Talk:Valencian language

Pluricentric language

I think the approach in Pluricentric language#Catalan-Valencian-Balearic is the most linguistically sound one. There is only one language - as in "compact dialect continuum" – (variously called Catalan, Valencian or Balearic), but more than one standard, and political borders do not coincide with linguistic borders (hence Catalan might be mistakenly interpreted as meaning "spoken in Catalonia"). Written Catalan is based on Eastern Catalan (as they are called in linguistics) dialects, Standard Valencian is based on Western Catalan dialects; both are two different standards (to avoid the notoriously polysemic and loaded word language). They are moreover both Ausbausprachen, and also Dachsprachen for their respective dialects, but they are not Abstandsprachen relative to each other; however, the differences are not big, either. The divergence has started only 500 years ago, in a period for which we have already texts. (Clearly, the attempt to show that Valencian has descended from Mozarabic is nonsense – if anything, Mozarabic was a substratum for Valencian.)

The situation is not quite comparable to Standard American vs. British English and the like, but more similar to that of Standard Portuguese and Standard Galician or Standard Macedonian and Standard Bulgarian. There are real differences (of an appreciable age) because the standards are based on different points in a single close-knit dialect continuum (dialects spoken in Northern Portugal may be more similar to Galician than to Standard Portuguese, and dialects spoken in Western Bulgaria may be closer to Standard Macedonian than to Standard Bulgarian). Continental North Germanic is very much like that (Scanian being historically closer to Danish than to Swedish, for once), too, as is East Slavic, as well as Czech and Slovak. Standard English vs. Standard Scots is a similar case, as there is, or was historically until recently, a single "Anglic" dialect continuum stretching all the way from the south coast to the north coast of Britain. It would be theoretically possible to use other traditional (rural) English dialects as the basis of new written languages, dialects that may have been diverging from (the ancestor of) Standard English for 1000 years or longer, all the way back to the pre-Norman period, that are therefore clearly different from Standard English in more than trivial points (not just choice of lexicon or a few minor differences in pronunciation or morphology/syntax) and may be almost unintelligible to an untrained/monolingual speaker of Standard English in their "broader" (less affected by Standard English influence) form – which would make the separation appear not completely artificial or arbitrary, but somewhat understandable appearing, even if the respective idioms are so closely related that a need for several separate standards is not felt – even in the event of political separation. Americans never felt the need to create a really distinctive language after their secession from Britain, nor did the Confederates after their own secession; even the Austrians and Swiss have, unlike the Luxembourgers, after the 18th century never made any attempts to create their own languages based on regional Upper German dialects, as distinctive as these are (more distinctive even than Luxembourgish!) – that although the Swiss and especially the Austrians have been eager to form their own national identity (ethnogenesis) and to dissociate themselves from the Germans ever since 1945, conflating German nationality/citizenship with "ethnic German" identity.

To sum up, I think that there are three cases to distinguish: Those in which there are only minor systematic (especially grammatical) differences between different standards (and differences may stem from conscious choice between several possibilities), as in the case of Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin, which are all based on the exact same sub-sub-subdialect; those where there are genuine systematic, dialectal differences between competing standards; and those where the systematic differences cannot be reduced to a short list anymore even where the languages are patently closely related (think Spanish and Portuguese). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! What you said is very interesting. I'd like to add a few more details and observations.

• First, the "Catalan-Valencian-Balearic language" is divided in two main "blocks": Eastern, and Western. Blaverists defend the opposition of "North" (Catalan) vs. "South" (Valencian). However, IMHO, the only truly valid dialectal dichotomy is that of East vs. West (a position held by most linguists). The language spoken in Lleida (closer to France than to the Valencian border) is *much* more similar to the one spoken in Valencia than to the one spoken in Barcelona.

Thus, we have two main dialect "blocks", each one having one distinct sub-dialect that has been standarized: Valencian for the Western block (which includes the provinces of Alacant, Castelló, València, Lleida, and most of Tarragona), and Central Catalan for the Eastern block (the rest).

• Second, some conservative characteristics of the Valencian standard (like the distinction of b/v, and to a lesser extent the pronunciation of final r's) are missing in many other Valencian sub-dialects, thus bringing them slightly closer to the language spoken in Catalonia.
• Third, Balearic, despite being traditionally included in the Eastern block (for having [ə]), should be considered something apart. Insular varieties are the closest to Medieval Catalan, the common ancestor of all modern dialects.
• Finally, even though the grammar and word choices of each standard are different, the ortography is the same (with only minor differences with é vs. è in a few words); and this ortography mostly "favors" the Valencian phonology. Seriously, many adult native Central Catalans still make mistakes with unstressed a/e and o/u, and with final consonants.

Thanks.--Fauban 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This ultimate fact you point out (which is true) shows that, actually, in a general way, it's a mistake to say that general catalan standard would be based upon central or eastern Catalan. The standard was mainly inspired by Catalan medieval litterature, and the most important medieval authors were... Valencian people! Vocalic orthography of Catalan is in most case based on western (=valencian) pronounciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.134.136.85 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014

What do you mean by 'vocalic'? Peter238 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the link. 93.176.136.243 (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Francesc de Borja Moll explains and clarifies in this interview from 1979 how the Catalan-Valencian-Balearic definition is "unscientific, circumstantial, and wrong". 93.176.136.243 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

New introduction

Today I just uploaded the new introduction with an additional phrase to make it better and the user Ogress User_Talk:Ogress just reverted all my changes.

It wasn't any gramatical error. Then, I've uploaded it with another words to make it better "in a gramatical way" and I've added a source which says what i'm saying with my edition. The source it's from the Official website of the Spanish Senate so I think that I can't put nothing more trustworthy than that. I just added a phrase and I don't deleted anything so why my changes were reverted? Then this user added to my talk page the "stop hand" image saying that "don't violate the 3 revert rule although your account can be banned" and I mean really, I mean for real ? I just contribute and improve a lot of articles and I don't deleted ANYTHING, just added 2 phrases and I don't even had time to put the source when this user reverted my changes. OBVIOUSLY I had to revert more than one time because I didn't have time to edit again and put the source. All happened in 2-3 minutes! So please, can someone tell me what is wrong with the new introduction? The only changes are: " the own language of the Valencian Community; although it can be also used to name " and this source: http://www.congreso.es/consti/estatutos/estatutos.jsp?com=79&tipo=2&ini=1&fin=7&ini_sub=1&fin_sub=1 .

HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 07:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)

@HardstyleGB: I did not revert all your changes, I reverted one edit that is broken English. If you are reverted, GO TO THE TALK PAGE. Yes, you will be banned for edit warring. Yes, even if you are correct. No, you should not have templated me, because I made TWO edits to the page in toto before stopping. "the name used to refer to the own language of the Valencian Community" is broken English. There is no "*the own language": you cannot say that, it doesn't make any sense. Ogress _smash! 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Don't threaten me with things like "you will be banned" because you are the only here which can be banned so calm yourself down, ok? If I am reverted without any reasons, I will revert it again. Do you understand? You use the "3 revert rule" on your own benefit. But this rule does not apply in situations like this one, when someones reverts your changes without any reason and more if you put trustworthy sources, it's quite frustrating. Also you don't know very much about this article so why you still kept reverting my changes? Whatever, I don't want to argue more with you. Like I said before; I've put the source of the official Spanish Senate saying that Valencian is the own language of the Valencians so if someone reverts this I will do it again. Why? Because if the Valencian Constitution and the Spanish Senate say that it's the own language of the Valencian people, no one can say it's not; at least not with a more reliable source.

HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 16:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)

The WP:3RR rule applies, period (at least to the extent that all Wikipedia rules do), you don't get to decide when it doesn't apply to yourself just because you think the reverts made on you are unjustified. LjL (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Own language"

"Own language" is the literal translation of "lengua propia:"

"La lengua propia de la Comunitat Valenciana es el valenciano." [1]

See also [2] and [3]; "appropriate" is another English synonym/translation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:I've put the source of the official Spanish Senate saying that Valencian is the own language of the Valencians. Why you reverted my changes? WHY??? Also, to make it more "better", you kept my source but reverted my changes. Is this a joke or something? I'm Valencian. Ask Valencians which language talk. You from the Netherlands know it better than me?

Well.. this does not care at all. Which I'm trying to say is that as you say, the official Valencian Constitution from that Senate Source say that Valencian is the own language of the Valencians. Here you say the same. Why you changed the main article? Did you know that Valencian language was mentioned even before Catalan Language in the 13th Century? I did not revert nothing. I did not delete nothing. I only added a phrase to make the introduction better; with the proper and also a trustworthy source. And you delete my changes but keep the source. I'm surprised...

Also you added in one of your editions (why you edited this article 10 times? you could get a warning... huh? most of your editions weren't with very much sense and you could made all in the same edition...) that " Valencian is the Catalan language language spoken in the Valencian Community " you added this without any source and because you wanted. This phrase wasn't never in this article and now you add this without any source because you want, and you edit my changes with a 100% trustworthy source; and then you add whatever you want without any source? For real?...

Because if the Valencian Constitution and the Spanish Senate say that it's the own language of the Valencian people, no one can say it's not; at least not with a more reliable source. HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 16:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)

The lead already said that "Valencian" is the local designation for the Catalan language. I'm not Spanish, so tell me: are they different languages? The Catalan language page says they're the same. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The article on Catalan observes that Valencian is Catalan, with plenty of cites, which does not prevent it from being the native language of the Valencian Community under a different name. "It is the national and only official language of Andorra, and a co-official language of the Spanish autonomous communities of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, and the Valencian Community (where the language is known as Valencian, and there exist regional standards)." Ogress _smash! 18:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the article on Catalan could say that they are the same language but that does not mean that the Catalan article is right about this. You can take a look to the Valencian constitution here: (website of the Spanish Senate) which specifically says:

Artículo Sexto (6th Article) of the Valencian Constitution:

1. La lengua propia de la Comunitat Valenciana es el valenciano. (The own language of the Valencian Community is Valencian)

2. 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. Todos tienen derecho a conocerlos y a usarlos y a recibir la enseñanza del, y en, idioma valenciano. (The valencian language is the official language in the Valencian Community, as Castillian is, which is the official language of the country. All have rights to know them, use them and to receive schooling in Valencian)

I don't see in the entire Valencian Constitution that the name of the language is Catalan or it's a derivate of Catalan. Anyways I did not deleted anything and I only improved the intro of the article while some users kept reverting my changes.HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)

« As a consequence of this resolution, the standardised Valencian dictionary, Diccionari normatiu valencià, defines Valencian as a "Romance language spoken in the Valencian Community, as well as in Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, the French department of the Pyrénées Orientales, the Principality of Andorra, the eastern flank of Aragon and the Sardinian town of Alghero (unique in Italy), where it receives the name of catalan." » from the official Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua which refers to the Resolution of the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua concerning principles and criteria for protecting the name and identity of Valencian. This Resolution also mentions that fruitless debates on the language's name should be avoided. Valencian is the name used in the Valencian Community for the language which is also spoken in other places, such as Catalonia, where it is called Catalan. This is well-established officially and if reverts continue (especially from anonymous IP addresses that change and hardly justify their reverts) I will request locking of the page from anonymous users. LjL (talk)

I still don't know why you keep reverting my changes. As you can see the actual edition (mine) before saying that is the official language also says "although it can be also used to name the Catalan language[5] spoken in that area."

Also, as I said and posted before, as the Valencian Constitution says, the official language is called Valencian. Yes, it's referred to the catalan spoken in that zone (although NONE official/governmental source says this) and the article keeps saying "although it can be also used to name the Catalan language[5] spoken in that area." so I think that is not necessary to revert it while it says this and in the article says various times that is catalan.HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 23:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)

@User:HardstyleGB, are you utterly kidding me? You say I should come to the talk page, but as you can see above, I just did, and pointed out as much in my edit summary. Given you are currently being reported for possible sockpuppetry/edit warring as "mysterious" IPs keep reverting this article, I strongly recommend you step back on this.

That "the official language is called Valencian" no one is putting into doubt; only, that same language is the one that's called Catalan in other places, and it is not a different language ike you claim ("can be also used to name the Catalan language spoken in that area"). That is simply wrong. There is no separate Catalan spoken in the area; there is Valencia, which is the Catalan spoken in the area.

I have just posted an official source saying this; this source is the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua, which is as official as it gets, so, give this a rest, and stop trying to get this article locked. LjL (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish wikipedia notes, "Lengua propia es un término jurídico que alude, en distintos Estatutos de autonomía de comunidades autónomas de España, a lenguas que han sido declaradas oficiales de dicha comunidad autónoma junto con el castellano, de acuerdo con lo establecido en el artículo tercero de la Constitución española. El mismo término se utiliza también en la Ley de Ordenación del Uso de la Lengua Oficial del Principado de Andorra con relación al catalán, única lengua oficial del Estado andorrano." The English term is not "own language" but something like "official language". Ogress _smash! 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, even if "own" were the proper translation (but for the record, Wiktionary notes that it can mean "own, proper, or typical, characteristic", and "own" seems the least appropriate one here), I'm not sure how the substance of the issue would change. I'd rather we stuck to the sources, which are pretty clear on this. LjL (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I suggest to change the introduction because the last introduction is bad at all. This article can't start with "Valencian is the Catalan language as spoken in the Valencian Community[4] in Spain.[5]" because that IS NOT true. This thing has to be lower in the introduction, because the article can't start with this misleading introduction. " is the language spoken in the Valencian Community[3] in Spain and the name used to refer to the own language of the Valencian Community[4]; although it can be also used to name the Catalan language[5]" is the best introduction for this article and if you think is not, tell me what is?

