This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Not so much time ago, a very angry debate was held here regarding the "own" language, Valencian.
There were many sides: Some users stated linguistical facts in order to explain that the official languages were Spanish and Catalan. Some others wanted to word it as Spanish and Valencian because of political reasons since the Valencian Statute says Valencian is the own language.... Finally, a consensus was reached by explaining that "the official languages are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known)".
That debate was only about Valencian/Catalan. I think now it's time to apply the same reasons to Castilian/Spanish.
Linguistical facts: Castilian is the same language than Spanish. The word "Castilian" may be used in English as one of the dialects or as the language as a whole.
Encyclopaedia Britannica: Castilian, which contains many words of Arabic origin, began as a dialect spoken in northern Spain. It became the language of the court of the kingdoms of Castile and León in the 12th century, and the dominance of Castile within Spain allowed it to become the official language of the state.
(into Spanish) 2. El idioma valenciano es el oficial en la Comunitat Valenciana, al igual que lo es el castellano, que es el idioma oficial del Estado. (...)
(own translation) 2. The Valencian language is official in the Comunitat Valenciana, so is Castilian, which is the official language of the [Spanish] State. (...)
My complaint about the actual wording is that it mixes political reasons (for Valencian/Catalan) and linguistical reasons (for Castilian/Spanish).
Please, note that Castilian links to the Spanish language article. Also, further info is provided about the naming of that language.
Of course, that's only a suggestion and I'm open to debate it. I won't reword the article until an agreement is reached or one week passes by without any response. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in another "very angry debate" some weeks ago, and you were a part of that debate. Something close to a consensus was reached. I can understand that newly arrived people go straight and bite the hook, but I am expecting that usual contributors to this page who have worked in achieving some civility, like yourself, stand by the compromise reached, because back then we all had the chance to add our comments and POVs.
To reopen this just because a few months have passed and things look calm would be a superb exercise of irresponsability and going in circles which doesn't match your otherwise usually constructive approach, Casaforra.
Mountolive.-
I strongly disagree to the use of the word "castilian". --Maurice27 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Maurice27, you are allowed to explain your reasons to disagree with the use of the word "Castilian", but if you know a bit of Valencian reality you should be aware that:
: Nobody denies that Castilian is Spanish. In my proposal the link of "Castilian" points to Spanish language.
: It's a social reality that Catalan is popularly named as "Valencià", and Spanish is popularly named as "Castellà". It's fairly well explained at Names given to the Spanish language. That article is also linked in my proposal for further info.
: The political reasons (say, Valencian Statute) used to define Catalan as Valencian in the lead are exactly the same that applies to Castilian/Spanish: The Statute says the "own" language is "Valencian" (not Catalan) and the co-official language is "Castilian" (not Spanish). Title 1, Article 6, Section 2 Valencian Statute
Dear Mountolive, thx a lot for your comment about my "usually constructive approach". For the "calm" of this debate I'll reply "calmly" to your comments about my "superb exercise of irresponsability and going in circles":
The previous debate was about the definition of Valencian/Catalan, the consensus didn't regard to Castilian/Spanish. There was a moment, when I got upset of politically POV and un-scientifical attitude of some users with the definition of Valencian/Catalan which I categorized as "unfair" when compared to the way they wanted for Castilian/Spanish, that I already proposed a restricting definition for Spanish as well:
Mountolive: "As for neutrality, there can't be anything more neutral than saying that "Spanish and Valencian are the official languages""
Casaforra: "We may say Spanish and Catalan or we may say Castilian and Valencian. But that's another debate."
See? I already said it was another debate!
Now, when the Valencian/Catalan is over, it's time to reach an agreement about the definition of Castilian/Spanish. I expect mine's is fair, explains everything and afford political (Valencian-Castilian) and linguistical (Catalan-Spanish) reasons to join:
No obscure, bad or malicious reason. Maurice27. Please, assume "Good faith".
I'm not re-opening any debate. The previous debate was about the definition of Valencian.
Regarding those dictionaries: They agree with my point!:
If we use linguistical reasons the name of the languages are Spanish and Catalan. Not Spanish and Valencian. (The Valencian dictionaries state "Valencià-Castellà")
Regarding Valencian Statute: If we use the Statute for naming Catalan language as Valencian, why don't we are coherent and use it to name the Spanish language as Castilian?
I've offered a proposal that don't touch the previous consensus about Valencian, but adds further info about Spanish. What's the problem? Why don't you want to talk about that proposal instead of denying it?
The "not bad nor malicious... just obscure" was there just to assume your good faith.
You tell me I don't want to talk about your proposal... I already told you that I disagree and I already told you I can give you 12 reasons and sources to explain my point about not to use castilian... Don't you read? Quit saying we don't want to discuss it.
As we once decided to use the linguistical reasons, following the dictates of the respective dictionaries of the academies, we must use:
Spanish: (Diccionario de la Real Academia de la lengua Española (see: [1]
Valencian: (Diccionari ortogràfic i de pronunciació del valencià (see: [2])
So, again, Valencian and spanish are correctly used. I hope this ends this new/old debate. --Maurice27 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we talk about linguistics the names of the languages are Catalan and Spanish.
If we talk about politics those names are Valencian and Castilian.
The definition of Valencian/Catalan was already solved and not touched by my new proposal, which only explains facts about Castilian/Spanish. My suggested sentence joins both faces of this issue and explains where and by who are used the different terms.
It's curious how strongly you adhered to the Valencian Statute when the debate about the definition of Valencian... even joining un-scientifical linguistical theories! And now you seem not be able to read the same Valencian Statute and the same article when it states that the other official language is "Castellano".
With the link to Names given to the Spanish language I make sure nobody is misleaded, the same way the "(as Catalan is known by its speakers)" sentence was added in the Valencian/Catalan previous debate.
I don't know if I am a bit too paranoid (which would be nothing strange, after having been heavily exposed to Valencian-related articles in English wikipedia during the last year) but, in any case, you seem ironic when you say "Dear Mountolive, thx a lot for your comment about my "usually constructive approach". For the "calm" of this debate I'll reply "calmly" to your comments about my "superb exercise of irresponsability and going in circles"
Well, I didn't say that you were doing a superb exercise of irresponsability, I put it in conditional on purpose (I even made a minor edit to make that clear) however, per this quote of yours above, it is actual yourself who seem to be assuming this characterization....aw, do you remember when we were buddies, Casaforra?
I don't want to get romantic whatsoever, but I have to admit that, nowawdays, the whole Catalan nationalism story in wikipedia has me yawning more than fighting lately and I don't feel like engaging in this debate....but summer is long and boring and expect the unexpectable is always a good advice for this season in wikipedia.
One thing is sure: if we don't put an end to that (and both "historic" registered users as yourself and ¿new? ones under anon identity seem ready for round 2509 to start), this is going to be naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasty again!
Are you ready for that too, Maurice?? And BNS? (I should check my forces before taking the decission of reaching out for my Colt 45, guys...)
