Talk:Principality of Catalonia

Never been a principality

Catalonia had existed and never had been and principality

This is not true. Pls. read the Courts of Barcelona, from 1454, http://www.mcu.es/archivos/lhe/Consultas/imagen.jsp?cod=024261 settling the festivity og Saint George at the Principat, with capital letter, (Catalan for Principality).--Paco ✉ 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this is not the point:

• It is known historically as the Principat (principality)
• Here, principality derives from the Latin "princeps" (plural: principes) means "the first". This refers to its political and economic importance under the Aragonese crown.
  

--YuriBCN 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Catalonia was a Principality based on the ancient Roman law Princeps namque in which the Prince was the Count of Barcelona. For example when the Hispanic Monarchy overthrew the privileges (Parliament, constitution of Catalonia etc ...) in the document it says "Principality of Catalonia" or in the British document of 1714 "The deplorable history of the Catalans" when they left Catalonia in the war of succession mentions Principality of Catalonia. In the 1600 maps he mentions Principality of Catalonia. During the Franco dictatorship in Spain a false reality was created that Spain has existed for 20 centuries. it's false. until 1714 there is no such union and the central state of Spain is created, Spanish nation. beyond all that in the documents of Barbastre de Ramiro Rey de Aragón mentions the Count of Barcelona as Prince of the Kingdom of Aragon while the Count will respect Ramiro as king ttps://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=es&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap%C3%ADtols_matrimonials_de_Barbastre_(1137)&xid=17259,15700019,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271&usg=ALkJrhiuU-WRdWFw6TKs6yzj9c3bFyrwzQ Sylas (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=es&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap%C3%ADtols_matrimonials_de_Barbastre_(1137)&xid=17259,15700019,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271&usg=ALkJrhiuU-WRdWFw6TKs6yzj9c3bFyrwzQ Sylas (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good traduction - https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ca&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap%C3%ADtols_matrimonials_de_Barbastre_(1137)&xid=17259,15700019,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265,15700271&usg=ALkJrhj9bgRDkTgXuEsW2bMHEgUYUwg2ng Sylas (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Catalunya a nation

Catalan Nacionalism is not the only ideology which considers Catalonia as a Nation. If we have a view on the political parties of Catalonia, we will notice that only 2 of the majority parties (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya and Convergència i Unió) are nacionalists and the other 3 parties (Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya, Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds - Esquerra Unida i Alternativa and Partido Popular) are not nacionalists but they regard Catalonia as a nation with the exception of Partido Popular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.37.151.198 (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006.

The Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a Nation and itself as the seat of its soveraignity. Only a minority of the political forces of Catalonia don't agree. It'd make more sense to say that the Spanish political parties of Catalonia don't recognize it as a nation.--192.115.144.17 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Princes/counts

I'm a bit confused here. We have no article County of Barcelona (that's just a redirect to List of Counts of Barcelona). This article barely mentions the title of Count of Barcelona. But that is the title I've always been familiar with for the medieval rulers of this region (and it is a title still retained by the Spanish Crown). I've never heard of a "Prince of Catalonia". This article is a bit undercited, so it's hard to follow up; at a quick read the linked Spanish language article (originally from La Vanguardia) seems a bit ambivalent about whether the designation is appropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several types of principalities. We describe Catalonia as a Principality because it is a land whose sovereign hasn't got an specific title or he is a sovereign and governs using another title. The Principality of Catalonia was governed by the kings of Crown of Aragon whose kings had the title of Count of Barcelona. Nowadays, the King of Spain has this title. So, there is not any contradiction, althought this king has not any power over the Spanish's Politic,he is the head of state so he governs Catalonia but he doesn't do it with the title of Count of Barcelona, he does it using the title of king of Spain. (Sorry for my English, I hope you will understand) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5 August 2006 (talk • contribs) 83.44.115.42.

Actually, I'm not sure I understand. Quizás sería más fácil explicarme en castellano, yo lo leo bastante bién.

