Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:21, 19 July 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catalonia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Catalonia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Catalonia at the Reference desk.

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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Spain C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catalan-speaking countries C‑class Top‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catalonia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Catalonia definition must me corrected

We must differentiate between geographic and politics definition. Catalonia is a geographical area comprising actual Catalan Community in Spain and Cerdanya which actually is the french department of Pyrinèes Oriental. If there is any reference to Catalonia as a nation, it must cover all Catalonia and not merely the Catalan Community of Spain. Both populations consider theirselves Catalans sharing the same Catalan language, (even it is not considered an official language in France because political assumptions) whith respect for each political nationality, french or spanish.

The definition must be considered as follows:

Catalonia Community covers an area of 32,114 km² and has an official population of 7,210,508. It borders Cerdanya in France and Andorra to the north, Aragon to the west, the Valencian Community to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the east (580 km coastline). Official languages are Catalan, Spanish and Aranese.

I understand that the separatist ideas of some french and spanish nationalism against the European Union cultural heritage must be erradicated if we want the wikipedia project to progress.

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. There is another concept for the whole catalan-speaking territories and it is Catalan Countries.

Catalonia's definition is being discussed in the section above (for a long time).--Civit cardona (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I struggle to believe that Perpignan in France should only be counted as "Catalan speaking". They fly the Catalan flag, it's historically and cultural strongly Catalan, and the Rugby League team (which should also be mentioned and linked in the article) is called Catalan Dragons. In Catalan the area is called Northern Catalonia.

I'm sure this is a controversial issue whatever is included in the article, but ignoring Northern Catalonia in the article completely strikes me as a whitewash and not a neutral POV. Davini994 (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is hijacked by some editors near to spanish unionist positions. I do agree with you that not speaking about the Catalan nation and what and where is North Catalonia is simply a failure of reflecting the Catalan reality. If the article is only speaking about the autonomous community then it should be called 'Autonomous Community of Catalonia'95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalan vs. Catalonian

Most of the article uses the word "Catalan" as an English demonym adjective in almost all cases. The article even states in the infobox itself that the English demonym is "Catalan". However, the section on popular culture uses the demonym "Catalonian". Which is correct, if any? Either the references to "Catalonian" need to be changed to "Catalan" or, alternatively, "Catalonian" should be recognised as a possible demonym. Madeinsane (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. 'Catalonian' is incorrect, or at least not as correct as 'Catalan'. I've removed the former from the article. That said, the entire section on popular culture needs clearing up. It is very badly written and might also be split to a new page. Any thoughts? --Tomclarke (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Goth-Alania > Catalonia_Catalonia-2009-12-25T14:12:00.000Z">

"...the name of the Spanish province Catalonia, which is but a slight deformation of Goth-Alania, "province of the Goths and Alans"..." (from Alans, Encyclopaedia Iranica) http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f8/v1f8a013.html Böri (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)_Catalonia"> _Catalonia">

--This is not true at all, just a fantasy theory, the name Catalonia probably comes from Gothalunda/Gothland > Catalunya or from Castelans(people who lives in castles)> Castelunya > Catalunya --79.159.194.238 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)_Catalonia"> _Catalonia">

What is a nation, anyway?

If you seek the answer to this question in ordinary English dictionaries, you’ll find entries like this:

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory (Oxford New American Dictionary)

or

... 1 a body of people associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own (Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary)

or

... 2 a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc. (Collins English Dictionary)

So are Misplaced Pages editors entitled to describe Catalonia as a nation? On the basis of the foregoing, clearly they are. And what about the Spanish Constitutional Court? Well, neither they nor any other institution or legislature have any business to dictate English usage. Many editors (particularly some who are not native English speakers) have failed to take account of this fact. When the term “nation” is used in the context of Catalonia’s legal status, we need to make it quite clear in what sense it’s being used.

Let me hasten to add that the foregoing mustn’t be taken to imply that I’m supporting a Catalanist position here: that would be to fall into exactly the sort of confusion between linguistic usage and legal definition that I'm criticizing.