Take a look at the Spanish article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valenciano Which believe me, has a lot more confrontation and the starting edit (which wasn't mine) starts with "is the name of the language spoken in the Valencian Community called catalan in the actual linguistics. But in any way "is the catalan spoken in the Valencian Community" is correct; in fact, before this "edit war" the introduction wasn't saying "is the catalan spoken in the Valencian Community"

Is exactly what you say with your AVL sources and me with my Congress and Senate sources. It's the own language but it's a derivation of catalan. MY EDIT says that is the language spoken in the Valencian Community but IT'S A DERIVATION OF CATALAN. So we both agree and now we are arguing. I don't agree with the last edit but we both agree saying that is the same language and it's a derivation and my changes keep saying that... I don't know why they get reverted without any reason. HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC +1)

So is it the same language, or is it a derivation? Those are not the same thing at all. Would you like it if we had "Valencian is a derivation of Catalan" as the intro? I wouldn't, but it would be funny if you did. You are the one creating all this ruckus for nothing, and I dare say, partly out of not even understanding what this all means in English. You have shown rudeness and malice, so right now I'd rather go back to the initial state and then, if anything, discuss a slight rewording of the intro if the "Valencian is the Catalan spoken in..." is not quite best.

But, let me reiterate: Valencian is the name of the Catalan language as spoken in the Valencian community, so the article was perfectly right about that. It is not a "derivation" nor are there two Valencian languages (one Catalan and not "not") nor any of the things you confusingly claimed. I suggest you make up your own mind first.

What the AVL says is not that "It's the own language but it's a derivation of catalan". Please read it again.

The fact that now the introduction is even clearer about Valencian being Catalan is only ironic. LjL (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What in the name of all that is linguistic is a language that is a "derivation"? Ogress _smash! 06:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"Valencian" is "Catalan", there is just one language. Some people in Valencia use the term "Valencian" to refer to their variety of it primarily for political reasons and to promote cultural identity, but it's not a term recognized by linguists (outside of Valencia). Every language has variation—regional variation, local variation, even individual variation--every person speaks a slightly different idiolect from every other person, but that doesn't make my English a different variety of English than the person sitting next to me, and it doesn't make "Texan" a different dialect than "Californian", although there might be minor regional differences in words and even in colloquial grammar. The difference between "Texan" and "Valencian" with respect to their respective majority languages is that nobody in Texas feels that they are a persecuted minority, so they are not trying to establish "Texan" as the name of the regional variant of English spoken in Texas (except with humorous intent). Valencian is Catalan, it is a regional variant of Catalan (or if you prefer, and you're willing to argue with the Barceloneses, Catalan is a regional variant of Valencian, I really don't care which term wins out although historically the cards are stacked in favor of Catalan)--but the point is, we are not talking about two languages or dialects here, but just one. The two are closer than British English is to American English (more like American and Canadian English, which have real, but extremely minor differences).

A proof of this, is what happens when the Spanish government translates certain documents into both Catalan and Valencian, as certain regulations require it to do in some cases for legal reasons. The answer is, the resulting translated documents are identical, except one says "Catalan" on the top, and the other says "Valencian". (Sometimes, a word here or there might be different, but often they are word-for-word the same.)

Now, there are perfectly understandable and valid reasons why there is a movement in Valencia to strengthen Valencian cultural identity having to do with historical persecution especially (but not only) under Franco (just as there has been for Catalonia), but what is or isn't a language is a question for linguists, not for politicians. And that is why the Spanish Senate is the very last source one should quote on whether Valencian is or isn't a language, as the Senate is populated by politicians without a single linguist among them AFAIK, and politicians rule on political and legal questions concerning Spain. Whatever they have to say has legal impact, but holds absolutely no sway whatsoever for linguistic questions. I'd rather hear what a high school language teacher in Tortosa has to say about the status of Valencian, than anybody in the Senate. The Spanish Senate could pass a law saying French was a dialect of Valencian, but that would have no impact on what linguists say. So with respect to linguistic issues, I suggest finding references from linguists commenting on Valencian and Catalan, and using them as your sources, not the Senate.

If you want to support comments about the term "Valencian" as the legally proper or legally required term to be used because the Senate or the Valencian Ayuntament passed a law about it, that's perfectly okay--go right ahead and do it, because those bodies create laws and they would be an appropriate source to back up a statement about legality. But if you want to make comments about the status of something called "Valencian" as different in some way from "Catalan" linguistically speaking, then you must find references from linguists, not from lawyers and politicians.

Finally, as far as translating "lengua propria": in some contexts that would be "indigenous language" in English; in other contexts, it might be, "[in their] own language" (e.g., "[en su] propria lengua"). If I were translating the phrase "La lengua propia de la Comunitat Valenciana es el valenciano" I would either leave out propria, and simply say, "The language of the Valencian Community is Valencian" or I would say it's the "indigenous language" if you want to emphasize it. (And beware of false friends and linguistic shift--the word "indigenous" in English has no connotation of savages with warpaint and bones through their noses, it simply means "native, originating in a particular place".) Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but Texas English (actually 2 or 3 distinct varieties) and California English are different dialects. Texas English is a variety of Southern American English while California English is a variety of Western American English. See those links and American English#Major dialect regions for more details.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 11:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Dialects" in the linguistic sense of distinct accent, yes, but hardly different languages. And variation in accent can occur in even smaller regions than a U.S. state, but that doesn't make them different languages, just different accents. Interestingly, though the U.S. has broader geographical extent, Britain has greater phonological variation, with some accents (e.g., Scouse, Geordie) sometimes considered difficult even for some other Brits to understand but nobody would claim they're not speaking English. But your point about the names given to the regional accents by linguists is well taken. My point was more about looking to linguists rather than political bodies to determine what nomenclature to use when discussing linguistic difference. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Language versus dialect

This issue appears to have been discussed a long time already. In june 2015, User:Nitsugagmx made a long series of attempts to portray Valencian as a separate language, which finally succeeded at 23 june 2015. See also User talk:Nitsugagmx#Valencian. I recommand re-adding "is the variety of Catalan" from 22 june 2015 22.20. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph above is completely inaccurate as it completely misunderstands my attempts. JorisvS accused me of trying to show Valencian as a language different from Catalan. I proved him wrong and with the help of Kwamikagami we agreed that "language spoken"could be used, that "glossonym" was a very technical term to be used and that "Catalan" could not be absent in the first section. I did not attempt to portray Valencian as a separate language at all. I clearly state that the only three things that every linguistic and legal expert in Both Catalonia and Valencian Community has agreed on are 1. Valencian and Catalan are the same language 2. This language is known as Catalan in Catalonia and 3. This language is known as Valencian in the Valencian Community. Nitsugagmx (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "form of Catalan", as less clumsy, and less biassed, than "variety of Catalan". Similarly, I might write about the "forms of English" used in England, US, India, etc.; to say that Americans speak a "variety of English" would be offensive. Maproom (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? "American is a variety of English" sounds fine to me, although in reality it'd be more like "North American". Variety is very common in reference to languages, as "form" sounds strange. "American is a form of English" sounds super weird to me. Ogress _smash! 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Maprom: Sorry, but the right word to use here has nothing to do with what sounds fine to you, me, or anybody else, but what sourced references use. Linguists use the word variety in a special sense, whereas "form" is just used in the normal English sense of the word. See the lead paragraph at Variety (linguistics) for examples of both usages. "Variety" is precisely the right term to use here.

Furthermore, Valencian is certainly not a separate language from Catalan, as demonstrated by the fact that certain Spanish documents which must be translated into both Catalan and Valencian per certain laws passed at the behest of the Valencian political community, are identical word-for-word, from beginning to end. Valencian is called a language by Valencians, strictly for political, and not for linguistic reasons. That they have the right to do that in their own language, I would not dispute, but they certainly can't tell English Wikipedia (or French, or German, or Spanish Wikipedia) how to call something in our/their languages. Valencian is a variety of Catalan like Texan is a variety of American English, which is a variety of standard English. But we don't "translate" the U.S. Constitution "into Texan"--it's just English, plain and simple. (Speaking with an accent, is not equivalent to speaking a different language.) And that's what Valencian is--it's Catalan, plain and simple, regardless what some political zealots have to say about it. They can have their way in Catalan Wikipedia (that is--maybe they can, if the non-Valencian Catalonians are in agreement with them) but they certainly cannot tell English Wikipedia that there exists such a language, especially when every non-Valencian linguist in the world says there's no such thing. Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Valencian may be the same language as Catalan, and in fact I don't dispute that in the least, but that's a different issue from how to call the language. There is nothing intrinsically indicating that the (single) language should be called "Catalan" instead of "Valencian" (in fact, some argue the name "Valencian" appeared first, I think). However, its native speakers - in the form of their governments and language institutions - have agreed that "Valencian" and "Catalan" are two equivalent names for the language, and as such, "Valencian language" is a perfectly adequate phrase, although it doesn't imply it's not the same language as Catalan. I think we should respect what native speakers have decided about their language's name, and there is no point in a "us" vs "them" thing just because this is the English Wikipedia. Native English speakers don't have a monopoly on it at all, either. LjL (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing with you on that point, either. The only caveat I would say, is that what a Spanish group has to say about what name to use for their language in Spain, is one thing, and Spanish editors on Spanish Wikipedia can come to their own decision on how to handle that there, but which term is to be used on English Wikipedia when referring to those same languages is quite another question, and we cannot be dictated to by groups speaking other languages about what to call them in English, however much sympathy we may have for their political position. The French, when wishing to be specific, call the language spoken in the United States "American" but nobody in the U.S. does that. (Just pick up a copy of an American novel in Paris, and you'll see the notice, traduit de l'américain par [name of translator].) Just as we cannot insist that the Real Academia henceforth call the name of the language spoken in Britain "English" (instead of "inglés") neither can people from Valencia dictate the name that American or British linguists use to describe their language; and the vote on that question is already in: linguists writing in English use the term "Catalan". In Spanish or Catalan Wikipedia, by all means use the term "Valencian" if that has sufficient support in Spanish sources, and we will continue to say "Catalan" for the language, the overwhelming choice of linguists in the English-speaking world. Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We had a huge discussion over this, and the consensus was that reality needs to be given priority over wishful thinking. We discuss perception too, of course, but when saying what something is, we need to be clear what it is. The wording of the long-standing consensus achieved that, and I restored it. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone considers taking part in this talk, keep in mind to read the second paragraph as it shows how inaccurate the first paragraph is. Otherwise a more general consensus has been achieved indeed. I did correct my former revert to show an even wider consesus as I wrongly did erase some important parts previously. Nitsugagmx (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording you reverted is more in line with the second paragraph than your version. It is also a more plain description of the actual situation. There is just simply nothing wrong with plainly stating that Valencian is a variety of Catalan (in the English meaning of the name). --JorisvS (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed before by Nitsugagmx and JorisvS . A third opinion was asked and we followed and accepted the advice given by kwami. Nitsugagmx (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't distort the facts. At first, you did somewhat. Later, you tried to get your preferred POV in again, which was not just reverted by myself, but also by Kwami (and now Ogress). --JorisvS (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately the facts are there for everyone to check. If the current introduction could be improved I am more than happy to discuss it. Nitsugagmx (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone can be specific in how "the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain" is a better option than "the language spoken in the Valencian Community in Spain and the name used to refer to the Catalan in that area" I would be more than grateful to improve the talk Nitsugagmx (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

But you're not discussing how the current version can be improved. You're editwarring trying to get your version in. Because you're the one who wants to have the text changed, you should not push the revert button as long as we're discussing it. Anyone else is uncollaborative and will not make the people you have to work with more sympathetic to what you're saying.

"the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain" is better because A) it is more precise, B) it is shorter, C) articles are not about names, so 'is [...] the name used to refer' is incorrectly phrased. --JorisvS (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of the article

@Joshua Jonathan: why you changed the introduction of the article without asking anyone and without making a section in the talk page ? It was the stable and consensual introduction...

The starting of the article for some months (and the stable introduction of the article as you can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082) was:

Valencian (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain. It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

While you changed it on 25 July (when I've changed the intro and I've put that is the own language, without putting is a dialect/variety of catalan) and you instead of reverting it, you directly changed it to: " is the Catalan language language spoken in the Valencian Community[4] in Spain, and the name used to refer the Catalan language[5] in that area. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish.[6] A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect. " on your revision 672980621 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621) and you made several editions one after the another changing completely the last introduction which was accepted by a lot of users which edited the article and didn't change it.

Don't revert my changes this time, I'm returning to the proper introduction which was before the last "edit war". The actual introduction is the best introduction for this article and it's saying the same as the Spanish article. Ok, I accept to not to edit to put "is the own language" and removing the catalan this time, this time I'm being neutral and I'm returning to the original article before your several editions 3 days ago.

This is the proper introduction for this article and this is how the introduction has to be, look https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082 (edition 667205082) and look at what the user @JorisvS: says: rv back to stable: discuss on talk page, that's what it is for this is the stable introduction for this article. And this is how the article looks now, by the stable introduction and I also say that this introduction is the proper for this article. Thanks --HardstyleGB (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Reply by JJ: @HardstyleGB:

• You were blocked for 48 hours; first thing you do after this block is coming straight back to this article an revert to your preferred version;
• I've explained my changes above; if you missed this explanation, something's wrong with your competence to edit Wikipedia;
• I've also explained that there was a series of back-and-forth editing in june; to call this " a stable version" is also a sign that you've got a problem in seeing and reporting what's going on;
• "a distinct language from Catalan" is incorrect English;
• With your edit of 28 july 2015 you:

• removed sourced info: "valenciano, Estatuto de Autonomía de la Comunitat Valenciana ";
• Replaced

"Valencian is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by some people from the Valencian Community, even though linguists consider it to be the same language, which generates some political controversy."

by

"It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy."

