Ratios:

British flags have a 1:2 ratio (United Kingdom, Australia, Bahamas, Canada, Ireland and with the little correction of 10:19 United States and of course Liberia);

French flags have a 2:3 ratio (France, Italy, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Spain and the most of Latin-American flags);

Will you still deny that YOUR flag is not just another way to declare Valencia as non-spanish territory? Maybe now we should talk about the "commonwealth of british valencia"... Now, With proofs (law citacion included), let's see how long it takes for you to change it again, for who-knows-which reason. Maurice27 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Give the source you are mentioning, please. I don't understand wich image are you telling about. This legal text (see source) aren't mentioning any proportion, and no image is provided. But it's factual that in the Valencian Government buildings there are using a proportion of 2:1. In Wikipedia in Catalan there is a featured article with very extendend info about the Valencian Senyera, and it's always used as 2:1 proportion. Also the content of this Valencian Law (see it in Spanish from Wikisource) there's no mention about specific proportions. The only one image that whas included in the law was a picture of a Coat of Arms of the Valencian Country. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) PD: I suppose that you are not a blind person, and you can see perfectly the photo located at the bottom of article: it's 2:1.

The Organic Law 5/82 of July 1st 1982, published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado number 164 is the whole Statute of Autonomy, and in this text it neither have any mention to the proportions. See source in Spanish: "La tradicional señera de la Comunidad Valenciana está compuesta por cuatro barras rojas sobre fondo amarillo, coronadas sobre franja azul junto al asta.". The rest of the text you mention, about the proportions and about such image, aren't in this source. Where have you got this info? Perhaps from "Flag of the worlds" website?. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Joanot, do you realize what you are doing for the sake of your names obsession? I see you don't so I will have to explain you here: you reverted to an older version just to satisfy your passion to list all possible names (well, not all possible, only those you like) in the lead and put a totally diputed template without noticing that, by doing so, you were bringing back to the text a few typos and even wrong information like the Penyagolosa is in El Maestrat, when it actually is in the Alcalatén.

Everytime it seems clearer and clearer and now virtually undisputed that you decided to limit your "contribution" just to mess the article with the names and the totally disputed template.

It still freaks me out why you, after making six or seven consecutive edits on the controversial topics, you decide to finish by placing a totally disputed template....does this make any sense at all? I must confess that I don't get your explanation it's totally disputed because any external reference is given to made the changes that you and Maurice are doing across the entire article does this mean that it is totally disputed in advance of whatever changes other users may do? that's a bit crazy, man.

As for the See also...what's the problem of a See also to the Economy of Spain? are you saying that the patterns of Valencian economy are not the ones of the Spanish economy? are you saying that it has not growed substantially overtime and that is not menaced by high debt and falling competitiveness? or are you just banning any reference to Spain because you don't like it?

As for the Land of Valencia, no, I don't find it particularly laughable, just some native English speaker (neither you nor I are) does and not only laughable, but backwards, and I think we should yield to his opinion. Apparently the fact that officially has been translated like that matters to you...so we will have to follow both yours and the translator ill translation for that? sure not. The official name is Comunitat Autònoma Valenciana and that directly goes into English as Valencian Autonomous Community, given that we have the link to what an Autonomous Community is. Other than that, we are just messing the whole story.

As I said, if you are not going to feel satisfied until you put all those names you like (all of them with a very obscure and disputed usage and translation in to English), then go ahead and put it in the Valencian Symbols section, as I don't want this "information" to be omitted as you say, but please leave a clean description in the lead.

Sorry to correct you but "the only one requisit to add information in wikipedia" is not to give external sources: you forgot that there are many different external sources, the UV website and Lo Rat Penat websites are also external sources, but they are probably not correct, right? so you may keep in mind the other "requisit to add information", which is that it has to be true.

Anyway, I am going back to fix the mess you left with your bulk editing. Mountolive | Talk 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have some external source that contradicts the name usage in English referring to the Land of Valencia we can continue to discuss about thruthfullness. Meanwhile, it's simply your own humble and respectable opinion. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About some of your fixes (Mountolive, Maurice27 and some anonymous users):

• You changed Catalan language by Valencian. You know the common name in English to call this language is Catalan, not Valencian. I beg you to put the common English name, not the common Valencian name.
• The official translation of the name of China is People's Republic of China and however, after telling in the introduction "commonly known as China", this name is used all arround in Wikipedia without any problem. The official name for USA is United States of America, but you will find at the beginning of the article "often shortened to the United States, USA, U.S. or colloquially America". Here, the official name is Autonomous Community of València and so has to be introduced the article. But why don't allow to mention and use also the other possible historical denominations? So that the official name is so long and impractical, you had to invent the term VAC much less common than Land of Valencia or any other tradicional denomination. That's pretty astonishing for me.
• You changed independent Kingdom for separate kingdom. Why? was not independent?
• You changed Castilian for Spanish. Why? Here you can see, that when we are talking about a region in Spain with another language, the language is often refered as Castillian, and then it adds "This usage is often mirrored by educated English speakers when referring to the linguistic situation in Spain.". I think it should be not only not a problem but also interesting, to combine both names of the language in the article. It is always rich to use synonims.
• Here Maurice27 changed that after the war, the Valencia was submitted to the Castilian laws. Is it not true? You can add if you want that they took France as a model of a centralized state, but you don't need to delete the other facts. You can even complement it telling that with the model of France, they imposed they submitted Valencia to the Castillian laws creating a centralized state. It this wrong? Why eliminating that the structure before was decentralized? wasn't? Why avoiding telling that here and specially here is when Spain with this name (the New Kingdom of Spain) and as a State exists for the first time?

I am already tired for today. I hope we can include all other's oppinions and not trying to impose only one criteria. By the way, this shows that this article is pretty much disputed. I am looking forwad to hearing your answers. Best wishes and good night, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About the part you added now:

• "This remains a source of controversy with neighbouring regions such as Castilla La Mancha and Catalonia, whose surplus river waters are claimed from the VAC to alleviate this deficit by means of transvasements.". Which superplus? in Catalonia they have restrictions too and now you say they have superplus?
• I think it would be also interesting to mention that arround the days that the PHN was approved, there were 66 proposals to make new Golf Fields in Valencia.

Regards,--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't noticed this one when you originally posted it.

As for the restrictions in Catalonia, you are mixing things here. The PHN was as much for a transvasement from the Ebro to the Barcelona area as it was to the South. That would have virtually eliminated the possibility of restrictions in Catalonia, as the more technical staff there new, but a rather demagogic (and profitable, in terms of votes) usage of this by politicians aborted this possibility and necessarily muted internal objections. But the fact continues to be that the Ebro is over its capacity (drought in Catalonia doesn't mean that the whole Ebro basin suffers from drought, actually this basin has been during last year and still is now over the average, which was already more than enough for making the transvasement). Another story is if politicians found a mobilizing story with this one.

I am adding the golf thing right now. I didn't do before because it may fall out of the spectre of the article but no costa res fer-ho Mountolive | Talk 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You mention a few tricky questions here.

For example, according to you, Catalan should be the word to call Valencian as it is more widespread. Right. And...what about "Castilian"? Is Castilian more widespread than Spanish? And what about English residents who live in VAC? how do you think they call the language? of course, since they mirror the local usage, they call it "Valencian". Besides, if Valencian is not going to be listed here in the VAC article, where on earth should it be mentioned? only and just only in the Valencian article?

I can't see the point of calling the language Valencian since 99% of the population calls it like that, the Statute of Autonomy calls it like that, English residents call it like that and, to balance that fact, we have the Catalan speaking template and we have the fact that, in the Valencian article, it is clearly stated that is a dialect from Catalan. What's the problem then?

As for the names, I understand your comments but I am only please asking not to put those in the lead: as you know there is a qüestió de noms which is unsolved and will ever be and I don't think here at wikipedia we are going to fix it, right? For those examples you mention, the different names are not hiding some political POVs like the ones in this case. This is why I keep saying: go ahead if you want to list the four or five names the VAC has been called, but just do not make it in the lead, please. You can open this futile discussion in the Valencian Symbols or open a whole new section for the sake of edit wars if you may, but please let's make the lead aseptyc. I personally don't like VAC but is the official and that gives it some face value which the other do not have, right?. Mountolive | Talk 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the Kingdom of Valencia was not independent from the Crown of Aragón, if it was, then any mention to the Crown of Aragón would be stupid. It was a separate part of it, with its distinctive laws and procedures, yes, but when the king called for conscription, taxes, whatever, he did so for the three (four if Mallorca is considered) separate (not independent) kingdoms.