So are we saying that Catalonia only becomes a "principality" at the time of the marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV with Petronila of Aragón (at which time it became part of the Crown of Aragon)? If so, doesn't that belong in the lead of the article? (Prior to that, the Counts of Barcelona are simply sovereign (or, perhaps, having a rather unenforceable vassalship to the king of France). - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramon Berenguer IV oficially became Prince of Aragon and Count of Barcelona after the marriage, where Prince has a meaning similar to dominator. Catalonians would later sometimes call Catalonia a principality, in spite of not being oficially one. --193.144.12.130 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above in "Never been a principality", the term Principality (Cat: Principat) most likely arises from the Latin meaning of Princeps and the Roman concept of Princeps Senatus, i.e. "Primus inter pares". The Counts of Barcelona became, by dynastic inheritance, Kings of Aragon in 1137, when Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona married Queen Petronila of Aragon, establishing the dynastic union of the County of Barcelona with the Kingdom of Aragon that was to create the Crown of Aragon.

According to Italian medieval historian Stefano Cingolani in "«Seguir les vestígies dels antecessors». Llinatge, reialesa i historiografia a Catalunya de Ramon Berenguer IV a Pere II (1131-1285)" (Following the Vestiges of the Ancestors. Lineage, Royalty and Historiography in Catalonia from Ramon Berenguer IV to Pere II (1131-1285), in Catalan, with an abstract in English), the Counts of Barcelona considered themselves superior in terms of blood lineage as counts of Barcelona than as kings of Aragon. Thus, through the Count of Barcelona, Catalonia was considered "primus inter pares" among the territories of the crown of Aragon. --YuriBCN 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriBCN (talk • contribs)

What an incredibly biased entry

This has barely even semblance of being neutral. "Limited political" autonomy? According to whom? A map that illustrates the region as being separate from the rest of the Spanish state? Eboracum 05:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no Spanish state in the relevant period. The problem with the map is that it shows "Spain" rather than "Aragon" and "Valencia". - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, there could be a sharper line between present-day Spain and present-day France, making it clear that historic Catalonia spans this border. - Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now re-colored the map; hope that meets at lest most of your concerns. Also, the article refers to "limited political sovereignty" not "limited political autonomy". I would say that is correct. What is your problem with it? - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramon Muntaner's chronicles

"There seems to be an older reference, in a more informal context, in Ramon Muntaner's chronicles". I am the author of this sentence originally written in ca.wiki and then translated into several wikis. Any reference can be found in the chronicles of Muntaner and it was probably a misunderstood of mine from the source I used. I removed it in ca.wiki and I substituted it for more reliable quotations. What needs really a citation is to place the origin of the name in the union of the county of Barcelona with the kingdom of Aragon. Medieval Latin princeps does not means prince consort, but dominator. --Vriullop 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes added

• the article now explains the use of the term principality
• the lead now only explains the Principality as the AC is described in a different article
• the lead does not use POVish terms as " Southern or Spanish Catalonia" which are clearly not encyclopedic.
• the lead does not explain political facts of the AC anymore
• added sources
• added some images
• changed the catalan countries template for the new one instored by Xtv

--Maurice27 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite we seem to disagree in all I completely agree with the third,fifth sixth and seventh points. About the others I'm tired of discussing today with you so let's see what say the usual editors of this article. The only point where I clearly disagree is: is an historic territory situated in the north-east of Spain which corresponds to the present-day Autonomous Community of Catalonia., can you explain why you changed it? --GillesV 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not change it, I kept it! from the former lead paragraph. (see [1]).

the first point is sourced and with parts from the older section. I don't know why you should be in disagreement.

The second point is how I believe it must be. All the info. about the AC is in the other article.

The fourth point is how I believe it must be. All the info. about the AC is in the other article.

I'm glad you agree with the rest.

I'm going to bed. GNight. Cheers, --Maurice27 22:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep,like it is now (despite I have not read the whole article) from my POV there is no problem, no personal alarms ringing ;) Cheers.--GillesV 23:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have added an 's' to Middle Age (Middle Ages), as middle age is the period of life beyond young adulthood but before the onset of old age, and the historical period is always plural. --YuriBCN 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Catalonia

So in light of all that is said in the article... is there anybody today that bares the title Prince of Catalonia? maybe the King or the Prince of Asturias..? --Oren neu dag (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What is historic territory?