Ergo, your revert is pointless, in several regards. @EdJohnston: can you take further care of this? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And then you revert again ....... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

HardstyleGB: @Joshua Jonathan:

• False, you are lying again. This article kept the same introduction until the day I've started changing the article aspect, then you arrived and you done what you wanted in this article without reverting to previous changes, and now you accuss me? I was unblocked yesterday, not today.
• Anyways as I've been saying, I didn't revert nothing and only returned to the previous stable edition, from @JorisvS: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082
• You are changing without asking anyone or discuting anything, and then you come here to report me and to say I edit what I want? My last edition was saying: (and the edition who got me blocked for 48h) was:

Valencian (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the language spoken in the Valencian Community in Spain and the name used to refer to the own language of the Valencian Community; although it can be also used to name the Catalan language in that area. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

• And now is:

Valencian' (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain. It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

as the last stable and consensual edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082 which you've changed when you wanted after making at least 10 editions in the same day: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&action=history

• I've also will warn @EdJohnston: because you've edited the last consensual introduction and you put what all you want and you don't reverted my changes to the last stable edition.

HardstyleGB (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan edit warring and accuses me

@EdJohnston: I will made a better explanation. I DID NOT change anything because I wanted! @Joshua Jonathan: did !!! I will explain it here calmly because this time he is wrong.

This was the last stable and consensual introduction in the Valencian language article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082 And I only returned to this intro. This intro was the stable introduction until Joshua Johnson arrived the "edit war day" of 25 July and he instead of reverting my changes he made 10 followed changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&action=history and in one of them he changed the introduction without asking anyone and without discussing it in the talk page. He is the only one making editions with no support from other users because several users edited the article from the last stable edition (667205082) and then Joshua Johnson did change it without the support from any other user here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621

Yes, I've made editions who cost me the block of 48h, but those ones were saying:

Valencian (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the language spoken in the Valencian Community in Spain and the name used to refer to the own language of the Valencian Community; although it can be also used to name the Catalan language in that area. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

While the consensued and the actual edition I've made (according to the last stable edit before the editions of Joshua) is :

Valencian' (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain. It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

Which is quite different from the one that costed me the 48h block and this edition was supported by a lot of users because it remained untouched until this edition of Joshua made 3 days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621

Now he is accusing me to be edit warring and it's saying me "what I pint here" taking advantage of my situation while he is writing anything he wants in the article without the support of any user. --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to explain; see also WP:TLDR. Your last edit only moved a (slightly changed) sentence upwards; what's the point? I think you should take a break and stay away for a while. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Comment from an uninvolved third party: Gentlemen, I looked through the edit history and I'm aware of the recent issues here. Currently there is very little difference between the versions desired by each of you. Here's my take on it. Fist of all, "variety", rather than "form", is the proper linguistic term here. Secondly the sentence

• Valencian is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by some people from the Valencian Community, even though linguists consider it to be the same language, which generates some political controversy.

is not a very well-formed English sentence in either version. Valencian is often considered a distinct language from Catalan... makes it sound as if it's a totally separate language from the area of Catalan. It is better written:

• Some from the Valencian community often consider Valencian to be distinct from Catalan, although linguists view them as varieties of a single language, which generates some political controversy.

It makes little difference whether this sentence is in the first or second paragraph. I will make these changes and perhaps we all can consider this a suitable compromise.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, "variety" was your preferred phrase; sorry, I lost track. It's fine with me, just like the change of the sentence. NB: I've added a header, to separate your proposal from Hardstyle's comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm @HardstyleGB:. @WilliamThweatt: I've thanked your last edit. But, I think that it would be better if your edit had the same phrase as Joshua's (673523884) previous edit. I preferred variety instead of form and Joshua preferred the phrase to stay in the 2nd paragraph instead of the 1st paragraph as it was the last consensuated edit.

So, I changed the phrase to "Valencian is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by some people from the Valencian Community" as it was in the edit of Joshua because I'm valencian and now says "some of the people" while "is often considered" is better according to the reality (most people think that valencian is not catalan, you can see it in this source from the official Survey Centre of the government of Spain ) where you can go to: "PREGUNTA 23" Respecto a la identidad del valenciano, ¿con qué frase se identifica Ud. en mayor medida? (translated: Regarding the identity of the Valencian language, which phrase identifies you in a greater extent ?

Es una lengua diferente y diferenciada del catalán 64.4 (1029) La misma lengua que se habla en Cataluña e Islas Baleares 29.9 (478) N.S. 5.1 (82) N.C. 0.5 (8) TOTAL 100.0 (1597)

"It's the same as catalan" is the 2nd option which achieved 29.90% of votes while "it's a different language and it's differenced from catalan" is 64.4%. This was an official CIS survey (CIS is an official government source) so I don't edited nothing unless that phrase which is more closer to the reality of the Valencian language. So I think that for this reason (and I've put the proper source) "is often considered" would me more appropiate than "some people".

Do we have a consensus, @Joshua Jonathan: ? --HardstyleGB (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

No, we don't. I jaust wrote that WilliamThweatt's change of the senttence is fine with me. And EdJohnston jus told you first to reach concencus before making changes; you really don't learn, do you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: but it would be more appropiate to have the phrase from your previous edit... look at the source I've put to you before it says that 64% of Valencian people say they are different languages so I think that often is more appropiate than Some. Anyways if you want revert it, I don't care. I will pass from this. You only are on the basis that i've got blocked 48h ago and your only desire is to see me banned so I will stop this because I prefer to have my actual wikipedia account instead of creating other so do whatever you do. But I will say one more thing. Ed Johnson warned me, yes (now I've seen that he says if I want to do something I have to discuss it and this is what I'm doing) why you don't get any warnings from him ? You edited 10 consecutive times this article changing it to your own preference and no one has warned you. Why? Can you tell me why?? You even opened a new discussion, you have edited 10 consecutive times (as anyone can check in the edit list of the article) the article as you wanted... but whatever.

Anyways I don't break the 3 revert rule and also this is not considered an edit war... so do what you wanna do, i've shown you that the majority of the people consider it another language so it's more appropiate to put "often" but if not... whatever. I'm out. --HardstyleGB (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Then it should be "A majority of the Valencian people considers Valencian to be a distinct language from Catalan," or something like that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Perfect! Then I will exactly copy and paste the phrase to the article (first I will wait to your response), and also I will add the reference from the source from above. Do you agree with it? Also @WilliamThweatt:, do you agree with it too? Change the actual phrase to "A majority of the Valencian people considers Valencian to be a distinct language from Catalan" like Joshua proposed? Do you consider it acceptable too? The source which agrees with this is this one: http://www.cis.es/cis/opencms/-Archivos/Marginales/2560_2579/2560/e256000.html (as I've translated above)

I think it's the most appropiate phrase and I also agree with it, I think that it would be acceptable by all of us. Anyways I will wait for your response. --HardstyleGB (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted HardstyleGB's latest edit, not because I object to content, but because, as I pointed out above, that sentence is ambiguous and not a well-formed English sentence. Assuming the sources back up the "majority" claim (I haven't looked; you two can hash that out if you're so inclined) Joshua Jonathan is correct that it should be:

• The majority of the Valencian community consider Valencian to be distinct from Catalan, although linguists view them as varieties of a single language, which generates some political controversy.

Joshua is also correct that "often" is inappropriate because it implies that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok @WilliamThweatt: so we all agree. Good, that's what I like, not arguing. So finally we have a consensus! Great. I will copy & paste your phrase and I will add it. Regards! --HardstyleGB (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The source says (asks):

PREGUNTA 23

Respecto a la identidad del valenciano, ¿con qué frase se identifica Ud. en mayor medida?

. % . (N) Es una lengua diferente y diferenciada del catalán 64.4 (1029) La misma lengua que se habla en Cataluña e Islas Baleares 29.9 (478) N.S. 5.1 (82) N.C. 0.5 (8) TOTAL 100.0 (1597)

At first sight, it seems to be okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that should be reworded to reflect the fact that that's the result of a survey dating from 2004. The equivalent survey in 2003 showed 52.9% and 2002 showed 67.1%. As well as sample variation, 11 years is a long time in public opinion. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Broken ref link in lead sentence

The first sentence references Wheeler 2006 p. 186 via a shortened footnote but there is no Wheeler 2006 in the Bibliography. As this defines what Valencian is, it should be urgently sourced, or altered if a source cannot be found.

Further, it should summarize something covered in the body (as required by WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO) but I see nothing in the body about a basic definition of what Valencian is, certainly not in the first section of the body, where it logically would go. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the cite is "M.H. Wheeler, "Catalan", in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2006" and is in the current article, just not formatted properly. Ogress _smash! 05:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reorganize the lead to summarize the article

The lead should be reorganized to summarize the article, as in its current format does not follow MOS:INTRO. I propose a stylistic change that does not affect content significantly, so should hopefully avoid any of the pitfalls of recent content disputes, while improving the article in adhering to guidelines about format of the WP:LEAD.

The problem I see is that the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article but as currently constituted, almost the entirety of the lead is not a summary at all, but rather makes points that are not covered in the body of the article.

I'm not arguing here for changing any actual words of the article--I'm well aware of previous sometimes contentious discussions and I don't wish to enter into that or takes sides on the words that have been agreed upon. This is about organizational style and proper placement of the words, adhering to WP guidelines about what goes in the Intro, and what goes in the body. Just about everything currently in the summary more properly belongs in the body of the article. One clue that this is so, is the fact that there are nine inline citations in the lead, but in general, citations in the lead are not necessary, because the lead repeats or summarizes material in the body that is already cited there. The reason these citations are in the lead now, is because the material in the lead does not appear in the body, where it should be located.

To fix this, I suggest we reorganize the lead. As a first step, we simply create a new first section in the body (call it, "Introduction", if you like) and move all the text of the lead after the first sentence into the Introduction. That will leave a lead of only one sentence, which is too short of course. For step two of the reorganization, we expand the lead, summarizing the most important parts of the article. This could be discussed to come up with a consensus, but imho it would say something about the term "Valencian" from a linguistic standpoint, a sentence or two about history and literature, briefly summarize geographic distribution, a very brief comment about the extent of phonology and vocabulary differences without getting into any of the specifics covered in the body, and something about AVL and official status, the population survey about the meaning of the word, and the controversy surrounding it.

This would be a much better introduction to the article, which covers almost none of this, while covering instead some details that ought to be in the article, but are not. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's what step one would look like, and involves only the addition of a single word, the H2 Header '==Introduction==' after the first sentence. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And here's step two, with the Lead now summarizing the article. Note that there is no new content other than minor connecting words to make it flow; this is just a summary of ideas already in the body of the article. (I now see that the Introduction section in the body now looks iffy, and some parts of it should be redistributed; a step three in the works...) Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, see the step three version here. The idea here, is that the old Lead didn't summarize the article, but none of it was deleted, the content of the old lead is now in the body in the appropriate section, with all original references intact. The new lead summarizes the content of the article, per MOS:INTRO. (Turns out, we didn't really need the "Introduction" section--that ended up being a "halfway-house" for stuff moved out of the old Lead; everything that was there has now been distributed into the appropriate individual sections within the article.) I would like to write this version over the existing article; if you have different ideas how to improve the Lead, please comment. Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@HardstyleGB, Joshua Jonathan, EdJohnston, WilliamThweatt, LjL, Ogress, JaumeR, and Valenciano: Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't really help you with your query about the lead's references, I can't access any of the books.

Regarding the whole article, I would suggest to start by splitting the linguistic and political concepts of "Valencian" like the Moldovan case (see "Moldovan" – Moldovan people, Moldovan language and Moldavian dialect). I think Valencian should be better a disambiguation page. — Jɑume ^(dis-me) 02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Valencian language" article could start like this:

Valencian (valencià; full form: llengua valenciana, "Valencian language") is the official and traditional name of the Catalan language in the Valencian Community (Spain). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 03:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That runs afoul of WP:DICT, as it would make the article about the word "Valencian" rather than about the Valencian dialect. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I restored the long-standing consensus, which we achieved after an extended debate. Sorry, but reality takes precedence over wishful thinking. When saying what something is, we need to say what it is.

As for the various suggestions here, TLDR. But I have no problem with changes as long as they don't try to obfuscate reality for political purposes. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand, and I think you're right, so we could just leave it for now until we get more information. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 03:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Valencian = Catalan

I would suggest to you now to solve the neutrality problem and reflect the following facts by the following order:

1. Valencian (language) is a synonym of Catalan (as the AVL states)
2. Valencian (i.e. Valencian dialect(s)) is a set of varieties of Catalan (as most linguists agree)
3. Valencian (language) is official in the Valencian Country (Valencian Statute of Autonomy: També es definix la llengua valenciana com a pròpia de la Comunitat Valenciana i l'idioma valencià, junt amb el castellà, els dos idiomes oficials. S'incorporen a l'Estatut les institucions creades després de la promulgació de la Llei Orgànica 5/1982 i al mateix temps es ressenya en l'idioma valencià el nom de totes les institucions valencianes perquè siguen utilitzades així, tant quan s'escriga, o es parle, en valencià com en castellà.)
4. Valencian has a standard variety
5. Some groups advocate it is a separate language from Catalan (Catalan language secessionism / Valencian language controversy)

— Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That is completely false. Valencian language is a language totally independent from any other. The Spanish Constitution recognizes it as its own language and official language and the Statute of the Valencian Community as well.

Your only argument is that you are Catalan independentista? On Wikipedia, you leave your ideology at home. Here we are serious. El Valenciano es el idioma oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana.

--Kipsde (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kipsde:Once again, you need to provide a source that Valencian is completely different. Legally, yes, something @Nuvolet: agreed to. However, you need to back it up that it is a completly different language. The WP:ONUS is on you. TheKaloo (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There are several reasons and official sources to mantain that Catalan and Valencian are different dialects from the same language. First, common sense (both are completely mutually intelligent, except for a few regional words, differences that are considerably smaller than with different varieties of Spanish and that also happen within, for example, of "Catalonia's Catalan"). The official academy for the Spanish language, which is used to define any legal terms, also considers them dialects of the same language . Both the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua and the Institue for Catalan Studies, the official and higher institutions regarding Valencian-Catalan in each region, define them as dialects of the same language . Saugch (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Phonology

Hello.