I am not going to discuss the Castilian thing because it is self evident and obvious. If not, just check your own "common English name" reasoning. It applies here, too.

This said, I am not in a fighting mood here Xtv, you seem a reasonable guy and I am hoping that we can all enlarge this article for good. It just pisses me off that some users go back again and again to the same controversial topics while they couldn't care less about the rest. They have to understand that the approach here has to be more diverse (I dare to say more neutral) than the one in ca.wiki Mountolive | Talk 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• First about the language: not, the reasoning is not the same. Spanish and Castillian is the same language. Valencian is the dialect of Catalan spoken in Valencia (in Valencian, in Valencia, they are synonims, but not in English). So I mean: when a man from Barcelona, in central catalan says: valencià, he is refering to the dialect. When somebody from Valencia says valencià, he is refering to the language. In English happens as with the man from Barcelona, so it should be used so. Or at least, before starting to use regulary the word Valencian, it should be included this specification. So I propose: Even starting the article saying: Comunitat Valenciana (in Catalan). Then, in the next paragraph saying: in Valencia is used the Valencian dialect/variant of Catalan, and then using if you want the whole article Valencian. Or starting with: Comunitat Valenciana (in Valencian, the dialect of Catalan spoken in this region) ...

• • The above is rather confusing or a bit too technical and does not follow to my previous

I can't see the point of calling the language Valencian since 99% of the population calls it like that, the Statute of Autonomy calls it like that, English residents call it like that and, to balance that fact, we have the Catalan speaking template and we have the fact that, in the Valencian article, it is clearly stated that is a dialect from Catalan. What's the problem then?

Yes, we have the template. Yes, we have the Valencian article stating clearly that is a dialect from Catalan. Yes, we have, say, 99% of the speakers and the Statute of Autonomy calling it Valencian. Why insisting in calling it Catalan? Why? Don't worry because anyone with the slightest curiosity will click on Valencian and see that is just a territorial name of Catalan, and the template is also there to remind that. Don't you think that it wouldn't be reasonable nor consensus-seeking keep pushing for Catalan? Mountolive | Talk 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• With Spanish, however you can say that a person from Cuba speaks Castilian, they are synonims and I think it would be good to use also this word and to link it to Names_given_to_the_Spanish_language. Is more information. If you feel like, we could do a kind of solution as I proposed with Valencian and use first Spanish and then after some sentences use Castillian (with the link from before) and then add a comment (name commonly used also for the Spanish language when you are refering to a region with an own official language) and then use indistincively both names.

• I live in the States in an area of high Spanish speaking population. If you got the average English speaker and ask him about Castilian, they do not have any idea of what that is. If you got the educated speaker, he would think that you are referring to things-Castile, such as the architecture there or its history or the like. The average Spanish speaker may know what Castilian is in this sense (even though he never uses it) but, if you got the non-educated Spanish speaker, there is a high probability that he doesn't even know what Castilian is.... "something about Spain?" he might ask, but he has never heard of Spanish being called "Castilian". In other words: "Castilian" as a language is an usage very much restricted to Spain and a bunch of linguists...yes, you can show me a few thousand google impacts telling the opposite, but I could show you a few million google impacts backing my claim. Why keep pushing for Castilian? This is a world wide version of wikipedia and we don't need to force people to know that linguists also call that way what everyone else call Spanish, do we? Mountolive | Talk 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• With the names, I think if they are commonly used (and they are), it should be said in the beggining, if you want with an explanation telling that they are controversial and then adding a paragraph related th the controversies. Then the usage I think we could try to discuss which of this elements are less controversial and use it indistinctly arround the article, but using every time the whole name is tedious, and this invention of VAC is just that, an invention.

• So are you really ready to Valencia, Valencian Country, Land of Valencia, Kingdom of Valencia and Levante to be in the lead, also including an explanation? what is the problem in having this mess located somewhere else not in the lead? For not to mention that all of them (except Valencia) have a troublesome usage/translation into English.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Valencian Autonomous Community is an "invention". The official name is Comunitat (=Community) Autònoma (=Autonomous) Valenciana (=Valencian). So what do you mean as being an invention? It is actually an invention of the Statute of Autonomy, as the only historic name is Kingdom of Valencia. Because "País Valencià" is no less of an invention, as it was "invented", when? in 1890? and gained some currency, when? in the 1970s?. Really, is a pity that the blaveros chose the Regne de València, thus provoking the pancas reaction. By doing so, they both spoiled the only good name we had, but that's another story... Mountolive | Talk 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, when the king of the Crown of Aragon called for conscription and taxes he did it for all the countries as he was the king/count of all of them. But when he wanted then to discuss the taxes in Barcelona (for example), he had to convocate "les Corts" and discuss with the ecclesiastic, with the comercian and with the Lords to discuss how much was he going to get. And then the same procedure in every other territory. There was no common law, no common army, no common taxes... the only union was having the same king. Weren't they really independent?

• My hometows is, say, 700 kms. from Barcelona. However, by the Middle Age, the municipality was paying taxes to the Consell de Cent, as this was the "owner" of my hometown taxes, and this happened well after the Kingdom of Valencia was established. In other words, this random fact (there are many others alike) does not speak of "independent" countries as we know them.

Besides, to say that there was no common law, no common army, no common taxes is an exaggeration (they might not be the same, but quite similar). But, in any case, I don't have really strong feelings about "separate" if you prefer "independent", these are both, to some extent, synonymous. I still think, though, that the average reader would think "well, if they were independent..why do they share similar institutions, same language, similar flags and...if they were independent, why on earth is the Crown of Aragón mentioned here and not, for example, another independent nation like for example the Kingdom of Portugal?" Because "independent" means...well, independent!. You can not take for granted in en: the same proficiency in Iberian history as the one you and I may have (and, in any case, I thought that the Catalanists would like to hear that they were in the same crown but if this has changed and now prefer "independent" kingdoms, I may have fallen out of fashion...)Mountolive | Talk 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Still misses answer about water and answer from Maurice27.
• If you find :ca not neutral, you can help us to discuss which improvements do you think are necessary. I'm sure if you do it politely you will be heard and we can negociate also to find common points of union and respect.

There are some very good articles at :ca and there are also some of them biased to the max. (specially those related to Catalan nationalism topics). Thank you for your invitation as I think is sincere, but I don't feel heroic enough to go and defend views like these in :ca (if I don't recall wrong, when you type "Comunitat Valenciana" it redirects you to "País Valencià", right?...) Mountolive | Talk 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to fight neither. But I want that if we include your point of view, our can be also included.

