Talk:Names of the Valencian Community

Proportions of the Valencian autonomous community Flag

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

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

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

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

Being ALL OTHERS of proportions 2:3.

I sincerely hope this FINALLY ends the fight about the proportions. I gave the most trustworthy source available, which NO ONE can doubt. --Maurice27 14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Valencian Country

The article is titled "Valencian Country", then talks about "Pais Valencia". Have altered it to reflect that "Valencian country" is a new non-native, non-exact, translation of Pais Valencia. and changed the title to "Pais Valencia" as that is what the article talks about.

Boynamesue, that's your opinion. Other English native speakers, as the one who wrote this article, think that País valencià should be translated as Valencian Country into English.

Anyway, you should agree me that all the denominations titles are in English (Kingdom of Valencia, Valencian Community, ...), so it's not logical that only one is rendered in its original language.

As we say: O tots moros o tots cristans.  ;-)

So we title the section in English (Kingdom of Valencia, Valencian Region, Valencian Community, ...), o we title them in the original form (Regne de València, Comunitat Valenciana, País Valencià, etc...)

If you disagree that PV would be Valencian Country into English, please provide us the proper translation. And after that we could put that translation in the title of its section.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Casaforra. "Valencian Country" is the literal translation of País Valencià: given the debate which has gone on, I doubt that a better translation will be found, but anyone is welcome to give suggestions

. The other alternative is to leave the term in its original form. We do this for Generalitat, for example, which really is untranslatable into English (although it is translated into Généralité in French). My own feeling is that the literal translation is OK—it clearly identifies what we are talking about, both for readers who speak no Valencian-Catalan and also for those who do. Physchim62 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Cas. 1 point at a time

1 "you should agree me that all the denominations titles are in English (Kingdom of Valencia, Valencian Community, ...), so it's not logical that only one is rendered in its original language."

I do agree, but no valid translation of "Pais Valencia" exists, the most accurate translation would be "Valencia".

"Noun + country" in english means "the area which is famous for this particular substance or quality" "Bronte Country" "Lion Country". "Ethnicity + Country" means "the ill defined teritory where a particular tribe or ethnicity prevail" e.g "Zulu Country" "Mapuche country". "The + ethnicity + Country" only exists in "the basque country", possibly to indicate its division between two states. Spanish speakers, quite naturally, copy this form in English when referring to Valencia, but it is an error.

If you say "The Valencian Country" to an english person, they will look at you funny.

2 : "If you disagree that PV would be Valencian Country into English, please provide us the proper translation. And after that we could put that translation in the title of its section."

Valencia.

The erroneous translation is dealt with at the end of the section, you're lucky it's mentioned at all.

Physchim62 "Mostly agree with Casaforra. "Valencian Country" is the literal translation of País Valencià: given the debate which has gone on, I doubt that a better translation will be found, but anyone is welcome to give suggestions"

please see above for uses of country. We can't invent a new naming process in English, just because Spanish people have to translate everything literally. In English we tend to use a foreign term if there is no English translation available, that is why the language's vocabulary is so large. For example "Siesta", "Matador" and "Hacienda" were borrowed to indicate specific concepts that didn't exist in English. Why can't we borrow a term like "Pais valencia"? BNS 13/04/07

Boynamedsue, an anon has offered us a compromise sentence:

País Valencià (from Valencian País meaning "country" or "region" and Valencià meaning "Valencian")...

which I added ...roughly rendered in English as Valencian Country;...

País Valencià (roughly rendered in English as Valencian Country; from Valencian País meaning "country" or "region" and Valencià meaning "Valencian")...

This way the (in your opinion) unproper translation of PV is explained and readers may guess the intended meaning.

And I point in your opinion because at least two native English speakers (Physchim62 and Dúnadan) are fine with Valencian Country.

Your proposal of replacing País Valencià with Valencia is not valid, I'm sorry. If you speak English and Catalan you should be aware that Valencia doesn't carry the political meanings País Valencià imply.

The task of a translator is to explain the intended meanings, not to remove what s/he disagrees. If you, for whatever reasons, are not able or don't want to render PV in English, then let other people do.