• Do we have a source that confirms the presence of a labiodental approximant [v̞] in Valencian?
• We seem to be using extremely narrow transcription. Is that really necessary?
• Do we need to transcribe [ʑ] as [ɕ̬]?
• Are [j, w] really allophones of /i, u/? Peter238 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, you can find ʋ on Saborit's book, and I think it's also on Recasen's book: bona vesprada can be pronounced bɒnɒ/ɛ (ʋ)esˈpɾɑ(ː) (I omit vowel centralization)
• Yes, because it can be voiceless in some dialects, in others it can have an intermediate and imprecise sound
• [j, w] are pronounced pretty much like in English but they are treated as allophones on Catalan phonology

— Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 04:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It might be worth to add Valencian to labiodental approximant when you have time. Peter238 (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't see your question about the transcriptions. I'd say we need a narrow transcription if we want to reflect the real pronunciation of Valencian. Aeusoes1 also agreed with this, because it's the most sensible thing to do, also, they can't be extremely narrow, just narrow. The IPA lacks many symbols so we need to use all sorts of diacritics and suprasegmentals. Valencian has a rich phonology (with more than 100 phones), we need to show it and be more transparents :) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 05:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if you say it's really needed then I guess there's not much problem with it. By "extremely narrow" I meant using e.g. [ɪ̝, ʊ̝] when [ï, ü] or, even better, [i̠, u̟] would suffice ([i, u] do not always denote fully close vowels), but I won't argue (they mean the same, and use the same amount of diacritics (1)). Peter238 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not extremely narrow, these symbols are perfect for Valencian as o and e merge with i and u and many of us confuse their actual realization (e.g. vesita instead of standard visita, vecicleta (with /v/) instead of bicicleta, monocipal, instead of Standard municipal, suspira, instead of standard sospira, etc.), this also occurs in Brazil and many other Romance dialects, are you aware of that? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 05:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Our scholars say that /i/ and /u/ are more open and centralized in Catalan than in Castilian, in Valencia and the Balearics (perhaps also in some accents from Catalonia) , these sounds can be further open and centralized — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 05:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano

Is it very relevant we indicate a Spanish translation of the term "Valencian"? :) Also, what's the pronunciation of valenciano, is "v" pronounced with a /v/, and "c" with /s/? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're asking that second question, but it's most probably [balenˈθjano]. Peter238 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking because this article is about "Valencian", and it says valenciano is an endonym. Also, if it's an endonym of Valencian, it could be pronounced according to the phonetic rules of Valencian, couldn't it? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I pronounce it in many ways, but the way I use more now is [βʌ̞̈lˠe̞ⁿˈs̠^θjæ̞̈no̟] — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... actually now I'm more confused than you, but if valenciano is a Spanish term, then I guess it wouldn't be even used in Valencian, as it's just a word from a different language. But it's all a guess really. Maybe simply ask people from your city? Peter238 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of them pronounce it like me, others pronounce it in a different way. The Valencian Country has many types of people, so it's difficult to establish a standard pronunciation pattern for it. Just out of curiosity, doesn't your pronunciation include some diacritics? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I used a broad phonetic transcription, so no. Peter238 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that because you live in the North. Perhaps the user that added it could transcribe it for us, with diacritrics of course ^.^ — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I live in Poland, if that's what you're asking. Peter238 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think that's a problem for me, we can always exchange our knowledge about languages and other stuff — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 02:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction error data

Most valencian citizens believe that the Valencian is a language other than Catalan. And picks the wikipedia in Spanish , and is duly justified ( see link) . Therefore it must be corrected where it says that a minority of the valencians thinks it's a different language. Thank you.

link: http://www.ara.cat/paisvalencia/valencians-catala-valencia-llengues-diferents_0_1139286353.html https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valenciano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.16.2 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Transition from overly narrow to semi-narrow transcription

Hi. As the title says, I've made a transition from overly narrow to semi-narrow transcription - see [4]. Something similar was attempted over a year ago, but all of it was reverted by @Nuvolet: without any valid reason whatsoever. Nuvolet seemed to operate from a profound misunderstanding of IPA symbols (that they represent some fixed, exact pronunciation, both when it comes to the cardinal vowels and Spanish vowels.) You can see how confused he was (is?) about that here, here and here.

In reality, symbols such as [i] cover a wide range of pronunciations - see the vowel chart on the right. To argue otherwise is to profoundly misunderstand the IPA.

Here's Handbook of the IPA, page 13:

Since the vowel space is continuous, it is a matter of chance whether a vowel in a language exactly coincides with one of the reference points symbolized on the quadrilateral. In particular, languages may use vowels which are similar to, but not as peripheral as the reference points indicated by the cardinal vowels. If detailed phonetic transcription is required, most vowels in a language have to be placed in relation to a reference vowel, for instance 'a vowel centralized and lowered from cardinal [e]. This description can be symbolized by adding diacritics (see section 2.8) to the cardinal vowel symbol: [ë̞].

The same applies to e.g. using the dental diacritic on [t, d], or writing the alveolo-palatal lateral as [l̠ʲ] when [ʎ] is perfectly good enough.

Here are two blogposts written by John Wells, a highly respected British phonetician (I'd think that he knows far more about phonetics than we do):

March 2009:

There is not some great phoneme system in the sky from which particular languages select their phonemes, with one IPA symbol always standing for the same thing. Languages differ. We use the symbol t for the aspirated alveolar plosive of English and the unaspirated dental plosive of Russian because it is simpler to do so. We use the same symbol l for the clear alveolar lateral of German, the variably-coloured alveolar lateral of English, and the retracted post-alveolar lateral of Korean (yesterday’s blog), because it is simpler to do that than to festoon the transcription with diacritics. It is better to state such information in the conventions that accompany a phonetic transcription rather than in the transcription itself. In a language that distinguishes dental and alveolar (or postalveolar) sounds, we obviously need to symbolize their place of articulation explicitly. In a language that doesn’t, we don’t.

September 2009:

Just as the symbol [t] has to represent sounds that may be aspirated or unaspirated, dental or alveolar, according to the language, so we must demand flexibility in vowel symbols such as [a].

If it is essential to symbolize the central quality explicitly, then we have diacritics available: [ä] or [ɐ̞] or [ɑ̈]. But it’s better to state such details once and for all in the transcriptional conventions, not repeatedly in a transcribed text.

Sorry Nuvolet, but unless you have a valid reason to reinstate parts of the extremely narrow transcription (we surely don't need it all), my transcription stays. "I disagree" is not an argument.

Please do not revert my edits without addressing the problem. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the phonology section has some problems concerning its verification, however I'm going to try to fix this and add more references as soon as I get back from my vacation.

The editions done by you (Mr KEBAB) can be classified as substantially unsystematic and inappropriate in the context of the usage and reality of the Valencian phonology. Therefore I'm going to suggest to leave the version prior to your editions (until I add the corresponding sources). This proposal is optional since I can improve this article from the current status and re-add all the content you've deleted (in a similar way to what I've done with the Catalan schwa /ə/).

In addition to the reasons I've already mentioned on the Castilian phonology article (before you abandoned the discussion), I'm going to explain (again) why narrow transcriptions should be used (i.e. over "semi-narrow" and broad ones) on certain pages and sections:

1. A narrow transcription shows the real (in-depth) pronunciation of a particular language compared to a general transcription which shows a quick sample or key some transcribers use for a specific language. (Showing the real pronunciation on certain pages is very useful and informative for users or readers interested on phonology and cultural articles, especially for the Valencian Argentinian Graciela Ferrer (who has been discriminated)[5] in the case she wishes to see this info.
2. The IPA uses diacritics for a specific reason as you explain, and even that it's possible to do some abbreviations as we already do on the IPA keys I don't encourage this practice on explanatory pages. Moreover, I don't agree with your solution, and especially I don't agree with the creation of own personal conventions (don't take this personal, but I don't think it is neither positive nor professional to do this)
3. I don't really understand what's a semi-narrow transcription and how you've created a convention for Valencian. (I prefer clear and transparent answers over certain inventions and intermediate solutions).
4. You inconsistently say to not use diacritics, and you use the diacritics that suits you (e.g. you replaced [ɪ, ʊ] by [i̽, u̽]). Thence the inconsistency of your proposal.

Furthermore, I would like to add some advices for you to take into consideration if you like:

• Avoid doing random editions and deleting sourced contents (like the schwa sound in Catalan).

• Avoid being "choosy" over the languages you're contesting.

• Change your way of discussing (like doing fake accusations) and avoid insisting over subjects you gave up in the past (e.g. Talk:Castilian phonology article).

To conclude I would like to thank you for taking your time to explain your point and showing your interest in Valencian and Catalan, however your contributions are wrong and unsuitable here and therefore they shall be reverted or modified. Greetings. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not confused at all. I have a more than average (i.e. advanced) knowledge of the IPA and Valencian is my mothertongue. As per your user page your knowledge of Valencian is non-existant (but that's ok, you're free to learn this language if you wish so though, I could recommend you some books). Btw, are you also speaking on behalf of my previous wiki-stalker (Peter238)? And are you his metempsychosis? :) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JaumeR: (Please ping me when you respond).

This proposal is optional since I can improve this article from the current status and re-add all the content you've deleted - Almost everything on Wikipedia is more or less optional. It's like starting your response with "that's your opinion". It's obvious (though it's only partially my opinion). So you're saying that you're going to WP:EDITWAR over it. Great. Also, you can't re-add all of it, because among all the stuff I removed there are WP:OR statements that were tagged as such a year ago. You can't reinstate them without providing sources - see WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

A narrow transcription shows the real (in-depth) pronunciation of a particular language compared to a general transcription which shows a quick sample or key some transcribers use for a specific language. - This doesn't mean that we have to use it. I'll take words of John Wells over yours here, as I should.

(Showing the real pronunciation on certain pages is very useful and informative for users or readers interested on phonology and cultural articles, especially for the Valencian Argentinian Graciela Ferrer (who has been discriminated)[6] in the case she wishes to see this info. - As far as I can see this has nothing to do with what we're discussing (also, since you apparently know that I don't speak Catalan [I don't], why would you give me a link to an article written in Catalan? The best I can do is to put it through Google Translate, which is garbage.)

The IPA uses diacritics for a specific reason as you explain, and even that it's possible to do some abbreviations as we already do on the IPA keys I don't encourage this practice on explanatory pages. Moreover, I don't agree with your solution, and especially I don't agree with the creation of own personal conventions (don't take this personal, but I don't think it is neither positive nor professional to do this) - I think it's dishonest to say that. I'd bet money that your convention doesn't follow the sources either. Hardly any scholar would write [e̠] everywhere for an [e̠] that doesn't contrast with [e]. It's just not something that's commonly done. Sorry, but you really do seem to misunderstand the IPA and/or how it's applied in the real world.

I don't really understand what's a semi-narrow transcription and how you've created a convention for Valencian. (I prefer clear and transparent answers over certain inventions and intermediate solutions). - A semi-narrow transcription is a transcription that is somewhere between broad and narrow, usually a bit more narrow than broad. And again - haven't you created an OR transcriptional convention first? Don't tell me that your sources use such a narrow transcription. If so, I'd like a different user to confirm that.

You inconsistently say to not use diacritics, and you use the diacritics that suits you (e.g. you replaced [ɪ, ʊ] by [i̽, u̽]). Thence the inconsistency of your proposal. - I think you're referring to some old edit to this article that has since been corrected (EDIT: I mean exactly the symbols [i̽, u̽], which, I think, are not in the article anymore). The current version uses narrow transcription in the vowel table and semi-narrow or broad transcription in the rest of the article.

Avoid doing random editions and deleting sourced contents (like the schwa sound in Catalan). - You're being a bit dishonest. My edit to mid central vowel removed Catalan because you've never provided full citations, therefore the entries counted as unsourced and could've been removed by anyone. Not that I have to explain myself, but I would probably reinstate Catalan with the JIPA article or Wheeler as a source sometime later.

Avoid being "choosy" over the languages you're contesting. - I'm sorry... what? I don't think that is any of your business. Editors are free to edit in any areas of Wikipedia they choose. Also, when you write something like that, don't complain about being 'stalked' (whatever you meant by that) later in the message. It just doesn't add up.

Change your way of discussing (like doing fake accusations) and avoid insisting over subjects you gave up in the past (e.g. Talk:Castilian phonology article). - Specify which 'accusations' are fake. I didn't give up the discussion on Talk:Spanish phonology because I wanted to, I did it because I felt (Redacted) that you were behaving as if you WP:OWNED the article and that you were ignoring the opinions of reputable scholars. (Redacted) But if you find something I wrote insulting, then expecting an apology is fair enough and I'm sorry. I'm trying to be more neutral in my words than before.

To conclude I would like to thank you for taking your time to explain your point and showing your interest in Valencian and Catalan, however your contributions are wrong and unsuitable here and therefore they shall be reverted or modified. - You are not the owner of this article. This is not your personal blog. Also, this is not about what 'I write' but the opinion of scholars more knowledgeable than you and me. (Also, this is quite insulting - you're essentially saying 'thanks for stating your irrelevant opinion, but things will be my way because I feel that I own this article because it feels personal to me'. Sorry but that is invalid thinking.)

As per your user page your knowledge of Valencian is non-existant (but that's ok, you're free to learn this language if you wish so though, I could recommend you some books). I make absolutely no statement on whether I speak Catalan (Valencian) or not (though I don't, you're right). This is not about my knowledge of Valencian (which is irrelevant in this case) but about what reputable sources have to say about the issue. This not about you or me but the encyclopedia itself. Again, please read WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BURDEN.