Wishes,--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like this in terms of "yours" and "ours". When we all realise that this attitude is damaging the article, we may finally get it right... Mountolive | Talk 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's clear that we see things from different point of view. Clearly your point of view differs from mine. This is objective. So I think the best is trying to put both in a respectfuly way. And I don't think, if we discuss it that this damages the article.
• You say that "Ebro is over its capacity" but however, when I was there about 3 or 4 years before all the discussion with the PHN, a guide explained us that since the river didn't bring enough water, the delta was slowly going back, the salty water was going every day more inside and there was already problems with the agriculture of the rice, with the many animals that died, ecological problems, etc. This, I repeat before speaking about the PHN. When the PHN was approved, many scientific studies said exactly that: Ebre is not over its capacity. Taking water from Ebre will kill the natural park, the acricultural work, and the delta can desappear. The European union didn't see positively taking water from Ebre.
• The law about golf said that (if I remember properly) that no water from the PHN would be used for golf. But this is quite stupid. If I have a population that needs 10 liters and I have 10 liters and I want to construct a golf which needs 4 liters, it's as easy as taking 4 liters from my 10 liters from population, and then asking 4 liters for the population. Why then so many golf were approved then? How can then a community with so lackness of water have so many golfs? I think that in the way it's written now, is a bit bisaed. As you can see, I am not so confortable with my English to change it, so I let you modify it. However, if you preffer me to do it, faré el que pugui.
• Let's try again with the language: You have right, the Valencians call it Valencian, it is so called in the Statute and we have the template. I don't want to ban the word Valencian, of course not. As you said, if it can't be used here, where then? However, for an English speaker, who has never heard before that exists Valencian, but however he has heard the word Catalan, reading Valencian and nothing else, will not relate this word with any known thing. Telling at the beggining the relation betwenn Valencian and Catalan, will situate much more the reader. I think there is nothing bad on it. If you want, we can do with the template and avoid saying "the dialect of Catalan" because of this shitty notion that many people has about dialects (and we everybody speak a dialect of our language! in Barcelona it is spoken also a dialect from Catalan, and we all speak a language) and start with "Comunitat Valencian in Valencian, the way Catalan is called there", and then use in the article the word Valencian. About the template: yes, it already exists but 1) many people will not read till the end of the article and 2) as I said, if we mention it only at the very end, can be that somebody says ooohhh! it was catalan? didn't they say all the time Valencian?. I think my solution is not pushing for Catalan, is scientificaly correct, objective and allow you use Valencian in the whole article.
• About Castillian/Spanish: as you said, you live in the States. If you had seen the image in the article I told you, you can see that is perfectly normal that you never heard Castillian. But in Valencia is used this denomination as, also as you want for Valencian not only to appear in the article but to be the only way to say Catalan, I just ask that since in Valencia this denomination is also used, let's put only a couple of times this denomination, with the interesting link to the usage of this name.
• With the name, your friend Joanot ;-) has shown you that even the Government uses this forms. Hence, I think the have to be included at the beggining (if someone reads an article of the Government and reads "Land of Valencia" and thinks: what's that? She searches is Wikipedia and gets redirected here but she doesen't see that this is a common name of the place (and even she doesen't find the name anywhere), she'll get confused.
• The invention is not Valencian Autonomous Community (well, in fact is also an invention, the official name is Comunitat Valenciana, not Comunitat Autònoma Valenciana), what I think it's an invention is the VAL. And the use of the whole name is as I said, unpractical. I think it's good to use different names. Also after explaining the part of history, you can say somewhere to reffer is as "the former Kingdom" or any other way that can enrich the text.
• Paying some taxes is something normal with independent kingdoms also. The Califat of Cordoba was paying them also to Castillia and Murcia was paying to James the first. And they were independent. But well, this is not the most problematic point of the discussion...
• Still misses answer from Maurice27 (I write it only to remember myself the next time we discuss the points).

Cheers,--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh man... I can't got to work peacefully without being requested twice??? hehehehe... Ok let's see. What I did with the Phillip V point was, simply and plainly, copy/pasting the Nueva Planta decrees article and adding that these decrees affected the supporters of the austrian heir in the war of succession (which is the truth). Why is the paragraph acceptable in the nueva planta decrees article and not here? I don't know... IMHO, saying that to "suppress the institutions, privileges, and the ancient fueros of almost all the areas that were formerly part of the Crown of Aragon" means the same that "using a centralized structure as opposed to the former decentralized Habsburg Spain structure" in a more "correct and encyclopedic" way . That's "My Opinion". And I really think that there is not such problem. In addition, in the version I corrected, "de facto" was used to explain this decrees, and as I explained quite a while ago to Mountolive, a "de jure" is the correct way to express what Phillip V did. You point that these laws were what formed the Kingdom of Spain. Well, IMHO, having different laws does not mean to be different countries. Just look present day spain, where all autonomies have different laws and jurisdictions... And they all are part of Spain (even if some people dislike it). Spain, as such was formed in 1516, with the union of Navarre to the Castilian crown. This said, if you want to add that these decrees centralized a descentralized country... Feel free to do it. But again, I think it is already said in my paragraph. Regards, Maurice27 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm going on a work trip until sunday, so I won't be able to answer you until then.

Well, as I told you, I don't have anything against adding what you added, only that you removed what was already there. Your information was correct, but also the one was there before. And it is not exactly the same saying that they supresed the privileges as saying that they took a more centralized way. And they didn't have not only different laws but also different coins, different army. They had only in common the king. But as I said before, when the king wanted some moeny, he had to go to Barcelona and discuss. Then go to Saragossa and discuss. And then go to Toledo and... not discuss, because there he didn't need it... :-). And Spain existing from 1516 is simply not true. All the territory was governed by the same king. Nothing more. Of course there was a relation with the territories, but still separate one from the other. And you can not compare with the current situacion. If today the spanish parlament decides to suspend all the Statutes, they can do it legally without any problem. In the XVI century, when de King wanted something... we had to go to the Corts... I will try to improve the text and let's see what do you think with the result. Regards,--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Maurice27 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Basque Provinces, the Kingdom of Navarre and the Val d'Aran preserved their Fueros respectivelly under the Bourbons, but it was not a problem to make the new Kingdom of Spain more centralized. It's a clear exemple. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we could be starting to make some sense now, Mr. Xtv. Your proposal about introducing Valencian as a variant of Catalan and keep with Valencian for the rest of the article makes sense to me for the sake of a compromise. Here's the deal to terminate the damn Catalan/Castilian thing: it would read

"Comunitat Valenciana in Valencian" same as now but, some lines down, still in the lead section, but at the bottom, we would write something like "The languages spoken are Castilian (as the Statute and Valencian speakers call Spanish) and Valencian (as Catalan is historically known by its speakers in this territory, also institutionalized by the Statute)"

If this is ok with you, and "your boys" ;) at the Catalan-speaking countries wikiproject also do some effort we would be good, we would close this difficult and controversial chapter for good. I think it is a very good proposal, as it mentions all the names people out there likes/dislikes.

Afterwards, Valencian would be called just Valencian and Spanish, Spanish (even though I think there is no further reference to Spanish in the rest of the article, is it?)

I can't think of anything better respecting everyone views and the legality so I guess if you guys don't agree, I will take this proposal to some administrator out of the lately heated discussion here.

I am perfectly fine with your proposal to occasionally substitute VAC for "the former Kingdom of Valencia", sounds like a good idea for making the redaction "flow" as you advised. Actually, I agree VAC is clumsy so I have a further proposal: we could replace it by both Comunitat Valenciana and Comunidad Valenciana, as both are the official names and terms which have been already introduced in the lead. This way we would avoid the damn translation thing of the name, which, actually, doesn't have any clear answer whatsoever (we got to be honest mate and don't feel more important than we are: the fact is that English speakers don't give a &%@# about whatever the name is, you know?)

However, one thing I won't do is further changes in the water part. I would write a few paragraphs here replying to your reasoning on this above, but this is neither the place nor the time (and I think we are busy enough already with what we have, right?). For we can't lose sight either that this is not an article about the PHN or Iberian transvasement controversies. It is noted in a quite aseptyc way in the article now: Valencian government asks for exceeding waters, neighbouring regions object on enviromental grounds and due to the use of the water they suspect is going to be done and Valencian government makes a law forbidding a so called golf courses usage. Period. Those are facts. Further discussion than that should be in another article: feel free to create it (and, after, let me know so that I can say my own lot there ;) but we can not use the Economy section here to explain in detail this controversy because it doesn't belong here and, hello!, we already have some controversy here and we don't need more...

I'll come back later on the other topics, in the meantime, please let me know what do you think of my proposals so that we finally can start moving ahead. Thanks. Mountolive | Talk 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first paragraph you're proposing, but I can't understand why Valencian would be called Valencian and Spanish, Spanish. As you mention, Castillian and Valencian are names given by Valencian people to Spanish and Catalan languages, but English speakers call them simply Spanish and Catalan. Here you can see an example written by European Ombudsman. Note especially how he refers to Catalan/Valencian and Spanish/Castillian. Please, do not write thinks like "your boys", because I have my own opinion. --Pmmollet^(Talk) 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comunidad Valenciana isn't official, so then we should use only Comunitat Valenciana, and I suppose you won't accept it. --Pmmollet^(Talk) 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you did so in good faith, still, please do not insert comments in between of other user's, as it may be confusing, specially in such a long section as this one. I am moving them to the proper timely position now.