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PD: By the way, the tenth button from the left is used to sign.

Compromise looks fine to me. I wasnt proposing replacing Valencian country with Valencia, just saying that that is how i would translate it if I was translating a document professionally. The article is about the names used to describe an administrative territory, PV is simply the way Catalans, and people on the left, describe that territory, given that Pais can mean "region", i don't see what extra information the term gives that needs translating. It simply gives you an idea about where the person writing or speaking comes from, and what his politics are.

People with these politics insist on VC in English because, in my opinion, the whole Spanish state places too much emphasis on words used to describe territories. I mean really, who gives a fek what the preamble to the introduction to the statute of autonomy says about the historico-national status of Andalucia? Whether you call Valencia PV or Blaverlandia changes not one tiny detail of the reality of the region. BNS 15/04/07

recent edits

I disagree with the literality of most of the recent edits and so I have reverted them. Given the hot nature of the topic, I wouldn't like to be misunderstood by the rather drastic action of reverting: I am open to debate the changes, but the summary edits didn't seem enough to me: we may want to discuss these changes here and, if agreed, then proceed with them.

For example, I have a serious objection in merging "Land of Valencia" with "Valencian Country"....the Conselleria de Turisme led by the PP is not a suspect of trying to promote "País Valencià". Arguably, they meant something to translate "Comunitat" or, simply, "territory" but never "País" since they are obviously opposed to this denomination. Thus, merging "Land of Valencia" (something which we don't even know what is translating) with "Valencian Country" is, in my opinion, not correct at all.

Also, just to mention one other recent edit, I disagree with removing info such as that "País Valencià" is associated to left and nationalist movements: why hide this? It is quite obvious and, on the other side, suggests the existing controversy on the names within the Valencians.

Mountolive.

I disagree with the above reversion on all grounds, and the drastic nature of reverting all changes. At least some editing would have been appropriate.

I consider the merging of Land of Valencia and Valencian Country to be appropriate since they are the translation of the same and only one phrase in Catalan. The rest of the titles of the sections are in English, it makes no sense to have one title in Catalan and another which is one of the English renditions of the Catalan name. MoS, style, call it proof-reading, it made no logical sense.

Secondly, opinions are fine, but that's what they are: opinions. Personal objections are fine, but they are that: personal objections, and while you may arguably object to it, you cannot categorically assume the intentions of other authors (like the Popular Party). Per manual MoS, per Verifiablity, and per NPOV, facts should be stated in articles, not personal opinions.

Thirdly, in my opinion Valencian Country is a literal rendition, not an approximate rendition (approximate is even a bad-chosen qualifier, we are not talking about numbers). Literal rendition doesn't always mean "appropriate". For example, a literal rendition of the phrase "literal rendition" is "rendició literal" in Catalan. That doesn't mean it is the best rendition, or that it accurately portrays the meaning of the phrase. It is just, a literal rendition. The adjective literal is appropriate and better than "approximate".

Fourthly, unlike you I do believe "Valencian Country", is an appropriate rendition. From Webster:[10] country is:

• 1 : an indefinite usually extended expanse of land : REGION <miles of open country>
• 2 a : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b : a political state or nation or its territory
• 3 a : the people of a state or district : POPULACE b : JURY c : ELECTORATE 2
• 4 : rural as distinguished from urban areas <prefers the country to the city>

If you compare the definition of the Catalan país [11] or the Spanish país [12] "country" under any meaning (state, region or territory) is an adequate translation of "país". A rejection of this rendering is by all counts your personal preference.

Fifthly, I deleted the association of the name of País Valencià exclusively with nationalist, because, unless referenced, it is a generalization. There are non-nationalist Valencians who also use the term and nationalist Valencians who dislike the name. If you want to reinsert it, perhaps you should consider rewording it: "The nationalist political parties have picked up the term". But you cannot categorically imply that País Valencià is automatically and unequivocally associated with independentism or nationalism.

--the Dúnadan 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't sound like you are willing to discuss (yes, this is another opinion). You can do as you wish (I'm just getting tired of the same thing over and over with nationalist wikipedians)..ah! sorry for having edited your words.