In the introduction, the article refers to the Principality of Catalonia as a historic territory. I could not find a definition for 'historic territory'. Politis (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that it refers to a political entity that existed in the past but is no longer extant, like the Duchy of Aquitaine or the Kingdom of Sicily. --Jdemarcos (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Spain and the Spains

Hi there, since you provided verifiability I'm not going to dwell on this now. An idea of Spain, a rough Hispania, existed as a geographic and historic reality heir to "ancient glories" like the Roman Hispania and the Visigothic Kingdom. However, that would include Portugal too, sorry there is not any predestined union of the kingdoms of Aragon-Castile and a conquered Navarre as Spain, it just happened like that for contemporary circumstances. Charles V and his Habsburg successors in Spain were Kings of the Spains, not Spain, acknowledging the different realms and identities. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a complicated concept, but it clearly included Portugal. Apart from the source in the article, I'll add El concepto de "España". Subject "Modern History of Spain", 4th course of Humanities degree on Universidad de Alicante. The concept of Spain as a single unity, covering all the peninsula, appeared during the Reconquista.

See also España y sus Coronas. Un concepto político en las últimas voluntades de los Austrias hispánicos, in the second page, Spain was supposed to include the whole peninsule, territories north of the Pyrenees like the Rosellon, Narbona and even Toulousse, part of the north of Africa, and territories of the Crown of Aragon such as Mallorca. See also the footnote on the second page.

While there were separate kingdom, there were intended to be an unity. ---Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well..., fair enough, you know. They are accepted sources in the wikipedia, and you may use them of course. The fact that one of your sources point to a España "como una realidad irreversible" and the other pointing to "navarros, y vascos" (i.e. Gipuzkoans, Biscayans, Alavans, and Navarrese, historically that dichotomy is nonsense), let me cast a shadow of doubt as to the approach of these articles. Would you trust a University of Turkey publishing an article on Turkish history, let me say personally I wouldn't. I'm not ruling out these sources, but as far as I'm concerned they represent their authors' views.

Both Ferdinand, a Machiavellic character as it is well known, and Emperor Charles, who received as a youngster the devious governmental skills of him, were quick to promote and fund their talented scholars and enlist Roman Church on their side. They could provide a good legitimizing basis (like saying Eneko Arista's lineage was an usurper of the throne of Pamplona instead of Castile...) for their designs, and punish divergent political views. It has been contended (off the top of my head now) that hadn´t ultimately all dynastic odds and circumstances favoured Charles at that point, Aragon and Castile may have separated again. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I searched concepto de españa reyes católicos and these were the only reliable sources in the first 15 results. The source in the article gives several contemporary examples of the usage of the concept of Spain, and I doubt that those are falsified. I have searched a few more sources, and they seem to agree with the first sources. I see no sources saying that the concept of Spain started after the Catholic Kings, and no sources saying that the concept of Spain didn't include Portugal. The article shouldn't say "A" when all sources agree in "B". I have no reason to believe that the concept of Spain didn't include Portugal, or that it didn't exist in the time of the Catholic kings.

I suggest you search for other sources that analyze the history of the concept of Spain, and see what they say. There is always the possibility that I chose the wrong keywords or I skipped important sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I found a source from the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, which shouldn't have concerns of Spanish nationalism: "El profesor nos situó a principios del siglo XI para anunciarnos que este es el momento en que los habitantes del territorio conocido como Hispania se identifican así mismos como españoles. (...) Durante la edad media, el concepto de España sigue siendo un concepto geográfico definido como “ aquel territorio separado de Francia por los pirineos”. Nos recordó que los mozárabes hablaban en el siglo VIII de la “pérdida de España” ante la llegada de los musulmanes, así como, de la “ recuperación y/o restauración de España” durante la reconquista. “Ya podemos hablar de un concepto emocional que se suma al concepto territorial”, (...) La España de Fernando e Isabel era una fábrica de sueños, de sueños de unidad."[2] --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the Universidad Autónoma may give more intellectual reassurance than others, but I do know a bit of the topic, I do know as well the pervasive national debate in Spain which conditions and polarize the academia no doubt. All the concept of the Reconquista was used by the powerful and specially the Castilian authorities, who thought of themselves as holders of the Visigothic authority and imposed it on others with less military might. The contents of medieval records should be read with utter caution since most of the times they serve not a descriptive historiography but an external or propaganda purposes. Check out this on the development of Castilian Spanish national identity with the "Reconquista".

Listen, as for your text, it states "eran una fábrica de sueños, de sueños de unidad", "restauración de España". Without further reading, with that wording reminiscent of Franco's school's, let me discount it out of hand. It may have been a dream of Ferdinand, as far as I know, not so for the Jews, the Navarrese, the Muslims and other groups who were not mainstream Castilian speaking old-Catholics.

