Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Valencian Vs. Catalan Round 2507 and counting...
2 Round 2508
3 on vandalism
4 Proportions of the Valencian autonomous community Flag (2.0 version)
5 Just to make sure Maurice27 sees it
6 Valencian and Catalan
7 This article is 32 kilobytes long
8 Correct flag
9 Blocking a vandal?
10 Mediation

[edit] Valencian Vs. Catalan Round 2507 and counting...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An agreement was reached for the formula:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mountolive, be fair:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really love that sentence! :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Round 2508

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope I have been clearer this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] on vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, it seems that Mountolive was referring to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I have made a few fairly minor edits to this text. As a British person living in Valencia, who speaks Spanish and Catalan fluently, I would like to sat that the question of names is by far and away less importan than the fact that this page is written by none-english speakers: I have corrected several very poor sentences. Now then, this is the real problem: as much as the spanish editors might like to write "valencian" (sic) and the catalanists (sic) might like to eliminate all reference, in reality this is a page for english-speakers consumption. therefore, lets establish some ideas: I'm not against saying that the local language is called "valencià" by most speakers. but from here to saying it has a natural english equivalent... It is obvious that english-speakers are awre of the existence of catalan, basque, spanish and portuguese. Why confuse them when all competent authorities (IEC, ARLV, RAL) declare openly and without doubt that "valencian" is catalan? what purpose does it have to introduce this new use to a word which simply means, "from valencia"? As much as I speak Yorkshire because I am from Leeds, I feel it is inapropriate to abstract, dither or confuse the reader about these dialects' place within a recognised language block. therefore, I use valencian only to inform of its use by the spanish, who, in their turn, try to use it in English as if anyone knew what they meant. in any case, waht use is it to use only the word "Valencian" and then when you link to the page, to read that it is Catalan? Is it really necessary to pander to right wing prejudice (see "blaverism", another invented word) rather than simply recognise the Spanish supreme court's finding that "Valencian" is Catalan? Or that the Real Academia de la lengua Española also agrees? Clearly it is a political question and if one reads the spanish and catalan wikis, one can see that efectively their infighting has been simply translated (badly) onto this page. It should not be a political question for English-speakers or readers, for whom catalan, like spanish, simply exists, and if the appropiate authorities (Institut d'Estudis Catalans) says that it is spoken in valencia, then we should accept that (although you could also come here, take a person from Barcelona to any part of valencia, and get them to address anyone who claims to speak "Valencian". In fact, i have tried this, and noone yet has raised an eyebrow...he's just speaking "valencian" from "up there", ie. barcelona). If you have to include "Valencian" at every turn, be aware that we should use words people know and comprehend, and "catalan" is one of them.

Dear Anon: while I don't doubt on the bona fide of your edits, before proceeding that boldy you should really look into this talk page, which include the archived ones and then you will notice how hot and controversial are some the topics you are mentioning above. It is not that easy as you seem to think: there are reasons on both sides and, apparently, we kinda reached some fragile consensus which we shouldn't destroy carelessly.

Mountolive.-

I'm not destroying anything. Correct flag used is 1:2, and I'm adding as main article all related. I consider the vandalism change made by you, apllying an very very restrictive and biased POV based on your personal thinkings. Wikipedia has not extension limit. So, why to cut texts that you think these shouldn't be there?. It's not alternative, I'm not touching any controversial topic, Valencian is Catalan, and viceversa, so both articles should be referenced. And about Sign Language, Valencian Deaf persons doesn't use Spanish Sign Language. If you don't like it, make your own mountolivewiki and express your embarrassaments, but here all true things must be said with any political and ideological disruption. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear 84.120.254.73. I don't have an opinion on the flag issue, but we have someone who knows about this: Maurice27.

First of all, I never accused you of vandalism, did I? I will be waiting for your apologies on that, in the meantime, you should elaborate much more your contributions if you want to be taken seriously and calling me names is not enough reasoning.

Your starting point "wikipedia has not extension limit" is a quite bizarre tenet which you should explain. If you think about it, you may realize that this tenet is likely to take wikipedia to "anything goes", which is quite absurd.

Now, on the more particular issues, I am not denying that Valencian is Catalan and viceversa. Actually, precisely because Valencian is Catalan and viceversa, both names are not to be listed at the same time: wikipedia has a wide audience and they don't necessarily know that Valencian and Catalan are the same. If both are listed at the same time, there is the impression that they are different languages.

On the Valencian deaf sign language, I don't think it belongs here, still, if you have strong feelings about it, I will edit to add the Spanish sign language as well, since your claim "Valencian Deaf persons doesn't use Spanish Sign Language" should be proved.

More important than that, I wholeheartedly ask you to look into the archived talk pages and this one, to realize of how hard has been reaching some sort of compromise.

Mountolivewiki is a not too bad idea, but there is quite a lot of work here in wikipedia, try reaching consensus and, after, struggle to maintain it.

Mountolive.-

Hello, I am the anonymous interventor as stated above. thank you for your comments, I would have apreciated you didn't remove all opf my edits as I think most of them were not political and helped the readability (and improved syntax). But I think you should consider that the fragile consensus between the catalan and spanish uses of the word "catalan" has nothing to do with the proper and correct English use. Think of the word "cream", in spanish and catalan "crema, nata" and custard "crema, crema catalana". and then that south-american speakers use "crema" where spanish use "nata". I want to convey that less time should be spent on keeping spanish people happy, and more on seeking ou the true use of English, and indeed how we think. Therefore I agree that we concieve Valencia as a region; that we concieve Castilian as Spanish; that the concieve valencian (sic) as catalan. as indeed do most none-spanish languages. I note that Mountolive agrees with me that the indiscriminate use of both "valencian" and "catalan" makes a mockery of the entry. I left a clear statement at the beginning in which it stated what we British need to know and don't "valencian, the name used colloquially to refer to catalan" (or something similar would do). until you clearly decant in favour of the English language and treat "valencian" as a) a colloquialism and b) a scientific term denoting a dialect of catalan, you are erring into politics instead of trying to help foreigners understand. In no sense does it remain obvious that a) it is a collouial use and b) that it is not a different language. in order for it to remain clear, we should use "catalan" in all cases where we do not wish to distinguish a variant, dialect, anacronism, etc. the word "valencian" (sic) itself can only be used in speech-marks when it is being used in this context, as, at most, the word means "a valencian citizen". In less dictionary terms, it simply is not a popular word, even if you want to propose it to Oxford (the people who fix our language). Whereas Catalan IS. what better reason to use it?

ps. i still consider that, allthough "Alacant" is the correct name and I have nothing against it, English usage is clearly "Alicante". i can't see the real use in providing so many names with ///// ... a long time ago I wrote up a list of place names with their English equivalent. Not all are Spanish, some, like Xativa, take the Catalan. Many use both indiscriminately, but I think we should come down on one side for clarity and consistency's sake. If you want me to help you in this regard, i will.

thanks but I hope you think throug the point of this article: to explain. mr. anon, l'inglès.

hello again, I have just reedited the text, once more removing the hispanic english (for example "in the one side" should be "on the one hand"), and since you feel so strongly about the topic, those are all the edits I have made. I would prefer ont to have to redo these edits as I think if you read through you will see none are remotely POV: I have not changed more than three or four words to clear up the meaning. I would prefer it if you didn't just revert the text each time: you could always accept a decent clean up of the English syntax and spelling (No criticism implied, its just a fact that the second language is never as good as the first!) mr. anon, l'inglès

[edit] Proportions of the Valencian autonomous community Flag (2.0 version)

(JUST TO MAKE SURE JOANOT READS IT)

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

This said, I went to SEV site, [[2]], and found a "banderas" (flags) link on the left. Then, I clicked on the "Comunidades Autónomas" link, see [[3]], and then on the "Comunidad Valenciana/Comunitat Valenciana" one see [[4]], to get here: [[5]], where it clearly states a proportions of 2:3.

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

CASTILLA Y LEÓN: proportions 76:99. See, [[6]]
CASTILLA-LA MANCHA: proportions 1:2. See, [[7]]
COMUNIDAD DE MADRID: proportions 7:11. See, [[8]]
PAÍS VASCO/EUSKADI: proportions 14:25. See, [[9]]

Being ALL OTHERS of proportions 2:3.