Mountolive.

I am sorry if my comment seemed that I was unwilling to discuss. I am. If you have a rebuttal to my arguments, by all means, I am willing to read it and discuss it (that doesn't mean I will fully agree to it, but we might be able to reach a compromise towards a consensual version). I am not a "nationalist" Wikipedian... I am not even Valencian. (not that it would matter, my origin shouldn't be the basis to reject/accept my arguments, but the validity of the arguments themselves). If the language I used made you think I am unwilling to discuss, I apologize, I am.

--the Dúnadan 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. I never complained that you had "edited my words" (I expected merciless edits, that is the very nature of Wikpedia). I complained about the nature or the content of the edits. If you review my recent editions, I didn't revert back to my original version. I worked with what was there.

Dunadan, "Country", without an article (as in "open country", "rough country", "cannibal country") means terrain associated with the preceding adjective or noun. Therefore "Valencian country" sounds, to English ears (I believe you are a native speaker, so i really shouldn't have to explain this), like it is an ill defined geographical region in which valencians are common, or possibly merely notable for their presence. To claim that this structure has the same meaning as "region" or as "pais" in Catalan is merely sophistry. It is a structure which is not used to define any other administrative region in the world. Do you really think that Pais Valencia is

"an indefinite usually extended expanse of land : REGION <miles of open country>"?

This difference in meaning is what makes the phrase "Valencian country" an approximate not a literal translation, English has no word exactly matching the range of meaning and ambiguity contained in the Iberian "pais".

Considering all your arguments of substance dealt with, I will revert. Boynamedsue 10:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, I think you missed my point concerning the use of the adverb "approximately". To me, the adverb is mostly used, or makes more sense, when used with figures, not with translations or literal interpretations. And, you know that a literal translation doesn't mean it is the right translation. For example, the French idiom ça va, means literally "it goes", but it is used to say "hello". That doesn't mean the literal translation makes sense in English, but the adverb literally is being used correctly. You are confusing the concept of "literal translation" with that of "exact range of meaning". However, I won't revert you. The use of the adverb was the least of my concerns.

Secondly, while calling my arguments sophistry (whose definition is: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone) may constitute, at best, lack of Etiquette, assuming good faith, I will respond merely to your argument, and not to your criticism of my purported motives. Have you ever heard the phrase "Welsh country" to refer to Wales and not to the "miles of open country where Welsh live"? Or what about the extended use of "Basque Country" in English to refer to the País Vasco, the autonomous community of Spain? Have noticed that "Basque Country" is the term used by Britannica? It always surprises me that nobody ever says anything about the use of the term "Country" when referring to Euskadi (in English, Spanish and Catalan), but many complain about its use when referring to Valencia claiming that there can't be another country other than Spain, and that claiming otherwise is mere "sophistry".

--the Dúnadan 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Next! --Maurice27 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

D, I have never heard the term "Welsh Country" used, if it has ever been used, I suspect it was used to describe an area of England or Wales in which the "Hen Iath Barhai". Wales is A country, it is not "Welsh Country".

"The Basque Country" (Basque Country, without an article, is NEVER used) is a special case. It is an undefined geographical area (no-one agrees where it starts and finishes, and it crosses an international border), hence the adjective+country construction. The definite article which accompanies it is because there is only one country in which Basque is spoken. It is also of well attested and ancient use in English. I see no parallel with Valencia.

I have no objections to PV as a term to describe Valencia in any Iberian dialect, but I object to the English translation because it is a brutal afront to the English language, you could dig up Shakespeare and piss on his bones and it would be less offensive to our language than the term "Valencian Country".

The term "literal" implies that these words mean exactly the same in the two languages. Your example was excellent "ça" means "it", and "va" means "go". This is a literal translation, another example is "montaña rusa", in English, literally "Russian Mountain". In both these examples, the meaning of the phrase is lost, meaning that these would be terrible translations, but they would be literal. The translation of "pais" is, however too different to be plausibly described as "country", it is not the same word. Valencian Country is both a terrible translation (not meaning the same in English as it does in Catalan) and a non-literal translation. The dictionary definition which you quoted proves this, as do the wiki pages for "Country" and "pais", please read them.