As I said I'm not discarding a rough geographic historic idea of a Hispania > Spania > España bred by the ideology of the Reconquista and serving conquest purposes at that time, and including Portugal. Weather the different nations in that geographic area wanted to be in an authoritarian Castilian Spanish realm, that's another matter. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

According to your source, the concept was invented by Asturians around century IX, Castilla didn't become a kingdom until 1037. Castilians might have used that concept, but they didn't originate it. Franco's concept was made up in the XIX century by Menéndez-Pidal and it's based on the old concept, but it's a different concept. The source also says that by 1989 the modern Spanish historiography had already discarded Menéndez-Pidal's concept, but kept using the term anyways (end of page 10). It says that "Reconquista" must have some legitimate content behind, to justify its continued usage by many prestigious authors along the last 30 years (page 11). Then it dedicates the rest of the article to explain the old IX concept, and how it evolved along time. It doesn't talk about any polarization of Spanish academy.

Concepts such as the restoration of Spain (where Spain = Visigoth domains) were made up in the IX century, not by Menéndez-Pidal in the XIX century, not by Franco in XX century. Consequently, we shouldn't label a source as reminiscent of Franco's school only because they use these concepts. Your source also says that Spanish nationalism no longer plays a role on modern Spanish historiography (see below the quote of page 13). Consequently, I can't agree with how you are discounting sources.

Citing your source:

• page 9: "José Luis Martín deepened in the idea that the Reconquista was a notion elaborated half a century after Covadonga, which consequently didn't come from the hand of the Visigoths defeated in 711, but from the Mozarabe priests expelled of escaped from al-Andalus in century IX. These were its "inventors", and with that creation they answered as much to their personal situations as to the problems that the the Asturian kingdom had in those moment: the defense and restoration of the Christian faith in front of the Islam, the recovery of the Visigoth domains and the restoration of the Visigoth political unity, all of it under the direction of the Asturleones monarchy, which in this way it presented itself as legitime successor of the Toledana, in evident detriment of any other peninsular competitor, were it to be Pamplones o Catalan."

• page 9: "«If we understand by reconquista the act of conquering agains a fortress, province or kingdom, the traditionally denominated "Reconquista" never existed. In all case, it would be more correct to talk of "Conquest of Spain" by the Northern people organized in independent political nuclei, more or less stable, from century VIII». Only half a century later, at the end of century XI, would appear in the kingdom of Asturias a "spirit of reconquest" of neogothic inspiration, but by then it was "a concept false and without any previous historical base", forged intentionally to justify the king's power and the militar advance to the south at the expense of Islam"

• page 11: "[the word "Reconquista"] has been losing the nationalistic ideological load with which if was born and grown, until reaching a neutral signification that allows to allude, with a single word and with no need of further explanations, to the process of territorial expansion that was protagonized by the peninsular Christian kingdoms at the expense of al-Andalus during the Middle Ages""

• page 13: "[authors that use the term "reconquista"] don't particite neither in a “españolismo” recalcitrante nor of the idea that this expansive dynamic answered uniquely or mainly to the deliberate and expressed will of the Christian governants of recovering the lands of its Visigoth ancestors and of reestablishing the Spanish cult in the Peninsula, being so that in their analysis they privileged other types of causes, at margin or in front of the religious or irredentist, such as the political and socioeconomics, to explain that phenomena." (emphasis added)

• page 20: "As it is known, the ideal of the Reconquista, such as it is presented in the Hispanic sources from century IX to century XV, sustained that the monarchs and Christian populations of the north were legitimate heirs of the visigoths"

You are right in that we don't know if specific groups of population agreed with the concept. I replaced "in the mind of the people" to "in the mind of these kings". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you took some pain in the explanation, thanks for that. Anyway, there are two parts, I may not have expressed it clear enough, one is my personal evaluation (the academia in Spain, the author's view), and the other what the article I added says. Unfortunately it has a lot of idealogical implications to it in Spain. Although we have come a long way Reconquista and Spain are vibrant concepts with present-day implications, that is evident to whomever lives in Spain. One needs only check the wikipedia interventions to realize that for a start. However, this last version is much more accurate than the initial one and I'm fine with it. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019003946/http://usuarios.multimania.es/Maarian/Catalunya/historiacataluna/las_cortes_catalanas_.htm to http://usuarios.multimania.es/maarian/Catalunya/historiacataluna/las_cortes_catalanas_.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Biased article

