Talk:Coat of arms of Catalonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking Countries. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

Catalan-speaking Countries Portal

	Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Heraldry and Vexillology Portal Coat of arms of Catalonia is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
More information about this article...

A fact from Coat of arms of Catalonia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 13, 2007.

Contents 1 Edit war 2 List of manipulations in Sclua's edits 3 New version 4 both version are POV 4.1 stating something a source does not say (misrepresenting) 4.2 how to solve misrepresentation 4.3 personal statements 4.4 removal of sourced material 4.5 original investigation 4.6 use secondary sources 4.7 specific sources 4.8 final point and proposal 4.9 reliability of sources 5 making changes to article 6 another nationalist spanish war 7 articel about legends sourcing a historical fact 8 Migration of some content to the recently created article Coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon 9 edit warring

[edit] Edit war

Jotamar has begun an edit war. He has not read nothing about this article but aragonese nationalists webs. It's incredible !! Even he hasn't read the aragonese member of International Heraldry Academy, Faustino Menéndez-Pidal, who tells in all his works ("I seminario sobre heraldica y genealogía", "Apuntes de sigilografía española", "Los Emblemas heráldicos: una interpretación histórica" "Palos de oro y gules"...) that the signal was the personal first, and familiar then, signal of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona. All his three sons (there's a seal of Ramon Berenguer Count of Provence and Sanç with bars too see L.Blancard, "Iconographie des sceaux et bulles conservés...") inherited from his father the emblem (not only Alfons, did you know it, Jotamar? No, of course). So please, first document you before edit your ideology.--Sclua (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Facts not talk. Sclua sounds very reasonable on talk pages, but when he edits, he speaks a totally different language. Please anyone tempted to believe in Sclua's words, just check his edits for this page, you'll see that he has repeatedly tried to remove sources he doesn't like, and later, as a desperate move, he's tried to discredit them. It's the first time in 2 years as a wikipedian that I come across a true bigot. --Jotamar (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, Jotamar, stop to insult me. I have read more than 15 books about the article, how many books have you read about it, Jotamar? zero? You are an ignorant, it does not exist any seal from 1167, your nationalist link is full of lies and wikipedia wouldn't have to accept this source. Please, stop to talk about "NPOV", your point of view is not neutral but aragonese nationalist point of view. Alfons the chast signed all his documents as King of Aragon and Count of Barcelona so, in your nationalist version, the seal would be of a Count of Barcelona too. If the coat of arms of Catalonia is this is because it was the coat of arms of the Counts of Barcelona. You have't got any argument, only ideology. All the world is not wrong and four aragonese nationalists are right. The greatest authorities of the heraldry don't dispute that there is bars in the Ramon Berenguer's seals. Accept the facts. --Sclua (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Jotamar is trying that some administrator blocks this article in his aragonese nationalist version like it happens with the edit wars on the Spanish Wikipedia (a place full of anticatalans). He's an ignorant that hasn't read anything but aragonese nationalists versions and thinks that he (they) has got the truth. --Sclua (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would a compromise be possible? If it's disputed, why not just mention both sides in the article? For example:
There are two theories about... one of these is.... However, ... is also an accepted theory.
That's just a generic one but it should illustrate what I mean. There's no need for an edit war when people can collaborate to achieve much, much more. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My version mention the two versions yet but i think Wikipedia would not have to admit the aragonese nationalist minoritary version. My version admits that the coat of arms was called King of Aragon so i don't know where is the problem. I asked Jotamar to tell me some member of International Heraldry Academy who disputes the bars in the Ramon Berenguer's seals and i had no answer. Out of Aragon nobody disputes it and inside Aragon, the member of the Academy, Faustino Menéndez-Pidal neither. So, only is disputed by aragonese nationalists for obvious reasons. --Sclua (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave it how it is and work on improving the article? If it mentions both sides now, surely it can stay that way. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of manipulations in Sclua's edits

