Talk:Valencian language/Archive 2

Neutral POV
This article desperately needs to be broken down into two sections arguing the two positions. Any discussion of Valencian will be biased unless it takes into account that there is a controvosy.

It *doesn't matter* who is right: the function of the Wikipedia in this cases is to provide the full information, let each side make its case, and give the user access to further pointers.

We cannot solve something that is politically so contentious in this talk page. It's not going to happen.

If there is no oposition, I will add the two sections, and bootstrap them with some small text, trying to be as balanced as possible. -- Afaus, 18 Dic 2005

WARNING TO THE READER: This article does not follow WP:NPOV policies.IeXrivâ (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Academy
Isn't there an apart Academy? [anonymous]

Yes, but it recognizes, as most linguists do, that Valencian is a dialect of Catalan. The ones who don't are the government of Valencia (PP, considered a right-wing spanish nationalist party) and the catalanophobic extreme right wing violent groups that lately have been on the rise in the region. Linguistically, or scientifically if you prefer, Valencian is a dialect of Catalan. Politically, and, as one might infere from that, legally, it isn't. Sirstrahd 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In other hand, Real Academia de la Lengua Valenciana, challenges the pancatalanistic thesis, and supports that valencian is different language evolved from pig latin spoken in that region. Juan 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You state "Politically, and, as one might infere from that, legally, it isn't." Well actually there are about a dozen Valencia high court judgments (and a couple of Supreme court judgments as well) that are quite happy to accept what the whole of the scientific community doesn't doubt: Valencian is just the regional name for the way Valencians speaks what elsewhere is called "Catalan". Strubell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.161.78 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 February 2009


 * Only located one High Court ruling on this. As you might know, one ruling is not "jurisprudence" as at least two rulings would be required. In other sense, a ruling is based in the evidence and law provided the parties, and its effects only affect those parties involved. It is, therefore, misleading to try to extract conclusions about valencian-catalan regarding this controversy. Juan 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ISO 639
The ISO code is given as ca or cat. Shouldn't it be ca-valencia as stated at the end of section Language or Catalan dialect?? Or is it even controversial to consider Valencian a variant of Catalan, as opposed to identical with Catalan? (Some have used roa-es-val but I guess this is nonstandard so it needn't be mentioned.)--87.162.17.49 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see in the infobox, there are different ISO 639 codes, some with 2 and others with 3 letters. Valencian is the name usually given to the Western varieties of Catalan language in Valencia, and also the name given to Catalan language itself in Valencia. Don't be confounded with the combination of ISO 639 and ISO 3166 in computer systems, such as en_GB/en-GB and fr_CA/fr-CA, which can help to reflect some linguistic differences but not always necessarily.
 * The addon you see is made up by blaverists, which use a non-standard ortography (usually intentionally more Spanish alike) and avoid the usage of locale codes such as «ca», which would mean accepting the unity of the language, which they deny because of political motivations. --Toniher (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is surprising why there's still no Wikipedia in Valencian? Since it's a separate 'standard' language, you should make an effort to make a Wikipedia in Valencian, like it's case with many other languages and dialects. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.uiquipedia.org/Portada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.9.75 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ? This link is not toward a Wikipedia project. There is already a Wikipedia for Català and you can use any dialect to write articles. Since the dialects spoken in Valencia are part of the same language, any proposal to duplicate are rejected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correjon (talk • contribs) 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannot you include a better explanation of the Valencian phonology?
In Standard Valencian exists the difference between b [b] and v [v]. This is one of the most noticeable differences between Catalan dialects, along with the fricative/affricates variation. Vowel reduction occurs in Valencian in some cases; as ho [u]~[w]~[ew]~[o], conill [ku'niʎ], quina hora [kin'ɔɾa], onze [onz'aɲz], Joan [dʒuan], Josep [dʒu'zɛp], eixir [ajʃiɾ], etc. A Vowel harmony is quite common in the south of Valencia province and most of Alicante province. The Catalan sounds [ɕ], [ʑ], [tɕ], and [dʑ] are represented as [ʃ], [ʒ], [tʃ], and [dʒ].

http://www.avl.gva.es/ http://www.avl.gva.es/PDF/Diccionari/Oral.pdf (Standard spoken Valencian) http://www.avl.gva.es/PDF/GNV.pdf Jaume87 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Catalan is Valencian
If you have some original research which you believe proves Catalan and Valencian are something else than dialects of the same language, please try to convince first the dictionaries of the world.

Otherwise please attend to the reality: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1527276/Valencian-language http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=valenciano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.58.60 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indented line

Long before politics entered into this problem, Pompeu Fabra i Poch, to most, father of the modern catalan, stated that applying the same ortography to Catalan, Valencian and Mallorquin was impossible, as is contra natura. In these sense, see "L´Avenç" March 31, 1891. Can we accept, as Mr. Fabra noted, that there exist important differences between catalan and valencian?. Juan 23:40, 2 november 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.161.197 (talk)

Neutral POV and Political content about Valencian should be moved to a different article
I think political content about valencian could be diminished, and most info could be moved to names of the Catalan language, like the section Valencian language or Catalan dialect?.


 * ca:demoninacions del català (appellations of the Catalan language througout its history).
 * ca:Català-valencià-balear

IMO this articule should be focused on Valencian features and AVL works. This article should explain better Valencian phonetics, lexicon, Valencian differences with Eastern Catalan, etc. Also, sounds charts could be added for Valencian, as better explanations. Even improve Valencian dialects (or subdialects) content. Add the map for valencian vowel harmony.
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harmonitzaci%C3%B3_voc%C3%A0lica_al_valenci%C3%A0.png

Also more Valencian lexicon should be added too, with pronunciation keys:
 * Valencian-Catalan
 * melic - llombrígol
 * vesprada-tarda
 * bou-toro
 * brossat-mató
 * corder-xai
 * creïlla-patata
 * granera-escombra
 * eixir-sortir
 * hui-avui
 * llaurador-pagès
 * poal-galleda
 * xiquet-nen
 * roig-vermell
 * espill-mirall

Other variants in spelling:


 * Valencian-Catalan
 * cementeri-cementiri
 * depòsit-dipòsit
 * renyó-ronyó
 * seua-seva / teua-teva / meua-meva
 * servici-servei (also servei in Valencian)
 * xàrcia-xarxa (also xarxa in Valencian)
 * <é> /e/ -<è> /ɛ/ (ca:regles d'accentuació del català)
 * València [vaˈlensja]-València [bəˈɫɛnsjə], sèsam [ˈsezam]-sèsam [ˈsɛzəm]

This current article is a completely mess, to be honest. When i read this article i just see controversy is denser than anything else. Jaume87 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An article like es:conflicto lingüístico valenciano would be better to liberate this article from controversy Jaume87 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC):)


 * I quite agree that the article is a mess, but I feel its not possible to separate the controversial aspects from the linguistic ones, because if it were not for the existence of the controversy there would be no justification for Valencian having its own article; after all, Mallorquí doesn't have one. AdeMiami (talk)


