Talk:Douce I, Countess of Provence

County of Barcelona vs. Catalonia
As Srnec continues to refuse a compromise between the actual de jure political entity that was the "County of Barcelona" with the hazy, anachronistic, and poorly defined "Catalonia" that did/did not exist in the 12th century, I am recommending that this article be checked for neutrality.

A "County of Barcelona" tag that directs to the "Principality of Catalonia" is a very reasonable compromise. As this user refuses it and keeps on reverting my edits, I am recommending that this page be checked for neutrality.

Eboracum (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read Liber maiolichinus? Do you know what the County of Barcelona was? Was it ever the same thing as the Principality of Catalonia? Is Srnec suggesting linking Principality of Catalonia in the article? If a document from 1115–25 refers to Catalonia, and this article deals with a figure who was countess from 1112 to 1127, is referring to Catalonia in the article anachronistic? Could we be any hazier than County of Barcelona if we tried? Srnec (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then would you be amenable to County of Barcelona ?


 * Eboracum (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What for? The point is the wider (cultural) connexion between Provence (and even larger Occitania) and Catalonia that was engendered in part by close political relations. We could say "County of Barcelona", but it would weaken the sentence incredibly. I'm not for it. If the article History of Catalonia is an acceptable destination, I don't see why "Catalonia" isn't acceptable on the page. Can you explain your opposition to it, now that I've shown that it is not anachronistic? Srnec (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, there was no Count of Barcelona that used the title "prince of Catalonia." Even the Count of Barcelona that married Petronila when he used the title of "Prince" it was to refer to Aragon, not Catalonia.  Shoving "Catalonia" into articles is usually the hallmark of politicized wikipedia articles written in English by Catalan/Catalanophile wiki members.


 * In good spirit, how about the phrase that is in the Spanish language version of the article, stating that "with the marriage of Douce I, thus began the reign of the House of Barcelona in Provence" or some permutation thereof? Or since this does not mention "Catalonia" outright is this not acceptable? Eboracum (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Prince of Catalonia" is a red herring. Who brough it up? It isn't even in the article. Nobody is "shoving" Catalonia into the article. Rather, Catalonia fits quite nicely into an article about a figure who married the rector Catalanicus hostes (leader of the Catalan armies) according to a contemporary source. Don't make this about politics. I've never been to Catalonia and have no interest in her politics.
 * Describing how Douce's marriage to a male member of another dynasty produced children who belonged to that dynasty is a waste of space. Not mentioning Catalonia outright sucks all the force out of the sentence. Chaytor, writing in 1933, says "Provençal troubadours are supposed to have entered Catalonia at the time of the marriage of Ramon Berenguer III with Douce of Provence in 1112". It is this supposition with which the sentence is trying to come to grips. Anything less is not worth a sentence at all. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What need is there to be bringing up Catalonia to begin with? Scant historical references to "leaders of Catalan armies" just shows how tenuous the link between Provence and "Catalonia" is in this article.  Why is mention of a NOBLE HEIRESS and the dynastic consequences of her marriage to the Count of Barcelona (I remind you, the title used by her husband, none of this "leader of Catalan armies") somehow a waste of space?  I am simply stating a historical fact: with Douce of Provence's marriage the County of Provence passed into the hands of the House of Barcelona.  Needlessly forcing the name of a modern territory onto a time period when such an identity was not even fully formed yet is utter whitewashing of history.  The fact that Provence became to be ruled by the House of Barcelona is, however, irrefutable.


 * Need I also remind you that no territory existed in the 12th century in Europe out of some inherent identity that justified its existence: all were simply creatures of monarchs. Only historical romanticism that seeks to backdate the birth of the nation would equate the two.   Your arguments have only solidified my opinion that the only way to solve this impasse is to simply stick with the history versus the politics of identity that are clearly making their way into the article.Eboracum (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Catalonia existed in the twelfth century. Any other view is just absurd. I shouldn't even have argue for it. Now I can understand if you've been frustrated by Catalan nationalists in the pass. So have I. I've been frustrated by just about every kind of nationalist there is at Wikipedia, but this is not about nationalism or politics. It's about accurate representing medival history. So stop politicising the debate. I have rewritten the entire paragraph and I believe it is de-Catalanised enough for your liking. The point was never to emphasise Catalonia but rather to emphasise the larger importance of the marriage (and not just in establishing a dynasty at Provence, which hardly needs saying considering the list of her children and the succession box). Srnec (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually right now the article for me seems to be well balanced and overall combines the historical realities and "popular" conceptions of the link between the counties of Barcelona and Provence. Parfait.  Eboracum (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)