Mountolive.-
Jawohl, Herr Kommandant... Reporting for duty! Ze engines of ze Stukas are heating up. Ve vill take off at your command! Ve vill show no mercy in zis terrible battle against ze evil ... "Hans!...Otto!... I vant zwei 500 pound bombs under ze vings of ze stuka in 5 minutes. Ze summer season is comming und ze KommandantVon Ölberg must be proud of us! Ich habe verstanden????" --Maurice27 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SEE? You just don't read!!!!!!!!! I'm not talking about statutes nor political reasons! I just gave you the names of the dictionaries used by both academies, the so-called "linguistical use". I'm not mixing political with linguistical. I'm only using linguistical sources. (I can't do anything if the valencian statute uses the same name than the academy).
The names used by both academies are, again:
Spanish: (Diccionario de la Real Academia de la lengua Española (see: [3]
Valencian: (Diccionari ortogràfic i de pronunciació del valencià (see: [4])
I don't think this debate is at all related to a purported Catalan nationalism, as Mountolive implies, and the debate so far, except for a couple of uncalled for exclamations, has remained calm. The previous discussions/debates pertained to the Valencian vis-à-vis Catalan situation, and, like Maurice27 said, we reached a somewhat stable consensus. This new debate that Casaforra is proposing, relates to the use of Castilian as a synonym for Spanish, something that hasn't been discussed.
I think I have somehow expressed my opinion in this matter in previous debates. Español and castellano are full synonyms and can be used interchangeably in Spanish regardless of the country in which the language is spoken and the context of the phrase. In English, however, this is not the case. The language is almost exclusively referred to as Spanish, whereas Castilian refers to the dialect/variation spoken in Spain, and even in some cases, exclusively to the north/central dialect and not to Andalusian Spanish. Even Britannica's article uses Castilian when referring to Spaniard Spanish and then compares it to "American Spanish" (not American Castilian).
While this article refers to an autonomous community of Spain, and therefore, arguably, the use of Castilian could be justified, I think the use of Castilian should be reserved to Spain's article, where it would make more sense to use the term, just as Britannica does. But I don't think it is necessary here. I rather stick to the general terms in English (i.e. Spanish and Catalan) [Even Britannica states that the language of Valencia is "Catalan", where a "Valencian dialect is noticeable"].
I don't have a strong opinion in this matter (Castilian/Spanish), and we should probably wait to see what other users have to say. While I prefer "Spanish", I don't particularly dislike the use of "Castilian", even though I would rather uses the phrases "...Castilian or Spanish", or even "... Castilian Spanish" (in reference to the Spaniard variation in contrast to American Spanish), instead of "Castilian (see names for the Spanish language)".
Mountolive, of course, I remember when we were buddies. And I'm sure we can work together. Believe me, I'd love to. But in order to that it would be necessary to give reasons for the arguments or counter-arguments, and not to categorize each other with adjectives or prejudices. Read my posts and you won't find any adjective about you or any other user who disagrees me. Your reasoning seems to be something as "It was nasty before, please don't begin again". I agree, it was nasty before. But this time it hasn't to be so as long as we only discuss the sources, arguments and proposals. This is what I intend.
Dúnadan, the use of "Castilian" as a synonym of "Spanish language" was given in my first post:
Encyclopaedia Britannica: Castilian, which contains many words of Arabic origin, began as a dialect spoken in northern Spain. It became the language of the court of the kingdoms of Castile and León in the 12th century, and the dominance of Castile within Spain allowed it to become the official language of the state.
Maurice27, please, refrain yourself from writing disruptive comments not related to the debate ([5]).
By the way, you are, obviously, mixing political and linguistical facts:
As I said before the name of the languages are Spanish and Catalan if we are referring to linguistics. And your source agrees, the RALE dictionary is of the "Lengua Española" because it compiles the whole language (the spoken in America, too). The RALE is a very competent scientifical (and so, linguistical) institution.
But the AVL dictionary you provide is not scientifical source at all, but a political one. I'm sure you are fully aware that that institution was created by the politicians and their members are chosen by the politicians. So it's a political source.
The explanation about the use of the words "Spanish" and "Castilian" is easy:
* Spanish: When comparing to foraign languages (French, German, Chinese, ...)
* Castilian: When comparing to internal languages (Catalan, Basque, Galician, ...)
That's why the dictionaries you provided before (español-inglés/inglés-español espagnol-français/francés-español español-catalan/catalá-espanyol español-alemán/deutsch-spanisch) used the word "Spanish", and that's why the "Castellano-Valenciano / Valencià-Castellà" dictionary used the word "Castilian".
You even claim not to be talking about Statutes. Well, that's not fair at all. During the previous debate about Valencian/Catalan you were using the Valencian Statute for your purposes. But this time I showed you that the very same article you were using for the "Valencian language" applies to "Castilian": Valencian Statute, Title 1, Article 6:
(into Spanish) 2. El idioma valenciano es el oficial en la Comunitat Valenciana, al igual que lo es el castellano, que es el idioma oficial del Estado. (...)
(own translation) 2. The Valencian language is official in the Comunitat Valenciana, so is Castilian, which is the official language of the [Spanish] State. (...)
So? You used political sources for the definition of the Catalan language as Valencian. Now I'm using the very same source for the Spanish language as Castilian.
But there's one big difference: You didn't want to explain that Valencian is a variant of the "Catalan language", while in my proposal I link Castilian to "Spanish language" and I add further info by providing also the article "Names given to the Spanish language".
See how unfair you are? You adhered to un-scientifical theories so that the word "Catalan" didn't appear in the definition of Valencian, it was a waste of time for all of us and we all had to suffer your uncivility for something as simple as "Valencian (as Catalan is known by its speakers)". That is: Valencian (politics) and Catalan (linguistics).
Now I'm offering a definition that joins the linguistical and the political reasons: Castilian (politics) and Spanish (linguistics):
I find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of largely agreeing with Dunadan.
Casa, hello again, I agree that internal Spanish usage tends towards Castellano when comparing with other indigenous Spanish languages, but in Britain and America (at least in the modern context), we use Spanish almost universally.
The question of Valencian and Catalan is a completely untrelated debate, being a question with a political dimension, and a source of (rather silly) linguistic controversy, Castilian/Spanish is just about English usage (as Dunanadan seems to have picked up}. Latin language billinguals often assume that because a cognate is valid between, say, Catalan and Spanish, it is also valid in English. In this case it isn't. Still if anyone has any other opinions, I'm all ears.
BNS, I don't think that I would feel uncomfortable if I ever agree you or anybody else who has different POVs from mine's. Actually, I'm pretty sure we two agree on something, whatever it is. The problem is that we are focusing on subjects we don't. ;-)
I already assumed you would disagree about the use of "Castilian" instead of "Spanish" in the English wikipedia, since you tend you be very sensitive to the usage of your language. And believe me I like it! I happen to have the same feelings about mine's.
The problem here is that the two official languages are not treated fairly. The definition of Valencian/Catalan was forced with artificial reasons, and those same reasons are not applied to Castilian/Spanish.
* 1- The popular name of Catalan is Valencian.
* 1- And the popular name of Spanish is Castilian.
* 2- The political name of Catalan is Valencian (as stated in the Valencian Statute).
* 2- And the political name of Spanish is Castilian (as stated in the Valencian Statute and the Spanish Constitution).
In order to prevent misleads (and despite strong opposition of Maurice27, his political POVs and linguistical theories) we agreed to define "Valencian (as Catalan is known by its speakers)".