Regarding Sophistry, I am happy to assume good faith. "Open country" as you are apparently unaware, means a large expanse of terrain (paisatge) in which there are no fences or settlements, what is the connection with Wales? If one goes to Pen-Y-Bont or Cas-Newydd, or Wrecsam, or Caerdydd or Abertawe (you may not be familiar with the Welsh names, but I refuse to use the English ones, as I consider them imperialist impositions, please assume good faith) one will find no open country whatsoever. I can only conclude from your statement that you were unaware of the full significance of the term "open country", therefore, in good faith, I question your right to decide what is a literal translation of "country" and what isn't. Boynamedsue 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to check the link to Britannica's article on the Basque Country? It refers exclusively to the autonomous community with borders very well defined [13]. Now, tell me, if I say, the Mexican Country then you would definetly associate it, in English of course, to the nation-state of Mexico, whereas if I say the Basque you think of the undefind region? How about the constituent countries of the United Kingdom? Are they ambiguous and undefined? This encyclopedia is not build up by people who are self-appointed to define and categorically question the rights of other users. It is built through consensus. I am open to debate amicably, but I find your attide to categorically and unilaterally "question the rights" of other users detrimental to the project. You might question my interpretion, but not might rights. We can debate my interpretations, but you have to be open to discuss them throrouhgly, in good faith, in good manners and without sarcasm and without pre-conclusions about to what another user is aware of or not. --the Dúnadan 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. From your post above I assume you have three points.

1. Pais=Region=Country, as Wales and Scotland are regions and are known as Countries by English speakers.

They are not regions they are countries in an association known as the Union. Their borders are fixed and millenial and their esssential national character, and implicit right of secession is questioned by no-one. The exception to this being NI, which, I agree, is perhaps better described as a region for political reasons. This is irrelevant however, as they are not the "The Welsh Country" and "The Scottish country". If you want to argue that Valencia is a country, please go ahead. But that would still mean that "The Valencian Country" would be a horrible and inacurate translation of the name, given the phrase would still mean "The place where Valencians are notable for their presence".

2. The Basque Country. The fact that Basque country exists, means that the neologism "Valencian Country" is acceptable, and that "Country" is therefore equivalent to "Pais".

In the encyclopedia Britanica link goes to one of several pages of that name relating to the various parts of the Basque country, as I explained above the origins of this name, I will not repeat myself. The article makes it clear that it refers only to the Spanish Autonomous community of that name, not the whole Basque country. The name of the region as a whole preceded that of the CA, and was formed as I described above. The only thing we are interested in here is whether the term approximate or literal is more apt to describe the translation of Pais to Country. As I have explained the etymology of the term above, I don't see why the EB article is relevant

3. Mexican Country. What is that creaking sound? The bottom of the barrel being scraped? Nobody ever says "The Mexican Country", if they did people would look at them in confusion and then say "Errr, do you mean Mexico?". So in a sense you are right, it is incorrect, but would be understood. But if one of my students said it in class, I would explain to them that the phrase they were looking for was "Mexico". It has no relevance to the current discussion.

I agree that we should look for consensus, something which I admit is not in my nature. But we must also remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and in this case someone is wrong and someone is right.

Also, I chose to react ironically to your previous post because you made certain assumptions about my political beliefs, based on the fact I tend to agree with certain other users of the Españolista persuasion: to be accused of right-wing Spanish nationalism is an unusual experience for an English anarcho-syndicalist, so perhaps my shock influenced my tone, pushing it into the realms of sarcasm, for which I apologise. Boynamedsue