AdeMiami (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Look, this back and forth edit warring isn't really helping anything. You guys need to discuss it here. As an outsider with no stake in this, could I clarify a few points and ask people to follow them up below? There seem to be three main issues here -

Nation/region/nationality etc in the lead, post court case

Per the above section, I don't think anyone can argue against the idea Catalonia is a "nation" in the broadest sense of the word - in the same way that is is also a "region", and "area" or whatever, as well as more formally an "Autonomous Community". The Spanish Constitutional Court ruling would also seem - according to the Telegraph piece being cited - to have now more formally confirmed/accepted the use of the term "nation" in the latest Statute of Autonomy. However, it seems that they are saying that precisely because it is simply a vague cultural term that does not have a "legal value" or constitutional implications - ie it's accurate, but not that significant. The issue at stake is what to highlight and prioritise in the lead, and I'm not sure that simply sourcing to the Telegraph piece helps. That article also describes Catalonia as a "region", and it's not clear on what basis one term is being preferred here over any other. It seems to me that using more formally defined terminology, where the terms wiki-link to pages about terms as they are used in a Spanish context - ie as in this version - would be better.

I don't think this formula would work, because the list of Spain's "constituent historical nationalities" has never been laid out and, in any event, it would open a can of worms. One million pounds for those who try (and succeed on) it: would Navarre be part of the Basque nation? Is there a constituent nationality called Castile? If that's so, would Andalusia be part of it (it was part of Castile's Crown, after all..)? Etc, etc.

Nor can we accept, as some editor has pretended, that all of Spain's autonomous regions are nationalities. Madrid is an autonomous region, but neither a nation nor a nationality. The same goes for, let's say, Extremadura, Cantabria or Murcia. I'm sorry for being so blunt on the matter, but some of Spain's autonomous regions are nations whereas others are just that: regions. And we all know who's who on this.

The points are:

(a) Catalonia's Autonomy Charter describes it as a nation (whether this is legally binding is of no importance: this is Misplaced Pages, not a constitutionalists' forum). This term ('nation') was sanctioned by (a) Catalonia's Parliament, (b) Spain's Parliament and (c) Catalonia's people in a referendum.

(b) Spain's Constitutional Court has sanctioned its use (again: whether this is legally binding is of no importance: this is Misplaced Pages, not a constitutionalists' forum).

(c) Countless English-language sources (and this is English Misplaced Pages, by the way) describe Catalonia as a nation. Those sources (for instance, The Daily Telegraph) can't be accused of any sort of nationalist leaning. Quite the contrary, as the Irish experience shows to us.

Andreas Balart (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Order of languages

Is there a formal, agreed view in the real world of which of Catalan and Spanish is the "main" language, eg by virtue of official recognition as such within Catalonia and/or Spain as a whole, or are there official figures that reveal one language is more commonly spoken as a first language in Catalonia than the other? If so, the order should just follow that. If not, or there's no clear answer on those criteria, how about going by alphabetical order, ie Catalan first (although it would be slightly odd to apply this across all languages and put Aranese right at the top)?

Parliament

It seems kind of obvious to me that the Parliament field in the infobox should refer to the Catalan parliament and link to that page, not to the national Spanish parliament. See Scotland for example.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, if they help. There's plenty else that needs improving with the rest of the article, and genuine vandalism seems to slip by unnoticed while all this gets edit warred over. --N-HH talk/edits 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear N-HH,

If anything this point demostrates the sort of people who've hijacked and taken over this article over the last months and years, masquerading their byass as consensus: they were actually so byassed that they deleted any reference to Catalonia's Parliament on Catalonia's infobox. It beggars belief.

We can put it down to a whole set of prejudices. Otherwise, it is rather difficult to understand this behaviour.

For too many months, I've been watching over it. But enough is enough.