That is great news that you agree with the first paragraph. Thanks for your effort in order to gain consensus here. Still, I don't get what you say that "Comunidad Valenciana" is not official: are you suggesting a different name in Spanish or just saying that there is no official name in Spanish? because the latter would be wrong.

I think it was obvious that I was trying to be funny with the line you don't like. My apologies if you felt offended: no offense meant. From now on I will forget about my own "saben aquell que diu". Mountolive | Talk 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I won't insert comments in between of other user's.

About official name, there's only one that is "Comunitat Valenciana". On the first reference of the article there’s a short explanation. See article 1.1 of the Valencian Statute of Autonomy [4]. Of course it’s written in Spanish.

My apologies too if you just were trying to be funny. I thought your aim was another one. --Pmmollet^Talk 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only few time. With the name of the language, as it is very close to my proposal, I (personaly, I don't about what you call my friends) accept.

With the water, I see the paragraph biased. Maybe it's not a matter of writting more, but wirtting less. Maybe it's nt necessary to say neither "superplus river water" nor "golf courses" nor about the law. Maybe it's better to say, (in a sum up): Valencia has problems with water. They require water from neighbours (without stating if exceeding water or not) and this is a controversial point (without giving the reasons for each part), without going deeply in the problem. As I told you, now I don't have much time, we'll speak later about it.

With the name... i'll have to think a better solution.

Regards, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are making a good point with the water. I am going to edit accordingly. I appreciate your colaborative effort, by the way and, from my side, I will do what it takes to correspond to it Mountolive | Talk 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He has done it again

Sadly, Joanot has done it again: he has again edited the lead with those unofficial names of obscure translation and usage in English. I am not sure anymore whether he is a troll or what.

I am considering now whether you make a quick search for sources of "Levante" and "Kingdom of Valencia" and add it as well, or simply revert, or RfC...I don't know, but this is definitely not working with such an user who is even able to revert to older versions including typos or wrong information only to get his mono-edit done.

Because, despite several calls to be cooperative here, to enlarge content, offers to reach consensus (like placing those names in a separate section out of the lead, which is, by all accounts, the best solution), he keeps coming back with the same edit, again and again. When that is done, he leaves because, apparently he couldn't care less about the rest of the article as long as "Valencia, Land of Valencia, Valencian Country" (and soon Levante and Kingdom of Valencia) are included in the lead. Mountolive | Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

External sources are given (WP:SOURCE) supporting my added information, two of them directly from Valencian Government. If you have another some external source that contradicts the name usage in English referring to the Land of Valencia we can continue to discuss about thruthfullness. Meanwhile, if it isn't being given, it would be your own humble and respectable opinion, but not a NPOV. To achieve a NPOV, it should contrast several external sources. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) PD: Levante isn't an English name and this name together to "Kingdom of Valencia" aren't being used in English to refer this Autonomous Community.

I preffer to find concensuous, but Joanot has sources from Valencian Government. Which better sources can exist?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because his sources come from direct translation from different namings along history. For english speaking people, only ONE should be used in the lead. Why not call it also "la huerta de España"? If any wants to prove that english people call this land other way than a simple and plain "Valencia"... He is free to try it... But he won't get much results. Joanot proposals are correct, as they really are used... By Valencian people, not foreigners. Then, they should not be in the lead. Maurice27 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This argument shows that we shouldn't call Valencian to the language in any part of the article, because English people calls it Catalan, not Valencian.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add template

I want to propose to add the template {{Catalan-speaking World}}. I think it is a solution in the middle between adding {{Catalan-speaking world}} and not putting anything. It is also respectfull with the name of the language in Valencia. Hope this can be a good solution for everybody.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was nice to propose it. Adding an explanation, even nicer. But Joanot already included it in the article (without explaining why BTW... only a short "Adding {Catalan-speaking World}". And he accuses Mountolive and myself to "make changes across the entire article without references"... Anyway, Xtv, thanks for proposing and not imposing. Sincere regards, Maurice27 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Catalan is the only official in Andorra? I thought that French and Spanish are also official, but I may be wrong anyway. My only objection is that, to honour the truth, it must read "Catalan is called there Valencian", without the "also" as virtually no one calls Catalan other name than Valencian there. Mountolive | Talk 09:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Catalan is the only official language of Andorra [5].

Regarding the Valencian situation, I agree with Mountolive: "Catalan is called there Valencian" is a proper explanation.

When a Sevilian guy says he's talking "en andalú" nobody believes he's claiming for a different language than Spanish, ain't?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra don't forget to mention that, to honour the truth, in Balears they speak majorcan, ibicenc, menorcan... they don't call it catalan, so you better make the changes in all the places. Maurice27 12:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC) <-- changed the paragraph as it was not correct Maurice27 15:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha!!! Yes, that's true!

In the Balearic Islands Mallorquí, Eivissenc, and Menorquí are spoken!

But I'm not going to change anything, since they all are dialects of Catalan. Ask Balears and ask any linguist.

That's the problem with people like you: I agreed to the sentence "Catalan is called there Valencian" because that's the popular name, but that doesn't mean Valencian is a different language than Catalan. I can refer to several scientifical fonts. Can you refer to one linguist claiming than Valencian or Majorcan are a different language than Catalan?

Are you going to change the Andalusian article citing than "Andalú" and not Spanish is spoken there? I guess not, because you know "Andalú" is the way Andalusians speak Spanish. It's not better or worse, it's just their way.

We Valencians speak Valencian, which is our way to speak Catalan, not worse or better, just different of Barcelona or Girona dialects, close to Tarragona dialect and very similar to Lleida dialect.

"Divide et impera", an old sentence still applied, ain't?  ;-)

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra... WHO HAS EVER DENIED VALENCIAN OR MAJORCAN TO BE DIFFERENT FROM CATALAN???? WHO???? NO ONE! You're so obsessed with your catalan-countries that you don't take the time to read others comments. What we only say is that people from valencia call what they speak valencian and people from majorca call what they speak majorcan. You agreed on that. In andalusia no one will say when asked that he speaks "andalú"... They will say spanish... But ask someone from valencia or from majorca what they speak... You'll see the difference. Oh and BTW, if you're not "going to change anything, since they all are dialects of Catalan" at least, (and say this to your colleagues), let other people do it, without erasing, undoing or reverting on your part. If we explain that the language spoken in Valencia is called by valencians "Valencian", don't change it. You see my point? Maurice27 13:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that an order? Who are you to tell me what I can and I what I can't do?

Fortunately, you are not stupid enough to consider Valencian and Majorcan different languages than Catalan. But unfortunately you keep pointing than a popular name is worth such a waste of time for all.

Let's take a look what happens out there:

* England: English language spoken.

* USA: English. (No United.States-ian language claimed).

* Canada: English. (No Canadian language claimed)

* Australia: English. (No Australian language claimed).

* France: French language spoken.

* Switzerland: French. (No Swiss language claimed).

* Belgium: French. (No Belgian language claimed).

... See the point?  ;-)

Why are you so obsessed with pointing out the regional differences? Would you care I began vandalizing wikipedia articles about Latin-American countries claiming for Argentinian, Chilean or Cuban language differents than Spanish?

I keep agreeing with Mountolive's proposal: "Catalan is called there Valencian".

But I don't agree you if you state that Valencians don't speak Catalan or Balearics don't speak Catalan as you said before: in Balears they speak majorcan, ibicenc, menorcan... not catalan)

Calm down, my friend. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My previous statement is corrected. Now, I hope that when someone changes the article, you won't censor him. You're free to do whatever you want in wikipedia Latin-American countries (while maintaining the truth). I think it was Joanot who said cuban was sopken in cuba... Maurice27 15:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything against taking out the "also" from the Valencian language, even if I think it would be better to maintain it there, since there are people/institutions/... who call it also Catalan (in the University, for example, you can learn Catalan Philology, not Valencian -i mean, you can learn of course Valencian Philology, but it is called Catalan).