Well, if you assume someone is right (i.e. you) and someone is wrong (i.e. me), then I don't think there is much space for a consensus. I still think the EB article is relevant in that they did translate "país" as "country" for the autonomous community (AC), and even if within the article they also make reference to the historical "nation" or the current region where Basque is spoken, all three concepts, in my opinion, are well defined even if the latter includes some territories in France. If, EB, being a reputable publication, did not have any trouble when translating the name of the AC, and they did not say anything about the "approximate" and imprecise or incorrect meaning of "country" vis-à-vis "país", I still don't see why, by analogy or inference, the same logic can't be used in translating País Valencià. Or, perhaps, there are differences in how the word "country" is perceived across English-speaking countries, and that is why something that sounds "weird" to you doesn't sound "weird" to me. By the way, if you read the content of the article you'd see that País Valencià is not a neologism; having been used since the sixteenth century. "País Vasco" or "Euzkadi" began to be used as a political term probably at the same time as País Valencià, by the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The former, however, was included in the Statute of Autonomy of the AC, whereas the latter wasn't, even if the Pre-autonomic parliament did use the name (Consell del País Valencià).

We don't have to struggle a lot to reach a consensus. After all, like I said before, the adverb "approximately" was the least of my concerns. The content and the tone of the article are far more important. In other words, I think we have a somewhat loose consensus in this matter.

By the way, I don't recall accusing you of being a right-wing Spanish nationalist. If any of my comments (I still can't see how) could have been interpreted as such, I apologize.

--the Dúnadan 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan, just to clarify, i am aware that Pais Valencia isn't a neologism (although it has certainly benefitted from a massive surge in popularity since the 60s), but "Valencian Country" the separate English lexical item is a neologism (as far as I can tell it was coined in the mid 70s, in Spain).

Regarding the Basque Country, it is a proper name, and was coined in the middle ages, using the process I described above. As many Basques will tell you the autonomia "Pais Vasco" is misnamed in Spanish, it's missing the Basque speaking areas of France and Navarre. It uses an unusual naming structure, but as it is an existing English term, it is correct English. The difference between this and the term "Valencian Country" is that this neologism has not yet passed into the English language, and so must be judged on the criteria of whether it represents the information provided in the original phrase and whether it fits with existing English naming processes.

On neither account does it succeed. Pais, in Spanish and Catalan, can mean an administrative region of a country, with defined borders, in modern English it can't. This is not my opinion, it is supported by the dictionary quotes which you provided. I have heard Catalan speakers say "Asturies es un pais molt bonico", can we say "Asturias is a lovely country"? No, that is just bad English.

Then the structure "adj + country", it is used to describe an ill-defined area, not an administrative region. These are not my opinions, it is simply English usage, in all English speaking countries, and has been ever since the 18th century, when we began to need specific terms to deal with the characteristics of modern nation states. Again this is supported by the quotation you provided. If you think about it for a second you will see this is true. "The Iowan country"? "The New South Walian country"? "The Yorkshire country?" "The Transvalian country"? None of these are possible.

My main objection to the term is that it is political misuse of the English language, of the worst kind. It is a naming structure which, by putting a word which means nation state in conjunction with the adjective "Valencian", is intended to give the impression that Valencia is an oppressed subject nation of a larger state. Later the word "country" is defended when challenged, with the assertion that "country" = "region", so everything is ok. I suspect that, in many cases, those who argue poker-faced that country means region, want English speakers to mistakenly believe country means country. Luckily the fact it is such bad English prevents this from happening often.

Anyway, that notwithstanding, I think we should leave the page as it is, the quotes you provided support the idea that "Valencian Country" is not a literal, but an approximate (or rough?) translation of "Pais Valencia". If you can come up with some evidence for "adj + country" meaning "Region of proper noun", we can have a look at it. Again, please don't come back with the Basque country, as that is a translation originating so far back in time that it should be treated as a proper noun, not a translation. Anyway the particularities of that translation are discussed above.

Boynamedsue 08:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English myself, who happens to live in an English speaking country, I disagree with your interpretation of your restrictive definition of the word "country" and your dismissal of the Basque Country's "translation" as a "proper noun". Moreover, why would using the word "Valencian Country" imply that it is an "oppressed nation"? Are the constituent countries of the UK oppressed nations? Don't you think that this interpretation is subjective, and perhaps, personal? Yet, I agree with you (or with myself, in that I have already said this before) we can leave the page as it is, we have a consensus. I repeat, the adjective is the least of my concerns. --the Dúnadan 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

BetacommandBot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pais Valencia

I agree with the anon which changed the section name to "Pais Valencia" (sorry, no tildes where I am hailing from right now).