• The heading The Coat of arms of Catalonia... is that of the old Counts of Barcelona and, when they became rulers of Aragon, of the kings of the Crown of Aragon is non-NPOV. The fact that it was originally of the counts of Barcelona is disputed, and the heading should state that (as my edits did).
• The final part of the heading, after ... it is not sure that the paintings are contemporary to the tombs, adds... but is a prove that relates the signal to the counts of Barcelona. That is ludicrous, if the paintings are not contemporary with the tombs, they prove nothing. The tail should be removed.
• The usual and widespread expression bars of Aragon, used by catalans themselves, is systematically erased by Sclua.
• Needless to say, the opponents of the catalan origin theory (some of which are in the references list) are as much aragonese nationalists as the supporters of it are catalan nationalists. That mention of aragonese nationalists is non-NPOV.
• Even if the famous Marseilles seals from 1150 were considered a proof, which many doubt, that still wouldn't necessarily amount to a catalan origin. Those seals correspond to Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona who was de facto the first ruler in the crown of Aragon, though only his son Alfonso II of Aragon became the first de iure king in 1162.
• Even if we admitted that the four bars were catalan only between 1150 and 1162 (12 years), they have been catalan-aragonese-valencian-balearic ever since, so the catalan origin (assuming it was conveniently proven some day) would be almost anecdotal. That should be taken into account.

Enough for now. --Jotamar (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The emblem was lineage emblem and the kings considered themselves of the lineage of the Counts of Barcelona. King James the first, (1213-1276), (the expression "of Aragon" is modern) wrote or dictated at various stages a chronicle of his own life, Llibre dels fets, where you can find this statement, and the Chronicle of the king Peter, the Ceremonious,(1336-1387), chapter XXI where you can read "the kingdom, without aragonese male descendent, came to be of the count of Barcelona ("el dito Regno en defallimiento de heredero masculino prouino á Conte de Barchinona"). In the same chronicle you can read that the king Alfons, the chast (1163-1196) "left the aragoneses arms and signals and get the bars" [1] so the bars were not aragonese. In this chronicle, version of 1366, there's a miniature where you can see Wilfred the Hairy, count of Barcelona (878-897), the beginner of the Barcelonian lineage, painted with the coat of arms of the bars. This is an anachrony but it means that the king related, again, the signal to the Counts of Barcelona.
• there's documents of the Kings and Queens where is affirmed that the signal originally was of the County of Barcelona (or Catalonia) like the Queen Maria de Luna on 1396 "signal of the County of Barcelona, bars yellow and red" and the King Martin the humane on 1406 "the flag of the Principalty of Catalonia, the called royal flag."
• I think members of the International Heraldry Academy are not catalans nationalists.
• Could anybody tell me a Middle Ages sepulcher of a sovereign with wrong arms? The analysis of the paintings showed that they were of the same period of other Middle Ages paintings so it doesn't matter if it was painted on the 11th or 12th Century and there is no bars in any tomb of the aragonese kings before the union.
• After the union, the sovereign was the ruler over Aragon owing to his title of King of Aragon and was the ruler of the Catalonia owing to his title of the Count of Barcelona. The territories of the king of France were the Kingdom of France but the territories of the king of Aragon were not the Kingdom of Aragon. This is the reason to created a modern word like Crown of Aragon but in the Middle Ages all the territories did not have name but "territories of the king". --Sclua (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Sclua has bothered to show his cards. Until now, he just repeated: those who oppose my theory are aragonese nationalists, they are "ultras" (fascists) and the like. Let's see:

• The accumulation of indications, signs and traces of a catalan origin theory is totally compatible with the existence of other theories, for which Sclua removed any mention in early edits (like January the 9th and January the 20th 2008) and insists in discrediting and marginalizing in the page now. My own heading was The Coat of arms of Catalonia ... is that of the old Crown of Aragon (ruled by the united catalan-aragonese dinasty), and has also been attributed to the sovereign Counts of Barcelona that ruled before they became kings of Aragon too, so the catalan origin theory has never been denied, hidden or discredited (unlike what Sclua does with other theories).

• Nobody said that members of the International Heraldry Academy are catalan nationalists (assuming they are anything but a secondary source), what I was stating is that calling opponents of your theory nationalists is non-NPOV.