 * Well, there is ca:Mallorquí and es:Mallorquín. Someone could port them to English. (and Balearic already exists!) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that, any dialect, language, creole language, pidgin or whichever way of human communication can be added to wikipedia (with proven references). Controversy is not the reason to do articles about languages, dialects, etc.
 * I think it is possible most controversial explanations about Valencian could be moderated here, moving (not removing) most controversial aspects to names of the Catalan language or an article like Catalan-Valencian linguistic conflict. Jaume87 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. Too much politics here and very little language, literature and history info. Maybe we could take a look on other articles related to controverted languages, and see how they have solved the problem. IeXrivâ 00:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous versions such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=396286889 had a better intro, current intro is poor and misleading. Correjon (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, my intention with the modification was clean up the intro from info that should be hosted under the section of distribtion and usage of valencian. I think that intro can be improved, in this sense intro should be completed with brief references about the content of the article. Also, in my humble opinion, the article should contain two more specific sections: "history" and "literature". More ideas? IeXrivâ 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Been working in the article, adding a literature section (as proposed), making short info about origins controversy (too long, info on positions must be of similar weight), moving info to other sections, and making the new article to host a deeper debate on controvertical issues (as proposed) (Note NEW ARTICLE CREATED: Valencian language controversy). A bot has reverted the article, and now its a mess. When an admin sees the case, I'll try revert to tonight.IeXrivâ 00:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I think I clicked on the wrong link in #cvn-wp-en and reverted your edit without checking carefully enough. I still don't understand how a revert messed up the article, though. Can't you just undo my edit? --AznBurger (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing work on the article
As above referred, I am trying to change the article struture in order to give priority to usage, variants and literature rather than to the messy political-historical debate. Please, contribute, correct and advise with more ideas. Controversy exists, and the article must give short reference to the controversy, giving similar weight to all three thesis, but please, note that a new page has been opened to host info about the Valencian language controversy. Extended info about the controversy should be hosted there. IeXrivâ00:00, 30 November 2010
 * Revision: developed info in section "Valencian Legal Status" (this section could be moved down. Suggestions?); updated usage section with data from 2010 study (just published). I agree that current lead is not very good and does not stick to WP:LS. I will try to draft a better new lead section following WP:LS. 4 paragraphs summarizing relevant content of the article, refering controversy and duly citing info. How about drafting also a history section? Any comments? Welcomed IeXrivâ01:11, 07 December 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IeXrivâ (talk • contribs)
 * You should discuss first rather than doing such unsourced and random editions. I will help to develop better phonetics explantions, Valencian spelling-normes de castelló, lexicon (create an article about lexical differences between Catalan dialects).
 * This article deals with the Valencian language, known as Catalan language elsewhere. AVL recognises Valencian as an alternative legal/official name for Catalan, with its own identity (used since the XVth/XVIth Century). Moreover, as it is said, all linguist and scholars agree both names are used to designate/term the same language.
 * Catalan(-Valencian-Balearic) is a pluricentric language, as much as English, Portuguese, etc. Pluricentric languages are based on two or more standard, possibly permitting several transcriptions; see WP:IPA for Catalan and WP:IPA for Portuguese.


 * This current article lacks of sources, and good definitions.


 * Is it worth taking into consideration the Spanish Constitution? It is pointless, the Spanish Constitution only allows other languages to be used within the Kingdom of Spain (formal recognition nationwide), while the Valencian Statute of Autonomy goes in-depth about Valencian rights and laws.
 * I will revert that, there is no need of mentioning such irrelevant quotes. Jaume87 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jaume87. Glad to have your help here. No one else seems to be interested in this article. Hope we work together.
 * I have concerns about your recent changes in the lead. In my opinion, the issue cannot be summarized that way, as to describe Valencian to be the name used in the Valencian Community to refer to the Catalan language. Citations are not correct either. AVL does not exactly says that "Catalan is Valencian" or "Valencian is not Catalan", because the issue is not that easy:
 * AVL refers that Valencian is the historical language of Valencia.
 * AVL states that Valencian is a language part of the same linguistical system as other ones of the old Crown of Aragon, but this is open to diverse intepretations. (Ibero-romance, Gallo-romance, Occitan or Catalonian system?). But sure does not say that Valencian is a Catalan dialect!! (incorrect citation).
 * Some AVL assertions that Valencian is also called Catalan in other autonomies are not very clear. Within its context, some can also make reference to "Tortosi" or "Valencia de transicio", Valencian variety considered as Catala in the Catalonian Statute of Autonomy.
 * In brief, AVL supports of the idea 1 linguistic system (Catala-Valencia-Balear) with different standards. This means Catalan standard is not the same as Valencian standard.
 * - In other sense, phillologists don't just state that "Valencian is Catalan". Not only there are some that claim that Valencian derives from Mozarab Romance or Occitan. There are other issues as well. It is noted the differentiation between eastern and western catalan variants. Valencian would be closely related to the western varieties, but not that closely to Barceloni, this latter eastern variety in which the current Catalan standard is based. There are also comments on different levels of intelligibility of Valencian with the other different variants.
 * - Two things are sure, there are two different and official standards for this common linguisitical system, both based in the "Normes de Castello", which also provides for the existance of such differences. And these two variants have gained legal recognition as languages and have different language regulators.
 * - Also note that not "all" scholars and philologists consider Catalan and Valencian the same language. That assertion is not correct. There is controversy on this isse.
 * - Valencian Golden Century writers are part of Valencian literature, but not of Catalan literature. Its like American Literature and British Literature, regarding English language.
 * I preferred previous intro. This one is misleading. But some of the work could be kept. Therefore, lead needs rephrasing.
 * Regarding the Spanish Constitution issue, if we are to talk on the Valencian legal status, we need to cite the Constitution ("Kelsen Pyramid"). Also relevant, taken into care that having constitutional protection, seems that it has not been recognized yet in th EU. I agree that legal status section was to be moved down.
 * Thanks for the new section (history). Now we have to fill them with info!
 * Regarding info box modifications by Mutxamel. Same as above said. Is simply misleading. Not official in Andorra or Balears (catalan there). Not regulated by IEC. Prior map was better to explain linguistical influence of valencian. And speakers stats have disappeared!!. In other sense, new infobox "Catalan-Valencian cultural domain". That is sure controvertical!! I am reverting to previous Jaume87 version. IeXrivâ 23:32, 8 December 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IeXrivâ (talk • contribs)
 * Valencian is actually spoken in Andorra and Balears, taking the name of Catalan. In fact, valencian and catalan speakers are the same, no reason to avoid or differenciate them. Thus, valencian golden century writers are part of Catalan literature, and modern catalan writers (like Quim Monzó) are also part of valencian literature, as american and british writers are together into english literature. Greetings! --Mutxamel (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Valencian has nine million speakers and it's spoken in Andorra?? You are confusing the Valencian "variant" with the whole of the Catalan language. Nobody says that Valencian is spoken by 9 million people. Provide a source for these claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. Valencian is not a narrowly defined as a variant/dialect of catalan, catalan/valencian dialects are a continuum with no spiking. But as said by the VLA, valencian is the name we give to the whole language, without affecting other denominations used in surrounding territories. In fact, someone from Barcelona can say we speak catalan in valencia, as a citizen of Valencia can say that a barcelonan speaks valencian. Same language, same number of speakers, several dialects (tortosian, apitxat, central...) two names, no divisions. Greetings! --Mutxamel (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the 2005 AVL statement, "Valencian" can have two meanings: the whole of the Catalan language, or just the variant spoken in Valencia:

""(point 5) l’AVL considera que el terme més adequat per a designar la llengua pròpia en la Comunitat Valenciana és el de valencià, denominació que s’ha preservat legalment, ja que és una de les principals senyes d’identitat del nostre poble. Este nom pot designar tant la globalitat de la llengua que compartim amb els territoris de l’antiga Corona d’Aragó ja esmentats, com també, amb un abast semàntic més restringit, la modalitat idiomàtica que ens caracteritza dins d’eixa mateixa llengua. Així mateix, és plenament vàlida la denominació de llengua valenciana, sense que este ús implique que es tracte d’un idioma diferent del compartit amb els altres territoris ja indicats.,""


 * This article is only about the variant spoken in Valencia. The totality of the language is covered in Catalan language. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Enric. AVL says that Catalan and Valencian can be indistintly used to refer the whole language system, but at the same time, AVL makes clear that Valencian also makes reference to the Valencian language as the regional variant. In this article we should deal about Valencian speech, its standard, its local varieties, literature written in Valencian historical variant and its authors, Valencian variant speaker stats, and so on... Personally, I support the idea that Catalan should only make reference to Catalan standard and variants. Isn't there an article for the whole language system?. --User:IeXcrivâ (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IeXrivâ (talk • contribs)
 * As above, this article is about the Valencian variant. The article for the whole linguistic system is Catalan language.


 * Consequently, I have reverted the changes, and I have added a source for Valentian having only 2 million speakers. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, current infobox makes is nonsense, and very misleading. I submit this one for discussion. Please contribute:

IeXrivâ (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC) No way, the "mozarab-romance" filiation is only defended by a very tiny minority of professionals, is not important enough to be shown in the infobox. Also there is no reason to separate the valencian as a sub-language of the "catalan-valencian-balearic", because there are the same language. Not to mention the silliness of putting a question mark beside catalan. If this article is only for the variant spoken in valencia, there is also no reason to mention only 2M speakers. If we take a look to another dialectal articles like Scottish English there is even not an infobox. But if we take a look to Croatian_language, infobox is depicted as-is. I like the croatian-style (the map and the dialect distinction), but we should change also the catalan main page and other catalan dialects to uniformize the question and not to appear as splitted languages. This is such a huge work... --Mutxamel (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, i couldn't answer before. Right now I'm pretty busy with uni, but still i am willing to improve this article. Xcrivâ, you should calm down, and do not attempt against the Catalan-Valencian-Balearic language unity, you know what's a pluricentric language?. Catalan-Valencian-Balearic is a pluricentric. This lede is not that bad, it could be better :D. Anything you want to change you need to prove it with references, unsourced editions are going to be deleted. AVL states Valencian is part of the same linguistic system used in Catalonia, the Balearics, Andorra, etc. as much as you want to avoid this. There isn't Valencian Studies, but Catalan Studies, as there are not Andalusian and Brazilian Studies, but Spanish and Portuguese studies. This article needs to be regarded as an alternative name for Catalan, including its own essence; that is identity, history, phonetics, vocabulary, etc. (and as an alternative standard which represents Western Catalan dialects). I dare you to go to the Catalan Studies and linguistics department at any public Valencian university and ask, what's Valencian? They will tell you the same answer.

About these theses:


 * Mozarabic and Arabic influenced on the Valencian language (arabic substrate)! Valencian did not origin neither from Mozarabic language nor from Arabic, this is totally wrong and non sense, pretty much supported by those who do not know much about linguistics, and those who state Valencian is not the same language as Catalan (es:blaverisme). All Ibero-Romance languages (and Southern Gallo-Romance/Occitano-Romance languages) have a certain degree of Arabic influence, and this is more prominent in the south of the Iberian Peninsula, as Algarve-Andalusia-Land of Valencia.


 * Arabic influence
 * carrot → cenoura (portuguese), cenoria (galician), safanòria/pastanaga (valencian/catalan), zanahoria (castilian).
 * basil → alfavaca/basílico/manjericão (portuguese), albahaca/asubiote (galician), alfàb(r)ega (catalan/valencian), albahaca/alhábega (castilian)
 * customs' office → alfândega and aduana (portuguese), alfándega and aduana (galician), aduana (castilian), duana (catalan/valencian).
 * meatball → almôndega (portuguese), albóndega (galician), mandonguilla (catalan/valencian, albóndiga (castilian, also dialectal almóndiga).
 * In Portuguese, lettuce is alface (arabic), while in galician, leituga (latin)
 * In Valencian and some other dialects, corn/maize is dacsa (arabic), while in other Catalan dialects, blat de moro/de l'Índia/d'indi (latin).
 * I'd also say in Andalusian Spanish alhaja (arabic) is used more frequently than joya (old french).
 * Toponymy: Albufeira, Algarve, Andalusia, Algeciras, Guadalquivir, Albufera, Benissa, Benicàssim
 * We could list so many words here :D


 * Is it Mexican Spanish another language for having a Nahuatl and Mayan influence? I tell you there are no commonsensical linguists who would agree with these theses.
 * For those who supports this theory, examples like;
 * Murcian, Andalusian Spanish, Australian English, Brazilian Portuguese could be regarded as separate languages. Substracta can be added to dialects, without turning them to be new languages.

Speakers You need to include Catalan-Valencian-Balearic total speakers (9 million) Valencian speakers (2.5 million) and native Valencian speakers (is it about 1 million?). When I get some time I will revert and modify some of these editions, and sort out Valencian phonetics, dialects, morphology, writing sistem, etc. And I will try to add a vowel chart that do not contain schwa as in Eastern Catalan dialects. Jaume87 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Hi there. Thanks for your (few) comments and other proposals for the infobox submitted. I called the infobox into discussion because I thought we could remake current one, which is misleading (either Gallo-Romance or Iberian-Romance, not both), map could be better (does not show Carche speaking area nor Tortosi), the always conflictive number of speakers (where to get a decent research??), ISO 639-3 (why either? there is one specific).

Regarding the family classification, which seems to draw your interest, I tried to draft the official version, to make Valencian member of a wider Catalan-Valencian-Balear group (as expressed by AVL), and, in order to avoid NPOV concerns, I added the 2 other alternative scientifical versions (Catalan dialect?) (evolved Mozarab?) adding these with question marks, as unnofficial.

Classifying a Romance language is no easy task, there are different ways of doing it, and different results are supported. '''Schollars have devoted a lot of time to this issue during the last two centuries. We are not going to solve this riddle here. The best we can do is collect all available info, publish it in an ordely manner and let everyone draw its own conclussions.'''