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

[edit] Just to make sure Maurice27 sees it

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

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

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

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

I hope I have been clearer this time.

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

Well let' get some ground rules clear first:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes the version in Spanish (Comunidad Valenciana) was official, as you pointed out, in the 1982 Statute. It is not official in the 2006 Statute. It is not official now. See: [10]. Even in the Spanish version, the name is Valencian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've misunderstood a couple of my points

I don't dispute that Comunitat Valenciana is the legal name, as stated in the Ley Organica from the Cortes Generales.
In the case of Japan, there is one single official transliteration and another seperate transliteration which has majority usage among the population: both transliterations are included in the header to the infobox

I have never heard of the "convention" before it was brought up here, and I have not been able to find any reference to it in WP guidelines. The restriction to official names (plus English translation where appropriate) appears to be generally followed, but not universally followed. If you can find any more specific guidance, please report it here. Otherwise, I think that the Valencian Community is a case where the general practice should not be followed, for the reasons I have already explained. Physchim62 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Maurice27:

The official name, as it stated in the Statute of Autonomy please read it is Comunitat Valenciana, not ""Comunitat Autònoma de València", not "Comunitat Autónoma Valenciana", not "Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia" or any other variant you wish. Unlike Catalonia, the first article here clearly states that the official name ("denominación oficial", in Spanish) is "Comunitat Valenciana", in fact, the first article even reads: "comunidad autónoma... con la demominación de Comunitat Valenciana". Moreover, they did not translate "Comunitat" into "Comunidad". In other words, Comunitat is part of the name of the autonomous community. If you are truly interested in the issues of Spain, please take the time to read the Statute of Autonomy before bringing up false arguments.
No, Valencia in Spanish and Catalan are not spelled the same. In Valencian, it is València (notice the accent). But that is besides the point, since the official name is neither Valencia nor València, but "Comunitat Valenciana".
Personally, I have no issues against "Hispanidad" (sic) and I am not against the unity of Spain. However, I appreciate the incredible cultural and linguistic diversity of the nation, just as I appreciate the incredible linguistic richness of the indigenous groups of Mexico. But, I just want to be as precise as the laws themselves are. If the law, within the constitutional unity of Spain, says the official name is in Valencian, then it is in Valencian, regardless of how we feel about it.

Physchim62:

I am sorry if I had misunderstood your points. I understand your arguments, however, I still think that the lead paragraph suffices for the inclusion of the name in Spanish, and that the infobox should only retain the name in Valencian. If the name in Spanish had been that important, it would have been included in the Spanish version of the Statute of Autonomy. If it is only a matter of taste and there are no guidelines regarding which names (official or otherwise) should be included in the infobox, then I propose that we open a poll, just to review the opinions of different users. If no consensus arises, then the NPOV way to proceed would be to include both the Spanish and Valencian names. (Or, this could be the outcome of the consensus itself).

--the Dúnadan 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the only terms that should appear in the info box should be:

Comunitat Valenciana, since it's the official term appearing in the Estatut.
Valencian Community, since it's the translation into English of the previous term, and there should be translations of every term.

The Spanish term Comunidad Valenciana is used by some media but it's not official. Even the translation into Spanish of the Estatut uses Comunitat Valenciana.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"comunidad autónoma... con la demominación de Comunitat Valenciana". Ok... That would work... --Maurice27 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan,

No need to apologise for an honest mistake :)! I'm not sure we need a poll to tell use that we don't have a consensus: a quick look at the page history shows four editors repeated adding the Spanish name and four editors repeatedly removing it...

What would we have done before the 2006 Statute was enacted? Would we have only had the Spanish name at the top of the infobox (as the "only" "official" name), or would we have included the Valencian name on the grounds that the Valencian language was and is co-official? On Basque Country (autonomous community) and Navarre, which are in this situation, the Basque names are included even though they do not figure in the Statutes of Autonomy as voted. If we would have included the Valencian name under the old Estatut, we should include the Spanish name under the current version. Physchim62 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't want to compare this article to what other articles have in their infoboxes (whether right or wrong). But I guess we need to open up a wikiproject concerning names and denominations of the Spanish autonomous communities. For starters, the Statute of Autonomy of the Basque Country [11], states, quite clearly, El Pueblo Vasco o Euskal Herria, como expresión de su nacionalidad... se constituye en Comunidad Autónoma dentro del Estado español bajo la denominación de Euskadi o País Vasco... In other words, both the Euskara and the Spanish names are official, but notice that the official denomination does not include "Comunidad Autónoma". In that sense, we must change the infobox in that article.

On the other hand, the Statue of Autonomy of Catalonia [12] does not specify any "denomination", but only that Catalunya, com a nacionalitat, exerceix el seu autogovern constituïda en comunitat autònoma d'acord amb la Constitució.... The name, Catalunya is translated to all official languages in the Spanish and Occitan versions of the Statute (Cataluña, Catalonha). It could be interpreted in many ways, my interpretation is that Catalunya/Cataluña/Catalonha is the official name (and not "Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña", et. al.) However, we need to be careful to distinguish between the historic [country?] territory of Catalonia (à la Basque Country (historical territory)) from the present-day autonomous community which excludes Northern Catalonia.

I guess I am open to review all Statues of Autonomy of [at least] all the bilingual communities to make sure we've got the official names right. Then we should decide whether we include the Spanish names in the infoboxes of those specific autonomous communities in which the Spanish version is not official.

--the Dúnadan 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well such a review would be a good idea anyway, and I would be more than happy to help out, but the decision would be for any version determined to be non-official, whether Spanish or not. In other words, the question I posed above: would you remove Comunitat Valenciana as an unofficial name if the 1983 Estatut were still in force? Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I would leave only the official name (if it was in Spanish) in the infobox, but show both names in the introductory paragraph. However, note that that was not the case. The Spanish version of the 1982 Statute had the term as "Comunidad Valenciana", however, the Valencian version of it showed the term "Comunitat Valenciana".[13] Arguably, both the Valencian and the Spanish names were official, whereas only the Valencian name is official in the 2006 Statute (as portrayed both in the Spanish and Valencian versions of the Statute). --the Dúnadan 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valencian and Catalan

FOR THE 100TH TIME, WE SPEAK VALENCIAN, NOT CATALAN, THEY ARE SISTER TONGUES BUT ONE DOES NOT COME FROM THE OTHER ONE. IN FACT VALENCIAN EXISTED BEFORE CATALAN, AND COMES FROM LATIN. FURTHERMORE, NO ONE CALLS THE OLD KINGDOM OF VALENCIA OR THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY "VALENCIAN COUNTRY", ONLY THE CATALAN SEPARATISTS DO THAT, WHICH IS VERY INSULTING FOR US VALENCIANS. IM FED UP WITH THIS BIASED-CATALANIST VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.90.106 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Any scientifical proof?

Can you name one linguist who alleges Valencian and Catalan to be two different languages?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Valencian PSOE is called Partit Socialista del País Valencià. Are they separatists?

Pompeu Fabra. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Are you meaning Fabra alleged Catalan and Valencian to be two different languages? Any reference, please?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nosaltres, catalans, no desitjaríem altra cosa sinó que emprenguéssiu una obra de forta depuració del vostre idioma, encara que no us preocupéssiu gens d’acostar-vos al nostre català; que tractéssiu de descastellanitzar el valencià i de redreçar-lo i d’enriquir-lo procurant acostar-lo al valencià dels vostres grans escriptors medievals."

Pompeu Fabra (1920). La tasca dels escriptors valencians i balears, reproduced in La llengua catalana i la seva normalització. Barcelona: Edicions 62. 1980. ISBN 84-297-1556-8. (p. 147). The emphasis is as in the 1980 edition.

The first reference to Valencian as a distinct language from Catalan dates from 1395:

"[…] tret del llati en nostra vulgada lenga materna valenciana axí com he pogut jatssessia que altres l’agen tret en lenga cathalana emperò com lur stil sia fort larch e quasi confús […]"

Antoni Canals, translation of Valeri Màximo, prologue.