• Everybody knows that the Kingdom of Aragon is different from the Crown of Aragon, but I fail to see where that affects this discussion. The four bars symbol has abundantly been used in Catalonia, Aragon, Valencia, the Balearic Islands and even in parts of southern Italy from the middle ages up to the present day. --Jotamar (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does what theory is stated in the article matter that much? I think we should adhere to WP:NPOV and use both. I know we're supposed to use consensus but I see no harm in putting this to a vote.
The article should include...
The Catalan-Aragonese theory only:

The Catalan theory only:

Both'

1. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. User:Jotamar. In fact the aragonese theory should be called the catalan-aragonese theory. --Jotamar (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) . PS: I won't be able to log on to Wikipedia for some days.

Scheduled to end: 21st March 2008 VOTE CLOSED: C-A:0 C:0 B:2
Just add your name to the appropriate section or add a new one if I've missed anything. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote's closed with consensus to use both theories. If anybody wants to remove a theory, they must first gather consensus of more than 2. This means: If you have 3 supports and no opposes, you can remove one. However, if you get 3 supports and 1 oppose, consensus is only 2 so the vote must remain open until you receive another support (then you can change the article) or another oppose (then you must leave it with both). If it's 2 supports and no opposes you must do the same. To summarise: Consensus is supports minus opposes. This must be 3 or more if you want to remove a theory. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version has the two theories so the votes were useless. If members of International Heraldry Academy (like the aragonese Faustino Menéndez-Pidal) are not catalan nationalist and Jotamar is unabled to mention any prestigious author non-aragonese who disputes the bars in the Ramon Berenguer's seals, the mention "aragonese nationalists" to whom disputes them are NPOV. There's no other reason than the nationalist one to dispute something that nobody disputes outside Aragon and even inside Aragon. The final version has to state this evidence and not hide it like Jotamar is trying to do.

The kings of Aragon after the union did not leave the title of sovereignty in Catalonia "Count of Barcelona" so it would be NPOV a version that it only would state "arms of the Counts of Barcelona" This statement does not deny anything.--Sclua (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version only covers one theory, the catalan nationalist one, that is obvious. What is really needed here is that other wikipedians have a little courage and give their opinion. Other editors must have this page in their watchlist, no doubt, but for some reason they avoid taking part in the discussion. Please say something !!! --Jotamar (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I have time, I'll try to write a new version for the page, as balanced as possible. --Jotamar (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, first to do anything say here what's the problem with the current version and not edit more partial editions. Have you read any book in these days? I think the NPOV is the International Heraldry Academy one because they are neither aragonese nor catalan nationalist. Nobody outside Aragon disputes the bars in the seals of Ramon Berenguer IV. In the Middle Ages this escutcheon was familiar not territorial escutcheon. The prove is it was adopted by Counts of Provence, Counts of Foix, Giudicis Arborea (party) or kings of Mallorques (all they descendents of Counts of Barcelona and not all descendents of Petronila of Aragon). The lineage, as the same kings consider themselves, was the lineage of the Counts of Barcelona. I think it is more decissive prove what the kings told than what is told in any Armorial. The article has to be improved with references not with aragonese nationalists theories. The last i have read is from "Actes du II Colloque international d'héraldique". Breassone.1981. Académie internationale d'héraldique. Les Origines des armoiries. Paris. ISBN 2-86377-030-6. "Les pals de Barcelone s'etendent à l'Aragon, à la Provence et au comté de Foix" (the bars of Barcelona were extended (adopted) to Aragon, Provence and County of Foix". Léon Jéquier. This is how this article and others have to begin. This is NPOV. --Sclua (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read under List of manipulations in Sclua's edits. And please understand once and for all that this discussion is not about what is the correct theory. This discussion is about how should the page be written and it is clear by now that the current version does not cover in a neutral way all the theories about the four bars origin. --Jotamar (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New version