Otherwise, that NPOV tag will be pending over this article for ever.

Regarding your comments: - To Mutxamel:
 * Mozarabic thesis has been historically supported by some relevant Hispanic philologists and historians, and was the principal thesis studied and taught by scholars until the mid-XX century.
 * Catalan-Valencian-Balear is therminology used by the Ethnologue to refer this language system. There should be one article on this, as in Catalan and in Spanish WP.
 * Note that Catalan origins (i.e., Valencian as Catalan dialect) is not the only family disputed. Mozarab or Valencian classification are questioned as well.
 * Let be me clear, I'm not saying which are the true origins of Valencian, I'm just saying that there is one official position, and there are other different and well-founded positions. Either (i) only the official, or (ii) all or (iii) neither of them are to be shown in the infobox, or we risk taking sides in the matter.
 * Why can't we cite the number of Valencian variants speakers? Catalan standard is not Valencian standard. Right?

- To Jaume87:
 * Hold there, my friend. I don't campaign for or against the unity of the language. My motivation is to draft a decent and non-partisan WP article on Valencian language. Is that right?. In order to do so, see my opinion above: collect and publish.
 * When I say that "Catalan-Valencian-Balear" is a wider language system, and I say that Valencian is a language I stick to AVL memo. 1 common language (i.e. Language system), multiple names (sinonyms) for the system (catalan, valencian, balear), each of these names, at the same time, making reference to different regional variants and official standards. You will have too agree with me, whether we like it or not, that AVL regulates what is Valencian language officialy and states the existance of this language system and the recognition of Valencian as language.
 * All Catalan-Valencian-Balear speeches have distinguishing phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical features, either shared with other or of their own. AVL declares it competency to preserve Valencian charactheristics.
 * I'll try to edit the lead this week-end and would appreciate collaboration. Remember also that you have to add adecuate references to lead section, as if not, I won't be able to use those assertions.
 * Please note that, in philological terms, all Romance languages are thought to be a dialect continuum. The regional subproduces of latin, divided at its own time into smaller variants groups, and so on, with varying degrees of mutual intelligibility.
 * Mozarabic language was a Romance languages, not an Arabic language!!. Some philologist state that there are evidences that this language was spoken in the Valencian region during the XIth century, this is prior to the Jacobite "Reconquest of Valencia" in the XIIIth century and the arrival to Valencian of other romance languages brought by catalan, aragonese and occitans. Therefore, the evolution of Mexican Spanish does not serve as an example (no Romance language was there when Cortes burnt his ships). Nor Australian English evoltion, nor Brazilian Portuguese evolution. Neither.
 * I completely agree that Occitan thesis section should be improved. Is there any good references on this. (I find this thesis suggestive). Occitan-Catalan diasystem? interesting, but is not supported by AVL memo)
 * Can't quite understand how you can claim and deny the existance of Andalusian Spanish in the same argument. A true homo politicus, take it as a compliment.
 * Why can't we cite the number of Valencian variants speakers? Is it tabu or something? Possitive, a person from Barcelona does not speak nor write the Valencian standard, despite being a common linguistical system. We cannot count Barceloni usrers like if they were real Valencian speakers.
 * I agree about the vowel chart. It's one of the differences between standard Catalan and Valencian.

Valencian is the correct denomination for this language, and AVL states that it is part of the same linguistic system as the languages used in Catalonia, the Balearics, Andorra, etc., as much as you want to avoid this point. Regards. IeXrivâ (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? Where do i claim and deny the existence of Andalusian Spanish? lol, i think you read what you please :S
 * I SAID; for those who support that MOZARABIC THEORY, ANDALUSIAN SPANISH COULD BE REGARDAD AS A SEPARATE LANGUAGE. Andalusian is the dialect with the heaviest influence from Arabic, is it a language?
 * It is NOT! Please, common sense!


 * Can you show me and highlight where do i claim and deny the existence of Andalusian? Because i am lost, it seems you are pretty narrow minded, and also seems you don't know that much about linguistics.


 * I perfectly know Mozarabic was a Latin language, though it took many ARABIC LOANWORDS! Could have had more than contemporanean Ibero-Romance languages. And most of those loanwords entered to current Ibero-Romance language via Mozarabic language!!!


 * Read what it is said on the Mozarabic language article:
 * Mozarabic was a continuum of closely related Romance dialects spoken in Muslim-dominated areas of the Iberian Peninsula during the early stages of the Romance languages' development in Iberia.


 * The morphology of some words is closer to Latin than other Iberian Romance or Romance languages in general. This Romance variety had a significant impact in the formation of PORTUGUESE, SPANISH and especially ANDALUSIAN SPANISH, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY THESE LANGUAGES HAVE SEVERAL WORDS OF ANDALUSI ARABIC ORIGIN, QUITE INFLUENCED BY ARABIC AND VICE VERSA).


 * It was spoken by Mozarabs (Christians living as dhimmis), Muladis (the native Iberian population converted to Islam) and some layers of the ruling Arabs and Berbers. The cultural language of Mozarabs continued to be Latin, but as time passed, YOUNG MOZARABS STUDIED AND EVEN EXCELLED AT ARABIC. DUE TO THE NORTHWARDS MIGRATIONS OF MOZARABS, WE CAN FIND ARABIC PLACENAMES IN AREAS WHERE ISLAMIC RULE DID NOT LAST LONG. WITH DEEPING OF ISLAMIZATION AND ADVANCE OF THE RECONQUISTA, MOZARABIC WAS SUBSTITUTED EITHER BY ARABIC OR BY NORTHERN ROMANCE VARIETIES, depending on the area and century!!


 * Now, Valencian is the same language as Catalan and i am not allowing your own unhelpful definitions and interpretations.
 * What does mean for you: Valencian is the same language as that of Andorra, Catalonia, etc. Is it Cantonese or Angolan Portuguese?


 * Have a look at Hindi-Urdu (Hindi-Urdu phonology), a linguistic system with two scripts Devanagari and Perso-Arabic.
 * Catalan-Valencian-Balearic can be classified as either Gallo-Romance or Ibero-Romance.
 * Gallo-Romance and Occitano-Romance
 * Ibero-Romance and East Iberian (you can't mention mozarabic language, it's illogic). Jaume87 (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jaume87:
 * First of all, calm down or you will get a heart attack. I remind you that discussion must be held in a sociallly acceptable manner. Agressive and disrespectful behaviour and statements (just to point a few samples, indiscrimminated use of CAPS, expressions like "I dare you", "you are pretty narrow minded", "it seems you don't know that much about linguistics") are not appropiatte.
 * As you might perfectly know, Mozarab is classified as a Romance language. As such, you have to agree that, if Valencian mozarab subsisted and was the origin of Valencian, it cannot be referred just as Arabic substrate, it would be Latin and Arabic substrate. As you might know, arabic influence left many toponims and words, but structure of Romance languages in Spain was not mutated by Arabic influence.
 * The point is not what Valencian is for you or for me. The point is what schollars consider Valencian to be. In this sense, AVL official position is clear:


 * "Valencian is the collective and historical language of valencians, from a philological point of view, is that also shared with the autonomous communities of Catalonis, Balearic Islands and the Andorran Principate. In the same manner, it is the historical and collective language of other territories of the former Crown of Aragon (the eastern fringe of Aragon, the Sardinian city of Alghero and the French department of Pyrénées Orientales). The different speeches of all these territories constitute a language, i.e., the same "language system", according to the terminology of first structuralism (Annex 1) as of the opinion of the Valencia Council of Culture, as contained in the preamble of the Act Creation of the AVL. As part of that group of speeches, Valencian has the same hierarchy and dignity as any other local variant of the language system, and shows some characteristics of its own that the AVL will preserve and enhance according to lexicographical and literary tradition, the reality of Valencian language, and the standardization and consolidation of the "Normes de Castelló"


 * The document says what is says. This is official AVL position. No interpretation here, as you say I am doing. And it is duly cited. 1 common language (i.e. Language system), multiple names (sinonyms) for the system (catalan, valencian, balear), each of these names, at the same time, making reference to different regional variants and official standards, with its local characteristics.
 * Not my intention to get into an edit war. But I disapprove attempts to make politics in WP, and will most certainly supress any byassed or uncontrasted information that may be edited.
 * Thanks for checking the different origins classification that I drafted, but you seem to forget the thesis that Valencian could be an old Catalan dialect, which is also to be reflected. And here, the same controversy arises (Gallo-Romance?, Ibero-Romance?). If we try to classificate this language, it is either Ibero-Romance or Gallo-Romance. It cannot be both at the same time, as this is contradictory. Either is Ibero-Romance influenced by Gallo-Romance, or the other way. This is not clear among philologists. In other sense, I like your proposal about classifying the Mozarab thesis as Western Iberian Romance languages (actually this was one of the options I already thought of), but in other classifications seen, and according to this thesis, we are to identify a Mozarabic branch.
 * As per your request (although it was the least important of all my previous comments and is not relevant to this issue, nor is to be debated here), I am quoting you on Andalusian Spanish: Under the heading "Arabic influence on Ibero-Romance languages" you stated: "I'd also say in Andalusian Spanish alhaja (arabic) is used more...; and you say afterwards "I tell you there are no commonsensical linguists who would agree with this thesis./ For those who supports this theory, examples like (...) Andalusian Spanish (...) could be regarded as separate languages. Substracta can be added to dialects, without turning them to be new languages". I just stated that I couldn't quite understand your assertions, because you seemed to mix two positions (you classified Andalusian Spanish as Ibero-Romance language when you spoke of alhaja, but then stated that it was nonsensical to consider Andalusian Spanish a language). In any case, this in not relevant. Thanks, anyway, for clarifying your possition.
 * Finally, I am not going to spend my time in pointless discussions when I could use it in investigate and read literature over this issue. I will only discuss the relevant points that need it. Regarding the article, I will be collecting available info and editing the article accordingly with WP policies. I expect you to do the same. I hope we can work together in building this article. IeXrivâ (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says: ""While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship.""

Mozarabic or occitanist language origin are NOT a significant viewpoint, 99.999% of universities, linguists and the official regulator entities do support the catalan origin theory. So any possible interpretation of either mozarabic origin or separated language should not be shown on the infobox beacause are not significant viewpoints but minority views. --Mutxamel (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * leXrivâ, can you please stop editing what you please?! You are not making a good article.
 * According to current surveys (2010); Valencian is understood by 93.9% of the Valencian population aged older than 15.
 * http://www.elpais.com/articulo/Comunidad/Valenciana/94/poblacion/entiende/valenciano/elpepiespval/20101207elpval_9/Tes
 * Let me tell you this is not the way to REBUILD this article.
 * Wherever you classify Valencian, Catalan needs to be classified equally, as the same. And these controversial issues SHOULD be on the Catalanarticle, as it is the main article for this language, not HERE. Catalan can be either Ibero-Romance or Gallo-Romance, it does not concern only VALENCIAN, but the WHOLE language, do you understand?
 * All those changes will be reverted with no hesitation. And why do you mention first the Mozarabic theory. For a realistic point of view, the Catalan thesis SHOULD come first that any other as MOST commonsensical linguists agree with this. Xcrivâ it seems to me you are more of a typing machine than a sensible typist. :)
 * Your intentions are to harm the Catalan-Valencian-Balearic unity, so i will ask linguists and other people on the English wikipedia to help to develop this article. Jaume87 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Classification
(This section needs to be moved to Catalan language, both Catalan and Valencian classification SHOULD be the same)



There are discrepancies on the classification of the Valencian language, as there are several theries about its origins. In this regard, it has to be taken into account that Romance languages are considered by some scholars to be a dialect continuum, therefore being inherently difficult to attempt any classification of the Romance languages.

Classifications proposed for the Valencian languages
All schollars agree in CATALAN-VALENCIAN-BALEARIC primary classification.


 * Indo-European languages
 * Italic languages
 * Romance languages
 * Italo-Western languages
 * Western Italo-Western languages

From this point foward, several theories challenge to explain Valencian evolution.


 * - According with the thesis that supports the Valencian language Mozarabic origins, this would be an Ibero-Romance language that pervived and evolved in Mozarab society during the muslim invasion, and was formed in parallel with other romance languages of the Iberian peninsula. Therefore, it could be classified as:


 * Ibero-Romance
 * East Iberian
 * Valencian


 * - According with the thesis that supports the Valencian language Catalan origins, this would be no more than a Romance speech, a dialect of Catalan language, evolved from Catalan, introduced in the XIII century. Catalan classification is also debated, and discrepancies arise as to consider it whether as part of the Ibero-Romance group or part of the Gallo-Romance group. Therefore, it could be classified in two ways.


 * If we agree with proposed common origins of Catalan with the Occitan languages, then it could be classified as:


 * Gallo-Romance
 * Occitano-Romance
 * Catalan
 * Valencian dialect


 * If we agree with proposed common origins of Catalan with the rest of Iberian languages, then it could be classified as:


 * Ibero-Romance
 * East Iberian
 * Catalan
 * Valencian dialect


 * - According to the thesis that supports the Valencian language Occitan origins, it could be classified as:


 * Gallo-Romance
 * Occitano-Romance


 * From this point, there are different thesis on Valencian possible evolution: one supports the existance of an Aquitano-Pirenenc family common for Gascon, Lemousin, Tolosene, Valencian and Catalan, while another thesis supports the classification of Valencian under a Lemousin-Valencian family


 * The "classification" section is only about the clasification of Valencian. It lists the people who think that Valencian does not come from catalan. Idem for the section called "The Golden Century (S. XV)", that had only Valencian authors. And why remove "Valencian Legal Status", when it specifically protects valencian? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jaume87 I wont ask you to provide reasons for your massive deletions and modifications, as I know your pancatalanist possition. I'm not entering into your pointless discussions. I advice you to read WP Policies. Regarding my editions, these are based on the documentation referred. You are free to check it. I haven't made them up, nor is me who questions the so-called unity of language, its their authors. I remind you that WP is based in sharing information. Will restore to previous.IeXrivâ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Jaume asked me for my opinion. (I care nothing for Catalan, Valencian, or Occitan, apart from general linguistic interest, so I hope I can be seen as neutral.) It is of course right to include Valencian authorities who regulate the language, and it's fine to call it a "language", since that term is ambigous (it is certainly a language standard, and sociolinguistically it appears that it might be a separate language—I don't know personally); however, it's also pretty obvious that taxonomically it's a dialect of Catalan, specifically of Western Catalan. At least, that's how the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics and numerous other WP:RSs call it. That is, Valencian may be an ausbau language, but it isn't an abstand language. Lots of taxonomic dialects are promoted as national languages, and although some people may find it threatening for their language to be called a "dialect" when they do not have an army to "protect" it, we are not here to placate people's aspirations or insecurities, but merely to report the knowledge of the field per WP:WEIGHT.