For the Balearic Islands. You said: in Balears they speak majorcan, ibicenc, menorcan... they don't call it catalan and I say: La llengua catalana, pròpia de les Illes Balears, tendrà, juntament amb la castellana, el caràcter d'idioma oficial. Title 1 article 3 from the Balearic Statute, which means: The Catalan language, own language of the Balearic Islands, will have, together with the Spanish language, the character of official language. Wishes, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If this proves anything is how controversial the word Catalan gets outside of Catalonia proper to designate its dialects. It is true what Maurice say that most people in the Balearics don't call their language Catalan. In the islands case, it is true, as Casaforra says, that their Statute of Autonomy calls it Catalan. Probably a good solution would be to take the "also" from the Valencian Community to the Balearics which would read something like "Catalan in the Balearics is also called Mallorquí...etc" as this is actually the majoritarian naming. Mountolive | Talk 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a template, not an article. If you want to know how the language is called in each region, you can read the article about the language. I find even unnecessary to say that Catalan is called Valencian in Valencia, but since this is a controversial subject there, I tried to conciliate all the positions adding this sentence. I think, since in Balearics there is no problem, it's better not to add more information. Otherwise we will finish adding a reference telling where Ramon Llull as born, and I think this is not the function of this template. Regards, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your comments on the template being a template and necessarily sketchy. So the template may be fine but we should maybe stop and think over how strictly necessary the template is in this article, foreseeing the controversy it will bring with it. Is this template that convenient? is it that necessary? is it essential to the article? I have reasonable doubts about it. Mountolive | Talk 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

At least as necessary as {{Latin Europe}}, {{Germanic Europe}}, {{Baltic}}, {{Finno-Ugric languages}}, ... I think it is objective and NPO to have a template telling in which regions is this language spoken. I remember you, that this table is already a middle point between the more complete and from my point of view much more interesting table {{Catalan-speaking world}} and nothing. I find that with the current version, telling that Valencian is the name of the language in Valencia, we can't be more polite, neutral and respectful.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remove land of valencia and valencian country

OK, here's the deal. Country and Land do not literally translate as "pais". There is some overlap but in this case the terms are not equivalent.

A country is a recognised independent socio-cultural historical nation, usually with a sovereign nation state. It could be argued that Catalunya is a country, it could also be argued that the Catalan-speaking areas SHOULD be a country. However, it is impossible to argue that Valencia is a country, as its history is so linked with the Castillian crown and the Catalan language. The phrase "Catalan countries" is similarly nonsensical in English, you could call it the "Catalan country" but it is impossible that the constituent parts are all countries, e.g The Republic of Valencia, The Kingdom of Catalunya, The Islamic Republic of Cabrera. The expressions listed at the start of the article are just bad translations from Spanish and Catalan

Land is an archaism for country. And the Basque Country is an exception.

[edit] "The text of the Boletín del Estado is the whole Statute of Autonomy"

I beg for pardon for starting a new section down here, but I'm starting to get lost among all this contributions and this MAGNIFICENT quote by Joanot, deserves a section by its own. It was made: "23:42, 26 February 2007 Joanot (Talk | contribs) (→Why totally disputed? - No proportions. Again. The text of the Boletín del Estado is the whole Statute of Autonomy.) ". It is like turning back to school... Joanot, I'm going to teach you the diference between BOLETIN OFICIAL DEL ESTADO (AKA BOE) see [[6]] and the Statute of Autonomy see [[7]]. They are not the same, they are different laws. Do you understand now? Or should you go back to school to learn how to read? Maurice27 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained here and again here already that in the BOE neither the DOGV there's no mention proportion. The Organic Law you refer as published in the BOE is the same Statute of Autonomy: see page 188813 of the BOE num 164 of July 10th 1982. There you can read Article 5 about the flag: there's no mention about the proportions. The Valencian Law published in DOGV I've referred is about the specific usage of Valencian simbols: there's no mention about the proportions. Please, remove personal attack over me if you don't want to be considered as troll. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"La tradicional señera de la Comunidad Valenciana" --> Now search what that is and its proportions... And don't call me troll as you're the master of it! I'm going to bed and I won't be back untill sunday. Don't worry I'll be back to revert your LIES in wikipedia. Maurice27 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't disrupt wiki. You have said that the LAW says specifically 3:2 (see comment), so the problem come from you saying that "3:2" is included in the legal text. I've proved you that it's not true and I demanded you the source you have used to show the quoted text not included in law. Via Mr. Google, I've found the source of this exactly quoted text from a page from FOTW, where also says that the proportions arent fixed: "According to the text of the law the ratio is not fixed. The spirit of the Symbols [flag and coat-of-arms] law was 2:3 ["as the Spanish flag"] but the pictures show 1:2.". It means that altough the intention was to make it 2:3, it was finally 1:2 because there's no legal reference to "2:3", and the only reference is about of a "traditional senyera" that has not fixed proportions. And now, proved it, you pretend to make us believe that the "traditional" proportions are "2:3". No more inventions of yours, thanks. Instead of it, give external sources (WP:SOURCE). I gave source, the pic of the Towers of Serranos (a building property of Valencia City Council) shown in the article. And we can find more photos from the senyera at top of Llotja de la Seda (see Lonja de la Seda, property of Generalitat Valenciana), and another close-up pic at top of Serrano's Tower. Until now you haven't given any source.

Again, I strong demand you to remove yourself your unrespectful comments and personal attacks to me. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming tiring and boring, really.

Joanot gives reasons to his edits and improvements, he also says where he took his souces... and the only things he gets are insults and disrepectful comments from Maurice27.

Every time that Spanish-French nationalist user claims anything he's replied with historical, linguistical and factual evidences. And even after that he keeps insulting, threatening and ordering what to do!

Should we begin compiling every time he gets corrected? Or even worse, every time whoever disagrees him gets insulted?

Eventually, he doesn't live here and hasn't ever, he doesn't talk Valencian and his studies are not related to this place. So the only reasons for him to be editing this page are his political ideas, not his knowledge. He has proven many times he is not a collaborative nor a civil user.

I'd politely ask Maurice27 to reply reasonings with reasonings, facts with facts, sources with sources. And if he can't (which he obvioulsy is not able to) then keep working in the wikipedia ONLY in the subjects he has something positive to add. I'm afraid he is too biased for his Spanish and French nationalisms.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to cool down yourself: Maurice usually provides sources for his work as well, I don't know whether he is a Spanish-French nationalist, but he is indeed replying to Catalan ("countries") nationalists. The fact that he doesn't speak Valencian doesn't mean anything, as this is the English version of wikipedia and obviously welcoming contributions from everywhere.

He has proved to me that he is collaborative as he helped me translating from other wikis the current sections of Economy and Gastronomy, something which neither Joanot nor yourself has done, despite my calls to please do so instead of heating up the discussed sections (by the way, there is still a whole Kingdom of Valencia article to be translated either from ca.wiki or es.wiki, you could guys prove yourself collaborative as well...)

About nationalist bias, you know that French and Spanish are not the only ones, right? There are even more developped and on the rise nationalisms than those, like, for example, Catalan nationalism. Mountolive | Talk 22:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can notice I'm absolutely calmed down. I haven't insulted anybody. Maurice27 does everytime. He has told me I'm obsessed with the Catalan countries, for example, and that's not fair at all since I haven't used that name in ANY of my editions.

If every person who recognizes the scientifical truth that Catalan and Valencian are the very same language is an obsessed with the Catalan countries, then I'm afraid the 100% of linguists all over the world are obsessed!

Every time a clash of sources happened, Joanot's ones has been proven as the right ones. Maybe because he knows what he's talking about, or maybe because he knows where to search. In order to know where to search the fact that Joanot talks Valencian is very useul, ain't?

Your complaints about my lack of collaboration on this article is not true: I'm removing the anti-scientifical blaverist vandalisms, which, surprisingly, neither of you two do.

I'm not a guy who sees enemies at every person who disagrees me. Black or white, with me or without me... That's not my style. Are you accusing me of being a Catalan ("countries") nationalist because I recognize scientifical truth?

Regarding Maurice27's Spanish-French nationalism I won't say anything. Just look at his info. It says it all. I'm not who has so many flags. And I'm not who wastes his time with articles about subjects I don't know.

Last comment about nationalisms: I respect them all. I do regard myself as a nationalist, you are a nationalist and Maurice27 is a nationalist too. That's not bad at all. Eventually, I respect people who recognize themselves as such because then it's only an idea-against-idea fact. The problem rises when those ideas try to hide historical or linguistical events:

* The fact that Catalan and Valencian are the same language doesn't carry necessarily any political idea. It's just a linguistical fact. France and a half of Belgium talk French, does that mean that Belgium should disappear and be integrated into France? I don't think so.