Physchim62 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused at your edits. First you argued that Valencian is the same as Catalan in Catalonia (with the inclusion of the phrase "as Valencian is known..."), and then you are arguing here that they are not the same language? --the Dúnadan 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Physchim62, you are referring texts from the very beginning of the Catalan linguistics studies.

I should recall you that at that time Catalan and Valencian appeared in most of the linguistics books as a dialect of Occitan (called Llemosí).

But linguistics, as any other science, has improved in accuracy and now there is no debate about Valencian and Catalan being the same language.

I asked that Blaverist anonym user to provide us any real and present-day linguist who disagrees the current statu quo on Romance languages.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PD: By the way, just in case, when I add the adjective Blaverist I intend no offence. It's not an insult, it's just a political point of view as good as any other. In my opinion its only problem is that they claim ascientifical reasons to differ as much as possible from Catalans. I could remind many examples of communities sharing a language but differing in politics: Belgium and Switzerland in regard with France, for instance.

PD 2: In case of sourcing any linguist, please don't invent him, as Blaverist did with ca:Bernard Weiss in the 80s, please. ;-)

What's the point in continuing a stupid dispute which arose because of an upper-case, yelling and hollow accusation of an anon editor? -- Doctor France 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is 32 kilobytes long

This means it is about time we start removing or reducing some parts of it. I vote to start by the ones which also have a specific or main article such as:

Names --> Names of the Valencian Community
Languages --> Valencian language
Geography --> It could be moved to a main article such as "Geography of the Valencian Community"

We could leave a short explanation and move the rest to the main article.

Apart that, there is not a single section about the government of the VC. It would be important to add it.--Maurice27 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, Maurice27, good idea! :)

As for me, I would let a brief intro in the section Names (which would lead to the main article Names of the Valencian Community) and Languages (which would explain briefly the sociolinguistics situation of Spanish in Catalan in this region, so that it could lead to Spanish and Valencian).

Regarding Geography I guess there is an article under such name in wp:es and wp:ca, so once it's translated into English we could point there from here.

Just in case another angry debate arises, what if the brief explanations are proposed here?

This way, if we reach a consensus, we wouldn't waste our time in edit wars.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 13:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not quite sure we need to remove/reduce. For starters I oppose the removal of anything (unless it is unsourced material). But then, the 32 Kb limit no longer applies since there are no technical considerations, so there is no need for haste. I think we should determine length of article by readability. Before removing/reducing/splitting, I suggest we proof-read the text, correct any grammar and spelling inconsistencies, maybe rewrite some phrases that could say the same thing with less words. This will improve the overall quality of the article. In that sense, splitting would be justified if we believe there is a high probability of a specific topic of being expanded into a full article, and not just a draft. (Compare, for example Mexico City, United States, California, all of which are more than 50 Kb long with lengthy subarticles). --the Dúnadan 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dúnadan 32k is not a problem in itself. There are other reasons apart from the technical limitations which cause Wikipedia to discourage overly long articles, but articles of less than 50k are not usually considered problematic these days (see recent featured articles, for example). The Geography section is quite long, but it also seems quite well written, so I wouldn't remove it until we have something better as a seperate article. The history section seems too short, although this is in part due to editing disputes: maybe the disputes can be simplified, and hence the section improved, by developing the articles about the different periods of history... It would be nice to have a list of the major political parties, for example those which are presenting lists for the Corts on 27 May. Valencian Statute of Autonomy is still a redlink as well, and deserves an article which will be linked from this page. Obviously not a complete wishlist, rather a few quick ideas: what do others think?

[edit] Correct flag

The correct flag proportions appear in https://www.docv.gva.es/portal/portal/2006/06/23/pdf/2006_M7194.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.14.150.205 (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blocking a vandal?

I'm sorry for asking this, but... is there any way to block an IP editions?

Please, don't misunderstand me. I do believe anonym users are legitimate to contibute wikipedia.

But there is an anonym user (86.129.90.106, [14]) who doesn't take part in talk pages, don't debate anything and whose only contributions are removing a consensued sentence (as Catalan is known...) or replacing the word Catalan by Valencian regarding to language.

Blaverist users are legitimate to explain their POV and so on. But this blaverist user is only acting as a vandal. He has been blocked once, but he keeps in that uncivil and disrupting attitude. What more can be done?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to "semi-protect" a page so that anonymous editors cannot edit it, but I hardly think it is appropriate in this case. This is a content dispute; and your edits to revert "Blaverist vandalism" (as you call it) could just as easily be called "Fusterian vandalism" by the other side. There are anonymous edithttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png

Redirectors on both sides of the debate, and, for each case that I've investigated, they do seem to be truely independant editors, rather than the editors we all know who "happen to have forgotten to log in". A trip to the Mediation Committee seems to me to be the only hope of reaching some sort of agreement. Physchim62 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Physchism, you do know, being an assiduous editor in Catalan related articles, and an administrator, that this is not a case of two separate POVs that require mediation. As Casaforra did, I do qualify 86.129.90.106 edits as vandalism (and so did the first administrator who blocked him temporarily):

Personal issues aside (and like you yourself once agreed) Catalan and Valencian are the same language (regardless of the name you want to use to refer to it). That is a fact accepted by Academic authorities both in Valencia and outside of Valencia, and most importantly, by the ALV. You cannot call, on any neutral ground, Casaforra's edits as Fusterian vandalism, anymore than you can call all those edits that confirm the unity of the Spanish language as "royal-academic" vandalism, or "Websterian" vandalism for the English language. The contentious issue has been the name (nomenclature, if you will), and choosing one over the other would be POV. That is why both names are presented in this article, but the unity of the language (scientifically/academically proved) is established.
86.129.90.106 edits are vandalism because he was asked twice to stop reverting and to participate in the debate and to express his opinions regarding this issue. He responded in a very inappropriate and uncivil way. He is not willing to participate in any debate or mediation. He only wishes to revert based in his personal or political preferences ad infinitum. There is nothing to mediate because the party, engaged in vandalism, is not willing to talk. And that is detrimental to the project.

--the Dúnadan 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly block for the incivility, and would be happy to do so if it is repeated (drop a note on my talk page if necessary). It is impossible to block this user for long periods without semi-protecting the page, as he or she is using a dial-up connection (one of the several reasons why I am sure that it is neither Mountolive nor Maurice27 without needing to bother the people at CheckUser). Doesn't change the fact that there is a content dispute ongoing, several in fact. What do people propose to do about them? My attempts at reasoning have produced scant results, who do you want me send this to? Physchim62 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The only "valid" (if I may use this qualifier) ongoing content dispute that has produced several edit wars is that of the dimensions of the flag. I am sorry, but I still think the issue of Catalan and Valencian being distinct languages should not be considered here if all relevant linguistic authorities have already established their synonymity. If you open that debate, you will open a pandora box of political/personal issues not based on linguistic (scientific) facts. Saying what Academicians say -that both are the same language- suffices for the lead section, whereas the section about Politics or Society or even Demographics, could briefly explain why some groups do not accept the unity of the language. The article about Valencian elaborates on this particular issue.

Now, I am no expert in vexillology (even though the only flag I've seen displayed is the 1:2) but I agree with you that in order to prevent future edit wars, this issue must be resolved. I propose that both Maurice27 and Toniher present their sources and arguments here. I have tried to do a little research in the Generalitat Valenciana's web page, but I couldn't find any law directly setting the proportions of the flag. (Arguably, the Generalitat would be the only legal or valid institution for these matters). I will keep on researching.

--the Dúnadan 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dúnadan, I've not been contributing in the flag proportions topic, merely because I do not have an opinion by now. There seems to be an anonymous user who is actually disputing it with Maurice27. Toniher 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are one or two anonymous users on "both sides" of the different arguments. As I mentioned above, I don't think these are sockpuppets either, as I have done a quick check (without going as far as CheckUser) when each new anon appears on both sides. There are other users who agree with each of the viewpoints expressed by the editors: that's one of the things which makes these disputes so hard to resolve! Physchim62 (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I obviously disagree that

the objection to the Valencian=Catalan sentence in the lead section, and
the presence/absence of Comunidad Valenciana at the top of the infobox

are "invalid" disputes! As for the flag, may I suggest a question for both sides to consider: "Why is a 1:2 flag sometimes (or often, or always, I don't know personally) used in the Valencian Community?" It is a strange proportion for a flag to have, there must be a story behind it somewhere... Physchim62 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WELL IF THIS IS VALENCIA, IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT I REPLACE YOUR CATALAN IMPERIALISM WITH THE LANGUAGE FROM MY HOMETOWN, WHICH GUESS WHAT, IS CALLED VALENCIAN AND NOT CATALAN, AND IS NOT HOW "CATALAN IS KNOWN IN VALENCIA" EITHER.