We do of course need to cover the history and controversies of classification, bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT. As for the classification we use in the info box, IMO we should come to an agreement on a classification to use across the board on all Romance languages. That way we can control the fringier elements without appearing biased against whatever it is that someone's upset about. I don't pay attention to the Romance language articles, so perhaps that consensus has already been made. If not, I would presume that following Classification of the Romance languages would be a good place to start. Is that map acceptable to people? (That is, the map that apparently used to be in this article, but which was removed by Jaume.) Assuming it is (it agrees with the ELL as far as they overlap), and picking up with the ELL where it leaves off, the classification of Valencian would be:


 * Romance
 * Western Romance
 * Occitano-Romance
 * Catalan
 * Western Catalan
 * Valencian

(I left out Continental Romance; that could of course be put in too.)

Is there any reason to think that that classification is incorrect? — kwami (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Kwamikagami. Thanks for your opinion and proposed classification. That is one of the classification possible if we agree with schollars of the Occitan Thesis. Nevertheless, there is no consensus between phillologist on classification, as there is also no consensus on its origins (happens the same with Catalan: Iberian or Gallo?). I think that the article should show the main classifications made by schollars, duly referred. I've got references for Mozarab thesis and Occitan thesis (actually there are different possition within this thesis). It could be useful to find references on Catalan thesis. As per the infobox, see above my opinion, whether 1) only official; 2) all; or 3) none; are to be shown.
 * Actually there IS consensus between phillologists on classification and origins. There is not an ongoing fight on equal terms, catalan (or repoblational) theory is the official one, mozarabic and occitan are only defended by a few freaks that even don't have any philollogical degree. --Mutxamel (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello eveyone. Recent edit. Modified Lead to follow WP:LS and WP:NPOV. 4 paragraphs summarizing relevant or interesting content of the article, in order, refering controversy and duly citing info. I have moved up non-controvertical issues (official, distribution, ussage) Added a brief references to all theories in history section, and rebuilt "Golden century" information. Merged to proposed line classification into one. Hope you like it, and help to improve it. Before modifications, take into account WP policies.IeXrivâ (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC) IeXrivâ (talk)
 * Attending to NPOV, catalan thesis should be the first, mainstream and spinal cord of the article, relegating the others to a little mention or reference inside it, because they're only defended by very few people. The vast majority of linguists agree with catalan origin theory, and this is not a fact to argue about, is commonsense. Please stop your sabotages to this article and read all the stuff generated below, you're not the first intending to impose a minority point of view in such a controversial question. Greetings and please, stop bothering. --Mutxamel (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Valencian ∈ Catalan is the only mainstream model. It would certainly seem to be the consensus. Since this is demonstrable through multiple RS's, anything else would have to be demonstrated through RS's before being allowed in the article. It would, of course, be the classification in the info box, regardless of what else is discussed.
 * The debate is whether Catalan-Occitan are Gallic, Iberian, or form their own section of Western Romance. I don't know myself, but whatever we choose, we need to say the same thing for Valencian, Catalan, and Occitan. It would be silly to say that Valencian is Gallic, and Catalan is Iberian, but Occitan is Catalanic. Since Valencian is a form of Catalan, it needs to have the same classification above Catalan; if we want to change Valencian, we'll need to change Catalan and Occitan as well. I've therefore copied the taxonomy used in the Catalan and Occitan info boxes, and below that used the ELL as a reference. You can't get any more mainstream in linguistics than the ELL.
 * Currently we use the Catalanic in the Romance page, so I would think that's reasonable. It's also somewhat agnostic, and it makes neither claim that these languages are Iberian or Gallic, and so IMO probably a better choice for the info box. But that' a broader discussion. — kwami (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you Kwami, and thank you very much for your feedbacks, your definitions are very useful and helpful! I think you could perfectly moderate this article, as you have the most objective point of view :D. I don't have any problem to classify Catalan with the Occitano-Romance languages as the ELL. Undoubtedly, it is the most logical classification for this language.
 * As you and Mutxamel said, Valencian ∈ Catalan is the only mainstream model, it is not possible to separate Valencian from Catalan, especially from Western Catalan, other theories can be mentioned bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT. Jaume87 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mutxamel, Kowami:
 * See that your edit does not comply with WP policies. Read them, and please read the
 * First of all,
 * About RS's I have brought:
 * - Mourelle de Lema's (Hispanic philology professor at UCM) classifies Valencian as Ibero-Romance, and supports that Valencian comes from Mozarab, while he notes that there are discrepancies on Catalan origins, on which he says it is classified by either as Ibero Romance or Gallo Romance.
 * - Fullana i Mira (probably the most reknowed Valencian philologist ever) also states that Valencian does not derive from Catalan. And supports independent origins as a western Iberian language.
 * - Although I have only found partial references, Menendez Pidal (probably the most reknowed Hispanic philologist) and some his followers (Dámaso Alonso) support that there existed a Valencian Mozarab dialect.
 * - Regarding the Occitan thesis (now in trend), several Classifications are possible . Some classify Valencian as a dialect of Catalan, and this later as a dialect of Occitan. Some just refer both as Catalan, some refer them as Occitan Romance different dialects, and even one claims that Valencian and western Catalan varieties has evolved from Lemosin, while eastern Catalan varieties come from Provençal. Check the document I provided.
 * Therefore, we cannot deny that many relevant philologist have disagreed with the Pancatalanist thesis. There is no consensus on to classify Valencian as a dialect of Catalan language. You also have to agree that Several classifications are possible, and that currently there is no consenss on the issue.
 * Catalan thesis is the most popular thesis between left-wing Valentian nationalists (as it was contained it "Nosaltres, els Valencias", by Joan Fuster), and this thesis has been the most studied one in Valencian universities since. I agree that this is largely accepted by many other Romance philologist, but I belive this is because the Valencian classically accepted classification as a west Iberian Romance language, independent from Catalan, was accussed of being "Franchoist" and "Centralist", and thefore disaccredited, but has not been rebutted. In the oher hand, Occitan thesis has never gained consensus as the others theses, as has not reached same difussion as the others among all the scientific community.
 * The debate is not, as you said, whether Catalan-Occitan are Gallic, Iberian, or form their own section of Western Romance (BTW, that is to be discussed in their respective articles). The debate is how Valencian is to be classified under according to schollars (East Iberian language or Occitan origins) and if we are to consider it a dialect (Note that AVL says that is of the same hyerachy as the other variants of this language system). All these must be shown in equal terms and referenced to attain a NPOV.
 * Note also that lack of references in this article on the mainstream theory about Valencian being Catalan. The only reference available online on this thesis that has been given was the one you just edited. I haven't been able to check it anyway due to script problems. (I've tried in two different computers and also two different browsers.)
 * I guess that classification contained in Romance web page is one of the possible classifications that can be done. As you know Romance languages are to be considered a dialect continuum, therefore any classification is controvertical. Schollars have never reached consensus in a Romance language classification. Also, you have to agree that each classification only shows his authors opinion following determined criterion, and that other classifications surely exists. And remember that WP classification is not to be used as a primary source of information.)