Now I'm suggesting to define Castilian and adding a link to an article that explains the usage of Castilian/Spanish.
In any way I'm removing info. It's the opposite, I'm trying to explain more deeply!
And yes, Castilian is a valid term in English when refering to the Spanish language, just take a look to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article I provided above.
Again... Do I need to take the 12 pictures of my dictionaries? Because that would make 12 sources Vs. 1 source against your point... And I'm talking about the Real Academia Española, Larousse, Espasa-Calpe, Collins, Vox...
Just google for: Castilian-english --> ¡¡¡39!!! results [6]
And google for spanish-english --> 2.070.000 results [7]
Are you sure you want to continue with this? --Maurice27 20:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice27, I already replied to your dictionaries. Do you read others' posts?
Why don't you reply to my arguments?
Why your reasonings about Valencian/Catalan are not appliable to Castilian/Spanish?
It's you who forced a definition not based on linguistics but on politics! And fortunately we got that the linguitics POV was also present.
You wanted only "Valencian" to appear, based on "popular use" and name of the Statute. Now I'm explaining that, regarding Spanish, the popular name and the official name is Castilian, not Spanish.
You wanted every mention to Catalan to disappear, while I'm fully open to explain that Castilian and Spanish are the same language ("Castilian" links to "Spanish language" and there's further info in the article "'Names given..."):
So, if you want linguistical reasons to prevail, then let's define that the official languages are Catalan and Spanish. If, otherwise, you want only political resons, let's stand for Valencian and Castilian. But my proposal explains both.
Hi Cas. I appreciate your consideration, although I'm a little unhappy about my being so predictable.
All the arguments you present regarding the linguistic situation in Spain are at least within spitting distance of objective truth. But they describe Spanish terminology not English.
I don't think there is any need for us to try and change usage.
Just to clarify, I see the Spanish/Castilian argument as sep from Cat/Val.
Boynamedsue 08:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing any usage or inventing any new word. In English the word "Castilian" as a synonym of "Spanish language" exists, and I proved a very reputated source: The Encyclopaedia Britanicca.
Tell me why the political arguments used to define the Catalan language as Valencian are not appliable to the Spanish language as Castilian. Even more when a further article is added in order to explain the usage of both words.
1.- About my "disruptive comments not related to the debate ([8]". Did you really take a look at the "battle" link? I guess not, because if you had, instead of critizicing, you would be thanking me... “It is the ability to take a joke, not make one, that proves you have a sense of humor.” - Max Eastman
2.- A funny thought I had the other night:
You have been discussing and arguing for months that the opinion expressed in the catalan statute, by the catalan parliament, about declaring themselves a "nation" is to be respected as it is the will of the inhabitants which elected that parliament.
But now you are discussing and arguing that the opinion expressed by the valencian statute, by the valencian parliament, about declaring their language "valencian" is not to be respected even if it is the will of the inhabitants which elected that parliament?
3.- Meanwhile, I have already proved that, following linguistical sources, both academies, spanish and valencian names, are to be used.
4.- You have not given any graphical source about any dictionary using the castilian-english names. On my part, I can give you 12 spanish-other language examples (español-catalan / catalá-espanyol included).
5.- You defend the idea of using castilian spanish ([9]), but that is the language spoken in Castile, a mere question of prononciation and accent. You also forgot to mention that the same article says that: "The prominence of people from these latter regions in the colonization of Latin America led to their pronunciation becoming the standard in American Spanish. The Cervantes Institute promotes the Spanish language and Spanish culture in many countries". Following your reasoning, we should talk about valencian spanish and andalusian spanish. Is that what you ask for? --Maurice27 10:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice27, definitely you don't read others' post.
I'm not here to tease anybody, neither to read your jokes. You have a whole user page to write whatever you want. Do it there and use the wikipedia hardrives to store constructive posts, please.
I don't remember taking part in the Catalonia article [10]. Would you please enlighten me? Where's my contradiction "for months"?
By the way, do you want me to prove how reliable are your linguistical knowledges? At first you claimed Valencian to be a different language from Catalan (that is, blaverism); later you explained us that Catalan and Valencian are the very same language because they two are dialects of Occitan!
Was it another of your jokes?
You have proven absolutely nothing about Valencian used in the linguistical sources. I already told you the AVL is not a scientifical source, but a political one. Just name ONE university where "Valencian philology" is taught. Come on!
In English the name of the WHOLE languages are Spanish and Catalan. Castilian and Valencian are dialects of both languages, respectively. You want the name of one whole language (Spanish) to appear instead of the popular name and instead of the political name you claimed before for Catalan. Why? The reasons you applied for Catalan are not right for Spanish?
We already got to define Valencian (as stated in the Statute and the popular use) as Catalan (scientifical name). Why can't we define Castilian (as stated in the Statute and the popular use) as Spanish (scientifical name)?
Don't worry! With my proposal "Castilian" links to Spanish language and there's a link to an article that explains the usage of both names. Nobody will be misguided.
The problem is that right now we have a lacking definition: It says "The official languages are Spanish (scientifical name) and Valencian (political name) (as Catalan (scientifical name) is known)".
My proposal tries to include also the political and popular name of Spanish: Castilian. If not by my proposal how would you explain this? I suggested a sentence and I'm discuting it. As for now there is no other option.
Do you want to use only the political names? Ok, Valencian and Castilian.
Do you want to use only the linguistical names? Ok, Catalan and Spanish.
But I'm sure you agree me any of these alternatives is lacking the other truth. With my proposal both names appear and are explained.
By the way, please, don't bore me again with your dictionaries, I already explained you the use of those names: external (español) and internal (castellano). All of this is expanded in the article I propose to link: Names given to the Spanish language.
Maurice27, you are opposing to my proposal with repeated arguments, some of them with a political bias and some others I've proven false. What if you give an alternative sentence to define the other official language (Spanish/Castilian)? But beware, the reasonings you use for it are to be applied to Catalan/Valencian as well!
If you "don't have time to lose reading my jokes", I don't have much either for writing you 3 times the very same argument that you just don't want to admit! It is kind of hopeless having to repeat 3 times each argument... anyway... here we go again:
1.- 1st time: "As we once decided to use the linguistical reasons, following the dictates of the respective dictionaries of the academies, we must use:
Spanish: (Diccionario de la Real Academia de la lengua Española (see: [11]
Valencian: (Diccionari ortogràfic i de pronunciació del valencià (see: [12])
Maurice27 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)"
2.- 2nd time: "The names used by both academies are, again:
Spanish: (Diccionario de la Real Academia de la lengua Española (see: [13]
Valencian: (Diccionari ortogràfic i de pronunciació del valencià (see: [14])
Maurice27 10:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)"
3.- 3rd time: The names used by both academies, AVL and RAE, are (I hope it's last one):
Spanish: (Diccionario de la Real Academia de la lengua Española (see: [15]
Valencian: (Diccionari ortogràfic i de pronunciació del valencià (see: [16])
You asked me if:
"Do you want to use only the political names?" --> NO
"Do you want to use only the linguistical names?" --> YES (both academies state SPANISH and VALENCIAN)
I don't understand why your POV about the AVL being a political source is the correct one. As far as I'm concerned, it is composed of scholars and academics working to improve and consolidate the language's lexicon, grammar, onomastics and vocabulary... Just what a true academy is supposed to do!