Ok, the usual blaverist anon user has come again.

Do you see now why I'm asking for a protection for this article? It doesn't matter if editors ever happen to reach an agreement, there will be always some anon deleting whatever he dislikes, in this case a simple scientifical truth.

Btw, I'm Valencian, I live in València, I was raised in Valencian and I'm not afraid of recognizing Valencian is the way we speak Catalan (not better or worse, just another way).

Politicians may claim whatever they want. After all, Chilean was a different language than Spanish for 80 years because Chilean politicians wanted to differ as much as possible from Spain. But nobody can ever debate Chilean is another way to speak Spanish, not better or worse.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 10:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So I ask:

* Should this page be semi-protected?

* Could that IP be blocked? He is only erasing information due to his political views and he doesn't take part in discussion.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I will semi-protect for a fourteen-day period. We cannot effectively block this user as he or she is on a dial-up connection (from London). Editors should npote that this will also block an anon user who uses a dial-up connection from A Coruña and another who is on a cable connection in Valencia (city), neither of whom are blaverists (the opposite, in fact). Physchim62 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

The issues for which the mediation has been requested are as varied as are the opinions of the users involved. While I do not oppose mediation per se, I wish all editors would have had at least, as it has been requested many times, clearly expressed their opinions, and most importantly their sources to back up some of their claims. For example, which is the official flag? Well, besides accusing one another, no single user has brought up a solid source to back up his/her claim! That, by itself, would have solved the issue with no need at all for mediation. And, if I were an administrator here, I would probably look for sources like that.

Moreover, as for the rest of the issues, I even proposed to open a poll, just to get everybody to talk (not to vote). I do not think all means through which we might have reached a civil consensus have been exhausted, given that the majority of the users involved have already abandoned the article and only a few have actually engaged in a civil debate besides simply reverting each other and ignoring requests to discuss.

So, whether this can be used in the mediation process or in lieu of it, I ask, once again, all users to clearly express their opinions (no ambiguities as to what they want here but not in another article), and if applicable, to present all their sources to back up their claims. By policy wikpedia should not only have a neutral point of view but have verifiable content. I will present my arguments, and I do expect an honest solid rebuttal, not simply insults or personal political opinions.

If editors wish mediation to go ahead, they should sign the [Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Valencia (autonomous community)|request page]]. I obviously welcome disussion here as well, but my own feeling is that many hundreds of kB of discussion on this page have not yet brought a solution, and that the wishes of many editors might be realised through a more formal procedure. Physchim62 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not sign until you are willing to discuss and justify your own edits in a civil manner. Since you are precisely one of the parties involved, and since I have asked you countless of times to justify your own edits and their ambiguities by discussing, I will not agree to it until you put some effort in explaining and backing up your own edits.--the Dúnadan 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but mediation does not involve blocking people, it involves presenting arguments in a neutral forum. I have already presented mine in this forum. So have you. No consensus has come out of that. Lets try another forum? Physchim62 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I missed them, and they are hidden in an archive. Would you be kind enough to copy/paste your arguments regarding the names presented in the infobox and regarding the phrase As Catalan is known in the sections below. I would very much appreciate it. --the Dúnadan 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name presented in the infobox

I, believe that only the official name should be included in the infobox, plus the English translation. Even if it is a non-written convention, only official names are included in infoboxes (see: Canada, Mexico, Texas, Spain, etc.). Moreover, the only official name of the Valencian Community is, in both Spanish and Catalan, Comunitat Valenciana[15]. Since the name is not translated in Spanish official publications, (not even in the constitutional statutory text) I see no need to have it translated in the infobox. The Spanish translation can be included in the lead section. Putting it on the infobox is equivalent to an implicit claim that the Spanish version is official, thus, misinforming the reader. --the Dúnadan 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The only official name is Comunitat Valenciana

(If Spanish patriots think it's xenofobe then complain to the PP politicians who voted for it)

In my opinion Comunitat should be, alongside with English, the only one appearing in the infobox. The Spanish Comunidad should be explained as a translation in the text.

Yes, I'm into explaining what names mean. All names (Regne de València from a Blaverist and País Valencià from a leftie or Catalanist).

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The phrase "...Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)"

First, in English, the language that is called català and valencià is most commonly called Catalan, and not Valencian (try googling "Learn Catalan" vs "Learn Valencian"), in the same way as Spanish is most commonly called Spanish and not Castilian in spite of the fact that both are full synonyms in Spanish and can be used interchangeably. Secondly, Valencian and Catalan are one and the same language, as it is accepted by all relevant linguistic authorities both in and outside Valencia, political preferences aside. In light of the above, it seems reasonable to include a one-time phrase in the article that would tell the reader that what will be called Valencian throughout the article, is Catalan. The inclusion of this phrase is supported by both WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiable. Its deletion is POV.--the Dúnadan 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also a bunch of people who call it plainly as Catalan. And don't forget that one of the most important publishing companies (in Catalan for all the territories where it's spoken) is based in València. There's a scientifical fact and a social fact, erasing it is hiding a part of the Valencian society.

Maurice27 and two anon users gets disturbed by the word Catalan when used as a way to mean Valencian. The difference is that Maurice27 agrees that the sentence (as Catalan is known...) is a fair explanation, while the anon users are simply erasing it.

So the mediation request should be asked to them, not to the editors. And since they won't be asked to, my proposal is protect the page from anons and block such vandals.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to explain it in the Valencian article. That's what wikilinks are for. --Maurice27 09:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of explaining it in the Valencian article. With NPOV in all the article it should be used just Catalan, because is the common name in English. However, knowing that it is a sensible aspect for many people, it can be accepted to use Valencian. But this Valencian can't eclipse the Catalan. It is necessary to say, as we already accorded, to put at least once in the first paragraph the duality of the name. If this is not accepted, I will propose to use only the standard way to call the language in English: Catalan.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If Valencian, a local name for the Catalan language, is used, then Castilian, a local name for the Spanish language should be used.

I'm getting tired of divide ut impera, Blaverist or anti-Catalanists. O tots moros o tots cristians!

Do you want local names (Valencian)?

Then take local names (Castilian)!

But a local name (Valencian) alongside a whole name (Spanish) is not fair.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fair" doesn't come into it, thankfully. Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Using "Spanish" and "Valencian" is taking 2 different criteria with intentionality in the same article. That's not NPOV.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I am only using the normal English translations for the two terms. Other editors seem to wish that we respect the Statute of Autonomy when it comes to the Spanish name of the autonomous community, but not to respect it when it comes to the description of Valencian... that is taking two different criteria in the same article.

In addition, it seems vitally important for certain editors that the issue should be dealt with in a few words in the lead section, and not given the proper treatment that it deserves further down. One editor has even gone as far as to remove the comment that Valencian and Catalan are mutually comprehensible: in his/her blind attachment to PoV-pushing on this point he/she will go as far as to remove useful information which is favourable to his/her cause! Physchim62 (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, maybe its due to the fact that this debate has been going on for years and I'm new to it, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Like I said before, Valencian is the normal translation for valencià, just as Castilian is the normal translation for castellano; yet in English the languages are simply called "Catalan" and "Spanish" like I pointed out before; even if in these languages both terms are fully synonymous, that is not the case in English.