I think the best solution is for a person different than me or you to check the sources and edit the article according to them. I can't access Saborit Vilar and Recasens is an incomplete citation (though if that book is what I think that it is, there's a Google Books preview of it). Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, @Mr KEBAB:

I shall reply by dividing my comments into several parts in a similar way to your previous answer(s).

1. That's not what I'm saying. Reverting and modifying your editions (once I add the corresponding references) wouldn't mean going into war since several of your contributions about Valencian are utterly wrong and inexact (according to sources). Additionally, I don't think there were any OR statement tags, just a headline citation label which I deleted for being unnecessary as I've explained on my talk page.
2. You can take the words you prefer Mr KEBAB, but your representation of semi-narrow transcription doesn't exist in the the contexts you might want. Moreover, AFAIK there is no such concept (semi-narrow) in phonetics: it is either broad or narrow,[7] so I'd suggest you to avoid obtruding with personal inventions. As you have probably noticed, Catalan along with Spanish already use a narrow transcription (that's the reason we transcribe lenition and use brackets instead of slashes, although in general transcriptions we tend to simplify excessive detail - but not in explanatory pages until you started to contest this practice). Concerning the diacritics deletion and using the diacritics you want (like the ones I mention above) is totally nonsense, I don't understand it.
3. I will try to translate some books for you. As I said on previous talks, you're welcome to learn this language.
4. It's not dishonest if a source mentions these sounds but the author avoids to use it in further (broad) transcriptions. And that's not the case, every phonetician uses its own symbols and diacritics. Do you understand the convention used by Tomás Navarro Tomás you added for Spanish? And what principle did you follow to interprete and abbreviate his symbols? Concerning Recasens' works, I'll add a reference for every sound when I procede to improve the phonology section. The author uses both a narrow and broad transcription, as well as his own personal transcriptions (which is not intended to omit the real pronunciation).
5. Could you add a source that explains what are semi-narrow or semi-broad transcriptions? And well, no, I haven't... My own creation were the central (and near-front and near-back) vowels symbols I used to describe the vowel harmony in southern Valencian. Those creations are based on several statements that point unstressed vowels are more centralized. I might have to write my own book in the future to add these specific symbols :)
6. Which old edits do you mean? Your recent edits followed an order so I don't think you re-added those symbols by reverting other users. [i̽, u̽] (which should be transcribed more often with the lowering diacritic except when found in unstressed syllables in which case are further lowered and centralised) are narrower than [ɪ, ʊ]... Do you understand why you are/were inconsistent?
7. Why? There were some citations to some books/authors, however the books were not listed below. I think if you had good intentions you could've added a comment on the discussion page or check the Catalan phonology link/page instead of deleting the whole thing...
8. Ok, I understand that, however I'm going to recommend you to be more sensible and understanding with the subject. By stalking I meant when you tried to boycott my editions and follow my steps in a fanatical way (see your recent [wrong] edition at San Vicente del Raspeig / Sant Vicent del Raspeig, your veto to Catalonia's infobox [by supporting a user who had been involved in canvassing], the refusal to use a useful map I created, etc.) which IMO is not appropriate to do, especially if you are/were driven by rage and revenge.
9. Go to my talk page Mr KEBAB. You have incorrectly accused me of vandalism for deleting redundant headline tags that were already displayed at the beginning of the article... And that's not the case, the Spanish phonology page had been following some guidelines for years that you wanted to change abruptly, however you didn't have enough support for it. If I recall that discussion there was another user who rejected to defend your proposal.
10. I'm not the owner no, I was just trying to be polite. My intention is to help to direct or organise the Catalan-Valencian project on the English Wikipedia, not to own it. It didn't sound that way to me though, and I was trying to say that even if you've done an effort to solve an issue, your contributions were not fully right (perhaps due to certain inexperience with the Catalan language). Thanks for apologising, that's kind you've done that. If you feel I've said something I might've offended you in the past I also apologise (I don't apologise if you misunderstand me), however my position towards you is going to be distant, unless you improve more the way you act.
11. This should be solved once the sources are added.
12. I agree with you, anyone is welcome to contribute and check sources. Concerning the narrow transcription issue, a solution perhaps would be to avoid transcribing boundless terms and use a text with both narrow ("proper narrow") and broad transcriptions. I think I might try to create a phonology article for Valencian and simplify the phonology section on this page since it could become too large and could confuse other readers who might be interested on a different topic about Valencian. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

reverting editions

I do not know what Mr Kebab means telling "rv most likely a ref falsification" concerning my edition but when people revert other people's editions, they should, at least, argue concerning the articles or the contents in the articles.

--Penelope08 (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Penelope08: Reference falsification is misrepresenting what the reference used to back up a certain statement says. Are your edits in alignment with Wheeler (2005)? If they aren't, they must be reverted. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

in alignment with Wheeler (2005) ??? I really do not know what are you talking about, and for me this is only an article in wikipedia, my only interesting in editing is to contribute to sharing acknowledgement --Penelope08 (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Reverting. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Valencian. 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/20100930022057/http://www.avl.gva.es/PDF/Diccionari/Oral.pdf to http://www.avl.gva.es/PDF/Diccionari/Oral.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161214031455/http://www.racv.es/vcia/vista-listado-academicos-numero to http://www.racv.es/vcia/vista-listado-academicos-numero
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003807/http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/wp18-def-ang.pdf to http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/wp18-def-ang.pdf

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) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Valencian and Catalan have the same 'orthography', but that/literacy alone cannot be for saying 'intelligibility'

This is common sense. The two dialects or languages understand each other through literacy. The article is wrong about them being only dialects, given that even GRAMMAR goes two ways, even beyond 'pronunciation'. ALSO, the standardizing groups got em political motives, needless to say; they ain't true linguists. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

About the introductory paragraph

There are many mistakes in the introductory paragraph. First and foremost, it is misleading to say that 'it's considered a Catalan dialect by the RAE and many linguists'. The fact that Catalan and Valencian are just two names for the same language is not simply the opinion of many linguists, but the academic consensus. There is no serious ongoing debate on whether they should be treated as separate languages: such debate takes place outside academia, grounded on political reasons. Saying that this is the opinion of 'many' linguists is as misleading as saying that evolution is just the opinion of many biologists. Despite appearences, such a claim is not neutral. Besides, the academic consensus is not that Valencian is a dialect: the AVL (the official academic institution regulating Valencian) states that the name 'Valencian' may refer to either Catalan language as a whole or to the set of varieties, including the standard, employed in the Valencia Community (you just have to take a look at reference 7 or 11). Valencian has many dialects and other kinds of varieties, and saying it is a dialect is as wrong as thinking that American English (which includes the many dialects of America as well as the standard variety or General American) is just a single dialect. Finally, I am not sure about the relevance of the statement 'it's considered as well different and a separate language from Catalan by a majority of the people of the Valencian Community (including non-speakers)'. Even if this is a majority opinion, this information only concerns sociological and sociolinguistic issues, and it is irrelevant for a purely linguistic description. Therefore, notwithstanding the importance of these data, it is unclear why they should be presented in contrast with the academic consensus, which only touches on descriptive linguistic issues. Besides, these data are based on a single survey from five years ago. In the absence of further studies on the topic, I think it should be placed under the section 'Politico-Linguistic controversy'. I will proceed to do some changes.

I don't agree with your changes. They are very political biased towards nationalism. Wikipedia should remain neutral. And right now it's perfect, the historical dialect and later it's mentioned a dialect of Catalan. But it shouldn't be in the first phrase. It's not correct since the Valencian Constitution says Valencian is the name of the regional language. And it still says it's a Catalan dialect but not in the first phrase. Neutral, not political. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.230.157 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I added also your AVL reference now, which is mentioned and explained in the 2nd paragraph. But as you can see even in the box from the right you can see "Catalan variety" or "Catalan speaking territories" above even the Valencian aknowledge in the Valencian Community map so I don't see why there is any reason to say so many times the same thing in the first paragraph, since it's mentioned already various times just in the upper part of the wiki page.

Is Valencian an historical name for the language spoken in the Valencian Community? Yes. It's the co-official language amongst with Spanish in the official constitution of the Valencian government? Yes. It's a Catalan dialect? Yes. All of these 3 things are mentioned already in the 1st paragraph. All I can see it seems completely neutral now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.230.157 (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Before accusing someone of being pollitically biased towards nationalism, you should read the comment first. In the first place, I never said it was a dialect: as you may check if you bother reading the references provided (the ones of the AVL), Valencian is, linguistically speaking, not a dialect of Catalan but just a name for the varieties (including the many dialects) of Catalan spoken in the Valencian Community, including the standard. The linguistic consensus does not say either that it is a dialect nor a language on its own, and that is what I wanted to correct. I thought the comparison with American English in my comment made it clear. Anyway, you are right that it should not be mentioned so many times in the first paragraph, but the first line should reflect the academic definition, just as in all the other cases of pluricentric languages.

In the second place, my main concern was with the word 'many' in 'many linguists consider...'. As I said above, the word 'many' implies that there is no definite consensus on the matter ('many' could mean 'most', but also 'a few' or 'half'). But there is no academic debate in this case, just as there is no debate in Geography on whether the Earth is round or flat.

In the third place, I don't know what you mean by 'Valencian Constitution'. As far as I can tell, the Valencian Community is not a country but an autonomous region of Spain, which means that it does not have a constitution. What it does have is a Statute of Autonomy, which says that Valencian is co-official with Spanish. Does this mean that, legally speaking, Valencian has a separate status, that it is legally different from Catalan? No more than Spanish and Castillian, I guess: the Spanish constitution never mentions the Spanish language, only refers to it as 'Castillian'; does this mean that the first line of the Wikipedia article 'Castillian' should not mention that it is a variety of Spanish? You find parallel cases with Serbian and Croatian, and Romanian and Moldovan. The Valencian Statute of Autonomy itself says (article 41) that the institution responsible for determining the linguistic status of Valencian is the AVL.

To sum up. I agree with you that it is idle mentioning the same information more than once in the first paragraph, and this should be corrected. Yet I think the first line should reflect the academic consensus - languages are not a matter of laws, but anyway the current Valencian law supports the consensus. 'Neutral, not political', as you put it. But, even if we leave the first line as it is, the article itself should not contradict this consensus: Valencian cannot be defined as simply a dialect of Catalan, but rather as a name given to a set of varieties of Catalan, including a standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.247.252 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you to read the references before editing again. You will see that your editions keep contradicting them. Also, I recommend you to take a look at this and this: you will see that neutrality doesn't entail impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.247.125 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's consensuate the introductory paragraph

The last month has seen a edit warring regarding the contents of the introductory paragraph. I think we should get to a consensus. I will translate the Spanish version, which is, I guess, as neutral as possible. We can take it as a basis and work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisijo (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. I will amend several issues related to my edit (for example, the name Roussillon is not official any more). I think we can take this translation of the Spanish text as a basis and work on it. All the other wikipedias display an introductory paragraph that's very similar to this one, so this shouldn't be controversial. I will also look at the former article so as to include all the pertinent references - I guess the Spanish Academy has something to say on this issue, even if it has no official authority for deciding about these issues. ~~Gisijo~~ —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Issues solved (sorry for so many edits!). Now the introductory paragraph is just as in the Spanish version, which was indeed much more similar to the other wikipedias than the English version. Admittedly, the first line is a bit cumbersome to read, but I guess it is the most neutral definition we can achieve. I suggest protecting the article from now on, so as to avoid edit warrings. ~~Gisijo~~ —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am ok with most of your content, I will do some minor edits and I think it's ok! For example, there isn't a necessity to say all the places where Catalan is spoken since the user can see it looking at Catalan language which is mentioned already in the first paragraph, and also I added the older polls, giving a plurality on the votes (2 sources). --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Look at the page now @Gisijo: I think it can't be more neutral. In the first paragraph it says the historical ,traditional etc regional language used in the Valencian Community for referring the Romance language called Catalan outside the Valencian Community. Then I left it untouched with the glotonym, it also says it belongs to the western group of the Catalan dialects, I added the older polls which used a broader opinion and trustworthy sites, unlike Ara (newspaper) which even the Wikipedia says it's clearly advocating for Catalan independentism. I used the Generalitat Valenciana poll and La Vanguardia source. I also deleted the non-required information such as the regulatory names in the Balearic Islands or IEC in Catalonia, as well as all of the places where Catalan is spoken. That can be seen in the page Catalan language, we are talking about the Valencian glotonym here, I don't see the relationship.

In resume, I left untouched most of your content. Do you see it ok as it's right now? I see as completely neutral. Thanks for saying me in the Spanish Wikipedia is like this since someone has to change sources such as ARA, which are nationalistic, biased newspapers, such as it's Okdiario but in the opposite extreme. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear @TechnicianGB:, thank you for your changes! I basically agree with them, since most of the information you removed was not necessary for the introduction. I would just suggest a few changes for stylistical reasons:

1) When you removed all the other places where Catalan is spoken, you wrote outside the Valencian Community instead. I would suggest changing this phrase by, simply, the word elsewhere, for two reasons: it is stylistically more appropriate (it is unelegant to use a proper name twice in a single sentence containing no subordinate clauses) and, more importantly, it does not exclude El Carche. So if you are OK with it I will go ahead and change it.

2) I think it is worth adding some links to other places within the article itself.

3) All the purely linguistic information about Valencian can be put in a single paragraph. There is no need to separate, on the one hand, the information regarding its philogenetical information, and on the other the information about subdialects of Valencian and their linguistic status within Catalan. That is, I am going to fuse the second and the fourth paragraph.

4) As in any other language, the IPA for the pronunciation of the endonym should be added.