* The fact that the recent created Kingdom of Valencia was populated mainly by Catalan people is an historical fact. Any further consideration after this fact is only based on your political ideas, but the fact remains being true, don't hide it.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss about the article, this is not a forum.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Casaforra, Take a look...

About you never having insulted anybody: "[...]Spaniards and Frenchies, two of the States who have committed more genocides in the history. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 11:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)" --> Frenchie and Genocide do seem like insults to me.

About Joanot's comments having been proved as the right ones:"[...]it's nonsense. French Riviera didn't exist in XIV century"[...]Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)--> This one is simply hillarious.

About describing mountolive, yourself and myself as nationalists: "A patriot is a man who loves his country, whereas a nationalist is a man who hates everybody else's country" - Samuel Johnson (or possibly Oscar Wilde)- --> Who are the ones to include Andorra, Roussillon, Alghero, La Franja, Valencia, the Balears and el Carche as "Catalan Countries"? Not Mountolive... Not me...

Anything more? Maurice27 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard Frenchie as a gross word, but if you feel insulted I'm eager to take it back and beg your pardon, of course.

I'd suggest you to read twice your comments and take back your insults and unproper words as well. Let's try to talk about reasons and facts, not personal opinions.

Genocide is not an insult, no way. That's what Spaniards did at America and that's the way Frenchs acted during colonialism, with recent examples as Madagascar [8], or Kanaky on 1988 and the blind repression against Caledonian population [9] as Amnesty International confirmed.

But if you want, we could talk also about cultural genocide. How would you define the situation of autoctonous languages other than French in France? What about Breton, or Occitan, or Basque, or Catalan, or Corsican? Do their speakers have the same rights than you when they try to use their language?

And I keep regarding you as a nationalist. It's not an insult, there's nothing wrong in it, it's just a political ideology. I do already know your sentence, don't repeat it anymore, please. Just check Wiktionary:

Nationalism

* The idea of supporting ones country and culture

* Supporting a national identity when it does not exist as a sovereign nation

BTW, I'm not including Andorra, or L'Alguer, or whatever, in the Catalan Countries. Find any of my edits where I claim for that political option. I'm only saying that there are speakers of the Catalan language in those places. It's a scientifical truth. Ask any linguist.

Last words from me, as Xtv pointed, this is not a forum.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last revert

Mountolive, Joanot made some changes of what are we discussing, but he also added some more information and made some changes about unreferenced sources of Maurice27. I think this new information shouldn't be removed. You should only revert the points in discussion.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that was a provisional revert. The new info can also be under discussion or controversial so any edits from now on, we should go step by step here now that we seem in a more consensual mood. Mass edits will destroy any signs of incipient consensus and, on the other side, I can't see why the rush to edit everything at the same time: as you know I am not happy with how the article looks now, but I am discussing here prior to edit and I think is fair everyone does the same. There's no rush. Mountolive | Talk 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a revertment to any previous revision. There's no previous revision exactly equal to the actual version. It's a merging of the edits between edits made by me and edits made by you and Maurice. I don't understand why you are talking about consens because in the talk page only discussed you and Maurice, it means, moving into the same POV. Changes made by me centers and relates directly around the main subject of the article: Valencian Country. In History section, it's only all about that covers Valencia, not all about whole Spain nor what Bourbons did. Info related to Kingdom of Valencia is now presented in a correct order, and avoiding repetition. I've recovered info that was deleted under no reason (2nd Spanish Republic), and I've added new info related to contemporary age. If you see there's controversial, please, first specify which it's.

In the other hand, I've previously put the {{totally disputed}} template because the same reason you've given now: the article is subjected to discussion. But you've edited whatever you wanted, and removed this template unilaterally. After that, now you have no reason to revert because you dislike further editions from others that also discussed before in the same way you did with Maurice27. You want to discuss first? Ok. You should first go revert to the version when I've put this template first time and let's start to discuss. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not correct. Here Maurice and I are discussing, also Xtv, Pmmollet, Casaforra and my grandmother can discuss. But, actually, the one who is editing the article despite discussion is not me, if you know what I mean.

I am not assessing the accuracy or convenience of your mass edit, I am just please asking you to hold it. I made a quite clear proposal in my discussion to Xtv above and I would like you to review it yourself and hear your opinion. If we can advance, new topics will be brought litte by little and, hopefully, we can find some common ground if we all make an effort.

My "unilateral" removal was not more unilateral than your unilateral putting the template. I just didn't understand why you used that template right after you made six or seven edits, it didn't make sense to me. I insist we can discuss in the talk page, with no rush, step by step and, at the end of the story, if nothing is clear, you (or I) we can put the damn template but, at this point, I think is an exaggeration, as the article is not so far from your POV, but actually further from mine, and I don't use the template anyway, because it just doesn't look nice and that should be used as a last recourse.

Why don't we just cool off a little the article and discuss here? that would be really helpful. Mountolive | Talk 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] alteration of 1st paragraf, land of valencia and valencian country

OK, here's the deal. Country and Land do not literally translate as "pais". There is some overlap but in this case the terms are not equivalent.

A country is a recognised independent socio-cultural historical nation, usually with a sovereign nation state. It could be argued that Catalunya is a country, it could also be argued that the Catalan-speaking areas SHOULD be a country. However, it is impossible to argue that Valencia is a country, as its history is so linked with the Castillian crown and the Catalan language. The phrase "Catalan countries" is similarly nonsensical in English, you could call it the "Catalan country" but it is impossible that the constituent parts are all countries, e.g The Republic of Valencia, The Kingdom of Catalunya, The Islamic Republic of Cabrera. The expressions listed at the start of the article are just bad translations from Spanish and Catalan

Land is an archaism for country. And the Basque Country is an exception.

01/03/07 Hi again, please can somebody provide an English language source for "Land of Valencia" or "valencian country" not originating from Spain, the terms both sound barbaric in English and are not used by native speakers. "Valencian country" sounds like it is the region famous for valencian things "Bronte country", "Wordsworth country", "good hunting country", not an administrative region. "Land of Valencia" is like "Land of Nod", "Land of Nevermore" or "Land of the Midnight Sun". Its awful, and sounds anachronistic, we would never talk of the "Land of France". Anyway, have ammended the text to show that these terms are not used by native speakers, given the refs are Spanish. Please give reasons if changed. Boynamedsue

The term "Valencian Country" has a large literature used in English (and not originated from Spain). You can find easilly bibliographic references via google. In the other hand, "Land of Valencia" is used in oficial instances from Valencian Government. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See what happens when trying to include all those names in the first paragraph? Now it is not only Mountolive and me. We are now 5 people asking to keep only the official name in the lead paragraph, which is "Valencia (autonomous community). Please downgrade all your historic naming to the History section. Maurice27 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Joanot: I've googled land of Valencia and Valencian Country, and all the hits are from Spanish organisations (although some tourist stuff uses the term "Land of Valencia", more as a branding thing), or from second language English speakers. The basis of my objection was this and the fact I have a degree in Hispanic Studies and have never read anything written by a native speaker containing these terms. The source you use for Valencian Country was published 30 years ago in Madrid, and the Land of Valencia one is tourist bumf from the Valencian local authority.Thanx Boynamedsue

[edit] llengua propia

I know that in Spanish culture the concept of "llengua propia" is current, but in English "the language proper to a territory" has no meaning. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic rights is an excellent document, but it was written in Barcelona, and therefore is overly influenced by the terminology of linguistic debate in Barcelona. It seems to mean "the language people should speak", and is, as such pov. Noinamedsue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.129.134.21 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

This is your interpretation. I see it as the language that was developed there in contrast with the language that was imported.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought Valencian was imported during the reconquista. Anyway, I've r-read the paragraph, and as it states that the autonomy statute uses this bizarre expression, rather than saying valencian IS llengua propia, I'll leave it alone.