IeXrivâ (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * leXrivâ, there are no politics involved on asserting Valencian is part of Catalan, it is a LINGUISTIC and OBJECTIVE point of view and AVL as IEC agree with this. You are involving politics with linguistics.
 * That thesis you defend is a MINORITY VIEW among linguists.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=80spIKIaTXwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=catala+entre+la+gal%C2%B7lorom%C3%A0nia+i+la+iberorom%C3%A0nia&source=bl&ots=TkGobF4m2n&sig=R_Np1PPAnVHcyqRckN0OYOS4kEI&hl=es&ei=zAAITablFobKhAfvqcSHDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Antoni Maria Badia i Margarit, «El català, entre la Gal·loromània i la Iberoromània», dins Llengua i cultura als Països Catalans, Edicions 62, Barcelona, 1964, p.43-46.
 * Germà Colón i Domènech, El español y el catalán, juntos y en contraste, Editorial Ariel, Barcelona, 1989, p.36-37.
 * Jaume87 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IeXrivâ, the info box is used for generic classifications, which is that Valencian is a dialect of the same language as Catalan (a language Ethnologue just calls "Catalan-Valencian-Balear"). Ethnologue gives it a 90-95% intelligibility with Central Catalan (and presumably even higher w NW Catalan), well within the range of dialects. Minority dissenting views go in the classification section. But I'll bring the topic up at WP:WikiProject Languages in case anyone there wants to comment.

Besides ELL2 and Ethnologue, there's the Cambridge Language Survey on Romance Languages (1996), which says, "Less enthusiasm for Catalan is shown in Valencia, where a Catalan variety was, until recently, spoken mainly by the less-privileged inhabitants, and where now the tone-setting intellectuals and politicians maintain that Valencian has separate language status, though objectively it differs little from other Catalan varieties." (p 191). The Routledge Language Family Descriptions on the Romance languages (1997) treats Valencian as a dialect of Catalan. On p 207 they say, "the mutual intelligibility of all dialects and the acceptance of standard Catalan by virtually all speakers &mdash; the Valencian opposition to this is promoted mostly by people who do not regularly use the language." CUP's Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction (2010) doesn't even bother to mention Valencian when commenting on standardization of Catalan, Occitan, & Sardinian. I have yet to come across a source not from one of these Valencian "tone-setting intellectuals and politicians" which does not agree: Valencian is a dialect of Catalan. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Kwami, isn't it possible to close this article to avoid such vandalic editions? We could work from here, as it seems the best way to develop this article. What do you think? Jaume87 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a much better lede :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaume87 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If edit warring continues from roaming IP addresses, we can have the article semi-protected, so that only signed-in editors can work on it. Then if there are named editors fighting over it, we can at least reduce arbitration down to them. But first let's see if it continues. — kwami (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Kwami,
 * I quote you: reduce arbitration (?). Who has invested you as an arbitrer?. Arbitrers are appointed by both sides. I have not accepted that. And I cannot accept you as an fair referee, (no insult here), as:
 * - I find impeditive that someone not speciallized in Romance languages (you state you are not) gives awards in this classification issue.
 * - I believe that, being such a controverted issue, we cannot only rely on an award by a single arbitrer.
 * This said. See my comments on your classification:
 * I cannot agree with your classification (according to AVL Catalan and Valencian are part of the same linguistic system, having the same hyerarchy, not one as a dialect; your classification is not congruent with other WP articles (see Catalan in Spanish WP). And, why don't you use Ethnologue opinion, which says Catalan-Valencian-Balearic for the language system? ans is less controverted?. I cannot accept you classification.
 * I also consider your Infobox Classification and Lead section edit might constitute a violation of WP Policies (amongst others NOPV and LS). This have been already discussed, and I am not going to enter into them again.
 * Have you consulted th RS's I have brougth to debate??? I bet not, as you wouldn't be doing such a byassed classification and lead.
 * I will undo your changes, and, of course Jaume's (An self-declared pancatalanist partisan).
 * Regards. IeXrivâ (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reading the book Jaume cited, by Colom. Although the book is not on the classification of Valencian (is about catalan lexic compared to other romance languages) (and some pages are missing, wich makes some ideas difficult to understand), it is evident that Colom supports the idea that Valencian is a Catalan dialect. Also seems to support that catalan is a distinct language to West Iberian and Gallo Romance, and, althogh he sees there is similarity between Occitan and Catalan, thinks these are different. (Catalan did not came from Occitan). Am I right?. IeXrivâ (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * lexrivâ seems to interpret everything as he wishes. Please READ the WHOLE book. This book STATES Catalan is gallo-romanic, with ibero-romance influence. More than 69% of words share common roots with the Gallo-Romance languages (e.g. finestra, formatge, voler, en, hi prepositions), while more than 30% with the Ibero-Romance languages [e.g. albergínia/albergina (arabic), alfàb(r)ega (arabic), esquerra (basque), cervesa, etc.], in addition there are Gallic/Iberic pairs; e.g. cercar/buscar, etc. Moreover, it is not only Catalan, but Occitan that has an influence from the Iberian languages; see words like esquèrra (oc) from Basque, aubergina (oc) from Arabic and the Iberic/Gallic pair cervesa/bièrra (oc). But these are just influences, MOST words share common roots and phonetic development from Latin with the Gallo-Romance languages. So as the Romance language map, it is perfect the position of Occitano-Romance languages, just in between proper Northern Gallo-Romance languages and proper Ibero-Romance languages :)
 * This source comes from the Catalan article which explains the Catalan phonetic development from Latin and compares Catalan with the Gallo-Romance and Ibero-Romance languages. This BOOK also says Portuguese is closer to Catalan than Spanish. And Spanish and Catalan diverge the most (see ca:lleis fonètiques del català). You are complicating things unnecessarily. Read both books provided on that article.


