Talk:Kingdom of Valencia

Untitled
Only 1.2% of Jaime I's troops were Catalans, and they didnt even stay after the conquest, so stop writing valencian language developed from catalan language, because it comes from LATIN. they're SISTER TONGUES, but one doesn't come from the other one.


 * The translation is in progress. You may want to help by enlarging the translation, but deleting sections is not helping, on the contrary; for not to mention that you did so without sources. Mountolive | Talk 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the map "Christian conquest of the Kingdom of Valencia" to the article. It is not in its definitive place. Maurice27 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to interject, the statistic 1.2% sounds far to precise to be accurate and therefore is unbelievable. Whether the reality behind it is that Catalans were few among the Valencian conquerors or it is just wrong and based on bad methodology, I cannot tell. Furthermore, Catalan and Valencian are, as far as I know, not differentiable, really, as languages and therefore, whether the one developed out of the other or alongside it is like asking whether Canadian English grew out of or alongside American English. Srnec 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead
I edited this lead ''The Kingdom of Valencia was one of the component realms of the Crown of Aragon established by the union of the Principality of Catalonia and the Kingdom of Aragon in 1037. Valencia was, at that time, a Moorish city, but after its conquest, as the "successor" of the old taifa rulers, James the Conqueror took the title of "King of Valencia" and gave it its own cortes and government. The title lasted as subsidiary title of that of the King of Spain until 1707''.

because it just seems wrong to me to go as deep in the lead as to detail the circumstances of the Crown of Aragón dawn. Those certainly belong in the lead of the Crown of Aragón, but not in the lead of the Kingdom of Valencia.

Following your suggestion, I have kept moors but I have redirected it to taifas, this way we got both for the price of one and the lead doesn't goes too much in detail.

"Subsidiary title of that of the King of Spain" is misleading as it was no less subsidiary as it was for the King of the Crown of Aragón. The kingdom of Spain back in the day was really-really decentralized and each kingdom was largely autonomous.

I am not so satisfied with my own "lasted until 1707". You seem a native English speaker thus, if you find a more proper word, please feel free to improve my wording. Mountolive | Talk 05:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ps. I am pretty much done with introducing more info myself in the article (even though the Splendour section should be enlarged and I may come back to that at some point). In other words, I have hit the wall and I consider the article pretty much completed from this end.


 * This means that you may want to review it in order to amend all that clumsy wording resulting from my translation. Thanks Mountolive | Talk 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Joanot, as you know very well, the Nueva Planta Decrees were issued in 1707 and the dynastic union of the Crown of Aragón to the Castile happened in 1492 without any war whatsoever.

I wonder...have you been waiting all these days while I was making the translation only for me to finish it and then when everything is done start with your bias? Please, help, mate. Don't start disrupting this one also. It's getting tiresome, my friend. Mountolive | Talk 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only self-government, but independence
It's not only self-government, but a complete independence. The only link to the Crown of Aragon or with the Spanish Empire is the King, but the promulgation of laws were always made by Valencian Courts (where the King has only 1/3 of seats). The only tariffs were collected by the Valencian Generalitat, and the Valencian Courts decide how much money to give to King (or not to give) in each case. All people outside of Valencia, including Castilians, Catalans, Aragonese, or Majorcans were legally considered as foreigners and have no same rights as the Valencians (including some Muslim Valencians -called tagarins- have more rights than Christian Castilians), etc. There were also own Valencian currency (Valencian rals, sous and quinzets). And the "Charters of Valencia" was not "allowed" but "granted". Previously, the Princeps must swear it in the Valencian Courts in order to be entronized as King of Valencia. --Joanot Martorell &#9993; 07:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Independence" is misleading. You and I may know a few things about Valencian history, but the occasional user may have no freaking idea (that is why this is an encyclopaedia: to learn).
 * The occasional visitor may find weird that they were "independent" and, at the same time, "a part of" the Crown of Aragon. Because, well, it is weird: you just can not be man and woman at the same time. You can not be independent and, at the same time, partially subjected to a King who also ruled the neighbouring territories.
 * Just to mention some examples so that you understand my point: Portugal was independent from the Crown of Aragon, the Republic of Pisa was independent from the Crown of Aragon, the Kingdom of Granada was independent from the Crown of Aragon.... but the Kingdom of Valencia was not. I do not dispute your reasons above but, after all, there was some dependance from the King, as he could go there, call for Corts and get some money, he could also have his Court in Valencia or elsewhere and his military could cross from component kingdom to component kingdome without being considered a "foreign" army by any of those.
 * The King of, for example, Portugal couldn't do that, guess why? yes, because the Kingdom of Valencia was independent from Portugal.
 * "Independent" is also misleading because it makes you think that it was a stablished kingdom with its own foreign policy, home policies, etc, something which was not. The power was at a local level more than any centralization whatsover, other than the Corts, which were called by the King and were not a sovereign decission. In other words: if there was some independence, that would be within the territory; for example the city of Orihuela did not have any superior authority binding it to the city of Alcoy other than the King himself. There was no remarkable centralized administration whatsoever other than the one implemented by the king who, again, was not only the king of Valencia but of several other territories.
 * I am obviously removing the Valencian Country edit you made, once again, at your own risk and only to satisfy your personal POV. I am restoring the official name. This discussion doesn't belong here. It has started already in the relevant place, so please feel free to contribute there. If you don't like Comunitat Valenciana, I'll have no problem with the other official name, Comunidad Valenciana, if that's the one you prefer. Mountolive | Talk 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Joanot: please feel free to enlarge the Splendour section: I left it a bit sketchy on purpose specially for you, as your name is mentioned there; this way you could also do something other than messing with the names etc. Don't worry if you don't feel too confident with your English: someone else will correct it as they did with mine. Mountolive | Talk 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