That's all for now. Maybe some of the information you removed could be retrieved and added to other places of the article, since it was essentially right and well-referenced - though certainly excessive for the introduction. Anyway I don't have the time to do it now. Regards,

~~Gisijo~~

I don't agree with the last changes made by Gisijo. It sounds very political and catalanist. Why "llengua valenciana in Catalan" instead of llengua valenciana in Valencian, just to put the first example when the page starts. The page is Valencian and says its a dialect, Catalan has a separate page. I also think the last edition was good, the one from 7/02/2019 but the ones from 10/02/2019 are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.230.245 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I will have to revert your changes. I will explain myself step by step.

1) If you don't agree with a certain change and you can justify it, go ahead and edit. But you shouldn't revert a whole edition only because you don't like a single change. I changed word order, style and added the IPA; you reverted everything only because you didn't like the IPA.

2) Why does the IPA say ' Catalan pronunciation? I will explain it substep by substep:

2.1) It is advisable that all language pages display the IPA of the original language.

2.2) When you introduce an IPA on Wikipedia, you have to specify a language. So, for example, if I introduce IPA for English I have to write IPA-en in the code, and if I am going to write an IPA for French I have to insert the code IPA-fr. Once you introduce this code, Wikipedia automatically (remember, automatically) generates the text English pronunciation or French pronunciation.

2.3) What is the IPA for Valencian? Well, I found none, so I guess the right IPA is Catalan. So for introducing the IPA for Valencian I have to write IPA-ca, which automatically generates the text Catalan pronunciation.

2.4) If you are able to find an IPA for Valencian, I'll be happy to use it. In the meantime, the right IPA is Catalan.

3) Why should all this be political? Could you please justify such accusation?

4) You asked Why llengua valenciana in Catalan. Well, your own political bias can be seen in this very same question.

~~Gisijo~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisijo (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I just found that Wikipedia does have an IPA code for the Valencian pronunciation. I changed the IPA-ca code for the more specific IPA-va. So you shouldn't have any problem with this now. Regards,

~~Gisijo~~ —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did finally a very small change and I left untouched mostly everything else, I am glad this page is finally protected against vandalism. I asked for it the last week, it had an edit war not much time ago. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @TechnicianGB:, thank you for your changes. When you edited the page you placed the IPA code within the code for the reference, with the consequence that the page did not display it any more. I fixed that. Also, I changed the phrase outside the Valencian Community for elsewhere, so as not to exclude El Carche. I left the rest untouched. It was me who requested protection for the page because of the persistent disruptive editing it was being subject to, which made it virtually impossible to properly improve this article. I hope we can do good contributions from now on. Regards,

~~Gisijo~~ 10:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gisijo:, please read this and stop modifying the introduction of the page. You are removing "Valencià (in Valencian)" as well as changing elsewhere for "outside the Valencian Community" since it's more than clear than, even known as a dialect, many people outside the Valencian Community call it Valencian, including many Catalans, Majorcans, and people around Spain or even official agencies like AEMET where you can see "Valencian" in their official website, as well as in the website of the Spanish senate amongst others. You made most of the edits, I simplified with this act, it's as neutral as it can be. It's clearly stated as a "dialect" but "elsewhere called Catalan" is not correct. The article is quite neutral and no one should be worried/bothered about the actual aspect of the page. If official organisms like those mentioned before also consider "Valencian" as an option, then the phrase "considered Catalan everywhere" is wrong, since for example, these official organisms, based in Madrid call it Valencian. Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear @TechnicianGB: I'll answer both of your requests:

1) The reason why I remove the phrase Valencià, llengua valenciana or idioma valencià in Valencian is that the very same phrase is repeated below, where it says endonym Valencià, llengua valenciana or idioma valencià. If you look at the article now, this information is repeated twice. I think that it is more appropriate here to use the technical term endonym, since it is widely used in linguistics and in other articles describing languages or lects, but anyway I have no problem in using the phrase in Valencian instead. At any rate, the information should not be repeated twice in the same line.

2) If that is the reason for not wanting to use elsewhere, then the phrase outside the Valencian Community is also incorrect. Madrid is outside the Valencian Community too, and there they use the term Valencian. I guess the most correct phrase is something like for referring to the Romance language also known as Catalan. Another option is to revert back to the original translation from Spanish, which listed the places where it is officially called Catalan - though I would rather avoid this option. Yet I still do not see why elsewhere is not appropriate. Notice that elsewhere is not synonymous with everywhere. Elsewhere means rather at some other places.

I hope we can reach an agreement. I'll wait for your response before proceeding to do any changes. Regards,

~~Gisijo~~ 10:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)~~

Before you "consentuate" the introductory paragraph between you, please note that the lede in an English Wikipedia article is supposed to summarise the topic uncontroversially. Insofar as there is a controversy about the status of Valencian, the lede should merely note that it exists. It is for a later section of the article neutrally to describe the nature of that controversy and cite the sources. Ideally, no sources should be cited in a lede. Their proper place is in the corpus of the article.Ttocserp (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What we are discussing is not the content of the lead, but rather the words employed. I think we agree on the purely linguistic description. This was just a translation of the Spanish article, after all - an article that has been long consensuated, and whose lead is very similar to the leads of the other Wikipedias. I didn't know that the lead should ideally cite no source, thank you for letting me know. I shall address this issue later.

By the way, I know that saying consensuate sounds strange given that it's only four people discussing here. But if all other wikipedias agree on a similar lead I guess this shouldn't be a problem.

~~Gisijo~~ 13:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)~~

Gisijo, gratefully this is the English Wikipedia, the Wikipedia should base itself on external sources, never on another Wiki pages, it's one of the main rules here. A translated version of another Wikipedia doesn't equal to be right, maybe because that Wikipedia can be biased or wrong. For example, the Spanish version of "Valenciano" (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valenciano) is based on the introductory paragraph from the Catalan Wikipedia (https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valenci%C3%A0)

The Catalan version of Wikipedia is completely biased, unrealistic and an heavily independentism-biased wiki who can't be changed since the own mods there have that political position. I mean, in the Catalan Wikipedia, in the article Catalonia, they start with "Catalonia is a country in Europe, member of the European Union, but officially as an autonomous community of Spain", hundreds of people tried to change that and guess what? It's reverted and every official organism changed with a simple pro-independentist website from a "Catalan Enciclopedia" where they say Catalonia is a country, ok. Check it by yourself: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalunya just to show you that, you could use this as a source for something? Is this article neutral? Of course not, so a translated version of it it's just unrealistic. Gratefully this Wikipedia has neutral moderators and admins, or mods who don't let "one side" do their actions unlike as it happens in that Wikipedia (not the English one).

Now returning to this topic. I tried to correct the Valencian page in the Spanish Wikipedia years ago together with many other users and as well, they all got reverted and I even faced a block, so I didn't want to continue further. I think right now it's as neutral as it can be and no one should be bothered. It's clearly said "Valencian is the traditional, historical, etc. name of the regional language used in the Valencian Community, referring to the romance language called Catalan outside the Valencian Community" it actually says that calling the Romance language called Catalan which you say before, so I see that we both agree. As for the intro of the page I would like if you let it as how it is right now, since it was like that from many months ago and it's different, for example, in the mobile version of Wikipedia, you say first the text rather than the box where it's repeated. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear @TechnicianGB: I think I did not explain myself clearly enough. I never meant to argue about the content of the article, but only about its form. I mentioned that this was a translation just to explain to the user above that this is not a matter of neutrality, nobody disputes that (and I don't really feel like going into that). I answered to you in a comment above, which I guess you have missed. You had two concerns, and I addressed both of them. In one case, as I told you, I was removing an information that is unnecessarily repeated twice in the very same line (you can see this argued in more detail in my comment above). And now let's go for the other case. From your previous comment, it seems that you are mistaken about the meaning of the word 'elsewhere'. You seem to regard it as synonymous with 'everywhere', but it is not. This mistake is understandable, as you are not a native speaker. As you may check in (for instance) the Oxford Dictionary, 'elsewhere' does not mean 'at every other place'; it means 'at some other places'.

Please answer to my comment above so that we can settle this. Regards,

~~Gisijo~~ 07:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)~~

I know the meaning of elsewhere, thanks. But as far as I know, I just mentioned that word once. I still don't see the reason why "outside the Valencian Community" is not good for your eyes if it's already explained why it's a good phrase. About the "Valencià in Valencian" it's not really repeated unless in another paragraph, which is not the introductory one, and users visiting Wikipedia with a mobile device, won't see it as clear. There is another edit war now adding Catalan things and (of course, this article can't remain neutral if not protected) and other users, all without accounts as I see, edit war between them. I just edited the page according to the proper aspect and consensus. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Dear @TechnicianGB:

1) I said very clearly, and so far this is the third time I say it, that this information is repeated twice in the same line. Not in another paragraph. It is repeated twice in the very same line. I'll highlight it in bold so that you can see it:

Valencian or Valencian language (valencià, llengua valenciana or idioma valencià in Valencian)[4] (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym valencià, llengua valenciana or idioma valencià (Valencian pronunciation: [valensiˈa] or Eastern Catalan: [bəɫənsiˈa]) is the historical, traditional and official name of the regional language used in the Valencian Community of Spain, and extra-officially in the El Carche comarca in Murcia (Spain),[5][6][7][8] for referring to the Romance language called Catalan outside the Valencian Community.[9][10][11][12][13]

I mean, this is so damn obvious. You only need to read the lead. The same information is repeated twice in the same line, not in another paragraph nor in the infobox.

2) You did not explain why outside the Valencian Community is right, you only explained why you thought elsewhere was wrong. Saying that it is called Catalan outside the Valencian Community is not appropriate because El Carche is outside the Valencian Community, and there it is called Valencian. And, as you yourself pointed out, there are agencies and institutions in Madrid which call it Valencian. Madrid is outside the Valencian Community too. Saying that it is called Catalan outside the Valencian Community entails that the name Valencian is not regularly used outside the Valencian Community. But it is.

I will do the pertinent changes ASAP. Regards,

~~Gisijo~~ 10:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)~~

What you done is ok for me, I just added the small phrase which was deleted I guess by a mistake in one of your editions from 10th March, I added it again (as it was before, as per consensus) so it's all ok now. Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Those two changes were utterly unnecessary.

1) It already says 'Valencian endonym'. I myself added 'Valencian', as you may see in my edition from 11 March 2019, 13:40 UTC. So there is no need to say that this Valencian endonym is in Valencian.

2) Adding that phrase yields the sentence ungrammatical. I will translate it into Spanish so that you can see that it does not make much sense:

Right now the lead can be translated as follows: Valenciano o idioma valenciano es el nombre histórico, tradicional y oficial usado en la Comunidad Valenciana para referirse a la lengua romance también conocida como catalán. This is clearly the intended meaning.

With your addition the sentence becomes ungrammatical: Valenciano o idioma valenciano es el nombre histórico, tradicional y oficial para el idioma regional usado en la Comunidad Valenciana para referirse a la lengua romance también conocida como catalán.

If you add this, the phrase for referring to the Romance language also known as Catalan becomes a modifier of regional language. But it should modify name.

Regards,

~~Gisijo~~ 14:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)~~

According to the the Estatut d'Autonomia signed by the Generalitat Valenciana, it's the regional language of the Valencian Community, being it's status official. The source is in the page already. So please, don't remove that again. The legal thing has no sense to be included, since it's official. About the "in Valencian" thing, it's ok. But don't delete again the "regional language" thing because it's what it is and what the official source says. The own Estatut says it. And then it says "for the romance language also known as Catalan" few phrases later in the article, it's explained already that there is a controversy between calling it a language or a dialect. In the introductory paragraph, which is neutral, this shouldn't fail from being there, since the Estatut says "Llengua Valenciana" which is Valencian language. Anyways, no one deleted it's a Catalan dialect but to make it more neutral, let's put also "regional language" according to the culture, history and traditions of the Valencian Community, as you know already. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As I told you above, this sentence is ill-formed. Tell me what you wish to express and we will find a better way to put it. But the sentence, with your phrase added, is not proper English. Look at the two translations above; does the second one sound coherent?

Anyway, the Statute reference is in the second sentence, not the first one. So if you are adding something backed by the Statute, it should be there.

~~Gisijo~~ 08:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)~~

Unclear lede

The lede of this article doesn't make any sense as it stands now. What does it mean for a language to be extra-officially used in a place? And how does this language 'refer', in any meaningful sense, to another language? I see you are having some discussion about this now, so I won't make any changes. I suggest reverting back to the last edition by MarnetteD. It made more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.156.37.206 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence should say "Valencian is one of two standard varieties of the Catalan language", or something like that. The article is about what Valencian is (i.e. the thing normally called Valencian or simply Catalan in English), not what the noun Valencian means or how it's used mainly in Catalan or Spanish (so not Valencian but valencià or valenciano, which are different, non-English words) in the Valencian Community in Spain. Wiktionary is the appropriate place for the latter two. Sol505000 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As for other names like it, Valencian will eventually mean in English whatever it means in Spain or in the Valencian Community. It makes no sense to act as if such a name had a very accurate and well-defined meaning for English speakers. --Jotamar (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

/ʃ/?