The fact that the other titles sections are written in English not being, in my opinion, a excuse whatsoever to keep a disputed English translation (see talk page of Valencian Community) "Valencian Country" over the undisputed, original and well established "Pais Valencia" (besides, "Levante" is kept in original Spanish anyway, not translated as "Eastern Land" whatever...but...., hey this is not an invitation to do so!) Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as much as I disagreed on the purported "mis"-translation of Catalan Countries, even if that was changed as a compromise. Even if the anon uses the same rationale as that of BNS's reasons in Talk:Catalan Countries, all the sources that I provided proved that "country" can be rendered as region: they were rejected not because of their meaning but because they could not be "used in the plural", but only in the "singular", according to him. That logic cannot be applied here. If you wish I will reproduce the links to English-speaking dictionaries, again, but I do hope that that will not be necessary. --the Dúnadan 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just would feel so much better if you found an example of the Country usage such as in "Valencian Country" elsewhere in the world when it comes either to a sovereign or to an autonomous state. Otherwise, I'll keep thinking (since no one has proved me the contrary yet) that the formula Demonym+Country is just bad or, at least, odd English. The only example of this usage which comes to my mind is Basque Country, which seems, once again, a direct translation from Spanish and I guess it could be originally contested in similar terms. But this one, unlike "Valencian Country", has gained widespread usage over the last years to designate the Pais Vasco (autonomous community). And this one, unlike "Valencian Country" seems to be consistent with the apparently blurring nature of "Bush country" "Cowboy country" and the like. These seem to refer to a tract of land whose boundaries are not firmly established. The Basque country, indeed, may refer to the whole Euskal Herria or the Basque Autonomous Community. But the so-called here "Valencian Country" refers to a very particular and well defined political entity.

I dont think there is another example of Demonym+Country in English other than Basque country and, by the way, the ones we have more similar to this usage I believe do not capitalize the "c" of Country.

Same as when someone wanted to push for "Land of Valencia" making it sound like a bantustan (Bushmanland, Kavangoland etc) now once again it could be that, ironically, those who strive for putting a "national lace" around the term may be actually debasing it to the uncertain category of "Bush country" or "Cowboy country" and the like...also note that I respect the concern of this people to keep it decorated with some national paraphernalia for their comfort, as long this is kept within brackets, please. To these editors, I'd say that the best way to keep the "national lace" intended by the original term is.....keeping the original term Pais Valencia instead of playing apparently easy tricks from "Sleight of hand I" which may go wrong.

Keeping with the indigenous simile, as I supposed, a quick google search seems to be positive for "Sioux country" "Comanche country" and similar, but no es aixo, companys, what we are trying to designate here. The "Valencian country" dangerously sounds like a place where your waggon can be assaulted by the navajos but, luckily, John Wayne and others from the Bible or Cowboy country will come to the rescue. But that doesnt apply to reality of the Pais Valencia.

All in all, let me put quotation marks in "Valencian Country" for the time being. In the meantime, I would like you to give it a thought or two to the above. It may unfortunatelly too late for that, but I'd like to say that, after the bad times at "Catalan Countries" I wouldnt like you to take this as adding insult to injury (I say so because think I read already somewhere that you had started taking it personally, not my intention at all, Dunadan).

So let's just try to start here from scratch (if only when it comes to attitudes and not bringing here past grudges). Let me say that I had to think twice and thrice about posting this, because I am afraid that we have reached the brimming level of "anything Mountolive says is wrong" and vice versa, but I just have the time to write now, so excuse me for this post. Feel free to answer any other day or week, when things have (hopefully) eased between us. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi people, I'm not on the country/pais issue at the moment. We all agree (I believe) that PV has been translated as "Valencian Country", "Land of Valencia" and "Valencia Region". I suspect we disagree over the appropriateness of these translations, but that's by the by.