removing infobox former country
The infobox is nice and all...but I guess that, in terms of factual accuracy, is fundamentally wrong and hardly salvageable. The complexities of medieval kingdoms were not meant to be contained by a wikipedia infobox in the 2000s.

To put it short, please refer to this fundamentally identical debate (just change the names involved)  Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a drastic change that needs some more explanation and discussion, in my opinion. You are referring to the case in Crown of Aragon, but that's not enough if you don't provide some reasons why those cases are analogous. Maybe the Kingdom of Valencia does not pose the same difficulties to have an infobox summarizing the main data. Let me know. --Carles Noguera (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, on the face of it, I did like the infobox, so, removing it is against my own better judgement. But the thing is that, when I tried to update it, I realised it is just fundamentally wrong. I wanted to start with the "languages", and then I realised I had to include "Castilian" (a name which is not correct for "Spanish" but it might have been correct back in the day, for the southern half of Alicante has been at least partially "Castilian" speaking from day 0) Mossarabic, Arabic and Aragonese...this would have made the infobox look increasingly clumsy. Then, as "official" language is supposed to be Valencian (Catalan?) and here is where the real trouble begins, because there was no "official" language as we know them back then (I guess at the court they all understood each other with any given "llemosí" variant).


 * And that was only to start with. Then there is the subject of flags (which were not used back then as a single unitarian flag in the way they are used nowadays), the subject of the coat of arms (I think that one is the one of Pere el Cerimoniós, I may be wrong, though; in any case, I dont think there was a stable coat of arms for the kingdom itself) the subject of religion (Islam and Judaism also should be included, even though they were not "official")...all compromising too much the whole idea of an infobox being of any worth.
 * That's when I remembered of this discussion at Crown of Aragon as linked in my previous post. If you review it, you'll see the questions raised are fundamentally identical. Using this infobox, to me, involves a case of presentism and trying to explain former realities with modern concepts, something which is ok with nationalists, but not ok with accuracy. The result may be nice, but only achieved by means of simplifying and eventualy sacrifying accuracy.
 * See, in this regard, the (Dis)infobox...


 * So, even though the infobox is nice and all, I think the best is to proceed. But, if you need further explanations, we can call user:Srnec and see what he thinks about it ;) Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I both agree with yours and Wetman's concerns about disinformative boxes. But, still, I think we can work out a solution to overcome these problems and recover a really accurate infobox as we (I mean, the Wikipedia community) are capable to do in other entries. Widely spoken languages could be added in a new line of the box, the same with wide spread religions. The notion of official religion seems quite clear. As regards official language, well, this item was not there in the box you erased, but it probably should be added based on the language mostly used in the legal documents issued by the court. About flags and symbols, I'm not expert enough in the topic to address your concerns, but an easy solution would be to leave them out of the infobox until some expert, based on sources, can tell whether they are to be added or not. What do you think? --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Carles. Mhhh...this time I am afraid I am not getting your point. If you agree with those concerns you say you do about disinformative boxes, then you should think there's no way that we can salvage this one, because it is -according to my view, that is- fundamentally wrong, it is not a matter of of debasing it or tweak it...to me, an infobox in such terms for this article is fundamentally wrong. I stand 100% by Wetman's precissions at his "disinfobox". You obviously see it differently....this time I have no further answers for your case other than those already mentioned, I'm afraid... Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to make it clearer then. Take a look at the entries in this category . It is plenty of articles (all of them, it seems, after a short inspection) about former countries where this kind of infobox is used. I agree that an infobox must be accurate because otherwise it will suffer of the disease Wetman complains of. But, when properly used, they can be very helpful by highlighting the main data of the country. Why do you think that this is possible in all those countries and absolutely impossible for the Kingdom of Valencia? In my opinion it is a matter of debasing and tweaking. --Carles Noguera (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mhhh, when people ask me here in wikipedia about other articles, I typically have handily the "two wrongs dont make one right"...and I guess 15 wrongs dont make one right either.... In that category you are mentioning, I do agree in using the infobox in those former states which are post industrial revolution (Czechoslovakia, Nazi Germany and the like). In my opinion, that infobox fits better those articles, for its parameters are modern and those former states, even though deceased, were modern in nature, while medieval or more ancient realities are not, that is why.