Andreas Balart (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain high court rules against "nation" term

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100710/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_catalan_charter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No credit shoud be paid to anonymous vandalist comments

Eva Grossjean (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is about speaking from the facts, not only from part of the political POV or from the legal POV (legal but not moral as the decisions of Spanish Constitutional Court are more than discussed). Anyone at Catalonia knows a significant part of the people living there feels that part of Spain as a nation with right of self-governing and any source considered trustable should reflect that. Any editor not trusting this can search about the Catalan display on this 11th July and will see that spanish high court is simply applying a centralist POV. BR anonymous. 95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a nation (at least legally) but a historical nationality.

Spain's Constitutional Court accepts the definition as nation for Catalonia but has no legal value. For legal purposes is still considered a historical nationality and in any case should not be included within the framework of political status. Catalonia is only an autonomous region of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain's constitutional Court is not the only POV ,and obviously is an interested POV. It is internationally accepted that part of the Catalan population feels Catalonia as a nation. It is a case very similar to Quebec so no such debate makes sense. The spanish constituional court is just an interested part in the conflict.95.61.18.160 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia the only valid POV is the legal POV, and in Spain the Constituctional Court's decissions are definitives. If Misplaced Pages doesn't respect that, a lot of other articles must be corrected. Scotland, for example, is only a historical country of United Kingdom or is a nation? I am Spanish but I respect the Catalan nationalism, as it has perfect historical foundations, and I think they are a nation, of course, but include social or personal POV in a section intended to the political situation, whatever it is, for better or for worse, is not encyclopedic. Special:Contributions/Arkarull (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arkarull, the decission about nation/nationality is not any personal POV but it's sufficently backed up by legal texts. The Constitutional Court has ruled that the term 'nation' stands on Catalonia's autonomy charter's preamble, which, by the way, doubles as an organical law of the Spanish State (ie. passed by both Congress and Senate).

Whether or not this has legal consequences (it has not, according to the Court) is of no importance to Misplaced Pages. The point here is that the law (Spanish as well as Catalan) describes Catalonia as a nation. And all we do here in WP is to describe things.

Now: the Spanish Constitution does also acknowlege that Spain is made up of regions and nationalities. The fact that no list has been made as to which territories qualify as regions and which ones as nationalities doesn't mean that we all know who's who here: Is Catalonia a nationality? For sure. Is La Rioja a nationality? Of course not.

Finally, once we've accepted the 'nationality' terms as experessed in the Spanish Constitution, a purely linguistic point kicks into: 'nationality' implies the existence of a 'nation'. As Misplaced Pages states:

Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state. Nationality can be acquired by being born within the jurisdiction of a state, by inheriting it from parents, or by a process of naturalization. ...

en.wikipedia.org/Nationality

Therefore, if we accept the Constitutional existence of nationalities, it automatically derives in the existence of nations.

Eva Grossjean (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Eva, we both agree in that for us Catalonia is a Nation. But I think thar for legal purposes is not a clear idea:

Artículo 2 de la Constitución Española: La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas. (Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution: The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible homeland of all Spanish, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of nationalities and regions which comprise and solidarity among them.)

Therefore, the Constitution accepts the existence of "nationalities", but aggregated into a single Nation, the Spanish. As a result, the Constitutional Court ruled that the designation as a nation that does the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (2006) in its preamble has no legal validity. Misplaced Pages's article fornationalitynot worth me because, as one librarian of this encyclopedia said to me once, Misplaced Pages is not Misplaced Pages's reference.

In any case, this debate is sterile because the article has already been corrected by someone, replacing "nation" with "nationality." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nations are not defined solely by Constitutions, mon cher Arkarull.

If that was the case, the USA could never be considered a nation, since a definition of the United States as a nation is nowhere to be seen in there. And yet, they are a nation--and what a nation, by the way!

Britain, on the other hand, does not even have a written Constitution to back her nationhood. And yet, it is another nation.

As I wrote before in this forum, some people mix 'statehood' with 'nationhood'. Gross mistake: sometimes they might coincide, but some other times they might not.