The whole entry is biased and it purpose is to establish historical fact in a way that serves today's policies. The part where it explains why a principality is not worthy of an encyclopedia, although the effort put to make it look good is commendable. Someone should look into this.--193.239.221.248 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Symbols of the Principality

This is a recurrent problem: Catalan nationalists decided in the 19th century that the four bars would become the symbol of their nation, probably taking as excuse the legend of Guifré el Pilós, that has been proven unrelated to historical facts. Therefore that coat of arms can't be the symbol of Catalonia before roughly 1800. However many people don't know this and in the case of foreigners they sometimes even get to believe that Aragon and Catalonia are kind of the same thing. I'll copy here a passage from ca:Bandera de Catalunya (a page I have never edited):

Desclot i Muntaner (finals del s. XIII i principis del s. XIV) s'hi referien com a «senyal dels reis d'Aragó». Amb l'arribada de la Renaixença al s. XIX, el moviment catalanista la prengué com a bandera nacional de Catalunya.

--Jotamar (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I use this source because the Catalan WP is hardly a suspect of anti-Catalan editing. --Jotamar (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The cited academic sources - a whole plethora of them - at the Coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon disagree with you. Your Castilian nationalist POV pushing is not welcome here. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources you mention refer to the controversial question of the origin of the four bars emblem before king Alfonso II of Aragon. It's not controversial at all that, beginning with this king, the emblem became associated only with the king of Aragon (who was also Count of Barcelona), and it shouldn't be controversial for someone with accurate information that it was in the 19th century when Catalan Nationalists adopted the emblem to symolize their nation (i.e. Catalonia). --Jotamar (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The four bars again

This question has come up in the past, and I know it will come up again in the future. The symbol of the King of Aragon, the four bars, was adopted by Catalan nationalists in the 19th century as symbol of their nation, probably after the legend of Guifré el Pilós. However, there is no proof of a Catalan origin for the symbol, or at least not for all historians. But this is not the point here, the point is whether there is any proof of the symbol being adopted after the title of king of Aragon was subsumed into the kingdom of Spain, in the 16th century, by the Catalan Courts or perhaps by the short-lived Catalan Republic. I've never heard of such proof, nor have I read it in this page. The fact that in 1528 a number of Catalans thought that the four bars were originally theirs is no more relevant than the fact that many Catalans of today, including probably most politicians, think the same. --Jotamar (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jotamar, I think you missed the point regarding the use of the four bars to represent the Principality (and the other realms of the Crown of Aragon) during the early modern age. I don't understand the reason to mention the legend of Wilfred the Hairy, which has no historical evidence and it was classified as false and romantic even by the Catalanist historians during the last 19th and 20th centuries. Today, nobody use the legend to defend the Catalan origin of the bars.

However, the point of the discussion is not located in the origins, but the use and identification of that symbol in the Principality before the Renaixença. Whatever originally Aragonese or Catalan, or even a Royal symbol, which nobody denied, the systematic use of the bars to identify the different realms by themselves during the early modern era was clearly shown in different pictures, maps, statements of institutions, corporations, expressions and foreign views. As examples (in the case of Catalonia) we can mention the emblem of "Catelonia" in the Triumphzug Kaiser Maximilians (1513) (you can find that depiction in Wikimedia Commons), the variety of territorial symbols in the Apoteosi Heràldica (1668-1681), also avaliable in Commons, the depictions of the Counts of Barcelona before the dynastic union in the paintings of Filippo Ariosto (the heraldry doesn't exist during the times of Ramon Berenguer II, but the inclusion of the bars indicate the opinions of the deputies of the Generalitat around the emblem), the mention and depiction of the arms of Catalonia in the Wapppenbuch of Martin Schrot, from Munich (1581), the identification of Catalonia, among the rest of the kingdoms of the Monarchy of Spain, with the four bars in the "Salón de Reinos" of the Palacio de Buen Retiro of Madrid, the use in the maps of the Principality in the 17h and 18th centuries (sometimes alone, sometimes alongside or combined with the Cross of Saint George), the emblem and seal of the Braç Militar fora Corts (easly found with Google search), the coinage during the Reapers' War (alone or included in the arms of Louis XIII in his dignity as Count of Barcelona) surrounded by the expression "Principatus Cataloniae" (also searcheable with Google), the seal of the Court of Contraventions (mentioned in the book of Eva Serra and Josep Capdeferro La defensa de les constitucions de Catalunya: El Tribunal de Contrafaccions (1702-1713)), the systematic use in the coinage of the Principality after the War of the Spanish Succession until the reign of Isabella II, the orders of Napoleon to wave the Catalan flag alongside the French one in Catalan fortress during the Peninsular War, etc.