 * This said, I paid a random look at some of the older states in that category and I guess I can live with having an infobox here like this one but still more minimal:
 * without the languages; is there any use in listing 5 languages in an infobox? and I can advance you that I dont agree in that there was any "official" language whatsoever in the Kingdom of Valencia: "court" or "king" language did not mean automatically "official" back then
 * probably without religion either (but we could discuss this one)
 * so it all comes down to a map, capital, government (first and last ruler), establishment and disestablishment. If you are ok with it, just go ahead please.
 * you know the problem with that? people unaware (or not willing to be aware) of this conversation will be adding every now and then the "official language", "flag", "coat of arms" etc etc....if you still favour the infobox, then I hope you help with them... Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, 50 wrongs do not necessarily make one right, I know that. But it is always useful to compare analogous situations when trying to find a good solution for a particular problem. So, let's see what consensus do we have exactly. We seem to share the feeling that some kind of table in general helps the reader, but of course it must be rigorous and completely neutral, otherwise it would be more misleading than helpful. We can at least, you say, restore some minimal version of the infobox. That is reasonable only if, in my opinion, it is not intended to be an infobox that cannot be further improved. For instance, we might think now that the concept of official language in such kind of medieval country is not clear at all, so we skip it. But some day somebody could come with sources and show us that such a concept is acceptable in history books, so he could arguable ask to add it in the infobox. The same with religion and other issues. So, in my view, we can implement just what is clear for the two of us, and keep the possibility for other editors to add more information, only when properly sourced. More explicitly: yes, I would be helping you in reverting unsourced contributions, but I could also support interesting sourced additions. --Carles Noguera (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmmmh...yes and no. I mean, 'yes', ok, as I said before, to a minimal less-is-more infobox if you think it is absolutely necessary (I'd rather not to have it for future problems, but you are my pal and, what is worse, you will start hating me if I dont concede ;)
 * Rather 'no' to some "future improvements", at least in the language section. I mean, in 2008 we know quite a lot already about the Medieval Ages and, more than that, I dont think we will have impressive discoveries in this regard. Official languages, as we know them now can never be official languages as they could have known them then. Nowadays, the official language concept is a clear-cut one, while back then, they were using all kinds of "llemosíns" and, well, if there was anything close to an official language, that was, well,...Latin.
 * What I mean is that you should not believe anything written in a history book....for Jordi Bilbeny writes "history books" after all, doesnt he? ;) Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on! Bilbeny you say! You're kidding xD When I speak about further improvements of course I mean Verifiability (and in particular Verifiability), and many sources would never qualify, sure. So, I insist on the proposal: we can be prudent and minimal now, but we cannot expect to settle in stone the article forever as everything could be always further improved. --Carles Noguera (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe.
 * As far as I am concerned, you can proceed, Carles. Just cross fingers for user:Srnec not catching you :P and I will keep a vigilant eye myself too :P
 * p.s. can't wait for next Bilbeny's production proving that Albert Einsten was actually from Mollerussa... :D Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 13:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done it. The only problem is that I wasn't able to find an English version of the map and I don't know how to produce it. Hope somebody can do it. Thanks for your collaboration. I hope it is a good addition to the article.--Carles Noguera (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And you've done it well. As it is now, I think no one could possibly object anything to the infobox. Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, no problem with the map. I already started changing it yesterday. It will be probably be finish today. Just two questions: Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 06:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How should I translate "Dellà"? My Catalan is missing that word.
 * Not wanting to start another edit war, I looked for some of the article's names in english wikipedia. Do we agree to use such names as "Orihuela" and "Jucar river"? What about "La Vall d'Uixó"? There is no related article. Should I use "Uixó" or "Uxó"?