This legalistic insistence on the Spanish Constitution demonstrates, if anything, a large degree of intellectual laziness.

xxx 81.39.12.15 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, my condescending friend, but I guess you'll understand that I defends the rights of a country, in this case mine, to be judge by its own rules. So, as you agree that in Spain some territories are called Autonomous Comunities, while in USA they call States as well as relevant laws stipulate, when their functions are almost identical, we can also accept that the political and legal definitions are framed in Spanish constitutional frameworks that set Spanish as the only Nation, not excluding the existence of nationalities. You can consider this stupid, centralist or incoherent, but it is what it is. And it is says by one of the few Spanish, born in Madrid, who consider Catalonia a nation. But I also differentiate between what I think and what is legally OK, that's what fits in this discussion. And I differentiate clearly between state and nation, thanks. Furthermore, I believe that you can defend yours opinions without resorting to insult.

And sorry for my poor English. It's probably my "large degree of intellectual laziness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkarull (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mon cher Arkarull,

It is not an insult, it's just a depiction. Using the Spanish Constitution as the holy graal, the only source of description of an otherwise lively, diverse country it's empoverishing and, yes, intellectually lazy (Spaniards, having suffered long centuries of Inquisition and even longer centuries of narrow-minded Catholicism are particulatly prone to this sort of mechanical, one-sided reasoning. I feel really sorry for you, mon cher ami, for having missed the benefits of the Protestant Reformation).

Nations are not defined by Constitutions--at least not only by Constitutions. If that was the case, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom would qualify as such, as there's no mention about their nationhood in their Constitutions (or non-Constitutions, such as in the British case).

You can copy/paste as many articles of your Constitution as you like, mon chéri. Your argument simply does not hold water. Constitutionalists do not make or break nations, nor judges. It's the people who make them by enbodying them. Catalonia's nationhood, in that regard, is out of the question.

Please, be so kind so as to provide more solid lines of argument in order to deny Catalonia's nationhood. Any qualified source (please, no Constitutional scarecrows) will be warmly welcome.

Eva Grossjean (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Eva. I will not go into your game. In any case you should know that sociology has evolved a bit since Weber. It's amazing how in one paragraph you have insulted Spain, the Spanish, the Catholic tradition, and so on. You should review a little the History before returning to the topics of the Inquisition and the innate stupidity transmitted through Catholicism. I will repeat it again to see if you can assimilate without insulting even if you disagree:

• I believe strongly that Catalonia is a nation in its own right.
• I do not disapprove the inclusion in the article the conflict nation-no nation, I support that and not go any opinion, and of course they are present nationalist claims as Catalonia has a long historical journey as an independent nation.
• But I have to accept that Catalonia, today, like it or not, is part of Spain, and LEGALLY, the only valid laws are the spanish ones, are laws adopted by the Congress of Deputies, the Catalan Parliament or constitutional requirements. Do you want to get in a philosophical, sociological and political discussion about the right to be a nation of Catalonia? Isn't necessary. We would agree, although it seems you do not read my messages because you repeat that I do not believe this reality. But one thing is what you or I believe and the truth is other one. I think the death penalty is unfair and out of any right, but I accept that if I go to Texas and commit a particular crime will be sentenced to death penalty. Put that in Texas there is no death penalty because there are groups against, even if for me they are right, it would be illogical.
• I'd tried to talk with you with respect. I can be wrong, but to prove you must present something more than insults and condescension. Of course I love my country, like you love yours I supossed, but that doesn't mean that I'm not capable of assimilating other realities.
• Surprise! I am Spanish and I'm not stupid! You'll be surprised, but this is a beautiful country, with very good people and a great History. And also great professionals, scientists and intellectuals. I invite you to visit us and know our history to prevent fall in outdated clichés.
• Finally. I'm not your mon chéri. Although these chocolates are very good. If you're not going to bring nothing but insults I ask you to stop posting messages and let a more polite and fruitful discussion. Don't forget that I have started this not to impose my vision, when I could have deleted the term "nation" in the article simply.--Arkarull (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Arkarull, with all due respect, I think you taking things too personally: let it go.. either Eva will tire herself or else get blocked. Marianu Raxoi (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue. This edit, among other things, has restored both the "Catalonia is a nationality" phrasing to the first sentence, and also replaced the previous long-standing map, which provided some sense of where Catalonia actually is, and whose format is used in all the other autonomous community pages (which also include a coat of arms, also removed by that edit and previous ones). The problem with the former change is, as has been pointed out several times in several places, that the sources currently cited for "nationality" do not support the claim, and that anyway the phrasing does not make sense in English, even if it works as a strict translation of "nacionalidad". The word is sometimes used in English language sources, but in inverted commas, for that reason, eg here. Im going to revert those aspects of the changes, so that it simply refers to Calatonia's formal and official status as an "autonomous community". Please then, can you lot discuss here whether it should in addition talk about nations, regions or nationalities or whatever, with proper and accurate referencing where appropriate (even though these are usually avoided in the lead)