Now, speaking of POV-pushing, we need to be careful in order to separate facts from POV. It is a fact that Catalan and Valencian are the same language, linguistically [scientificaly, if you will] speaking. Saying that Catalan and Valencian are mutually comprehensible is nonsense: like saying Spanish and Castilian are mutually comprehensible. Maybe, you can argue that that Central Catalan and Valencian, despite their differences, are mutually comprehensible, just as Argentine Spanish and Mexican Spanish are. Now, in terms of politics, Valencian and Catalan are sometimes argued to be two different languages because of their differences and despite the fact that all linguistic authorities disagree. NPOV requires this POV to be included in the article (NPOV requires all POVs to be included in an article), but properly stated. I believe that saying that Valencian and Catalan are mutually comprehensible implies that they are two different languages, ergo its inclusion could be considered POV-pushing.

In any case, do you mind answering just one simple question, that I've been asking you dozens of times? Do you actually support the claim that Valencian is a different language? If you clarify your position then we would be able to have a clearer conversation. It is hard when I don't know what you are actually trying to defend or argue, and the argument will never end because I never know what it is exactly you are trying to say.

--the Dúnadan 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Danish and Swedish are mutually comprehensible but considered to be different languages. High German and Swiss German are considered to be the same language, but are not mutually comprehensible. Your idea of "scientifically proved to be the same language" is simply a misuse of the term "science". Mutual comprehensibility is tricky beast to tie down, but at least it means something to people who don't have a vested interest in the debate, either professionally or politically. If you are really interested in the linguistics of it, see our article Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are implicitly stating your opinion (and I am tired of asking you to explicitly state it, given the ambiguity of your own comments and edits): you don't believe they are the same language. If we start the debate from there, it will be easier for me to organize my arguments.

You are also misusing the term "mutual intelligibility". Portuguese and Spanish are mutually intelligible too, to a certain (high) degree, and so are Danish and Swedish (but never, 100% mutually comprehensible). Unlike Portuguese and Spanish and unlike Danish and Swedish, Catalan and Valencian are [almost] identical. A text written in Valencian (except for slang and regional variations which are, for the most part, as different as American and British English) will be identical to a text written in Catalan. In fact, if these small variations are omitted (like omitting "centre" in British English and writing, say "core", or "labour" and write "work"), a Catalan speaker will never know that the text is written in Valencian. That is not the case with Danish and Swedish, and that is not the case with Spanish and Portuguese. Since you are asking me to do my homework, maybe you should do yours too.

Your example of High German vis-à-vis Swiss German is also an inadequate extrapolation. High German is not a specific language but either a group of languages (comparable to the sistema linguístico of Catalan-Valencian) or the Standard German (comparable to the academic or standard Catalan) mostly used for written purposes (as is Standard Catalan). Secondly Swiss German is distinguished from the Swiss Standard German, and is considered an Alemannic dialect. The case of the German languages and dialects is far more complex than that of Catalan-Valencian. To put another example, the Mallorcan dialect of Catalan shows far more diversion from Central Catalan than Valencian does, yet it is considered Catalan (use of different articles, different conjugation, and many more unique words). The issue between Catalan and Valencian is not linguistic, given that all linguistic authorities have stated they are same language, but a political-social issue regarding the name and origin of the language. Some Valencians argue that Valencian originated in their territory and as such cannot be labeled Catalan, despite the proven fact that they are the same language. And even this particular historical revisionism (or linguistic-historical revisionism) is not accepted by prominent Academic authorities. And you even argued that they were the same language, and that Valencian was a valid name for the dialect spoken in Catalonia. Ignoring the ambiguity of your own edits, I insist, your extrapolations are not that adequate, and you are using now the same arguments a Valencian secessionist uses to argue against the unity of the language. Besides, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to convince you of this. Wikipedia reports what Academicians say, and do not offer original proposals. After all Wikipedia is not a forum. Academicians say they are the same language, whereas some (not all!) politicians disagree. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability require us to state precisely that: Catalan and Valencian are the same language according to linguistic authorities, some politicians disagree. In the introduction, per NPOV, a one an only statement in parenthesis that would inform the reader that Valencian and Catalan are the same language is adequate.

--the Dúnadan 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussions about if it is the same language or not are complitely out of the scope of the Wikipedia. Till now no university deffends this position, no university offers Valencian philology as something separate from Catalan philology, catalan is recognized by law in València as the same language as Valencian (this is for me a very poor reason: in science laws are never over universities, but it seems it is very important for many people). It can be accepted (and it is recommended) to have a paragraph in Valencian language explaining the political controversy, but in this article, with a NPOV, we shouldn't be wasting our time discussing things that, as I said, don't belong to this talk page.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Xtv. Yet, the discussion is about whether we should include a one-and-only phrase at the beginning to say that the language that will be called "Valencian" all throughout this article is also Catalan. I support the inclusion of the phrase. (i.e. "The official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory).") Yet, the arguments used against [or in support of] its inclusion seem to be revolving around the secession [or unity] of the language. To me, the inclusion of this phrase is valid because we are talking about the same language which happens to be mostly known in English as Catalan (just as Castilian is mostly known in English as Spanish). --the Dúnadan 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course we cannot discuss about a scientific fact. Why there isn't a Valencian Wikipedia different than a Catalan Wikipedia? Why there isn't an ISO 639-1 code for the Valencian language different than the Catalan one? My last question to Physchim62, do you really think that Valencian and Catalan aren't the same language? --Pmmollet^Talk 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At last we seem to be getting somewhere, even if Dúnadan does have some strange ideas for a WP:ADMIN. Wikipedia does not simply "report what Academicians say", it explains why they say it. In fact, you seem to wish to go beyond what the AVL says, in order, it seems, to comfort a certain political view, but more of that below.

You also seem to feel that you must know my personal opinion in order to "convince" me. But for whom are you writing these articles? For anonymous readers of whose prior opinions you have no idea. My personal opinions should have no place in this discussion, but since you ask...

I think that Valencian is a classic case of a language which has Ausbau but not Abstand. That's actually further than the AVL is willing to go, but the AVL has certain political considerations which I can ignore. There's nothing unique about the case of Valencian, either in its lack of Abstand vis-a-vis another language, or in its having competing orthographies (see Norwegian, where speakers insist on having seperate Wikipedias in the two orthographies). But do we say "Croatian [or Serbian, or Bosnian] (as Serbo-Croat is called in this territory)"; "Macedonian (as Bulgarian is called in this territory)"; "Moldovan (as Romanian is called in this territory)"? No, we don't attempt to take sides in a political debate by the use of a throw-away phrase of that type, we take the time to explain the overwhelming similarities and minor differences between the languages. We do so at length on the pages of the languages concerned, and more briefly on the country page if the political debate justifies it.

Finally, might I remind you that the Dictamen of the AVL (obviously) offers you no support in simply saying that Valencian = Catalan. The AVL goes to great lengths—they are professional writers and linguists, they should know how to string sentences together—to great lengths not to simply say that Valencian = Catalan. From paragraph 1,

"Dins d’eixe conjunt de parlars, el valencià té la mateixa jerarquia i dignitat que qualsevol altra modalitat territorial del sistema lingüístic, i presenta unes característiques pròpies que l’AVL preservarà i potenciarà..."

and from paragraph 6

"És un fet que a Espanya hi ha dos denominacions igualment legals per a designar esta llengua: la de valencià [...] i la de català [...] avalada per l’ordenament jurídic espanyol i la jurisprudència. L’existència d’eixes dos denominacions pot crear equívocs sobre la cohesió de l’idioma en alguns contexts, especialment fora de l’àmbit lingüístic compartit. Per esta raó l’AVL considera necessari que els governs autonòmics implicats, en col·laboració amb el Govern espanyol, adopten les mesures pertinents (habilitació de fórmules sincrètiques o similars, per exemple) a fi que [...] s’harmonitze la dualitat onomàstica del nostre idioma amb la projecció d’este com a una entitat cohesionada i no fragmentada. Estes fórmules s’haurien d’anar introduint també en àmbits acadèmics o d’una altra naturalesa. D’esta manera es podria garantir coherentment la legítima presència del gentilici valencià fora de la nostra Comunitat i, alhora, conciliar la realitat filològica amb la realitat legal i sociològica valenciana."