Did I make my point clear? I said to use linguistical sources...
IF (Academies = Linguistical Sources)
THEN (Names to Use = Spanish & Valencian)
It isn't so difficult to understand, after all... --Maurice27 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Maurice27, the AVL is not a linguistical source. Its members are chosen by politicians. Can you recall me any scientifical institution whose members are elected by politicians and not by their own merits? Can you tell me any University teaching "Valencian philology" as different from the "Catalan philology"?
It wasn't me who said that the Valencian/Catalan controversy you like to bring back was "rather silly"!
Actually, my first proposal doesn't touch at all the consensus about the definition we got about it ("Valencian (as Catalan is known...)"). The only thing I'm doing is applying the same arguments you claimed for it in order to explain the other official language, Castilian/Spanish.
PD: I'm waiting for your enlightment about my incoherence "for months" in the Catalonia article. Or you could excuse yourself for accusing me in false...
Calm down the pair of you, no es pa tanto.
Cas, the main problem is English usage not Spanish politics. Everywhere you look you will see Castellano referred to first as Spanish, then Castillian given as a secondary name, sometimes labelled as archaic, sometimes not. Not one serious English language source gives Castilian as the prefered name.
If you want to pick at the pustulating scab of the Valenciano/Catalan debate, we can dig out the damned trenches again, fire the shells out in to no-man's land, and say our prayers in Latin (as Romano-Oscan is known by its speakers in that territory) one last time.
Dulce et decorum est pro nacionalitata historica mori.
BNS, I'm totally calmed down. Just compare the tone of my posts and Maurice27's.
I'm not re-opening any old thread about Catalan/Valencian. My first proposal doesn't touch the consensus we got. It's Maurice27 who is talking again about Valencian as a different language.
My proposal tries to join English usage, linguistical facts, popular names and political sources:
Catalan language is known popularly and by the Valencian Statute as "Valencian".
Spanish language is known popularly and by the Valencian Statute as "Castilian".
I've offered two proposals to explain both realities.
So my question is: What do you think about my suggested definitions? How would you improve them?
Copying here recent discussions (from on vandalism)
Copying here recent discussions --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.-
There's no reason to not to list all main articles related to this issue. There's no reason to apply a restrictive POV because of political feelings. I know that politically Valencian and Catalan are the same, and viceversa, but philologically these aren't the same, Catalan is the name of a language and Valencian is the name of a group of dialects in Catalan Eastern-block. And about Spanish Sign Language, it simply isn't being used here. If you think it's not true, you may prove it easilly. It's a nonsense that I should give proves of an inexistent thing, in the same case you should prove that in France no one speaks inuit language.
And about the flag, it's more easy, I like more 1:2 than the 2:3. There's no reason to choose exactly one of them because law does not specify the extension of Valencian flag. In the other side, I agree with Casaforra proposal. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 06:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) PD: You seem to be a very very newbie to wikipedia if you haven't read Wikipedia:Article size yet. Please, do it first.[reply]
The "flag" point is not to be discussed in this section, but on the one above. Try not to mix points in the future. Oh... and untill you find a legal source stating the flag to be 1:2, restrain yourself from removing another one which does. Your statement "I like more 1:2 than the 2:3" is not enough. Now, back to the languages point. --Maurice27 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No law is needed when it's obvious and traditional. And there are no source on Valencian Law which talks about 2:3 for the crowned senyera. There existist a valencian law that tells it's preferably (so it's not a norm) to be 2:3 for municipalities flags, but it doesn't talk about the Valencian flag. You can see the pic of Serrano Tower shown in the article, it's a proof.
If you can't see it's 1:2, probably you're blind.
I will you explain why it's one-half: Historically the army of the "Centenar de la ploma", soldiers with the only function of take care of the crowned Valencian Senyera in the XVI century. In these epoca the shape of the senyera always was made as swallowtailed and very-very large senyera with a crown sided to the hoist:
And it had been hoisted in every of the 12 towers that in Valencia city existed (now these are only two), in order these can be shown from the Mediterranean sea. When you see the portulans (see images at ca:Bandera del País Valencià in wp:ca) you can see that it's very large. So, the tradition tells us that the "unique trustly only one" senyera was those taken care by the Centenar de la ploma and, as a result of it, the most institutional and honoured form is a large flag. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not continue to discuss this matter. Just read all the archived content and find all answers to your questions. It's all in the archives. The only legal source to date, states 2:3 proportions, period! --Maurice27 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not accept your changes. I've seen the archived, and the source you tell aren't valid. Deffinitelly you're blind:
"Spanish Vexillological Society" is not a governamental institution and there are no explicit textual mention about the proportions for every flag.
Article 4.1 of the new Statute of Autonomy is silent on proportions, saying simply that it is the "traditional" Senyera
"DECRETO 116/1994, de 21 de junio" is about simbols only for municipalities
So any of the source given by Maurice aren't valid. And the "traditional" is 1:2 as the history tells and the pics are showing.
Tradition is based on history, and History shows through portulans:
Portulan of Gratiosus Benincasa in 1473, it shows shallowtailed and 1:2.
You have here a very extensivelly list of portulans showing that starting 15th century the Valencian crowned senyera was always very large (do not confuse between standarts and flags). You also have a pic of a senyera ported by the Centenar de la Ploma in 1526, where you can also see it's 2:1 and shallowtailed. This last hand-pencil drawing is now in the Hispanic Society of America.
--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 09:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want us to accept a XIV century flag, which is not even the same one used today, you are not going on the good way. Saying that a Vexillological Society is not a valid source is just hillarious and I'm not going even to answer to your explanation about the decree (¡A LAW!).
You talk about traditional flags of Valencia. Take a look at their proportions:
And all that negliging you are making of this flag the ONLY senyera in the world without 2:3 proportions
Anyway if you want to believe valid sources, just take a look to the flag displayed in front of the Palau de la Generalitat Valenciana, the CLEARER 2:3 flag you will EVER see. [19]. --Maurice27 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the senyeres you show are the crowned senyera, are different flags. The decree talks about flags for municipalities, not for the flag of the Valencian Community. The only decree wich talks about Valencian flags are silent on proportions. I talk about history because the nowadays decree talks about tradition, so History should be explained. Yes, 2:3 are used as a common flag, but 1:2 are are used as solemn and, so, more representative. If you don't want to discuss I won't accept your brute-forced-reversions. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 10:28, 4 July
2007 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh, I forgot that now we may have flags for "common use" or for "solemn use"ROFL... And who decides which one to use each day? The receptionist of the Palau or the policeman at the door? Your answers are funnier each time! Please continue...
BTW, it was you who started talking about "tradicional flags"... Not me.
Meanwhile, and because of this kind of explanations by the anon user (which I might consider to include in my quotes list), I will, again, add the 2:3 flag. Sorry everybody for the continous reverts which are troubling the existance of this, otherwise, finally peaceful article. --Maurice27 23:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are common used flags and solem flags. A exemple: the common flag of Spain often do not include the Spanish coat of arms. But, in the other side, the solemn flag of Spain does. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to explain: When valencian politicians agreed a decree about Valencian flag where about proportions are silent, but they exactly say the traditional senyera, you must see sources before 1983, the year when decree was approved. If you give a source of a 2:3 proportion of valencian senyera used before 1983, then perhaps we may consider it as traditional. Meanwhile, I've already gave sources before and after 1983 of an 1:2 senyera. So your proposal is unsourced until that. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself... the traditional senyera... And you saw that ALL the traditional senyeras used by the valencian community are of 2:3 proportions. Thanks for giving me arguments. Thanks for admitting the senyera coronada is 2:3... Thanks a lot!