One fuller, more detailed alternative that suggests itself is something along the lines of "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities". The details of the tensions between centre and regions, the "nation" issue and the latest court case can all be covered further down the article. Thanks, in advance and hope ... N-HH talk/edits 17:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

GDP figures are wrong.

Oops, no they are not, I misread the total population.1812ahill (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About the order of the languages and other stuff

There's a consensus on how the languages are displayed: alternating order. If you look at this article, you can find "Catalan>Spanish" in the infobox and all through the article, and "Spanish>Catalan" in the infobox and all through the article. I think it's the better order we can agree, but there's another version (the one who Andreas, Eva and others revert to often) which has only "Catalan>Spanish". I think it's obvious the first option is better than this one, as it's clearly more neutral. Again, the most logical option (and most used on Misplaced Pages) would be by percentage of speakers in Catalonia, so it'd be Spanish>Catalan>Aranese. Some users have complained about this version and I honestly respect it, so again I think the best order is the alternating one.

Also, the "National" in "National symbols of Catalonia" was introduced by Andreas Balart in 372097193 with no explanation, and I think it's controversial and not very appropiate to put it there because of the next issue.

About the "nationality" part, as discussed above in this very talk page, it's unreferenced (even Jimbo Wales has said so, before being reverted by Andreas as a vandal (!!), controversial (the Constitutional Court which has ruled "nation" has no value). Also, there's a problem about "Catalonia is a nationality", because that makes no sense whatsoever in English. "Nationality" in English =/= "Nacionalidad" in Spanish, due to the peculiar situation of this term in Spain. Icallbs (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Icallbs , not my intention increparte, but the Catalan language has been banned several times by Spanish law. The last time was with the Franco regime (1939-1975), this situation seriously endangered the Catalan language and its number of speakers, as the Catalan was removed from schools, media, books and any official statement, relegated only the informal conversation, almost clandestine. The fact that this situation is quite close in time and, therefore, the current situation arising from a failure to come so bad, should make us raise our awareness of the issue. So I think the way you propose to treat the order of the languages is simple and naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.65.74 (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP is not the place to rewrite injustices. Yes, the page should document the substantive issues and history around language in Catalonia, as it does in the main body. The issue here is a bit more simple than that, about how to order the languages when briefly listing them, in a way that reflects the current reality/predominance, given that people are always going to read something into how that is done. In that respect, Icallbs, I don't quite see what you mean about "alternating order" - as far as I can tell, your edit leaves Spanish first in every instance. My thoughts about language and other points, and some proposed solutions, are in the threads above. Which no one really bothered to respond to while you were all editing your preferred versions back and forth in their entirety ... N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents as food for thought, as I will most likely not participate in subsequent debates due to lack of time. First, regarding the order of the languages, it really doesn't matter which comes first (and one could argue endlessly as to why Catalan or Spanish should come first). But, I do argue for consistency, in which case, if you stick to Spanish>Catalan (or vice versa), this order should be kept throughout the article, instead of alternating. It is more encyclopedic, and less confusing. This is not an issue about neutrality. It is simply an issue of style.