If Valencian = Catalan, then Catalan = Valencian, as each name has "the same hierarchy". The fact that you find it ridiculous to have a phrase in the article Catalonia saying that Catalan is another name for Valencian, that should set your personal alarm bells ringing that maybe it is also ridiculous to say the same thing in reverse on this article. For whatever reason, your personal alarm bells haven't yet rung, so I am ringing them for you. Physchim62 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting just in the middle... But Physchim.. I just felt in love with you!!! :D A simply sublime reply! Kudos to you! --Maurice27 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for interpreting my own actions and ringing bells for me, but your interpretations are wrong. I did not want to know your personal opinion in order to convince you. Usually, when one person objects to something he has a reason to do so, and when two rational individuals engage in a debate, they state what they believe, and from there, they start discussing in order to reach a consensus or a solution. That is what I expect of a normal user, but more so of an administrator (strange ideas of adminiship? what strange ideas to I have? please elaborate). The drastic ambiguities of your own actions and your silence when asked to clarify, made this task (i.e. reaching a consensus) absolutely impossible. The debate was stalled because there was no clear position, no continuation to a talk, but simply an objection without justification. As of now, you are the only registered user objecting to this phrase; it seems logical that, in order to reach a consensus, you needed to express your opinion, or at least to talk. That is why, not only I, but Pmmolet, asked you to state your position. Alas! I guess we share the same strange ideas: WP:Etiquette, WP:CON, WP:NPOV and WP:TALK. I honestly don't understand why you are so upset that we ask you to state your opinion when you object to something. It is part of a debate. It is part of Wikipedia.

Your interpretation about Valencian being an Ausbau is interesting, but you forget that there is no separate normative spelling or orthographies for Valencian (and the Normes de Puig are almost identical with minor differences mostly for aesthetic reasons, but they are not normative, not accepted in Academic circles, not used by the AVL, the Generalitat, the Universities, the Educational system, but simply by a group "secessionists". It reminds me of Gabriel García Márquez proposing an alternative Spanish spelling that would use only s, instead of the c, z, and s which are all pronounced as "s" in Latin America).

You claim that the AVL "obviously" offers me no support to claim that Valencian and Catalan are the same language. Assuming that you are fluent in Catalan, for the sake of other users, let me offer a translation of what the AVL says:

"És un fet que a Espanya hi ha dos denominacions igualment legals per a designar esta llengua: la de valencià [...] i la de català [...] avalada per l’ordenament jurídic espanyol i la jurisprudència". (bold mine):

"It is a fact that in Spain there are two names with the same legal status to designate this language [singular]: valencià [...] and català [...] endorsed by the Spanish legal system and jurisprudence". This statement claims that there are two equally valid, in legal terms [and for those who do not know anything about Spain, this refers to the names of the language stated in the Statutes of Autonomy] to refer to the same language.

"Per esta raó l’AVL considera necessari que els governs autonòmics implicats [...] adopten les mesures pertinents [...] a fi que [...] s’harmonitze la dualitat onomàstica del nostre idioma amb la projecció d’este com a una entitat cohesionada i no fragmentada."

"For this reason, the Valencian Academy of the Language deems it necessary that the governments of the autonomous communities involved [in this issue], take the necessary measures, so that the onomastic duality [i.e. the two names] of our language [singluar] be harmonized with the projection of it as a cohesive and not a fragmented unity". It is "obvious" to me that the AVL, as it is the case of all linguistic authorities both in Spain and outside Spain, consider Valencian and Catalan to be the same language. While you can claim that a political ausbau, with no abstand, exists, this ausbau has no support whatsoever from the linguistic authorities. Political authorities, besides objecting the use of català as a valid name, have not supported the use of an alternative spelling; in fact, since 1932, with the acceptance of the Normes de Castelló the possibility of developing an ausbau ended. As such, Valencian and Catalan (citizens) easily write articles everyday in the Catalan Viquipèdia, and neither a Valencian nor a Catalan have any trouble reading it. That is not the case of the two versions of Norwegian. In fact, there are two ISO 639-1 codes for Norwegian, but only one for Catalan (i.e. the Norwegian ausbau is universally recognized, but not the purported Catalan ausbau). Maybe this essay will help.

Moreover, you forgot to add another sentence from the same text. In fact, you have used this statement before, when you claimed or used to believe that Catalan and Valencian were the same language and not two separate ausbau languages:

"Este nom [valencià] pot designar tant la globalitat de la llengua que compartim amb els territoris de l’antiga Corona d’Aragó ja esmentats, com també, amb un abast semàntic més restringit, la modalitat idiomàtica que ens caracteritza dins d’eixa mateixa llengua."

"This name [valencià] can designate [or refer] either to the language as a whole, that we share with the aforementioned territories of the former Crown of Aragon, or to –in a more restricted semantic meaning– the idiomatic modality (sic) [i.e. dialect or variety] that characterizes us [Valencians] within this same language". Crystal clear. In fact, this statement coincides with that Britannica states. More on this below.

Maybe you noticed that when I talked about the name of the language I did not translate valencià, but when I talked about the citizens of the Autonomous Community I did. The reason is that in English "Catalan" is the only word used to designate the language. You will find no entry on "Valencian" in Britannica. Valencian is considered a variety of the Catalan language in that same publication. In fact, if you google, with quotations, "Learn Catalan" you will find plenty of resources, yet no single resource for "Learn Valencian" (only 25 webpages that contain the phrase, yet they do not "teach it"). I argue that this issue is similar to castellano and español vis-à-vis "Castilian" and "Spanish". In Spanish the former are mutually interchangeable and synonymous, whereas in English, the latter have two different connotations: Spanish refers to the language, Castilian to the variety spoken in Spain (or Castile), and rarely used as a full synonym. For example, Colombian and Argentine constitutions use the name "castellano", yet, the articles here in Wikipedia and in Britannica say that the language therein spoken is "Spanish" not "Castilian". I argue that it is the same with Valencian, based on Britannica. In fact, the entry on "Valencia" in Britannica states that the language therein spoken is Catalan, even though a Valencian variety (i.e. dialect) is recognizable.

When I said that Wikipedia reports what Academicians say, I did not imply that we shouldn't explain it. I meant that we should not engage in WP:OR or that we cannot give the minority views with no Academic support the same status as that of Academics. Claiming that they are separate languages, or for that matter, ausbau, while Academicians state otherwise, constitutes OR. Giving the anti-Catalan opinions, with no Academic support, the same status as that of Academicians, is also unacceptable.Wikipedia should state (and explain) what Academicians say: They are the same language.

By the way, I don't recall using the word "ridiculous" when you added the same phrase in Catalonia. If I did, please refer me to that instance. Based on what I am arguing above (i.e. Catalan being the normative word in English, even though valencià could be used, based on AVL's dictamen as a full synonym) I still find it unnecessary there, but necessary here. Yet, that is arguable, and I will be more than happy to explore the possibility or to debate the pertinence of adding it there.

--the Dúnadan 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalan? Valencian? Bollocks! They are both different names of Limousin. Why don't you read your own http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llengua_llemosina ? Limousin is the arcaic name for the language now know as Catalan.

I quote:

"La denominació no sols es referí al suposat, i equivocat, origen occità de la llengua, sinó que alguns dels partidaris del terme també hi incloïen l'occità, posant al mateix nivell dins del concepte comú de llemosí els dialectes parlats a Catalunya, els dialectes parlats al País Valencià, el mallorquí, menorquí i eivissenc amb els dialectes de l'occità."

"La Reial Cèdula d'Aranjuez de 1768, dictada per Carles III d'Espanya anomenà "lengua lemosina" a la catalana a l'hora de prohibir-ne l'ús als jutjats i a les escoles."

"La romanística durant el segle XIX i XX va anar desmuntant la identitat entre occità i català i el terme llemosí caigué en desús "

SO, the only reason to name the language you speak "catalan", is just a marvellous and wonderful "Marketing Campaign" led by the Generalitat de Catalunya in the XX century to change the name which had been used since the year 1200 (which is praiseworthy) and to name it that way in all the surrounding territories (not so praiseworthy... In my own opinion, this campaign could have been called "Catalans; its us and our belly buttons!")

This said, who gives the right to catalans to name as "catalan language" the language spoken in Andorra, Valencia or Balears? As far as I'm concerned, I could perfectly say that the language spoken in Andorra is valencian or eivissenc. And you know the better part of it? It would be scientifically right!