In order to adapt the page to a balanced view, as the balloting demanded, I've made major changes in it. Positive, non-partisan improvements are welcome ! --Jotamar (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

your editions are far to be balanced or neutral versions and the Wikipedia is not a primary source so do not deny the bars of the seal of the Ramon Berenguer, please, don't be absurd with your reasonings. --Sclua (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The pales in the Ramon Berenguer IV count of Barcelona seals only are disputed by aragonese nationalists. According to the aragonese Menéndez-Pidal there were two matrix for all these seals so if one have got pales the rest it had them.
• the expression bars of Aragon is inexistent on the Middle Ages. It is another lie of the aragonese nationalists. This emblem was personal, familiar, of the lineage of the Counts of Barcelona, not territorial.(see works from IHA members)
• On 1150, Ramiro, king of the Aragonese, was still alive but there are no trace of pales or seals with pales in his documents. Neither documents of Petronila. Zaragoza adopted the emblem of the lion of his king, Alfonso VII of Lion-Castilian, king of the Kingdom of Zaragoza from 1134. It is another prove that Alfonso, the Battler, had not emblem.
• Ever since 1150, on the Middle Ages, the arms were too the arms of the kings of Aragon, counts of Provence, counts of Foix, kings of Mallorques, and party, Judge of Arborea, Kings of Sicily... --Sclua (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] both version are POV

Jotamar, Sclua, please look at this diff [2], where you can see Jotamar's version on the left and Sclua's version on the right.

Notice how all theories about aragonese origin are on the left and all about catalan origin are on the right? That's wrong. The WP:NPOV the Neutral Point of View core policy of wikipedia says that you should be "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

You need to elaborate a version where *both* theories co-exist. You need to find an agreement on this (I made a proposal at the end of my comments). This is a non-negotiable policy on wikipedia.

Also, since we are talking about controversial topics, and sources are bound to be biased, you also need to attribute your sources. Instead of "X is catalan because of Y[ref]" you should say "X states that Y is catalan because of Z[ref].

Now I'll make a list of problems with the versions. Sorry if I sound harsh, but you are both making some grave mistakes that go against core policies of wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stating something a source does not say (misrepresenting)

Sclua, you are misquoting the aragonese encyclopedia, putting a reference to it right after a statement that doesn't appear there, making WP:SYNTHESIS your own synthesis of what the source says, with a sentence that doesn't appear on the source at all. I mean this: "Disputed only by aragoneses nationalists[ref to enciclopedia aragonese article where it does not say that]"

Jotamar, You are also making WP:OR original research by making personal interpretations like "Even if it was admitted that the four bars were catalan only between 1150 and 1162 (12 years), they have been catalan-aragonese-valencian-balearic ever since, so the catalan origin (assuming it was conveniently proven some day) would be almost anecdotal." The only reference nearby to it is this encyclopedia entry where it never says "anecdotal" nor "balearic". Either you were extrapolating, or you forgot to provide the source for an exact quote, leaving the paragraph in a state that looks like the Enciclopedia Aragonesa makes that point. I assume other of the statements have the same problem.

Jotamar, you also say "The other evidences presented for a catalan origin are simply considered too feeble to be taken seriously" and then put a reference to the Enciclopedia aragonesa. This is a completely un-encyclopaedic tone, a misrepresentation of a source, and a total breach of neutral point of view. Especially since you could have just quoted or paraphrased part of the following paragraph (attributing it to the enciclopedia, of course):

Deben, para empezar, descartarse sistemáticamente todas las lucubraciones que insistan específicamente en el dicho carácter «catalán» pues, en términos de corrección científica e historiográfica, no puede aceptarse otra cosa que el concepto de lo «barcelonés», y entendido éste como alusivo a la Casa Condal de Barcelona, pues el término y la noción misma de Cataluña son muy posteriores al origen de los problemas que concierne a este símbolo.

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how to solve misrepresentation

Sclua, if you think that other editor is misrepresenting a source, the best solution is replacing their misquote with an actual correct quote of the source. Look at this edit and notice the edit sumary explaining rationale for the changes.

Now notice the original edit that misrepresented the source [3]. While he states correct stuff from the article, he is missing the whole point of the article. Notice also that this sort of misrepresentations can be done in total good fath, mind you. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] personal statements

Jotamar, you state "it's difficult to find a completely balanced source of information about it.", however, you provide no source for it and it appears as if you added a personal opinion on the article. So, find a reliable source that states that, or take it out.