Now, regarding "nationality", I disagree with Icallbs. "Nationality" does make sense in English, and it is indeed extensively used. I would advocate for its use in the introduction based on the following points:

• Unlike the controversial word "nation", "nationality" is the legal definition for Catalonia, within that same section of the Statute which does have -pardon my translation- "judicial value" (valor jurídico).. Moreover, the term, "nationality" is fully constitutional and was supported by the Constitutional Court in its latest ruling. There is nothing controversial about a fully constitutional term.
• In English, the word "nationality" does convey the same meaning as it does in Spanish. , and its used not only to refer to the Spanish nationalities, but to the nationalities within other countries as well.
• It has been used in non-Spanish, non-Catalan Academic literature in English to refer specifically to the nationalities of Spain (e.g. Federalism and the Balance of Power in European States (2006) from the OECD, or Institutions of Modern Spain, by the Cambridge University Press, some results amongst many that a simple query in Google Books or Google Scholar would produce, with or without quotations (i.e. the "inverted commas", as they have been referred to above).
• The term "nationality" is even used by the Encyclopedia Britannica when referring to Catalonia in the main article of Spain (requires subscription, but let me quote, just one sentence: " The three regions that had voted for a statute of autonomy in the past—Catalonia, the Basque provinces, and Galicia—were designated “historic nationalities” and permitted to attain autonomy through a rapid and simplified process. "

To me, if reputable academic sources have no issues with the term "nationality" (in English) and being the word chosen by the Spanish Parliament in 1978 and being a constitutional term, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It is fully referenced in primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Last but not least, other autonomous communities that usually receive less attention (for whatever reason) have used the word "nationality" in their introductory paragraphs (e.g. Galicia, the Valencian Community) without any controversy.

Ahh, as a PS, the Constitutional Court upheld the term "national symbols of Catalonia" (8th article) as fully constitutional, in the sense (I quote), "of their condition of symbols of a nationality constituted as an autonomous community in exercise of the right acknowledged and guaranteed by the 2nd article of the Spanish Constitution they are, in sum, the symbols of a nationality without any pretension of contradiction to the symbols of the Spanish Nation". Later on, the resolution also adds that the 8th article is "constitutional" (conforme a la constitución) interpreted in the sense that the said term is exclusively referring in its meaning and use, to the symbols of Catalonia "defined as a nationality" and integrated into the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation".. Ergo I don't see a problem with using "national symbols", when the term itself has been declared constitutional. But of course, you cannot avoid using this term without also making reference to the definition of Catalonia as a nationality, so we are back to square one.

And as a final side note (a second PS), I noted that someone said that the functions of the states of the USA and the autonomous communities in Spain are almost identical. Not true, precisely because the former is a federation and the latter is not. In a federation powers are transferred from the states to the federation and anything not explicitly transferred (i.e. collectively transferred as written in the constitution) is a prerogative of the individual states. In centralized (or partially decentralized) countries, (the so called "regional-States") it is the central government that transfers powers to the constituent entities (e.g. the autonomous communities), and anything not explicitly transferred pertains to the central government. While in some areas (i.e. education, transportation, etc.) both the states of the USA and the autonomous communities of Spain exercise their jurisdiction in similar ways, the central government of Spain retains the power to enhance or remove any powers, and to intervene if necessary. That is why, in spite of being "one of the most decentralized countries in Europe", Spain still cannot be classified as a federation.