Now, you may continue with your scientific explanation that why it is "ridiculous to say that catalan is how valencian is know in Catalonia"... --Maurice27 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How convenient it is to cite sentences out of context. Did you bother to read the whole article you are citing? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you fluent in Valencian? Did you read the first sentence you are quoting?

La denominació no sols es referí al suposat, i equivocat, origen occità de la llengua, In English: "This name [Lemosin] not only referred to the purported and incorrect Occitan origin of the language [Catalan]..."

What about the last quote that you didn't bother to cite completely, but conveniently ignored the second part of the sentence...

La romanística durant el segle XIX i XX va anar desmuntant la identitat entre occità i català i el terme llemosí caigué en desús per la seua inexactitud històrica i filològica. In English: "The philology of Romance languages, during the 19th and 20th centuries began to separate the identities of Occitan and Catalan and the term Lemosin fell into disuse [outdated] because of its historical and philological inaccuracy."

Its disuse was not due to your purported "Marketing Campaign" let by the Generalitat. Lemosin was a term that some linguists chose as a compromise so that they wouldn't have to choose between "Catalan" and "Valencian". Lemosin was historically and philologically incorrect and inaccurate because it is a term used to refer to a dialect of Occitan spoken in the Limousin province, located in central France (quite far from Catalonia or Valencia, see map of Limousin). In any case, as you can read from the article you are citing, it was during the 19th century that Mallorcan, Catalan and Valencian universities, poets and authors opted for the term "Catalan" to refer to their common language, almost 60-80 years before the Valencian author Joan Fuster promoted the term Catalan-speaking countries, almost 50 years before the Valencian linguistic and political authorities signed the Normes de Castelló whereby the unity of the language was firmly established in using a single unified spelling convention, but most importantly, more than 100 years before the Generalitat was restored in Catalonia and started its purported "Marketing Campaign". You are entitled to argue that the name Academically chosen is unfair. You are entitled to say that Lemosin is a better option. You are entitled to call the language spoken in Andorra Eivissenc or Valencian for that matter. But the Andorran constitution calls it Catalan, and so does the Statue of Autonomy and all legal texts in the Balearic Islands and Catalonia. Moreover, the Valencian Academy of the Language states that Catalan and Valencian are two equally legal terms to refer to the same language, and even a reputable encyclopedia such as Britannica, following the English convention, uses the term Catalan to refer to the language as a whole. Which sources should we use for the article? A constitution, two Statutes of Autonomy, a formal declaration of the Valencian Academy of the Language, and reputable encyclopedias, or the personal opinion of a user who doesn't even speak the language he so passionately argues to be different from Catalan?

--the Dúnadan 05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer: ;-)

Whatever name as far as the forbidden and disgusting word C*****n doesn't appear

XDD

The same user wanted Valencian as a different language, later Eivissenc and so on as different languages, now Andorran as a different language.

If his philological opinions weren't so variable I'd tag his recently Lemosin proposal as a new Occitan imperialism!!

What about a portal for the Occitan Countries, my friend! XDD

Don't worry, Catalonia wouldn't be nothing more than a province, and there were no such thing as a Catalan language: Tortosí has its own right to be recognized internationally as a different language due to your eminent linguistical researches.

...

Or maybe next week someone suggests to erase Valencian (as Catalan is known...) and replace that sentence by something as Valencian (as Murcian panotxo is known...) XDD

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PD: Actually, mixing political prejudices with scientifical facts can be pathetical. ;-)

I'm not saying we should stop saying catalan and use limousin, not at all. But, the "suposat, i equivocat" is just another biased POV of your beloved cawiki. How can a name in use for 700 years suddenly become "suposat, i equivocat"?... A marketing campaign... just that.

"What about a portal for the Occitan Countries, my friend! XDD" You got the clue there, bro!

In Spain they called it Limousin, but is nothing else than Occitan. It is just like saying that aranese and catalan are different languages... nonsense! They are different dialects from one another. Occitan? Catalan? Valencian? Limousin?... Just like Mr. Proper and Don Limpio! A XX century "marketing campaign! Again, a wonderful one, but still, marketing campaign...--Maurice27 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And your problem is that all linguistics would agree.

My problem? :)

Please, point me any source of your theory!

Any linguist? Any University?

I'm sorry, Maurice27, it looks like your knowledge of Catalan and Occitan is limited. If you believe Aranese and Catalan are the same language, then Valencian would be the twin-language of Catalan! :)

You are a scholar in flags and I won't discuss you in that subject, but any linguist, any speaker of Occitan or Catalan would at least smile with your new claim. Please, let away your political prejudices and stand for what linguistical authorities say.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My dear casaforra... "Political prejudices? What linguistical authorities say"? Someone told me once "Zozoak beleari ipurbeltz"...

take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language#Differences_between_Occitan_and_Catalan before stating such nonsenses.

Phonology, Diphthongisation, Morphology don't seem very large differences between both languages to me...

"the separation of Catalan from Occitan is largely politically (rather than linguistically) motivated". Changing a whole language since 1934 is not really much time, and even if the Institut d'Estudis Catalans' marketing campaign does it very good, they are not Supermen.

"Valencian and Catalan being twin-languages"?, no I didn't say that... They are dialects of the same one... Occitan. Now, that said, you may call them at your wish, but stop screaming at the 4 winds the need to explain that "valencian is how catalan is know in this territory"

Ponting you sources? I'm tired of doing it... It's up to you to believe the right History of your own language or the "marketing campaign". It's up to you what you will tell to your sons when they grow up. That's what democracy is for. --Maurice27 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27:

If the Catalan wikipedia is full of POV, then why did you use it to back up your arguments? Don't you find it a little contradictory that you cite it to back up a fallacy and then when proven wrong accuse your source of being partial?

I ask you, and all users, which sources should we use? Those of linguistic authorities like Ethnologue as primary sources, reputable secondary sources such as Britannica, the official Valencian Academy of the Language, the Catalan, Spanish and international Academia, the Spanish minister of justice who declared that a degree in Catalan philology is equivalent to a degree in Valencian philology, and the like? Or should we just simply use your own personal comments as a source in which you ask us to compare a couple of Catalan and Occitan words as reported in Wikipedia and determine by our own criterion that one is a dialect of another? Using your same logic, should we compare Spanish and Portuguese words and determine that one is the dialect of the other... they sure don't seem to different to me...? Ludicrous. All the more when it comes from a user who doesn't even speak Catalan nor the Valencian variety. Please look for reputable linguistic sources to back up your ludicrous claim. You won't find them.

--the Dúnadan 16:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Maurice, I can't believe you:

You now say Catalan (and Valencian and whatsoever) are dialects of the Occitan language. Good, that's your opinion. You won't find any linguist agreeing you, but you may believe Sun is the center of the Universe, as well.

But you have a problem: Your claims to erase the sentence (as Catalan is known...) can't be no longer taken seriously:

You have changed your linguistical claims too many times (Valencian is another language, Eivissenc and so on are different languages as well, ...), and all of them shared one common point: Your abhorrence towards the Catalan nationalism.

Can you please be honest? Recognizing Valencian is the way we speak Catalan is not being Catalanist, and has nothing to do with politics!

There is people who recognize that unity and believe there should be a political sharing project in the future, but there are many more people who recognize the unity of the language and nothing more.

Belgium, Switzerland and France share a common language, but they three have different political institutions and political projects and attitudes.

So, please, let away your political prejudices, explain them in the sections regarding politics if you wish, but don't mix them with linguistical facts.

Don't watch us as radical independentists or ogres or whatever. If you did so, then the Spanish RALE would be so as well when their dictionary states Valencian is a variety of the Catalan language... And even worse! The Spanish Tribunal Constitucional has said this week, with a 14th sentence, Catalan and Valencian are the very same language.

Do you want to believe Catalan and Valencian are dialects of Occitan? Ok, good for you. Now it's your task to find any linguist who agrees your theory, or convince them to research and eventually agree you. Until then, Universities around the world and Romanic linguists state clearly Valencian is a dialect of the Catalan language, and we should stand for that.