Unless the entire proffs mentioned were absolutely false, it seems that Catalans in one hand, as well Aragonese and Valencians on the other hand, tends to use the old Royal symbol of the kings of Aragon and counts of Barcelona in order to identify their respective polities in different degrees, alongside a variety of other relevant symbols, and foreigners also often identified the bars as the proper arms of this realms. Of course this doesn't denied the origin and, in stricto senso, its use as the familiar arms of the kings, however, as a result of the enormous variety of heraldry of the Habsburg Monarchy provoked the identification of every part of the empire with the arms of its original lords, just like in the other monarchies of the modern era. It seems that all of this goes far beyond from just a statement in the Courts of 1528. Deny any kind of relation between the four bars and the history of polities of the Crown of Aragon (in that case, the Principality of Catalonia) doesn't seems very accurate.

Best regards, --Jacobí (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Using user:Jacobí's methodology, it could be easily proven that the Spanish flag features a black bull in profile, or that the rattlesnake flag is the symbol of the USA, and of course we could include those flags in the most visible place of the pages Spain and United States of America, as it has been done here. Infoboxes are a disgrace, all the agenda-driven editors always go straight to them, and when there's no infobox, they create a new one. Controversial questions should always be left out of the infobox, where there is no possibility of explaining all the subtleties and controversies involved, unlike in the normal text of the page; apparently there is no WP guideline dealing with this problem, but clearly there should be one.

So, as I already said in another discussion: the question is not whether the four bars symbol can be included here or there, the question is whether it should be included. And I can think of at least one good reason why it shouldn't be included: it misleads the reader into thinking that the four bars had in the Principality of Catalonia the same degree of official use that it has in modern Catalonia. --Jotamar (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that user:Jacobí hasn't addressed my arguments in this discussion, and given that his or her latest argument (expressed in an edit summary) claiming that there is no proof of the symbol not being used, is completely unacceptable, I see no alternative to reverting again. --Jotamar (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jotamar, I almost forgot the discussion. It seems that you are trying to make an exercise of presentism, as I could understand, under the sole argument to make to think the readers that the four bars had the same official degree of current autonomous community of Catalonia. It could be a matter of discussion about the symbolism of polities during the preliberal era, but the point is about what means to put the flags on the infoboxes of old entities in Wikipedia. As a proper symbol, it represented and identified the polity just like the Kingdom of Scotland is represented by both the Royal Flag and the St. Andrew's Cross. Is that meaning a manipulation of readers about the Royal Flag as a proper symbol of Scotland? I don't think so. If we pay attention to entities under dynastic union in similar terms of the Crown of Aragon, things are getting worse. The Kingdom of Italy of the Holy Roman Empire, for example, shows the Imperial standard, just like its top entity, the HRE. Are the Italians trying to appropiate the Imperial symbols? No, simply the Imperial standard represents the owner under the Old Regime concept. We can even discuss the usage of the Fleur de Lis to represent the Kingdom of France, as originally a royal symbol of the Valois, or just because the French Monarchy englobed more than the Kingdom of France in stricto senso. It seems that almost every polity make use of their respectively royal symbol, alone of with other relevant symbol.

So, it seems there is no reason to denied the most relevant symbol in the Principality from a visible place, as long as there is no contradiction with similar issues and, of course, this will be understood by the vast majority of readers, as there wasn't notifications about this hypotetical confusion in Scotland, Italy, England, France... by the way, the primarly origin and usage of the bars is explained (royal flag). Banning the bars would be result in a lacking of explanation of the symbology from the, at least, the second half of the existence of this entity. The symbology and identification of the Principality and the emblem can't be separated, as there was the emblem of its direct lord and later because the strong, systematic and consolidate use as a territorialized blason, just like the pictures, liturature, maps, and corporative and political symbols depicted, which there is not any pfoof or alternate explanatin against them.