Cheers, --the Dúnadan 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

On the nationality issue, sorry, a minor point perhaps, but it really does not make clear sense in basic English to describe a place as a nationality. Nationality as an English word strictly and usually means the condition of coming from a specific nation - ie, if you are from France, your nationality is French. Catalan/Catalonian would be a nationality, Catalonia itself would not. As noted previously, the point is that the concept of nacionalidad as used in Spain in this context does not appear to translate directly, and most media sources used inverted commas (sic) as quote marks around "nationality", eg the Irish Times, the Economist (which says the description is "ambiguous"), the Guardian (which also notes the description as being "confusing") etc. Of the three sources cited above in a bid to show it can be used normally in this way, two - Britannica and the the Institutions of Spain book - also use inverted commas. The suggested Google books search and Google Scholar search also tend to bring up examples either of the word up most often in quote marks, or of it being attached to Catalan, not Catalonia. Anyway, I'm not arguing against its use - in fact I think it should be included in some way, as the official designation - I'm just saying that there is an issue as to how exactly the description phrased. N-HH talk/edits 06:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing demonym with nationality. Based on "common usage" the term might sound weird in English (as a native English speaker myself)- but I must add that also in Spanish! (Specially so for Spanish speakers outside Spain). I would agree with the Economist that it is an ambiguous term. In fact, it was a carefully chosen word by the Spanish Parliament, precisely to avoid the word "nations" (reserved for Spain as whole only) while granting some regions some sort of distinction in that regard. Moreover, the ambiguity itself was chosen purposely. You can read a lot about this, from the Official Publications of the Congress of Deputies here or a brief summary here, especially the list of the "interpretations" of this term, according to the fathers of the constitution itself. Note that none of the definitions refer to a territory, but to communities (i.e. people). Because of this, the administrative entities were to be called "autonomous communities", instead of "autonomous regions", which was the term chosen in the 1931 constitution, even though "community" does not refer to a territory either.

On the other hand one could also argue that the word "nation" refers to a people who inhabit a territory, and not the territory itself regardless of who inhabits it. In fact, nation implies a people not a territory. But we all agree that Spain is a nation. And also a State. And also a territory. By extension, the same applies to "nationality", based on the definitions provided here and of course, in conjunction with the definitions of "nationality" according to the fathers of the Spanish constitution, and in conjunction with the many secondary publications (like the OECD) that use the term, with and without quotations. But it really doesn't matter. Whether nationality can be applied to a region or not, in English or Spanish, the ambiguity was chosen purposely, and, for good or for bad, it is the constitutional (and statutory) term to refer to Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Andalusia, and others recently. As to how to phrase it, I would simply quote the Statute of Autonomy, "Catalonia, as a nationality , is constituted as an autonomous community ...."

(PS: I believe that for the most part, quotation marks are used to represent exact language, not necessarily to convey that the term does not make sense. In fact, within the same articles you cite above, the term "nation" is also written in quotation marks. Quotation marks are also used when designating or referring to something specifically, just like I did with the term "nation" in this sentence).

--the Dúnadan 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see in anything in the dictionary definitions or the comparison with the word demonym that alter my fairly firm view about what the word nationality means and how it is used in English, and that an area - as opposed to the people who might mostly live in that area - cannot strictly constitute a "nationality". Community, also, is I agree slightly odd used in that respect, and "autonomous region" would work better, but nonetheless the word is sometimes used - as nation often is but nationality is not - to broadly designate both the people living in a place or connected to it, and by extension or otherwise the place itself. As for quote marks/inverted commas, they are used to convey all sorts of things of course, from mockery to simple quotation - it's only my assumption here that they are used with "nationality", yes, to say "this is a direct quote of the word used", but equally at the same time to say precisely, "it's not a mistake, even though it looks like it". Kind of like using a in similar contexts. Anyway, this is all but pedantry of course on my part and somewhat subjective. As you say, the point is that these are the terms used in respect of Spain and its constituent parts, all as part of quite a delicate balancing act. A phrasing that inserts the words "designated as " might help better frame the slight oddness of the terms to English readers' eyes. Or, my proposed wording above "Catalonia is one of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, the administrative divisions that represent the country's historical regions and nationalities". Anyway, there's three options as starting points between the two of us. I'm not sure I can be bothered to edit the article myself, as any slightly more subtle changes tend to get swept away in the revert wars. Maybe once that stops .. N-HH talk/edits 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• C-Class Spain articles
• Top-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• C-Class Catalan-speaking countries articles
• Top-importance Catalan-speaking countries articles
• WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries articles
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)