The first line reads:

"País Valencià (roughly rendered in English as Valencian Country or Valencian Region; from Valencian País meaning "country" or "region" and Valencià meaning "Valencian") was first recorded by Agustín Bella, in his work Vida de fra Agustín Antonio Pascual,[1] stated in 1699, while the Furs of Valencia were still in place"

This sentence relates to Pais Valencia not its various translations. Putting "Valencian Country" as the title gives it preeminence over the other translations. I would be happy to put all three English versions used in the article title "Valencian Country, Land of Valencia and Valencia Region", otherwise I feel Pais Valencia is a better title.

bns78.148.254.147 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, BNS, no preminence should be given to any translation. However, based on the sources, there are only two renderings used "Valencian Country" and "Land of Valencia". "Valencian Region" refers to the denomination used during Franco's time,the translation of "Regió(n) Valenciana" (and a section already expounds on that denomination). I have not seen that denomination as a rendering of "País Valenciano" directly. Of course, sources can prove otherwise, and we can reinsert the third translation, if necessary. So far, we can keep "Valencian Country" and "Land of Valencia", even though I fail to see the need to put them both in "quotation marks", any more than putting "Valencian Community" in quotation marks either. They're both translations. --the Dúnadan 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be cheeky Dunadan. You've spent a year arguing that Pais=Region=Country, now you're saying it doesn't? I think the text is good, we should put all three there.

Quotation marks are fair enough to leave off if we put all three names in English (my opinion). I still think itd better to call it Pais Valencia, as this is what the article is about if you read it. Valencian Region sourced now.

78.148.52.218 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Results of my google-mining: "Pais Valencia" + "Valencian Region" = 76 "Pais Valencia" + "Valencian Country" = 1190 "Pais Valencia" + "Land of Valencia" = 12300 "Pais Valenciano" + "Valencan Region" = 50 "Pais Valenciano" + "Valencian Country" = 476 "Pais Valenciano" + "Land of Valencia" = 590 ADDED 29/12/08 "valencia region" + "pais valencia" = 950 ADDED 29/12/08 "valencian region" + "pais valenciano" = 1070 Couldn't find a way to google "Pais Valencia + Valencia", my favourite translation

Valencian Region seems to occur in translations when English speakers want to avoid LOV and VC (barbaricsounding as they are). Still, I feel a little better disposed towards LOV than before

78.148.52.218 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job, and the reference you added is ad hoc since it is a 2006 reference, and not one related to the Región Valenciana denomination during Franco's dictatorship. --the Dúnadan 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I don't agree with:

• Personal opinions [e.g. minor] regarding a writer: "a minor 17th century hagiographer, Agustín Bella, who used it"
• Ambiguous use of sources: "By this time, this usage of the word "país" in Spanish designated an area whose inhabitants share common geographical or cultural traits. It roughly translates as "region"." Which time is "this"? Current times or the 17th century? If it is the 17th century, then a reference to the current entry of RAE does not back up the claim.
• Unilateral removal of sources (not to mention the research of other users). In lack of a standardized Catalan/Valencian spelling convention (which was created in the 20th century), the spelling used in this text reflects the local Valencian pronunciation (i.e. apitxat), which does not disqualify, in any way, the validity of the citation.

Major removals could be classified as WP:BOLD, but, I cite from that very same page: it is important that contributors do not edit recklessly. "Being Bold" does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia.

From that same page: Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories [...] should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. As it has been shown in this and many other Catalan/Valencian related articles, this is a very controversial subject. And, unfortunately, for the much part, we are still to learn to agree on consensual versions in these articles after arduous negotiations that would reflect the diverse points of view, without demeaning one, two or all of them. As such, I think major changes in this article must be discussed first amongst many users.

--the Dúnadan 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess, in the first place, that this sections should be called "aborted changes" rather than "recent changes", since these were promptly reverted. But that is not the point anyway.

Dúnadan and myself we had a bad relationship (note the tense: it is meant), therefore I have decided taking one day to reply to this. I really-really want to come with a clear mind, otherwise our exchange will be detrimental for both of us and of little use to the project. So please assume not only good, but the best of faiths here&now.