Yes, it was also imported during the "conquista" (without "re"), and also Vulgar Latin was imported in Hispalis, and... but as I wanted to mean, in Valencia there was during some centuries a great development of the language with some of the best contributions to the language (Martorell, March, ...), and this didn't happen with Spanish.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did!!! It also happened with spanish. After doing a fast search in Generation of '27 and Generation of '98... Just to name some valencians who did their writing in spanish... (and not small ones, being all of them from '98 and '27 generations)... Juan Chabás,Miguel Hernández, Carlos Arniches, Azorín, Vicente Blasco Ibáñez. Unfortunately, Some people are SO anxious to add catalan related facts to some articles, that they don't understand they are biasing if not mentioning everything. Why Martorell and March and not Azorín and Blasco Ibañez? IMHO all 4 being equally important... Maurice27 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the kind of contributions are slightly different. In one point the language is just born, there are almost no literature, they are creating the Catalan literature. The latter are contributing (not creating) to Spanish literature. But I can accept this is more subjective POV...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last rv

I preserved all your contributions except two "wich" that should be "which". Sorry. All the other part was made by an anonymous and we are discussing it here. Sorry for this 2 typos I reverted.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, also the ó in Aragon ;-) I saw you modified the word and I thought it was only the capitalization. :P--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis Maurice27 05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valencian - Catalan / Spanish - Castillian

In the discussion about the name, I didn't consider the table as a part of the article. I mean, I think there was better to have there both denominations Valencian - Catalan / Spanish - Castillian. The form used now, considers uses the first as the native form, and the second as the standard English form. The table is a sum up of many aspects of the article, and many people simply look the table without reading the text. In this way, we can also include the word Castillian with the link to the different denominations of the language that now doesen't exist in the whole text.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

i can see your point xtv, but I think that Spanish says everything the reader needs to know re Castillian. Either the reader will already be familiar with the term, or they will think that Valencia uses a special form of Spanish, called Castillian to distinguish it from other forms of Spanish. Valencian still has the link to Catalan within the body of the text, but I feel that putting Catalan in the table opens up that Valencian-is-a-dialect-no-its-a-language-fatxa-rojodemierda-blablablabla argument. boynamedsue

Xtv, really, following our talk also in Andorra, I suggest that you worry less about what people look at and what people think, etc. As it is now, it should be enough clear what Valencian is, a dialect of Catalan which has gained some relevance of its own. If we start messing again the whole thing with Catalan/Valencian, Spanish/Castilian, then we are driving in circles and not going anywhere. I know this may not look perfect to your POV, nor it does to mine: we all have to show some flexibility so that we all can protect the article from either blaverists or extreme catalanists. Mountolive | Talk 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that different editors can't agree on how to spell Castilian/Castillian is a good enough reason not to use it in an English-language article. I have no problems with articles separating Valencian from Catalan, even if my linguistic sense says otherwise: at least there there is a story to be told! In brief, can we use "Valencian" for the local language spoken in parts (if not most) of the Communitat Valenciana, and Spanish for the language refrred to therein as "Castellà". Physchim62 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is reasonale and, actually, pretty much coincides with how the article looks now. There is also a reference to Catalan so that everybody around here feels comfortable, but, apparently, we are good in this regard now. Thanks. Mountolive | Talk 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.

Valencian is the local name for the Catalan language, and Castilian is the local name for the Spanish language.

If we keep the English name for the Spanish language instead of the local Castilian, why should we use a local name, Valencian, for the other language, Catalan?

That's not fair.

Mountolive's proposal: Valencian is the local name for the Catalan language (or something like that), is a good explanation of the way that language is known as. But in no way should it replace the references around the whole article or the template.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should remain as it is. valencian is a standard of Catalan used in the PVal, as such it is the official language. The body of the article already states Valencian is the local dialect of Catalan. The English denomination for this standard is Valencian. The Spanish official in PVal is standard Spanish with no variation from standard Spanish, sdo should be called by its correct English name. Boynamedsue

[edit] Electoral support

Joanot, please check Official results of 2003 elections to the autonomous parliament EU+Green parties 6.45% + Bloc 4.77% + ERPV 0.32% = if my calculator is ok, that is a grand total of 11,54%.

Also, the Nueva Planta Decrees are, obviously, a legal text, which makes the centralization a de jure one (and also de facto, by the way). Mountolive | Talk 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the Nueva Planta Decrees are, obviously, a legal text. But when I'm saying that this is formed a new "Kingdom of Spain" de facto it means that this legal text aren't talking anything about such "Kingdom of Spain" (see source), and there's no intention to create it (Navarre and Basque Provinces weren't assimilated yet). It only talks about assimilation to the "Kingdom of Castile" of the only countries belonged to the Crown of Aragon. The first legal text that talks specifically about a "Kingdom of Spain" in all senses is the Spanish Constitution of 1812. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) PD: And it doesn't tell about "Kingdom of Spain" at all, but about a "Kingdom of the Spaniards" but this detail isn't important because it's telling first time about a Spanish nation.

Believe me that you can be surprising, mate. Here's the source which you kindly provide

He juzgado conveniente (así por esto como por mi deseo de reducir todos mis reinos de España a la uniformidad de unas mismas leyes, usos, costumbres y Tribunales, gobernándose igualmente todos por las leyes de Castilla tan loables y pausibles en todo el Universo) abolir y derogar enteramente, como desde luego doy por abolidos y derogados, todos los referidos fueros, privilegios, práctica y costumbre hasta aquí observadas en los referidos reinos de Aragón y Valencia; siendo mi voluntad, que éstos se reduzcan a las leyes de Castilla

You say "this legal text isn't talking anything about such "Kingdom of Spain" but, then, from the very source you provide, we read:

• "todos mis reinos de España" hellooooo? did he say España? did you skip this part or someone wrote it after you read it?

Anyway, I thought I knew the Catalanist agenda well but your manual gets bizarre at times: I just can't see very well why so much interest to stickle with this de jure and de facto thing. If it makes you happy, like those 4 percentual points or more you wanted to cheat... Mountolive | Talk 08:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he said "España", but he wasn't telling "Kingdom of Spain", but "kingdoms of Spain". In these years, Spain is a geographical concept that covers all entire Iberia, including Portugal. In these years (17th and 18th centuries), there are mentions and historical references about Italy already, altough there's no Kingdom of Italy yet, it's a geographical concept that covers several kingdoms of Italy. It's quitelly the same matter, until then, Italian kingdoms were'nt ruling under the same laws and didn't shared the same King, while Spanish kingdoms also weren't ruling under the same laws altough they were sharing the same king (in the same way that UK and Australia are sharing the Queen of England as Head of State, respectivelly). This is not the same modern-day Spain concept of nowadays, it's a mistake having a "presentism" POV. This legal text is always telling about "laws and costumes of Castile", the "Kingdom of Castile", and the "Royal Courts of Castile", none of them of Spain. And not all kingdoms of Spain were under the same law of Castile yet while Navarre and Basque Provinces maintained their fueros respectivelly. I'm not from any Catalan agenda, it's simply History. ---Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Joanot, It's simply YOUR history. First, from top to bottom,

1. your statement "In these years, Spain is a geographical concept that covers all entire Iberia, including Portugal" is so FALSE and RIDICULOUS, that's it is going automatically to my "Greatest quotes of the XXI century in Wikipedia" section... It should be posted in the portugal article for you to get "punished"...
2. The only Kings that were kings of Spain and Portugal were Philip II, III and IV. Philip V was NEVER king of Portugal.
3. There were also historical references about Italy since the romans, don't forget we're talking about the "peninsula italica".
4. You keep using the UK and Australia example. It is not the same. You are completely forgetting the Governments, which, as far as I'm concerned, are the ones making the laws. In Bourbon Spain, the King was the one making the laws for each and every territory under his rulement. Now, go tell the Australians to accept the laws from the uk. Again, completely nonsense statement.
5. The problem with the de jure and de facto section is, that you completely modified the text. The text said Philip V changed the laws in a de jure way (a decree is a law). It didn't say Philip V created a new Kingdom. Anyway, Philip V changed the laws in a de jure way, unified the kingdoms in a de jure way, suppressed the institutions, privileges, and the ancient fueros in a de jure way. De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "based on law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "in fact". And as far as I'm concerned, a Decree is a law. A treaty, a pact, a contract are all de jure. So stop calling what Philip V did a de facto unification. Again, your statement is a complete nonsense.
6. And finally you should read about what "fueros" meaning. You're trying to convince everybody that Navarre and Basque Provinces failed apart the Nueva Planta decrees... In these two territories the fueros are exclusively economical and about taxes regimes. For all other purposes, they also got under the decrees ruling. It's not History what you are following, It's your catalan Agenda. Maurice27 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't reply a troll. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Spain" and "my kingdoms of Spain"?. He mentions them this way because he also had kingdoms in America, Naples and elsewhere.