Create an exception for the infoboxes of the Principality of Catalonia and the Kingdom of Aragon, while dozens of other polities of the period with similar or equal features under the statement of readers' confusion, seems dificult to mantain, unless Wikipedia policies about that eventually change and will turn strictly ultra-legalistic for every entity. Regards. --Jacobí (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I just realised that the use of the word realm in the infobox might be another ideologically conditioned manipulation, as that word seems to be essentially a synomym for kingdom, something that Catalonia has never been. We'll turn to that later. --Jotamar (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding user:Jacobí's points: if I understood them right, under their logic the symbols of the Spanish Habsburgs, such as the cross of Burgundy, should appear in the infobox at the same level as the symbol of the king of Aragon, as this page deals with both the Crown of Aragon and Habsburg Spain.

I don't even understand what the example of the flags of the kingdom of Scotland has to do here, as both were unique to that country and not shared by other territories.

The example of the Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) doesn't add up either. The infobox there is very explicit and clear in both the caption and the accompanying map. But, most importantly, I can't think of a reason why that infobox would lead a reader to wrong conclusions, while for this page the opposite is true: any reader familiarised with modern Catalonia will simply assume that there is simply a continuity in the use of the four bars as specific to Catalonia, present and past. And that is of course what Catalan nationalists would like to think: that their symbol of choice was already theirs much before the 19th century, when Catalan nationalism adopted it enthusiastically.

In sum, I don't think we'll find any historical example that mirrors, even approximately, the very special case of the four bars that I'm trying to explain to any reader of this discussion. Leaving out of this page all those symbols that were shared between Catalonia and other territories is simply a question of neutrality. --Jotamar (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion requested. --Jotamar (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: To both Jotamar and Jacobí, you have only discussed here what your own opinions are regarding the icon. The opinion of editors is irrelevant to Wikipedia articles. Both of you would need to find reliable and independent sources which support your position. If there is a clear consensus among reliable sources about the matter, that should be reflected in the article even if you personally disagree. If reliable sources are themselves in substantial dispute over the matter, the article should note and describe the dispute without taking a side. If reliable sources discuss the matter little or not at all, the article shouldn't discuss it either. Go find sources and go from what they think, not from what you think. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect to find some source in the following days. Meanwhile, I guess the neutral action would be to delete the symbols from the infobox. --Jotamar (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry user:Seraphimblade and user:Jacobí for delaying the discussion.

I've been reading Alberto Montaner's El Señal del rey de Aragón: Historia y significado (Institución «Fernando el Católico», Zaragoza, 1995), and it has been quite illuminating. It shows how the coats of arms were originally connected just to families (lineages), later to dignities, such as the king of Aragón, and much later to territories or nations. The connection to nations/territories was generalised only after the French Revolution. This means that there are probably dozens of WP pages that link coats of arms and flags to individual areas for historical periods for which that is invalid.

Especifically for the Principality of Catalonia, the book comments that in the final period of its history, a number of heraldic symbols can be found in different sources. Those symbols typically combined the bars of Aragon and Saint George's Cross, but were not homogeneous and, most importantly, had no official status. This is one example from 1688:

So, my conclusion is this: a section can be created with this information, carefully explained and sourced; however, because the symbols had no official status, and furthermore they had changing aspects, there's no point in adding them to the infobox, other than to deceive readers. As the same book states: "In Catalonia, especially from the 19th century on, the belief in the Catalan nature of the bars makes them become the only emblem of the Principat". Notice that Principat is just an alternate name for Catalonia, the Principality with which this page deals ends its history in the early 18th century. --Jotamar (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"all the agenda-driven editors always go straight to them" (Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes). Spot on. Editors should strive to remove issues from the infobox and deal with them the body of the article with the required nuances. If the result is the infobox turning into something inane, then the infobox should be removed altogether. In any case, most articles, in general, could do just fine without infoboxes.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

With no further input in more than ten days, I'm going ahead and I'm deleting the symbols from the infobox. I don't have enough information to create a new section about the question; if anyone writes such a section, I expect it to be objective. --Jotamar (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Large number of unexplained changes by User:139.47.125.231

Is anyone watching these dramatic changes being made without any explanation by 139.47.125.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Are they legitimate? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)