This said, I think that particular reversion was quite an overreaction and quite drastic when compared with the actual changes proposed; please note that, given our past problems, I dont blame anybody for that. Because, given those, probably an edit summary wasnt enough from my side in the first place, so I'll have no problem in shedding some additional light ilustrating my point here in the talk page.

On the "minor" thing. Neither of us had heard about Agustín Bella before. Then, if you google this name, you get a bunch of other people....and this very same article. All in all, this person does not comply with WP:NOTE other than for the fact that he wrote "País Valenciano". If "minor" is not the right adjective, then please provide another one fitting better.

On the usage of "País" by Mr. Agustín Bella. I thought the context (being this comment placed right after the 17th quote) made it clear that it referred to that time, but I will make it more clear anyway to answer this concern. On the DRAE entry, well, obviously its current entry is not used for a word invented last night, but its covering its usage over the centuries, like with any other given word. Last, but not least, we all know that this is the usage meant in this quote, therefore some good faith would be of much help here, too.

On the "unilateral removal of references". I did not remove Mr. Bella's reference, just removed it from the main text, where it was inserted. It is customary to bring references down to the footnotes, isn't it? As for the one by Sanchis Guarner, it should be better quoted, because, as it was, without any real reference provided, it has a real attribution problem. I could say the contrary and still quote Sanchis Guarner as having said so, since no actual reference is brought other than putting these words in Sanchis Guarner's mouth. When the actual reference is provided (and I have little doubts that it exists, by the way) then we should quote it per my comments on Bella's quote: down to the foot note. It's a mere stylistic question.

This edit was referred to as "major" changes, but I think that is a misunderstanding. At least that is not the intention. Hope that, after my comments, it is better understood now.

Please correct me where I may be wrong. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 10:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive,

Those were indeed major changes, which you again, reverted instead of waiting for the consensus of the editors as requested. Let me answer some of your concerns:

• I have to repeat again that the "minor" adjective cannot come from our own appreciation, our own research, or Google search. There are so many authors I have never heard of (perhaps due to my own ignorance or lack of interest in a particular subject) and that does not mean they were not important in their fields of study at their time.
• There is no edit or style guideline that prohibits quotes from being in the main text. In fact, they are widely used in the main text in all major publications. We are not talking about a reference,it is a "quote", and as such it belongs to the main text. Moreover, you didn't insert it as a reference note, but as a reference bibliography: the reader would have to open the .pdf file, and find that quote, amongst the many pages of the document. That is not good style in editing. I will revert back to its inclusion. If you think that a quote must be hidden in a reference bibliography, please discuss it with the many editors that have participated in the article to gain a consensus decision. But like I said, quotes, in all edit-style guidelines, belong to the main text.
• If you believe there is a statement that needs to be cited, then, please add the {{cn}} template. Let it stand for a short period of time until the editors/authors realize it is there and then add the reference. It is customary to do in Wikipedia, unless the statement is blatantly wrong. In this case, it is not wrong, it simply needs to be referenced.
• Finally, you inserted a phrase that claims that in Spanish "país" lost the connotation of "region". But RAE claims otherwise. I will not add the reference, you have it yourself: Nación, región, provincia o territorio. Perhaps it is not as widely used as it is in France, but it is not lost. Therefore, I will not add the {{cn}} to that claim, as it is proven wrong.

--the Dúnadan 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

References

País Valencià - Valencian Region

In this text is said that "País Valencià" can de translated as "Valencian Region", and it has a reference. But if We check that reference, We don't see any mention to "País Valencià", it's only a reference (We could find more) to the use of "Valencian region", doesn't seem to me as a reference of "País Valencià could be translated as Valencian region". Shouldn't We remove that part? --Coentor (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure it makes a problem, since we also have two different names in "autochtonous" language, both very differently connoted ("País valencià"/"Regió valenciana", the same in castillan). Xic667 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Names of the Valencian Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928111048/http://www.ugt.es/ugtpordentro/guerracivil/Cartel-009.jpg to http://www.ugt.es/ugtpordentro/guerracivil/Cartel-009.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)