 * Thank you so much for the technical help Maurice. Your questions: I would translate "dellà" as "beyond", but about the names I have no clear answer. The problem is that I have a general doubt whether we should be using Spanish or Catalan versions of the names when there is no anglicized name. Recently the entry about Elx was moved to "Elche" (I didn't protest because it was formerly named "Elche/Elx", something completely unacceptable and definitely worse that "Elche"). This is not the place to discuss that because it would require some more general considerations. So, let's say that now I will be happy with whatever solution you and Mountolive may propose and some day, when we will have time, we can have the general discussion about geographical names. Anyway, if it is of any help, the Spanish version is "Uxó". --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, "beyond" or, maybe, "further beyond" is still a more accurate translation.
 * As for the translation of the names, my suggestion is that you keep the original Valencian and, in a smaller letter, you add a temptative English translation (which will be troublesome...what are you thinking of for "Governació"? complicated, huh?...).
 * And when I say the original Valencian, I mean the original used in the documents surviving. I would have to check (but, errr....I dont know where) but I'd say that Uxo (no tilde) was the original Valencian spelling, also, I am almost 100% sure that Oriola was used instead of Orihuela, and, most probably, Xuquer (no tilde) over Jucar. Probably, "governació" was spelled "gobernacio" instead, but not sure of this one...
 * Anyone could pay a look at some google books or Arxiu de la Corona d'Aragó or something like that to check original spellings? That would be great and, for a change, we would make a constructive discussion here in wikipedia! that would be a blast! :D Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * p.s. I'd say that "della lo (riu) Xuquer/Uxo" is the original formula. Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What I believe is the correct translation to "Governació" would be Governorate. That is no problem. But you are now saying to keep valencian names... Should I translate them to the english name used nowadays or not? --MauritiusXXVII   (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, that is great, I didnt know about Governorate. That's a great one. About the translation, my humble suggestion is to keep the Valencian original and, in smaller letters right next to it, provide an English approximate translation...please dont get mad at me ;) Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Here's first try... You tell me if it needs any change. --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good one. I'd change Orihuela for Oriola and Jucar for Xuquer, to use the original terms. Also, same as with the "dellàs" I'd keep the same pattern with the main Gobernorates, i. e., I'd keep the original in capital letters "Governacio de Valencia" and "Governacio d'Oriola" (no tildes) and then, in smaller letters, the English translation "Gobernorate of Valencia/Oriola".
 * What remains pending is the original spelling of "Governació d'Oriola"...I doubt about using the apostrophe (d'Oriola) back in medieval writings, also I very much doubt the V-B spelling of "Gobernacio/Governacio". Anyone knows anything about this?


 * I believe, on the contrary, that having both languages is redundant. This could create a dangerous precedent. Can you imagine having all the maps in the english wikipedia having to display both the names in english and native language? Is there really a need to display "gobernació de valencia" if "gobernorate of valencia" is already shown? Let's not forget that this is a map for the english wikipedia. spanish wiki has it own one and same happens for catalan wiki. About Jucar and Orihuela, I just used the names used in the article titles, assuming that those are the names used in the english language. I kept the valencian "dellà do riu Uxo" because it doesn't seem to have a clear translation into english. May I notice to you that in the spanish version of the article that territory is described as "Lugartenencia de Castellon" which clearly isn't a word by word translation of "dellà do riu Uxo". I'm not making my point from this as I have not a single clue about what does "dellà do riu Uxo" or "Lugartenencia de Castellon" stand for... Being the first time I heard about both of them --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmmmh...I see your point. I guess you are right and, in any case, keeping English only will eliminate the problem of the original spelling of the Valencian names.
 * In such a case, to me the only thing that needs to be amended in your first try is Governorate of Orihuela and change it to Governorate of Oriola, because that was the most common name back then and the one which certainly be more common in documents dating from back then. Mountolive   deny, deflect, detonate 19:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mountolive's last proposal. Good work, Maurice! As far as I am concerned, you can proceed with that and substitute the map in the article. --Carles Noguera (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooops... I completely forgot about this... I will try to finish it this week end. --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Last king
Carles, just one question. Why is it redirecting in the infobox Philip IV to Philip V? is it because Philip V of Spain was Philip IV of the Crown of Aragon? and, shouldnt be listed as last king Charles II of Spain anyway? Mountolive  deny, deflect, detonate 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if I am not wrong Philip V (IV of Aragon and Valencia) was the last king, as he inherited the crown at the death of Charles II, prior to the war. --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)