What sources are you talking about? I haven't seen none! --Maurice27 17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did mean "traditional" in 1983 year, when Valencian decree about Valencian flag was approved? Give us sources before 1983 of a senyera in 2:3 proportions. I've gave sources of 1:2, before and after 1983 year. If you don't see lot of sources I've gave above, so you're blind. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pic Image:Palau de la Generalitat del País Valencià 1.jpg is also of the Valencian Government building, the Palau de la Generalitat. Clic on the image to see it large and see the Valencian flag at the top: it's 1:2. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another important Valencian building, the "Lonja de la Seda", a pic shows also a 1:2 valencian crowned senera. If you want to be reliable, you must first to give a source of a 2:3 senyera before 1983. Only by this way we can consider it "traditional". --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm pretty sure this anon is nothing else than a registered user which likes "vandalising" and edit-warring in his free time, I ask admins to check his IP with current and normal users of this article.
As this anon is not giving sources, references and is not listening to sources given by others, I ask to semi-protect the article. --Maurice27 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sounds fair to semi protect, since this anon user is behaving quite like a rogue, editing without any trace of seeking consensus first and calling "vandalising" any editing of his own lot. That is not the attitude we need here.
Mountolive
I demand entire protection, a semi-protection would not be equal, as Maurice27 avoids to discuss and plays a brute-forced-reversion game with this article. I've gave a lot of sources and discussing topic in this talk page. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is a matter of fairness: the article shouldn't be entirely blocked from editing just because there is an anon who doesn't want to register. Everyone involved with this article is registered, and so the anon should. Mountolive.
You shouldn't obligate me to register if I don't wish. Wikipedia, according to GNU, everyone can edit it, and a registered user have no more rights than an anonymous user in encyclopedic contents. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But if no one is allowed to force anyone to register, even less is anyone allowed to block the entire page just because he doesn't want to register. It is a matter of good faith.
By the way, this is a quite troublesome page and your reluctancy to register, even trying to force the whole article's block just for you not to get registered, it puts a serious strain on the good faith we presume about you.
In other words: the not registered users policy is for those editing in good faith, this is a quite troublesome article where all the usual contributors are registered and we can't presume good faith if you fail to register yourself, specially when, on the other side, you also fail to let other users (registered or not) edit themselves.
Mountolive.
Now, I'm not even allowed to continue editing the rest of the article. The anon even reverts me in changing pictures in the general sections. (see: [20]). --Maurice27 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported this anon for being acting without any trace of respect for consensus reached (he claims not even knowing anything about any consensus). I have asked for him to be blocked until he reads the talk pages, gets more civil and willing to cooperate instead of editing at his will.
Mountolive.
Where's the consensus?. It's needed to explain that Catalan and Spanish are named as Valencian and Castilian to English-speakers, specially in Language section. It's the actually consensus out of here. I've read the talk page, and I've already write a lot about this topic. You not. This article is excessivelly oriented to local politics, and it should be improved in order to be descriptive and better explained to English-speaker persons, as this encyclopedia is supposed to be mainly oriented to them. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 09:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection seems premature at the moment, but the article is on my watchlist. Physchim62(talk) 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to previous version proposal
As the anon user (aka Benimarin) has been blocked, I propose to turn back to revision as of 11:09, 29 June 2007 by Mountolive which can be seen here [21]
Maurice27: I agree --Maurice27 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit heavy handed to me—why don't you just edit the article as is stands at the moment? This is a wiki, after all! Knee-jerk reverting is rarely a good idea: editing from the current position gives you a chance to think if what you are typing is really what you're trying to say. Physchim62(talk) 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous debate concerning the flag, I "closed" the debate once Maurice27 had provided a legal source for the flag, which seemed a valid source. Many concerns were raised afterwards, which have been left unanswered (as to whether the legal document pertains only to municipal flags ). I am currently not living in Spain, though if my memory serves me right, I recall seeing the 2:1 flag. The anon has provided several pictures of government institutions displaying the 2:1 flag, and claiming that the legal source thus far provided pertains exclusively to municipal flags, and not to the flag of the autonomous community. May I ask of Maurice27 (or any other user who currently resides in the Valencian Community), to kindly provide a clear (fully stretched out, not folded, or partially hidden, like the previous one) of a 2:3 flag that would settle this debate once and for all, preventing any recurring vandalism or, if not provided, the unnecessary blockage of otherwise good-intentioned editors? --the Dúnadan 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again... Any picture of a 1:2 flag in an official building has been shown. Only in historic buildings... Any legal source... Any vexillological source...
On my part:
Explanation by the Sociedad Española de Vexilología (SEV) about its 2:3 proportions
Pictures of 2:3 flags hoisted on the most notorious valencian government building (the Palau de la Generalitat)
A decree published in the BOCV
Another picture, this one of the spanish senate. It can be clearly seen that the valencian flag (6th from left to right) has exactly the same length and width as all the others, excepth for the Ikurriña which has 14:25 proportions (half way between 2:3 and 1:2):
Flags in front of the Spanish Senate (Madrid)
I sincerely doubt that any other matter in dispute in wikipedia worldwide has more sources, references or proofs that the ones I have contributed with. ONLY flags hoisted in official buildings (legislative, executive and/or judiciary branches) in Spain do have an strict protocolary code.
May I ask this matter to be, finally closed? --Maurice27 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you, I cannot see the Valencian flag fully stretched out to confirm that it has 2:3 proportions, it could easily be a folded 2:1. Like I said, can anyone provide a picture of a stretched out flag of 2:3 proportions? Please repost the 2:3 fully stretched out flag of the Palau de la Generalitat, if that is the case. A simple picture would confirm the unanswered concern that the decree you kindly provided does indeed apply to the Flag of the Valencian Community and not exclusively to municipal flags. --the Dúnadan 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another ([22]) I was able to find from the council of Alcoy. Even if not deployed, picture is taken so close that is very easy to compare the length and width with the flag of Alcoy (a 2:3 flag see:[23]). This makes another source in an official building. --Maurice27 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that it is possible to a territory to have an unofficial flag in addition to the official. I found out that, the very same European Union has an unofficial alternative flag with a ratio of 3:7, rather than 2:3, in the Strasbourg hemicycle. (see: [24]). --Maurice27 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. --Maurice27 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandals
If I see that comes an anonymous makes some changes that go agains the consensous, I directly revert it. If you think not only blaverists oppose to consider it the same language, it's you the one who has to add the {{fact}} template, not just take it out.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One same reasoning for the 2 languages and their 4 names
And as have been said before, I disagree this sentence because it doesn't explain at all the political, popular and linguistical situation of both languages. Also, stating that Catalan is named Valencian but on purpose missing out that Spanish is named Castilian is not fair.