There are examples throughout the article with /ʃ/, spelled ⟨x⟩. It is however not present in the consonant table. Is it supposed to be there, or is it not considered a separate phoneme? Araoro (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right, so I have added it. It is /ʒ/ which does not occur independently, but only as an allophone of /ʃ/. LynwoodF (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's an allophone of /ʃ/ then it's [ʒ], not /ʒ/ (see International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and transcription delimiters). Sol505000 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sol505000, you are right, of course. Once we are talking about allophones, we are being precise. LynwoodF (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm terrible at distinguishing 2020 from 2021 when the month is the same. I read them as the same month in the same year. A thread necro moment for me, I guess. Sol505000 (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Language code

Just to have it documented that ISO 639-6 has been retracted in 2014 and it's not correct that there is no ISO 639-3 code: the ISO code it falls under as a variant is ca/cat. I know that there is criticism about the mnemonic aspects of this code, which is also the case e.g. for Arpitan, which has the frp language code according to the wrong Franco-Provençal naming, and e.g. gsw for Alsatian, which is the same code as for a big part of Swiss German languages. I do agree that we need a better way to deal with variants, but the information as it stands in the infobox on the side is not correct. I don't correct it right now to allow for comments and to avoid an edit war about it. LaPingvino (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Point of view fork

This article is an obvious case of "poing of view fork", maybe due to a political bias. "Valencian" is described as a language and not as a dialect, which is only true in the context of Valencia, and not always, and not for all Catalan speakers. Unless the definition is modified to describe the dialect, this article is a duplicate of the article Catalan language, but limited to the context of Valencia, and should then be nominated for deletion. "All facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion", "POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Point-of-view_forks 93.176.142.244 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This same topic is being discussed in es:discusión:Idioma valenciano#Point of view fork. --Jotamar (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This page is not the result of disagreement between editors, but of a compromise. Since there are a lot of documents about the Valencian language, and typically not as a synonym for Catalan, just redirecting it to Catalan language is going to make many readers feel confused. Also, there is a minority of scholarly publications that consider Valencian and Catalan different languages, and having this page is a way of dealing with the question more neatly. There are also versions of the page in wp-es, wp-ca, etc. I don't think the page should be deleted. --Jotamar (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a compromise, but a blatant and shameless contradiction. One subject, one article. There are also plenty of of contradictions in the article itself, like for instance the regions where "Valencian language" is supposedly spoken. Those mentioned in the introduction do not match the ones on the right column. According to the introduction, the map doesn't make any sense either. This article is disgraceful and an insult to Wikipedia. 93.176.136.243 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then which specific changes are needed, according to you? --Jotamar (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As it has already been said, this article is an obvious case of "point of view fork". It's a duplicate of the article "Catalan language" but limited to the context of Valencia, which doesn't make any sense, as they are the same subject. It should therefore be deleted. Alternatively, the title could be changed to "Valencian dialect" and the content completely rewritten to describe the dialect, not the language. 93.176.136.243 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

For the moment there isn't any consensus for your proposals, and in the wp-es discussion parallel to this one, not to delete seems to be the majority option. I think that you are understanding a certain WP guideline too rigidly. Especially because a language is never a thing with precise contents and limits. --Jotamar (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This comment summarizes the cynical approach of the article itself. If there isn't any consensus about the fact that Catalan and Valencian are the same language, the editors of this article are plain incompetent. 93.176.136.243 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There is absolute consensus that Catalan and Valencian are different names for the same language. This article clearly refers to the variety of Catalan spoken mainly in Valencia, while also making reference to the fact that Valencian is a valid name for the language as a whole. The wording of the introduction could perhaps be clearer, but this is by no stretch of imagination a point of view fork. This article has no more need to be merged into Catalan language than British English needs to be merged into English language. Qoan (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you even serious? If this article "clearly refers to the variety of Catalan spoken mainly in Valencia", why does the title refer to a "language" and not a "variety"? "There is absolute consensus that Catalan and Valencian are different names for the same language". First, the name of the language is not the subject of this article. The language itself is, as a duplicate of the article "Catalan language", but limited to Valencia. Second, that's not even true. "Catalan" and "Valencian" are not always synonyms. People in Barcelona do not speak Valencian. However, people Valencia speak Catalan. This article is a paradigmatic example of "point of view fork" and an insult to Wikipedia users and Wikipedia rules. The comparison with "British English" and "English language" is just a ridiculous cheat. According to that principle, the title of this article should be "Valencian Catalan". 93.176.136.243 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Then don't compare it to "British English", compare it to Scouse. Largoplazo (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

How is this treated in other Wikipedia articles? Would it be useful to approach this in a similar way to Danish and Norwegian? They are spoken languages part of the same dialect continuum, however their high mutual intelligibility allows them to have an almost identical written form (see Comparison_of_Danish,_Norwegian_and_Swedish: "while there are significant phonetic and phonological differences, they are rarely expressed in writing".)

Speaking of "dialect continuum" may be an escape, because it allows mutual intelligibility by most of the population (supported by a more or less common writing system) but unintelligability at extreme ends of the region (where there is more differences between the written form and the spoken form.) Clearly Catalan and Valencian have such substantial overlap that at some level many experts consider them the same language, but clearly they have enough differences that many speakers consider them different. (A difference between Danish/Norwegian and Catalan/Valencian is of course the national/political status.) For example English_language_in_Northern_England#Definition "The varieties of English spoken across Great Britain form a dialect continuum," Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

About this:

... but clearly they have enough differences that many speakers consider them different.

Those who consider them different languages do it for historical and political reasons, rather than linguistic reasons. Just search for a Valencianist (anti-Catalan) page and see what kind of argumentation they use. If the division was in purely linguistic terms (phonology, vocabulary, etc.) it should be very different: no isogloss runs near the administrative border between Catalonia and The Valencian Community. And even the extreme dialects have a reasonable degree of mutual intelligibility anyway. The main culprits of the linguistic conflict between Valencians and Catalans are those Catalan nationalists that, after Franco's death, presented the question of the language unity in an arrogant and insensitive way. --Jotamar (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I partially disagree with some of your statements. The user @Rick Jelliffe: made a great point there. The phrase:

"But clearly they have enough differences that many speakers consider them different."

Is completely true. The vast majority of Valencians consider Valencian a separate language. There are links included in this page that prove it. In fact, recently (2022 or 2023, I can search the link) there was another poll and the number of people that consider it a separate language increased a little bit, so it's not like this has changed over the years.

I think Valencian should be considered as Valencians consider it. And public opinion polls show that the vast majority consider it their own language. It's in their own history and culture, I would say it's mostly for historical rather than political reasons as you claim. Politically, there are some Catalan nationalist parties such as Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya or Popular Unity Candidacy which openly say Valencia speaks Catalan and they just ignore Valencian from their agenda, and this gets rejected by the Valencian society because ERC has a Valencian branch called ERPV which never gathered more than 0.5% of the votes in the Valencian Community proving how Valencians are completely opposing this kind of language union.

And since I try to be neutral (as I am from Galicia and I have experience in political parties using languages as weapons) just as these 2 Catalan parties openly admit to have a "Catalan nation" where everything is in the "Catalanosphere" in Valencia, VOX (which has representation nowadays) also uses Valencian as a political weapon, but in the opposide side. Let's say "moderate parties" such as PSOE and PP (these 2 received the blatant majority of the total votes in the 2023 Valencian elections) consider Valencian as the region's language for cultural and historical reasons. In fact, many official Spanish and Spanish government organisms already include Valencian as the 5th official language. LucenseLugo (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It might be true that a majority of Valencian citizens claim that Valencian and Catalan are different languages, but several other points must be considered:

• The claim is hardly ever discussed in purely linguistic terms, as I already said.
• Very often those who claim it are not Valencian speakers themselves. Currently Spanish native speakers are a clear majority in the Community, and with the current migration trends, that is going to get reinforced.
• For many Valencians, the question is not really whether the languages are different or not, it's rather that they don't want to call their language "Catalan". That is why a number of alternative names for the single language have been invented, with no success though. My personal experience is that the loud rejection of the name Catalan is often paired in Valencians with a deep awareness of the lack of real linguistic differences.

I suppose that LucenseLugo also thinks that, as soon as more than 50% of US citizens say that they prefer to call their language American, rather than English, we in WP should rush to deal with it as a separate language. ;-) --Jotamar (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Historical repression against the language

@Agpshi: I can't believe that someone thinks that speaking of "a number of political and social factors, including immigration" is unacceptable, while "historical repression against the language" is a balanced and neutral description. Most or all the minority languages of Europe and the world have been historically marginalized by state powers vis-à-vis the main national languages, and that is certainly true for all the languages in Spain save Spanish, but the repression bit seems to imply that Valencian underwent a particularly mean persecution. Is that true? Can that be sourced? Or is the intended meaning something else? --Jotamar (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The decrease in the number of speakers is obviously due to a number of political and social factors, but I don't see why immigration, in particular, should be highlighted as the most representative of these. The persecution towards Valencian was indeed mean (see below) and, again, I do not see why the phrasing should imply that it was meaner than the persecution against other languages.

I've been checking a few sources, but unfortunately the literature on the particular case of Valencian is scarce in English. The best I could find is this book chapter: Casesnoves, Sankoff & Turell, "Linguistic Shift and Community Language: The Effect of Demographic Factors in the Valencian Region, Balearic Islands and Catalonia", in Molinero and Stewart, Globalization and Language in the Spanish-speaking World. Palgrave McMillan, 2006 (pp. 197-219). The authors compare the three regions and show that, while immigration does have an effect on language loss, this alone is unable to explain why the non-migrant population is losing it at almost the same rate in Baleraric Islands and, very specially, in Valencia. They conclude that the best explanation lies in the different public policies for language preservation implemented by the three regional governments, particularly educational policies. Formal schooling seems indeed to have had an enormous effect on language loss, for the repressive policies did not have a real effect on the proportion of Valencian speakers until the first half of the 20th century (before that, monolingualism was the common rule).

A quick search shows that the word repression is quite common when talking about the policies against public use of Catalan: Laska Anderson (2020, ESSAYS ON EARLY MODERN EUROPEAN POPULAR CULTURE AND THE FORMATION OF NATIONALISM): "in times where the political climate favored Spanish centralization and the Castilian monarchy, often the Catalan language endured repression". Webber & Strubell (1991, The Catalan Language: Progress towards Normalization): "The years of the Franco regime (1939-1975) were a period of severe repression—cultural genocide even, in the early stages". Roller (2004, When does language become exclusivist? Linguistic politics in Catalonia): "The roots of the strategy lie in the backlash against the historical, cultural and political repression experienced by Catalan language, culture or national identity under the Franco regime". Strubell (2011, The Catalan Language): "Apart from brief periods, the language that had served the Catalans for over nine centuries became subjected to continuous official repression". Shabad & Gunther (1982, Language, Nationalism, and Political Conflict in Spain): "repression of Basque and Catalan language and culture, in particular". Conversi (1990, Language or Race? The Choice of Core Values in the Development of Catalan and Basque Nationalisms): "the Catalan case, we shall see both that language is a core value in all Catalan public life, and that its political importance has been strengthened as a consequence of repression". Kraus (2015, Language Policy and Catalonia's Independence): "this special attention was, and is, sorely needed to compensate for the effects of the massive repression of the Catalan language". And that is only the two first pages of Google Scholar.

Perhaps we could simply rephrase it. How about "due to a number of political and social factors, including repression, immigration and lack of formal instruction in Valencian, the number of speakers has severely decreased"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agpshi (talk • contribs) 08:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that marginalization conveys a more neutral and objective picture for readers, compared to repression or suppression, which evoke images of violence, police raids, etc. Anyway, since you have sources for it, ok. --Jotamar (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Revise Lead (2023)

The lead was too long (against Wikipedia guidelines), contained material that did not appear in the body, contained material that was not important enough to be in the lead, had a contradiction in the first and second paragraphs, and had duplicated citations.So I have simplified and rearranged the lead, based on editorial consideration (as distinct from subject matter considerations.)

I have tried not to change any wording of phrases, since it is controversial. But I have moved some unnecessary sentences to the body, juggled some sentences or phrases around, and moved some citations to different places. I hope this makes the lead more useful for readers, and fits in with Wikipedia guidelines better, without altering the actual information in the article. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You've done a good job. It seems that an IP is trying to make it again longer. And in fact, the data the IP used is very old and it neither said what he/she claimed on the edit. I'm not an active Wiki user but I have seen you are, I would like to ask you if you can watch this page more regularily. Unfortunately, it often gets biased edits for political reasons. LucenseLugo (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I was not trying to make it longer, but merely adding some additional data besides the CIS, whose methodology for carrying out the surveys was heavily criticised by academics. And the references do say exactly what the article says now - just read the paper. If the lead is too long (which probably is), then the whole discussion on the data should not be removed, but rather moved elsewhere (not just the newly added data, but the whole discussion: privileging the CIS studies as if they were the only valid source is quite biased, for this kind of stuff has been studied from long before the CIS started asking about it).

The only edits that are biased for political reasons are those that do not follow the references. And you only need to open any handbook on Romance linguistics to see whose edits are biased.--109.205.143.163 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, next time you do an edit be sure that what you write is not already mentioned inside the page. Much of your text was already written on this page (or very similar one) yet I have kept your edit and made a better representation based on the source.

Your edit belongs to the language controversy section, not on the lead to make it even more immense. I have moved it where it belongs. I didn't delete your edit and like I've said before, I have improved it with more specifical data based on the source. I have only removed the political voting phrase which was clearly irrelevant because politics are already mentioned in the same section and there you can find specifical Wikipedia articles (disambiguations / links) about Valencian politics regarding the society and the language in general. Just go to the controversy section and you will see it by yourself. 47.60.33.74 (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. I just made a couple of amendments:

1) The logistic regression is employed for determining which variables are actually relevant, not for establishing mere co-relations (that's what polls do). A poll may tell you that a certain behavior is more frequent, say, among younger people and people with higher studies, but, since young people usually have a higher level of studies, it may turn out that the only relevant variable in this case is just level of studies, not age. That's what that paper shows. It is therefore new information, not information already mentioned. I re-wrote that passage in the most concise way I was able to.

2) As I mentioned before, moving just a part of the discussion into the main body while the other part is left in the introduction entails privileging a certain source as the most relevant. CIS is an government institution, but that does not mean that its surveys are trustworthier than those conducted within Sociology departments - in fact, they have received quite a lot of criticism from academics. Besides, the data themselves are quite old (ca. 20 years). I just moved everything into the "controversy" section - any reader willing to check the data may just click the hyperlink in the same line. Thus, on the other hand, the introduction is further shortened.--109.205.143.163 (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please seek consesus before adding that text again. When you cherry pick data from the source that suits your POV and you separate between people can be seen as discriminatory and not fitting WP:NEUTRALITY, like why is it important people from a specific province or with a specific political view sees that? You are escalating the issue of this language page to a political one, and this doesn't belong here.