 * Kwami, do you know where you state you don't know about Romance languages or you are not specialised on Romance languages? Because you only say "I care nothing for Catalan, Valencian, or Occitan, apart from general linguistic interest [...]" and "I don't pay attention to the Romance language articles" :S
 * Probably you know more about Romance languages, than might do lexrivâ. You never said such thing. It is obvious we DO need Kwami's advice, he's an expert, and this article needs professional advice ;)
 * leXrivã I've reverted your random and unproper changes, which were the same than before.
 * Jaume87 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IeXrivâ, if you continue to edit war, I will ask to have you blocked.

I did not say I was the arbiter here. I merely said we may need arbitration. (Unless you're blocked, of course! Then we wouldn't need to bother.)

I'm not a Romance specialist. But that's really rather irrelevant, because we're not basing things on my expertise, nor on yours, but on WP:RSs. Please read that article - it will save us all a lot of grief. If you can show us that the preponderance of sources supports your view, then we will rewrite the article to reflect that. If you're right and he's wrong, so be it: I really don't care. But, as I've noted above, all the sources I've located support Jaume's view. (Or the gist of it, anyway: some things needed to be corrected.)

I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a source written by someone with lots of degrees after his name who claims that Valencian is not even Romance, but a separate branch of Indo-European, or a long-lost sister of Etruscan. What we go on, of course, is not articles cherry-picked to support our preconceived ideas, but the preponderance of sources.

As for which variety is a dialect of which, you're playing semantics. In English, the language is generally known as "Catalan". Valencian is one dialect of that language, so it is therefore a dialect of Catalan. Central Catalan is also a dialect of Catalan. Now, there are Valencians who maintain that "Valencian" and "Catalan" are alternate names for the language, and Ethnologue doesn't want to take sides in that debate. But this isn't a difference is classification, just a difference in terminology, like arguing whether the national language of Mexico is "Spanish" or "Castilian". We can cover that in the text, but don't have room for such niceties in the info box. (Also, if Valencian is the name of the language, what's the name of the dialect? "Valencian Valencian" / valencià valenciana ?) — kwami (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has intended to make an actual equivalence between dialectal names, but if valencian were the name of the whole language, the dialects would be something like this. Note that we could change between catalan and valencian word with no difference:

Western valencian Eastern Valencian
 * North-Western valencian
 * Ribagorçà (from Ribagorça, a region of Catalonia)
 * Pallarès (from Pallars)
 * Ribagorçà (from Ribagorça)
 * Tortosí (from Tortosa)
 * South-Western valencian
 * Castellonenc (from region of Plana)
 * Apitxat
 * Southern
 * Alacantí (from the Alicante's metropolitan area and most of Vinalopó valley)
 * Majorcan from Tàrbena and Vall de Gallinera Valencian municipalities
 * Northern valencian, or rossellonès (from Roussillon)
 * Central valencian
 * Salat (from the Costa Brava)
 * Barceloní (from Barcelona)
 * Tarragoní (from Tarragona)
 * Xipella
 * Balearic valencian
 * Mallorquí (from Majorca, Mallorca in Valencian)
 * Menorquí (from Minorca, Menorca in Valencian)
 * Eivissenc (from Ibiza and Formentera, Eivissa in Valencian)
 * Alguerese valencian (from the Italian city of Alghero) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutxamel (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, generally in Catalan, aside two main dialectal branches (Eastern Catalan and Western Catalan), dialects are not called after the language system. Balearic could be termed as Balearic Catalan, though it's usually simplified to "Balearic" -called Minorcan (Catalan), Majorcan (Catalan), Ibizan (Catalan) or by the generic name, Catalan/Eastern Catalan-.
 * Similarly, Valencian is not usually termed Valencian Catalan or Valencian Valencian. Equally Alguerese, Ribagorçan, etc.
 * I think Northern Valencian = rossellonès, and then castellonenc (which is the proper Northern Valencian) could lead to some confusion.


 * But even so, subdialects are more likely to be called after the language system; e.g. valencià meridional, valencià septentrional, català septentrional, (català) mallorquí, (català) barceloní, (valencià) alacantí, (català) lleidatà.


 * We can designate the whole language as both, Catalan and Valencian, but concerning dialects we should stick to use the Catalan term rather than Valencian, except for Western Catalan dialects, as we could introduce the generic name "Valencian" for these dialects :)
 * This page could cover the main standard for Western Catalan; Valencian, and perhaps the link "Western Catalan" could be moved here, or just create two articles about Western Catalan and Eastern Catalan. And also I suggest to do independent articles for all dialects and subdialects, basing this article on standard Valencian (AVL), with some mentions about dialectal features.


 * e.g. ca:valencià meridional
 * Transitional Valencian (Tortosí) is already mentioned, and we could add North-Western Catalan [(Catalan) Pallarès and Lleidatà, Ribagorçan, La Franja Catalan].
 * What do you think about this?

---


 * Some books about dialectal features, written by Jordi Colomina are:
 * L'alacantí un estudi sobre la variació lingüística
 * El valencià de la Marina Baixa
 * Dialectologia catalana
 * And the catalan linguistic atlas written by Joan Veny, Lídia Pons i Griera, and Antoni M. Badia i Margarit.
 * Petit atles lingüístic del domini català (vol.1 and vol.2) Jɑυмe (xarrades) 05:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We follow WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not aware of any English sources which use "Valencian" for the language. At best we have things like Ethnologue, which says the language may be called either; from other sources, though, it seems clear that the language is only called Valencian from a Valenco-centric POV, whereas "Catalan" does not imply a particular POV. So we should stick to "Catalan" in general. IMO we should use "Valencian" only when there is a particular reason to call it that. — kwami (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the other Valencian-specific section?
What happens with the other two sections removed in that edit: "The Golden Century (S. XV)" and "Valencian Legal Status"? They were removed, but they are only about Valencian and not about the rest of the linguistic domain. I think that they don't appear in any other article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally we don't go that much in depth about literature in languages and dialects articles. We could briefly mention some relevant Valencian authors, and fill the history section i added. It would be very good to create a main article about Valencian specific literature, such as the Valencian Golden Age, but as part of Catalan literature. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Troll den
Please note that "valencian language" themes usually are attacked by people that spend their life copy-pasting pre-edited texts in Wikipedia, forums and other open encyclopedias. Note also that their texts are exquisitely biased and far from scientific support (like using the infamous "Biblia Parva" fake notation in the 1600's of an old text from the 1400's that they try to put in the 1300's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.62.175.208 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 January 2011

Valencian Object Pronouns
Does anyone out there know if Valencian uses the object pronouns such as: me, te, nos, etc..., over the object pronouns of other dialects, such as: em, et, etc...? If so, that probably should be noted more on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.242.125 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Standard Valencian, like Standard Catalan, uses the reinforced forms em, et, es, ens, us, es, els, en, etc. before verbs that begin with a consonant. However in regular speech in many dialects, speakers may use the full forms me, te, se, mos, vos, se, etc.; e.g. mos n'anem, vos agrada. Note as well in Standard Valencian we don't use Central Catalan combinations like l'hi, la hi, els hi, les hi, but li'l, li la, li'ls, li les. There is a slight mention about this on the article, however info is (still) very messy here. See phonology: particles and pronouns (it should be on morphology). Jɑυмe (xarrades)