That's why I suggested a new sentence that would be something as:
"The official languages are Catalan and Spanish (known popularly and by the Valencian Statute as Valencian and Castilian, respectively)"
My proposal aims to join up the pure linguistical names (Catalan and Spanish), with the popular names (Valencian and Castilian), these ones being backed by the Valencian Statute and the Spanish Constitution. My attempt was properly understood by Physchim62:
"Casa seems to thinks that two PoVs make an NPoV" [25]
So, indirectly, he agrees me that both PoVs have to be explained, but that at the moment there are two different reasonings aplied to both official languages.
So, leaving out unscientifical claims, some more people seems to agree me, as well:
Boynamedsue: "All the arguments you present regarding the linguistic situation in Spain are at least within spitting distance of objective truth." [26]
Mountolive: A very similar proposal:
"The languages spoken are Castilian (as the Statute and Valencian speakers call Spanish) and Valencian (as Catalan is historically known by its speakers in this territory, also institutionalized by the Statute)" [27].
Physchim62: "Catalan is also an official language in the autonomous community of Catalonia and (under the name of Valencian) in the Communidad Valenciana." [28]
Physchim62: "we "must" explain to people that Valencian is actually Catalan" [29]
And so, we "must also" explain that Castilian is actually Spanish.
I hope my sentence defines properly the status of Catalan/Valencian & Spanish/Castilian:
"The official languages are Catalan and Spanish (known popularly and by the Valencian Statute as Valencian and Castilian, respectively). The Statute of Autonomy of 2006 declares Valencian to be the language 'proper to the Valencian Community' ("llengua pròpia") [1]."
Please note that I'm only adding a note linking to the Statute of Autonomy in PDF [30], this way I explain furtherly about the "llengua pròpia", a difficult term to translate which I copied as "language proper to..." from the Catalonia talk page.
So, let me know your comments, opinions or suggestions. I only want to reach a consensued version that treats fairly both official languages, that fits the two PoVs, and, hence, we all may revert to when the usual vandals appear. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png
Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
There are several pages that used to link to "Morella," a short story by Edgar Allan Poe. To avoid the confusion, I've fixed them all (I think). However, Morella, as I understand, is a fairly major city and I would like to recommend that someone with some knowledge create an article for it, even if it's just a stub for now, so these pages can still link to something. --Midnightdreary 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Ports (comarca) article, the name somebody else chose for the Valencian city is Morella (Spain), click on it and feel free to create the article yourself or translate from the Catalan wiki (Morella) or Spanish wiki (Morella).
Once it's done you might also use this template at the beginning of the Poe's Morella article in order to notice wiki readers about the Valencian city:
{{for|the Valencian city|Morella (Spain)}}
If there are many articles named "Morella" I'd suggest you to create a "Disambiguation page" like this one: Valencia.
As far as I know the main amount of Valencian cities have been created by bots, so it's just a matter of time until anyone begins it, but I guess it's better if you write it since you look to know that city. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created that "Morella (Spain)" redlink just as a placeholder so people wouldn't end up in the wrong spot. I changed my mind and just removed wikilinks in other articles. I have no knowledge of or any particular interest in this province so I won't be starting it myself; I was just working on Edgar Poe-related articles and came across the incorrect wikilinking. In the meantime, maybe a disambig page is a good place to start. Anyway, that's that. :) --Midnightdreary 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox
Some users are anxious about the removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox.
The Statute of Autonomy of Valencia says that the Valencian is to be chosen in official usage.
Nonetheless, spanish remains a co-official language and is spoken by a very large number of inhabitants daily in this territory.
Just to prevent catalanist users to remind us about the statute of autonomy, I warn them that around 50 links to articles with more than one official language can be pasted here to prove my point that if a language is official in a territory it is always present in the infobox of the article.
As this was already a cause of edit warring in the past and having observed that some CAT-Team users keep undoing edits on this matter, I kindly ask for third opinions of users passing by... Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just like I argued on Talk:Balearic Islands, Spanish is, obviously, an official language in the Valencian Community. Of course, the Spanish rendering of the official name is Comunidad Valenciana. But since the new Statute of Autonomy was approved, the official name in both Catalan and Spanish is "Comunitat Valenciana". You might find 60 or more links with the name in Spanish—most probably prior to the approval of the new Statue of Autonomy and/or unofficial documents—but the only official name, as attested by the Statue of Autonomy and the numerous laws published after it came into effect, is only Comunitat Valenciana, thus complying with WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability. This had already been debated, and a tacit consensus was reached. --the Dúnadan 21:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, no... You're not getting the point. Paste me in the talk page where does it say that spanish is correctly to be erased... Where does wikipedia say that the regional law of a spanish region is to prevail on wiki infoboxes.
OK. We've discussed this over and over, so here we go again...
First, it is customary to write the official name in the native language and the English version on the infobox, and only those two. If the official name happens to be in different languages, then all versions are written in there.
Secondly, it so happens that the official name in Spanish and in Valencian is Comunitat Valenciana. Here is the Spanish version of the Statue of Autonomy: [31]. Please note that the name is written always as Comunitat Valenciana, in Spanish. So, if you want to put the name in Spanish, well, you have to write as Comunitat Valenciana. If you want to put the name in Valencian, then you need to write it as Comunitat Valenciana. So, to put it more clearly, whether you want to write it in Spanish or in Valencian, it doesn't matter, the result is the same, b/c the name is rendered only as Comunitat Valenciana. --the Dúnadan 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And meanwhile, Presidencia del Gobierno (Spanish Presidency of Government) does use Spanish language to name this territory in it's very own website... So, do we have to follow the regional government criteria? the national government criteria? or the wikipedia usage? Untill now is has been your own interpretation, right? --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just copying here some interesting remarks on the matter by user:jmgonzalez found elsewhere. I realize am copying someone's else views at my own peril. May God help me.
"Wikipedia seems to wave its hands on this issue. The closest I could find is this: "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form."
Unfortunately, we dont have a well set "anglicized form" whatsoever other than simply "Valencia". Now, the question is whether we should ignore the most established spelling (Spanish) or not. But the aforementioned comment was, I know, on spelling rather than on proper name, so it is only an indication, but not 100% helpful.
Back to the wisdom of user:jmgonzalez:
Again, according to the Naming Conventions, the preferred name is "a name is widely accepted, or is
the name most often used or understood by English speakers."
In this regard, there has been already a quite intense and anal discussion on the more common English name, to little avail (there is even a thorough fine wankery piece on the matter, a very wikipedian article as we know wikipedia lately). In any case, little progress seems to be coming that way, at least during this generation.
If you wanted to hear my opinion, it is quite obvious that a series of users are blocking the Spanish spelling based on less-than-perfect reasons, clinging happily to a legal artifact rather than to real life.
On the other side, I will not make a case out of this myself (good luck with this, guys!)... probably, for the sake of Pax Wikipediana, Maurice should remove the tag and save his force de frappe for more suitable occasions which may arise in the (I hope very distant) future. Mountolivegroup using a loop of another pop group 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Maurice: Not really, not my interpretation. You see, a "website", even if it is the president's website, is not normative when it comes to defining the names of the autonomous communities. The Spanish constitution of 1978, the legal document of the entire nation, reads, on the 147 article, that:
"Under the terms of this constitution, the Statutes will be the basic institutional norm of each autonomous community and the State will recognize and protect them as integral parts of its juridic order [structure]. The Statutes will have: (1) the denomination of the community that better corresponds to its historic identity [...]"