Also, the lead only quickly mentions the majority of Valencians consider Valencian to be a separate language from Catalan (no matter which source you want to use) I'm not sure why did you delete that phrase if it was in the lead from years back? What wasn't is the entire explanation which is properly found on the controversy section.

Also don't rely everything over a single source. The source you have put is clearly biased when it refers to the Valencian Community as País Valenciano in the entire textbook, which is an unofficial name for the region (Valencian Country) and it's only used by nationalist parties. Using a biased source is not even acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Still, I won't delete anything as your source uses other better sources but the writer who published it also puts data coming from his own perspective (starting with the first phrase, where he refers to the Valencian Community with an unofficial name) so that's why you should seek consensus to add that edit including the cherry picking and the segregation of people based on their opinion. LucenseLugo (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

About the "cherry picking": as I already told you, that study is not a poll. It does not show mere co-relations. It checks, among all the variables for predicting a certain behaviour, which of them are actually relevant. It therefore does not belong with the data extracted from the polls: rather, it helps clarify the demographic mess the polls point out to. And it does so by saying that, among all the variables that display a co-relation with a certain linguistic attitude of an inhabitant of the Valencian Community, most of them can be disregarded, and only four of them actually matter: political ideology, level of studies, geographical origin and ethno-territorial identity. You can read it yourself (pages 512-513):

De esta manera, quedan fuera del modelo la edad, el sexo, el tamaño delmunicipio y la situación laboral, por no establecer relaciones significativas conla variable de estudio. Las variables significativas del modelo son, de acuerdo conel estadístico de Wald y por orden de importancia, la ideología, el nivel de estu-dios, la provincia y la identidad etnoterritorial. Respecto a la ideología, como el valor de ß es negativo, esto quiere decir que, cuanto más hacia la izquierda seubican las personas, más están a favor de la unidad lingüística del valenciano.Por su parte, el valor de ß de la variable nivel de estudios revela que, amayor nivel, más se está a favor de la unidad lingüística. Respecto a la pro-vincia, podemos decir que el hecho de vivir en Alicante incide significativa-mente en contra de la unidad lingüística del valenciano en comparación conValencia y, especialmente, Castellón. Por último, en relación con la identidadetnoterritorial, cabe señalar que cuanto mayor es el sentimiento de «valencia-nía», más se está a favor de la unidad lingüística, mientras que cuanto más seidentifican los sujetos con España, más se está a favor del secesionismo.

So please stop modifying that. You are selecting only two of the four variables, i.e., cherry picking. And, by placing the source among all the data from the polls, you are misrepresenting it.

As for your statement to the effect that "The source you have put is clearly biased when it refers to the Valencian Community as País Valenciano in the entire textbook", this is probably the most biased thing you have said. You don't seem to be quite used to reading academic papers (articles published in scientific journals), so perhaps you'd be surprised to find out that "Valencian Country" is the most commonly used name for the Valencian Community in academia - I am talking about sociologists, historians and the like. Are you saying, for example, that this, this or this are biased? Are you saying that Spain’s Socialist Worker’s Party is a Catalan nationalist party? Have you ever attended any courses at the University of Valencia? Please don’t mistake your prejudices for “objective information". Specially when it comes to a name that Valencians have been using since the 18th century.

Even if you were right in saying that the paper is biased, that is just an ad hominem fallacy. The point is: is the analysis well done? It clearly is.

Now, let me pose this question to you. You are relying on the CIS data as the most trustworthy source. I provided two sources, both of which are academic papers published in scientific journals that have therefore gone through strict peer review. Do you really think that these sources are biased while, at the same time, you take as an authoritative unbiased source a series of polls conducted by a government institution under the Aznar government? I guess its director back then was politically uncompromised, wasn't he?

To summarise, let me quote you: 'You are escalating the issue of this language page to a political one'. So, please, enough.--109.205.143.163 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive, the only thing here is that you try to impose your own POV without asking for any consensus. Again, do you realize you repeat your biased agenda by saying the official Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas was biased because it was "under Aznar government"? Let me remind you the AVL was also created during that era... And the 2014 source uses a Generalitat Valenciana poll, from Argos GVA, so that's your personal political views which should not interfere when editing Wikipedia articles.

You use an IP yet you are very used to Wikipedia as it seems. Did you know that activates some alarms right? Leaving that apart, "Valencian Country" isn't even close to be the most used term as you claim, as it's in fact a barely used term, and it's either focused politically or historically as the UV source you have shown (and PSPV-PSOE was created in 1978 in the Spanish transition to democracy, when the Valencian Community was called Valencian Country yet that name only lasted for few years as you know... unsure why you brought that here) basically +95% of modern academics, scholars, universities, official, government and whatsoever works use Valencian Community as you perfectly know, in fact, you had to point 2 specifical pages that use such a term, one of them being from 1982 (made before the official name change of the region) so you try to prove a point with that? And like if that was really relevant. It's not here. I'm just pointing out how the author of your source has a nationalist bias by using a non-official name (which is only used by a very specifical sector of the Valencian and Catalan politics) as well as discriminating between Valencians by their local area or voting preferences, like if there are 1st class and 2nd class Valencians.

If I was you, I would wait and act as it should. You said in your last edit "you are putting the previous lead back" but you did that without deleting your biased edits... this page has a long, looooong history of biased edits and vandalizations, it seems you know Wikipedia very well so you know what WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are, right? Since you're at the edge of an edit war, I recommend you to seek for consensus as I will apply WP:AGF and I won't be filling an ANI report against your edits for now. But just to let you know, at this moment it's clear you are a case of WP:SPA looking at your IP's edits and you're also at the edge of an edit war, I hope you're not also an active user just using an IP without an account (or someone that's evading a block) because that's even worse. Prove your good will by asking for a consensus. LucenseLugo (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

First things first. If I were you, I would not try to revert the lead for a fourth time, because then it would be you the one who started an edit warring. Now, let me summarise:

1) Read things before making any edits. You have not read the source and, in fact, you have not even read my comments here. So calm down, sit down and calmly go through all the comments.

2) If that source seems biased to you, that's only your personal opinion. It turns out that peer-reviewed scientific articles are the first kind of reliable sources mentioned by Wikipedia. And don't distort what I said: I never doubted the validity of the CIS source. I simply pointed out your contradictions: you take a paper to be biased only because of the name it uses, while you don't take that survey as biased in spite of the fact that its promoter was the brother of a minister. You may think whatever you wish, but both of them are valid sources.

3) Again, don't distort what I say. I said it is the most widely used name in academics. Official institutions, obviously, use the official name. Sociologists, historians, linguists and the like are not obliged to do it. And, as it turns out, the kind of staff the latter publish count as reliable sources.

4) As for your accusations, go ahead. I've been editing Wikipedia for years and I have never registered. For a start, it was you who logged out and made an edit through an IP - "cree el ladrón que todos son de su condición", as you say in Spanish. In fact, you sort of remind me of User:Venezia Friulano, who, like you, had the idea that Wikipedia did not properly portray the greatness of the Spanish Empire and was obsessed with removing the word "Catalan" from every Wikipedia article he could find (he claimed he was half Italian and half Spanish, but it seems he was also somehow half Belgian). Do you happen to be friends with this person?

5) Now let's go for what matters. As I said, you are misinterpreting the source. I already explained it twice, so I am not going to explain it for a third time. Just scroll up and read it, for once. I did not touch anything because this would be my fourth edit, i.e. this would mean edit warring. But, as the text stands now, the source is clearly misrepresented. I added a tag to that effect. We can convene on an alternative wording, if you wish, but the text simply cannot stay as it currently is.--109.205.143.163 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay so now you've just admitted that you are a Wikipedia editor with a lot of experience and you even know other users despite your IP having its first edit on 14th October 2023. And all of your IP wikiedits are within the same article. Do you know what this means, right? This is a clear case of WP:SPA based on your edits but also a possible case of WP:Block evasion as you've just admitted that you're an older editor.

I have reverted your last edit but I've undone my own edit so the actual version is based on your last edit, because I saw on the history of the page that such text was deleted by another IP few days ago, the one you probably think it's me as you just made that accusation (btw, reverting disruptive edits don't count as edits for breaking edit-war rules) and there is no "stable version" as you claim, as the actual lead was shortened on 6th October 2023 and the purpose is to make the lead shorter so the article can be easier to read about your claims saying I have used an IP to make edits instead of my account, why would I? Go away and open a WP:SPI investigation if you're so sure. But a Wiki article talk page is not the proper place for this.

So for this reason, please stick to the topic. As I won't tolerate again if you break WP:NPA doing accusations against me, and there are enough reasons already to fill an ANI against you basically because your IP has a single purpose and you've admitted by yourself you're an older user, as you even know that user that I see it was blocked several months ago despite your first edit with this IP being shorter than a week ago, so you basically admit to use WP:SOC. Nice... are you sure do we wanna go that way? As I have said, check for consensus instead of being WP:Disruptive on a talk page. Here I am, doing a friendly debate with you to prove my Good faith. Do you want to put all of that text? You can request for a consensus. I have already said that for me that sounds discriminatory, like if there are 1st and 2nd class Valencians and ones count more than others just based on petty things mentioned in a publication made by someone with a questionable Point of View. And I'm not talking about you but about the source, such as the used terms as I have said before. I don't like to repeat things twice so for me I have already explained my arguments. LucenseLugo (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OMG, you know that a single device can get assigned different IPs, right? Please read this. My internet provider changes my IP about every month. Others change it almost every day. Sockpuppeting occurs when you pretend to be two different people, not when your internet provider changes your IP and you happen not to be registered (have you hear of 'the free encyclopaedia'?). I'm not hiding. I can let you know, for example, that my first interaction with the aforementioned User:Venezia Friulano is this one in which, incidentally, I tried to made him understand that he had misunderstood the source he was employing (he apparently never understood it, but other users did and reverted the edit).

In the second place, you should know that the three-reverts rule applies. Period. Your edits clearly do not fit any of the exemptions. So technically you have already violated the rule – since you self-reverted, I’ll just assume good faith.

If the data that the article gathers sounds to you discriminatory, that's just your own subjective appreciation. Those are demographic data. Stating that the opinion that they are two different languages is more widely held among right-wing partisans is like saying, for example, that the percentage of voters of Vox is much higher among younger people - I personally don't like it, but it is a true fact, and I won't revert your edit if you add that information to Wikipedia and support it by a valid source.

The controversy section already contains a lot of assertions to the effect that opinions vary significantly depending of age, gender, etc. Do they also sound discriminatory to you? What this study does is to help clarify, among all those variables, which ones actually matter (in fact, this kind of studies are normally employed for fighting against hate speeches that try to link migrants or racial minorities with higher rates of criminality: they have been very helpful in the past for clarifying that the relevant variable was not ethnicity, but rather income, employment rate and the like). And you cannot take the four variables selected and reduce them to just two. That’s a misrepresentation of the source.

If the wording I first employed sounds to you too harsh (and here you may have a point), we can simply rephrase it. We can take your own wording as a basis, indeed. You rephrased it thus:

By applying a binary logistic regression to the same data, it was also found that different opinions about the unity of the language are different between people with certain levels of studies and the opinion also differs between each of the Valencian provinces.

This misrepresents the source. The idea that different opinions regarding the unity of the language vary across provinces and levels of studies was not found by the regression, but by the CIS studies themselves. What the regression helped clarify is that these two are relevant variables, as opposed to age or gender. Besides, the regression points at two more relevant variables, which you have arbitrarily decided to leave out: political ideology and ethno-territorial identification.

Here is the wording I suggest: By applying a binary logistic regression to the same data, it was also found that the differences in opinion about the unity of the language can be attributed to geographical origin (people from the Alicante province are far less likely to acknowledge the unity of Catalan/Valencian than those from Valencia and, specially, Castellón), level of studies (the higher the level of studies, the more in favour of linguistic unity), political ideology (left-wing partisans are more prone to acknowledge the unity of the language) and ethno-territorial self-identification (the greater the self-identification with Valencian identity, the likelier to acknowledge linguistic unity).--109.205.143.163 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@LucenseLugo: Same IP, now registered in order to have access to additional functionalities. Now that you are active again, are you going to answer?

--Fromcs (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will answer that I'm not the only editor in this page and your edits need a WP:CONSENSUS which no one engaged in, so you have to wait or do a WP:RFC that's why I have reverted your changes again since you didn't do any consensus.

Also please stop doing WP:BIASED edits using nationalistic names such as "Valencian Country" because your account is a WP:SPA account with a good traceability of IPs you have been using so if you made an account why are you not doing things as they should be done? Like asking for other comments and applying for a consensus? LucenseLugo (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That was not the same change. Read it again. What I added is a literal quotation from the source. That is something quite common in order to make it clear that the references say what editors claim they say. I even added the pages from which it was extracted. You should refrain yourself from re-interpreting what the sources say without even reading them.

You are not the only editor here, but you are the only one trying to make a reference say what it does not say. You should read it before reverting. All the other editors said nothing.

PD: since that was a literal quotation, that name is the one that the source employs. As I told you (and I don't like repeating myself), that is an extremely common name in academic sources, which, incidentally, happen to be the kind of sources Wikipedia prefers.--Fromcs (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

By repeating something that's not true 1000 times won't make it true either. That name is, by very far, not the most used one in academic sources as you claim, as I have proven it to you last month. As you literally had to cherrypick 2 specifical sources to be somehow able to back up your claims.

Exactly where did you show such thing?

And as I have said, why aren't you waiting for the opinion of other users? And if you do certain edits, why don't you use only real and neutral names instead of using nationalistic ones? You perfectly know Valencian Community is the only accepted (and official) name in Wikipedia. LucenseLugo (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what a literal quotation is?--Fromcs (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)