The "presentism" POV is indeed something to always have into account but I don't think it applies to the text above. Because that is already the 18th century, man, and, while not denying that España had a geographical meaning back in the 15th century, that evolved over the decades to a political one.

You shouldn't forget that Portugal was already a consolidated reality (and a quite relevant one) already in the 17th century so that invalidates the claim that España=Iberian península at some point in the 16th century. Anyway, as I said, I can't see what's the place of this de jure and de facto thing in the Catalanist agenda, so if you feel more comfortable this way... Mountolive | Talk 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the XIII century (and I'm sure there are also references from much before), James I already uses the word Spain and Spanish Kingdoms and nobody will think that in this period the muslim Calfats, Castillia and Valencia, for example, were the same, no? (and yes, the word Spain in that period included also Portugal so please Maurice27, I beg you to stop making personal attacks taking sentences outside from the context in your User's page (moreover, when those sentences, in the right context, are perfectly correct)). Spain was a geografical word as we talk today about Scandinavia or Europe. If the European Union finally in 200 years becomes a federal state like USA, can they say that Europe (as a country) existed already in the XV century because there are books talking about the kingdoms of Europe? As Joanot says we can not make presentism: we can not use the word Spain with the sense of today in texts from when the word meant something other.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 07:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Xtv... You seem reasonable... Don't make the same mistakes as Joanot does... At any time in history have Portugal been called Spain. It has been part of Iberia, Hispania, Al-andalus, probably Castile during reconquista (but I doubt it), but never Spain. Philip II of Spain was I of Portugal because his mother was portuguese but he never managed to fully unify both countries (nor were able his son and grandson). The word España is just a derivation from vulgar latin (which can be called spanish) from the word Hispania. What James I could have use was a vulgar latin use of the word Hispania "the Hispanic Kingdoms" the same way that Philip II had the title of "Hispan Rex". Your statement about Spain being a geographical word is just not true, as it has always been used the concept of "Iberian federation" for the union of Spain and Portugal or simly "Iberia". Maurice27 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get the point. If I read Spain in the Crònica, you mean that is the derivation from de vulgar latin name Hispania, but it's not the same as when you use Spain later for the Kingdom? mmm... I think this is exactly what I mean: Hispania, from latin (meaning a geographical place) derived to Spain and during some centuries it was used like that. Then it appeared the biggest kingdom of the territory and took the name from this derivation: Kingdom of Spain. Yes, it's what I'm saying. I am not saying Portugal was called Spain, but Portugal was in Spain. Because Spain meant this, the derivation to Vulgar Latin of the word Hispania...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• James I Chronicle IV "chapter": "My father, the King En Pere, was the most bounteous king there ever was in Spain, the most courteous and the most gracious, (...)"
• Muntaner, Crònica (XIV century) page 206: "it seem that between you (King of Aragon) and us (King of Castillia) and the King of Mallorca and the King of Portugal (...). And assuredly, he spoke the truth; if this four Kings of Spain whom he named, (...)".

Now that has been prooven that Spain was used as a territorial name including Portugal, I think you can already delete your sentences in your User page.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Xtv, what I'm trying to say is that we cannot use the word "Spain" in such a free way. Spain did not mean the same thing in the XIII century (james I), as in the XVIII century (philip V). James I could not have any idea of what his kingdoms, Castile, Navarre, Leon and Al-andalus were to become 250-300 years later. Sincerely, he could not have any idea.

I searched for the facsimiles of those two sources you gave and I was able to find them:

• Llibre dels feits (chapter starting with E) [[10]] where we can read "Spanya"
• Crònica de Muntaner (in the middle) [[11]] where we can read "Reys q ell nomenaua de Espanya".

What these two texts do make clear is that the word "Spain" was already in use back in the XIII century, but, IMHO, everybody should be very careful about using "Spain" (in nowadays context) to explain facts in those years. I still defend the idea that those "Spanya or Espanya" are the vulgar derivation (what we now call spanish, catalan, french) of the Latin "Hispania", a territory of which Portugal, of course, was part of. Hispania (Spanya, Espanya, Spanna, Espanna in XIII c) is a term which has not the same meaning than nowadays "Spain"

Just to give an example, say to anybody, "Portugal was part of Spain". They will tell you you are wrong. Tell them "Portugal was part of Hispania". They will tell you you are right.

Using as a source these two facsimiles, it can be true that in the XIII century saying that "Portugal is part of Spanya" (or Spanya, Espanya, Spanna, Espanna in spanish, as "Ñ" is nothing else than a very small n over another bigger N) was correct, but let's all admit they were refering to "Hispania" as it had been know for almost 2000 years even then.

Now, back to the Nueva Planta problem. In XVIII century, Portugal was definetively NOT part of anything (geographical concept, territory, Kingdom...) under the name of Spain. Joanot made clear what he was refering to "In these years, Spain is a geographical concept that covers all entire Iberia, including Portugal. In these years (17th and 18th centuries), " so, I still believe this sentence is a fantastic example of what is to be included in my user page.

Let me know what you think about my Hispania/España opinion. Regards, Maurice27 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I really find astonishing your argumentation. Spain was there a derivation of Hispania and later is the name of the country. Yes, the meaning is not the same as nowadays, and I think this is what Joanot was telling you. To sum up: in Latin there is the Word Hispania. In XIII century we have already seen that this name has derived to Spain, still to refer the whole territory, including Portugal. In XVI century the word Spain starts to be used not officialy by the King of most of the Kingdoms of the Iberian P. But the word is still used in geographical sense. For the first time in the XVIII century Spain is used as the official name of one country, and because of this fact, the usage of the word as a territorial and not political meaning starts vanishing. Now, the problem is that you say we can not use nowadays the meaning of the territory, and of course I agree, but I think Martorell was talking about texts not from today but from some centuries ago, in where the word Spain had also the territorial meaning. So then the sentence Portugal was in Spain, in this context is complitely right (if he had written Portugal is in Espanya then you'd have not problem? i think Espanya = Spain in English, isn't it?). So I beg you for the last time to remove your not justified out-of-context personal attacks from your User Page. Even if he were wrong (and I'm sure he wasn't in any of the two sentences), I find not very gentile to have others mistakes in your page for the public ridicule. Shoud I also put in my Users Page that you can not distinguish between PD license and Fair Use? I'd find it really unpolite and out of the aim of the project, and I won't do it.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I can see we both agree in the historical and lexical meaning. Good. But then again, Joanot said: "In these years (17th and 18th centuries),"... I'm not lying, just read his quote... About you writing whatever you want in your user page, you are FREE to do what you want, as I am FREE to do what I want. If you don't like it, don't read it. Do people tell you what to do on your user page? Then act the same way towards the others. PERIOD! Maurice27 23:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, as I said, it is at the XVIII Century when the use of the word with the geografical meaning starts disappearing, so Martorell was right when he says that in the years when the Nueva Planta Decrees are written (just beggining of XVIII cent.), Spain is still considered as a geografical term. So the sencence is correct. This said, I tell you that, since you are free to have what you want in your page (I doubt about what an administrator will think about this freedom, it seems you don't know about sbdy's freedom ends where the other people one start), I will be free also to avoid wasting more time discussing with you until you show to the other people the respect that I expect everybody to have with the people arround. I still hope we can continue discussing about the article and not about anything else (at least here) anymore. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but again, no! Portugal was recognized on October 5th 1143. So, in the XVIII c, Spain may very well be considered still as a geografical term in your opinion (mine is since 1516), but portugal is to be EXCLUDED from that geografical term. We are discussing for something neither of you have proven, that in the XVIII c, Portugal was part of Spain, Kingdoms of Spain or whatever related to Spain. In those years (XVIII c) Portugal was the Kingdom of Portugal and was not related in neither way to Spain. Again you are free to do whatever you want, may that be including whatever you want in your user page or discussing with me. Maurice27 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)