We can't convince you, our sources can't convince you. Should be time for any Admin involved in linguistics to come here?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading what i'm writing... it is losing my time. You just don't read! Anyway... I said once I was not going to argue with bricks, and I won't. You are both entitled to believe what you want. As Physchim told you, we are not here to convince the others, and he was pretty damn right! And I'm not here to teach you nothing, nor I want to. As I said before, It is up to you what you will tell to your sons when they grow up...

"you may believe Sun is the center of the Universe"... Man!!!! I thought it was Catalonia!!! --Maurice27 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is you, the one not reading what we are writing, not even the sources you cite that contradict you! In any case we are backing our proposals with solid sources and not mere speculations. If you do not have anything contructive to add, I guess we can close this debate with the only backed up by solid sources version: Catalan and Valencian are the same language. --the Dúnadan 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Next! --Maurice27 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Next?!? What does that mean? Can you elaborate? Will you debate constructively?--the Dúnadan 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The flag

While I have only seen the 1:2 flag, I have not found, yet, any official description of the flag (that is, a law or publication of the Generalitat, the only institution with the legal authority to do so). As such, I have no opinion on this matter. I would ask both parties to present their sources here. --the Dúnadan 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Want another flag? here's another... [[16]]. Now I'm sure you will say that the valencian flag is 1:4 (like the one pictured). This last picture is just as valid as the one from the serrano towers... Then, which one has the good ratios? Answer me, please. If I change the article to say that the flag from valencia is 1:4, I would be just as "right" as you saying it is 1:2.

Meanwhile, the sources have been given weeks ago. A vexillogical society is the SCHOLARLY study of flags. The Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques (from which the SEV is a member) is for "the creation and development of a body of KNOWLEDGE about flags of all types, their FORMS and functions, and of scientific theories and principles BASED on that knowledge." And you, Mr. Dunadan, a plain user of wikipedia, decided that it is not a valuable source.

I think that, this society stating the flag to be 2:3 is in a far more credible position than you denying or ignoring it. And lacking from any other source (laws, publication of the Generalitat), the SEV has to prevail over your POV. --Maurice27 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile? My POV? Ah... it seems that expecting a polite comment from you is just wishful thinking. I didn't decide anything regarding the vexilllogical federation. And the picture of the flag you are showing, looks like a 1:2. But in any case, your source, in absence of any other source from the Generalitat, is valid. (A source is better than a pic). So I would ask the other user who rejected your source to explain his reasons or to provide his alternative source. But, like I said, in the absence of any other source, yours should be good enough. By any chance have you or any other user read es:Bandera de la Comunidad Valenciana? I was just wondering which was their source. --the Dúnadan 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not into flag wars. They show how patriot one is.

I guess some users may tag me as a Catalanist or even an independentist, but if anybody wants to know how I work with the articles I edit, just take a look at Handball International Championships:

The French team has the French flag, the Dutch team has the Duth flag, and so on... The Valencian team appears under the Spanish flag. I later explain that The Valencian players represent Spain, but they show the Senyera and wear suits under the name Valencian Pilota Squad and I provide a pic sourcing it.

So no problem for me about the flag. I don't care.

Anyway, as Dúnadan did with the Spanish one, I'd suggest to take a look at the article ca:Bandera del País Valencià. It got a star.

By the way, I haven't reverted or even edited anything related to the Valencian flag.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ca:Bandera del País Valencià doesn't give any source for the ratios. It got a star? yes, a catalan wikipedia one... [[17]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maurice27 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Probably because the ratios were never an issue there or in the Spanish article. Using the same argument you've used, the issue of the flags was never a problem for 5 years, it was always 1:2, until you brought it up and changed it. --the Dúnadan 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to measure the proportions on Image:Processó Cívica del Nou d'Octubre, 2005.jpg or Image:Valencian flag atop guard tower.jpg? Both shown in ca:Bandera del País Valencià, which doesn't provide any source for saying that the current propôrtions are 1:2, although it does say that the proportions proposed by the Estatut de Benicàssim) were 3:2. Otherwise, article 4.1 of the new Statute of Autonomy is silent on proportions, saying simply that it is the "traditional" Senyera... When was the change made, because that must have been after 1982... Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend to re-read explanations given by Joanot here about the flag. In Valencia it's used a 1:2 proportion if the flag have very large extension (such as Torre dels Serrans or Palau de la Generalitat) and in very solemn events. When Valencian flag is in vertical, the red four-bared bars area is often enlarged very down, and the blue strip is fixed thin at top, it's not much enlarged. In common cases, it's often a "common general flag", it means, 2:3. I think that 1:2 ratio is most correct to represent Valencian Country because it's more solemn, so it also means that's more "official". Ratio aren't fixed because it's traditional to be "enlarged", and no explanations are needed. In Spain, when something is traditional, it's not specified legally. By example, the Valencia City coat of arms is not described in any legal text because it's traditional. --84.120.252.39 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was the blaverists.... thay wanted less blue on "their" Senyera... Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you leave all political comments aside (i.e. "blaverist"). Let's stick to the laws an leave all perceived or purported "intentions" behind laws to politicians. If we do that the debate will remain civil and calm. --the Dúnadan 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to block the user who habitually uses the term "blaverist". Physchim62 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is how you interpret my recommendation not to personally assign political intentions to comments, edits or laws (which would upset other users) as an "habitual use" of a term (whether it is in a neutral way) then so be it. --the Dúnadan 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I provide another image of the flag: [18] --Pmmollet^Talk 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I received this link this afternoon from the Conselleria de justicia, interior y administraciones publicas de la generalitat valenciana: "DECRETO 116/1994, de 21 de junio, del Gobierno Valenciano, por el que se regulan los símbolos, tratamientos y honores de las entidades locales de la Comunidad Valenciana. [94/4514]". (See: [[19]]).

I quote:

Artículo doce. Criterios heráldicos y vexilológicos

1. En cuanto al escudo, su forma será cuadrilongo de punta redonda, salvo casos debidamente justificados en la tradición histórica, en que podrá ser un losange de ángulos rectos, conforme a las figuras contenidas en el anexo II de este decreto.

Se utilizará por timbre la corona real abierta conforme a la tradición valenciana, tal y como figura en el citado anexo II. Los escudos de las mancomunidades y otras entidades locales no territoriales no llevarán timbre alguno.

No se adornará el escudo municipal con ningún otro ornamento exterior ni lemas o filacterias.

2. La bandera será preferentemente cuadrilonga de proporciones 2:3, es decir, una vez y media más de largo que de ancho, conforme el anexo III de este decreto.

--Maurice27 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An html version of the DECRETO 116/1994 can be found here. This decree regulates the symbols of all "local entities" of the Valencian Community (i.e. municipalities and comarques). I read it myself, but I wouldn't have thought it applied to the Flag of the autonomous community but merely to the local entities (from the fact that the only horizontal flag I've seen displayed is 1:2). However, if the Conselleria de Justícia sent you this information saying it pertained to the Flag of the Valencian Community as well as to the local entities, then that settles it. This source you provided is more than valid, and we can close this particular debate. Thanks for requesting the information from the Conselleria, that was a good call. --the Dúnadan 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This source does not support the proportion of 2:3 for the flag of Valencian Comunnity. It's talking about the flags for Valencian municipalities and not for the flag of the Valencian Community: "DECRETO 116/1994, de 21 de junio, del Gobierno Valenciano, por el que se regulan los símbolos, tratamientos y honores de las entidades locales de la Comunidad Valenciana". I don't believe it was a response of somewath of question, because I dont see text of response. But it's not important, the fact is that this source doesn't support Maurice27's obsession. So there are no reason for change pic still. And, one more thing: it says 2:3 as preferably ("preferiblemente)", so 2:3 wouldn't be unique used proportion in flags of municipalities. --81.45.243.248 10:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Valencian Vs. Catalan Round 2507 and counting...

[edit] Round 2508

[edit] on vandalism

[edit] Proportions of the Valencian autonomous community Flag (2.0 version)

[edit] Just to make sure Maurice27 sees it

[edit] Valencian and Catalan

[edit] This article is 32 kilobytes long

[edit] Correct flag

[edit] Blocking a vandal?

[edit] Mediation

[edit] The name presented in the infobox

[edit] The phrase "...Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)"

[edit] The flag

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search