In other words, it is the prerogative of the autonomous community to choose the official denomination that best reflects its historical identity in the Statute of Autonomy, which in turn is recognized and protected by the Constitution as integral part of the law/judicial structure of the Spanish nation (or State, which is the word the constitution itself uses). So, the only official document that sets the official name of an autonomous community is the Statute of Autonomy.
For example, in the US constitution the denomination of the country is "the United States". Even though roughly 15% of the population speaks Spanish, and even though the presidency's webpage contains the name in Spanish [32], that doesn't make the rendering "Estados Unidos", official. The only official name is "the United States", b/c the only normative legal document is the US Constitution, not the presidency's webpage.
Answering Mountolive: The links that you cite refer basically to naming conventions, that is the title of the article. In this case the title is in English: Valencian Community, thus complying with the naming convention. Now, when it comes to the infobox, it is customary to use the official version followed by the English translation (and, if the official version does not use the Latin alphabet, then a transliteration is added). Based on this, the official version in Spanish is Comunitat Valenciana. So if you want to put the official version in Spanish, and based on the new Statute of Autonomy, then go ahead: Comunitat Valenciana, which happens to be the same as in Valencian.
By the way, nobody is "banning blocking" anything, I don't think that is a good choice of words. But of course, comments are always welcome.
--the Dúnadan 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Mountolive: I appreciate your opinion here. In the same way, I find that the tag is constructive as it will bring other opinions to this cul de sac. I'm no way satisfied with Dunadan's replies. It was his very own decision to remove a language which was present since the beginning. For this reason I really believe third opinions should be heard.
Answering Dunadan: I ask again. Do we have to follow the regional government criteria? the national government criteria? or the wikipedia usage? Pasting here statutes of Autonomy or the United States Constitution is, in my belief useless. To any of your sources using catalan, I can bring 10 using spanish. So, using references being useless, I want to read where does wikipedia says that this is a perfect example where a language should be erased from the infobox. If any wikipedia reference is brought, then, even if Dunadan finds it terrible, Spanish is to be readded as a co-offical language in this region. --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)replies[reply]
From what I have noticed on Wikipedia, it's not just the "official name" in each of the languages, but just what it would be called in those other languages if they particular language has official status. I think the Spanish translation should remain, as that is what most Spanish speakers would say. I personally don't understand this systematic removal of anything Spanish in the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain. Kman543210 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Dúnadan, does your last sentence mean that if I add "Comunidad Valenciana" on top of the infobox you will be able to live with it? you will not block it? If that is the case, then we are all good here.
Kman, I'm starting loving your way of putting things "I personally dont understand this systematic removal of anything Spanish in the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain" I couldnt have put it better....but, believe me, it is better in terms of your wikipedia faith if you dont understand it... Mountolivegroup using a loop of another pop group 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountolive, what I mean is that "blocking" or "banning" is not a wise choice of words. That will only produce animosity in our debate. What I am trying to say is that, while nobody "blocks" you (only and admin can do that), that doesn't mean that whatever you write will not be "deleted". I will not "block" you, but if what you write does not comply with the norms of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style, then yes, it will be deleted. I hope it makes sense now. Mauritius, you can quote this too ;-) --the Dúnadan 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to clarify that I am in no way specifically accusing the Dúnadan of this "systematic removal of Spanish". It's just something I've noticed from many other editors since I've been on Wikipedia. I have several similar article interests with and the utmost respect for the Dúnadan; We just happen to disagree on this one point. Kman543210 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Dúnadan, you are saying that if someone adds "Comunidad Valenciana" on the top of the infobox, that would not comply with the norms of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style?
If so, no, it is not making that much sense. It's actually getting worse.
Yes. What I am arguing is that, given that it is customary in all articles of countries/states/provinces/administrative divisions to have the official names and the English translation in the infobox, then adding Comunidad Valenciana does not comply with that, perhaps, tacit standard, since the Spanish official name is also Comunitat Valenciana.
Now, we can open a debate, probably somewhere else, so that the customary convention can be either codified and/or changed, so that all relevant versions and translations of a name, whether official or not, can be included in the infobox. That will probably mean that the Nahuatl version of the United Mexican States should also be included in Mexico; after all, Nahuatl and Maya, and 60 other languages, are "national languages" in Mexico.
I see, so now it is customary and it is "perhaps" a tacit standard. That is very different from not being compliant "with the norms of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style" as you wrote before.
You may have realized ealier in this discussion that I am not taking sides at this point, but the least you could do is watching your language, dude. If only because, if you do, you can add your own bit in reducing animosity in here... Mountolivegroup using a loop of another pop group 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry; I have not offended or criticized anyone; I have tried to watch my language in as much as I can. If I offended you, I apologize; please refer me to that comment, and I will strike it out. Now, referring to the "customary" comment, I have used that qualifier since the beginning of the debate here and at Talk:Balearic Islands. Perhaps b/c we are writing in the middle of the text, you may no have read something that was written below but actually before this comment. Let's continue debating at the end of this section to avoid that confusion, shall we?
Did I say that you offended anyone? where? I didnt say that, Dúnadan. I saw your "customary" remarks from the beginning. Then I said if you'd be ok if I added "Comunidad Valenciana", if you would not block it.
You said that if it is against "the norms of Wikipedia and Manual of Style" is not considered blocking. But "custom" is custom, custom is not "norms" and I dont think anything on the Manual of Style refers to this particular situation. That is why I asked you to please watch your language, because I infer that, you being a self-styled follower of the rules, you would not like to be caught quoting them loosely, cherry-picking them, comparing countable with uncountable or bringing forced examples which, in the end, will not help anybody, not even yourself.
Good faith advises that, being Spanish the language of 100% of Valencians, it is not a crime to add the Spanish name on the top of the infobox. Good faith advises that "customs" (unlike "norms") can be fine tuned in cases like this one. But Dúnadan seems to be threatening to equate this with Mexican situations which, on the face of it, do not have anything in common with this Comunitat Valenciana thing. That is why, fearing the consequences it would bring, I will not have a case for adding Comunidad Valenciana too, even if it would be perfectly ok.....if people out there were reasonable at all.
I am done for now. It is getting disgraceful, picky and wikilawyer all over again. Just exactly the other way around wikipedia was thought to be. Thanks. Mountolivegroup using a loop of another pop group 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the misunderstanding. In English, when someone says "watch your language" it usually means "do not curse", so that is what I understood from your comment, and that is why I apologized for "offending" someone. I guess it was a misunderstanding.
Yes, indeed, "customs" can be fine tuned and even changed if we all agree to it. That is why we are discussing if it is relevant to do it here or not. I do not understand what you mean by "threating"; at first I thought you meant "threatening", but that cannot be the case, it would be quite an inappropriate comment, so, I opted for interpreting it as "trying". Yes, I am trying to equate this case to another case, so that the logic of the argument can be tested across all scenarios. In this example, the Mexican case is the same: there are several "national" languages (the closest Mexico comes to call a language "official"), but only one official denomination. Since I worked a lot in Mexico-related articles, that was the first thing that came to my mind. I'll try to look for other similar examples of other countries if that helps.
Oh, I see now that you changed "threating" for "threatening". No, I am not "threatening" anyone [perhaps another ill-choice of words?]. --the Dúnadan 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunadan, as soon as you paste here where does wikipedia says that this is a perfect example where a language should be erased from the infobox, I swear to God I will... If only to remind me I was wrong ;)
Meanwhile I would like to remind you that, Statutes of Autonomy, can be valencian, catalan, balear or andalusian may only be sed lex in their respective territories. So, they don't apply to rest of the country, the world or in this little case to the wikipedia usage of infoboxes... Ey!!! Cogito ergo sum!!! --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice, would you be so kind as to show me a rule in Wikipedia that clearly states that non-official versions (other than English) can be added to the infobox?—and also would you be so kind as to show me one example of an article here in the English Wikipedia of a country/state/province/administrative division in which a non-official version (other than English) is used in the infobox?
Also, I know you don't like it when I cite the rules of Wikipedia, but please forgive me if I ask you to read the three basic pillars of Wikipedia, most importantly WP:Verifiability. Whatever gets posted in Wikipedia must be verified with reputable sources. It is in that sense that primary sources are used in Wikipedia; in this case, the Statute of Autonomy is used as the source from which this article cites the official name. It is not a matter of whether Wikipedia abides by a territorial government and its laws, but about creating articles that cite this laws as primary sources.
--the Dúnadan 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anwering Kman, I appreciate your clarification and comment. Sometimes I feel like you do, but the other way around: that all Catalan references are erased from Catalan-related articles. I don't fully understand that. After all, Catalan is one of the Spanish languages, according to the constitution (lenguas españolas). Shouldn't Spaniards be proud of the linguistic diversity of the country? That is just a personal comment.
Now, we can open a debate at the Wikiproject:Catalan speaking countries to codify a standard to use in these cases. I participated in the naming conventions debate for the States of Mexico. Instead of debating at the thirty-one talk pages of Mexican states, we simply debated at Wikiproject:Mexico, and arrived at one resolution. In this case instead of repeating our arguments at Talk:Balearic Islands—and maybe to many other articles of the provinces, comarques and municipalities—we can discuss and debate only once. Either way is fine with me. --the Dúnadan 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit there is no ruling in wikipedia to erase a co-official language from the infobox (you haven't brought to our attention any single one). Ok, we are done then! Spanish should be readded. --MauritiusXXVII(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to reach a compromise or are you just trying to push your point of view? Can you point me of a single article that uses a non-official denomination in the infobox? In the meantime, my proposal is still in place, let's open a debate at Wikiproject:Catalan speaking countries. I will start the page and invite all parties to debate. Cheers! --the Dúnadan 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountolive, if you don't agree with the inclussion of this template in this article is YOU who should to express your disappoint. I'm not obligated to justify every edit I do. Removing edits that you disappoint is simply a disruption to push your point of view, and here is no requirement on Wikipedia rules to avoid edits from others as a previous step to start a subject. So, please, express yourself here first, but don't disrupt. Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montolive, the page is not controversial, it's an ad hoc reason invented from you and Maurice27. Controversial matter are really your point of view and your wikietiquette. You shouldn't revert without giving reasons, specially when new info is added. I will report to 3RR if you revert again. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the official languages are valencian and spanish, I disagree deeply with replacing a table sourced by the valencian academy of language with a template for catalan-speaking zones. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the template should not be placed under the language section in this article, although I have different reasons than Enric Naval. I think the previous table was informative, and the template that was recently placed there seems to be way too clunky for just a subsection of an article. It's a good template to place in an article about the Catalan language, but I think it's too much for that section. Kman543210 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Enric Naval's comment, could you please elaborate? Linguistically -politics aside- Valencian and Catalan are one and the same language, so a template of Catalan-speaking territories makes complete sense. (By the way, it was the Valencian Academy of Language itself who declared that Valencian and Catalan are two names for the same language). --the Dúnadan 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a catalan template with no mention of valencian was replacing a valencian table, despite the official name of the language being valencian, which is just wrong IMHO. And not just any table, it was a table sourced from the Valencian Academy of Language itself :D I agree that the template makes sense, but not at the cost of the table, and the way of inserting it was... unfortunate, what about being in the middle of an edit war, mixed with other controversial edits, with no discussion on the talk page, and with an edit summary saying that the info is redundant [33] (hint: it's not redundant, the percentages on the table are not the same ones as the percentages on the text, and the text specifically asks to look at the info on the table). However, I had no problem with adding the template without killing the table. I saw the wise comment from Kman above, and, after collapsing the template so it was way smaller, I managed to cram it into the section without removing the table, and people seem happy with that solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that he basically disagrees with referring to Valencian as Catalan because of the official term that is used, but I agree with you Dúnadan that Valencian is just the name of the variety of Catalan spoken in Valencia (practically all non-politically motivated sources will indicate this as well). That's why I mentioned that my reasons for not agreeing with it's placement were different than Enric Naval's, but I wouldn't say that I have a strong objection to it; just that it seems like it overtakes the subsection of the article visually. I always think of those info boxes going at the top of an article when they're related to the main subject. Kman543210 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to revamp/recreate the template to a more dynamic format and smaller size? --the Dúnadan 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about making it collapsable [34]. Also, making it shorter wouldn't be a bad idea :P --Enric Naval (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enric, making it collapsable was a good idea. Still, on second thought, I realize we have already a Catalan speaking regions template in this article, next to the autonomous communities template. This one fits much better and it is much more neutral than the Catalan-speaking world (sic) which includes lots of stuff totally unrelated to this article. That is why I am removing it, as the POV duplicate it is. Mountoliveplease, behave 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I hadn't noticed that other template. Well, I have no further opinion on this. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30 Tag replaced with new tag
Honestly, I don't see the way out of this situation, regardless of the "tag" inserted at any point in time... whether it is 3O or POV... The only way out is by debating concepts, making proposals, discussing about proposals and then making consensual decisions. That is what happened—or was supposed to happen—here. But the same user who wanted other opinions (and got the opinions of four different users), left the debate. So what is left? If it is not discussing and agreeing on consensual proposals, what else is there to do? --the Dúnadan 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Region of Valencia.
I've made several changes because the previous consens is not yet valid as the context has been changed. These are:
Name of "Castilian" is used in the same way as "Spanish" in the article Spanish language. Both are fully sourced.
There are "double standard" about naming languages. From a English-speaker point of view, it should be Catalan and Spanish. From a Valencian point of view, it should be Valencian and Castilian. It's biased to mesh those standards depending of the POV.
The name of "Valencian Community" is not sourced usage in English. The name of "Region of Valencia", first, and "Land of Valencia", second, are strongly referenced from the Valencian Government. In any case "Valencian Community" references are less important than the references used for latter two.
--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.JPG){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Senyera_valenciana_preauton%C3%B2mica.svg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Senyera_valenciana_de_l%27Estatut_de_Benic%C3%A0ssim.svg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palau_de_la_Generalitat_del_Pa%C3%ADs_Valenci%C3%A0_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v200/maurice27/?action=view¤t=Alcoy-Ajuntament.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Bandera_de_Alcoy.png){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European-parliament-strasbourg-inside.jpg){kind=link}