Also, per WP:WEIGHT the section of NPOV dealing with minoritary points of view, we are supposed to find sources for all majoritary points of view and some minoritaty ones and add them to the article as soon as they have reliable sources. There is not a requirement to include only "completely balanced sources". Unbalanced sources can be added and attributed. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of sourced material

Jotamar, you remove material sourced from notable and reliable cervantesvirtual.com.

Sclua, you remove material from notable and reliable enciclopedia-aragonesa.com. (you can discus that it's only reliable for the aragonese side of the story, but it's still reliable)--Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] original investigation

Don't cite original documents from cervantesvirtual.com to support a certain point. That's a primary source. You can use primary sources to demonstrate the existance of the document or the use of a certain word at that time or a certain sentence, as in "on siecle XV the word xxxx appeared on document yyyy by zzzz", and only when any non-expert can see the document and understand it, see relevant part original research policy "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source".

However, the interpretations of what the words or sentences mean, and other assumptions like the significance of its appeareance are up to reliable secondary sources, like that same policy says. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use secondary sources

don't make statements about how a certain historiacal evidence shows that a certain historical theory is false or true, unless you have a reliable source to back that. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] specific sources

Please cite the exact document and author that backs an statement, references like the following are not WP:V verifiable according to wikipedia standards since each author can have written a dozen books with hundreds of pages each, and you can't have other editors trying to find the exact place where you read the statements you put on the article:

• Jotamar: "see Paul Adam-Even, Michel Pastoureau, Leon Jequier, Faustino Menéndez-Pidal, Martí de Riquer, etc."
• Sclua: "see all the International Heraldry Academy works. Paul Adam-Even, Michel Pastoureau, Léon Jéquier, Faustino Menéndez-Pidal, Martí de Riquer, etc. "

This is plainly not acceptable at all, understood? and it *has* to be backed by a secondary source that states that all this people backed the statements, or it has to be removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] final point and proposal

I suggest that you stop the edit warring, and that you try to understand that is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia and not a WP:SOAPBOX soapbox to talk about your views on historic theories, and that theories that you disagree with must be alre represented.

I'm sure that both of you believe that you used correctly your sources. Well, you aren't, and this article full of misuse of sources, so please in the future be more careful with the problems I'm pointing at, and make a more balanced version that doesn't downplay the opposite side.

Please notice that the WP:3RR three-revert rule policy is not a free ticket to revert three times per day the same stuff on an article. And since 10 of April you have been reverting each other by changing sometimes almost the whole content of the article. That's a violation of the spirit of the policy, even if it's not a violation of the letter.

Proposal: since Sclua's uses sources better, I suggest using that version as basis, deleting the "Disputed only by aragoneses nationalists" part, crating at the end of the article a section called "aragonese origin theories" and then Jotamar starts adding under that section the aragonese version, this time using sources correctly. Sclua's use of sources also have to be improved meanwhile..

Once this is done, the organization of the article can be assesed again.

I will keep an eye on the article, warn you if you start edit warring again, and correct some of the use of sources.

Para entendernos mejor, traduzco al cristiano: dejad de eliminar las teorias que no os gustan, usad las fuentes mejor, no pongais opiniones en el artículo que no sean de fuentes secundarias, y dejad que aparezcan tanto la versión aragonesa como la catalana en el artículo, ya que ambas tiene fuentes fiables. Perdonad la rudeza de mis comentarios, pero este tipo POV y de guerras de edición no es acpetable en wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reliability of sources

You are both using odontcat.com. I opened a section on Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN), see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#unsigned_website_with_zero_sources_and_severe_bias_hosted_on_an_odontology_website to get a second opinion (my opinion is already clear from my comment) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] making changes to article

Per Jotamar's request, I'll make some changes to the article so Jotamar can have a section to add stuff there, and I will neutralize the lead (which too loaded with stuff anyways) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I left a section for Jotamar to introduce his version there, getting sources better. At the end, I also added a statement on History section about first appeareance on Alfonso II's reign by Enciclopedia Aragonesa, since it's a fairly factual statement. I made care of not mentioniting any conclusion that the source makes about this fact, since this should appear on the "aragonese origin theories" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT DOES IT HAPPEN WITH THIS TALK PAGE?. I AM HAVING GOT PROBLEMS TO SEE IT. ANY SPANISH CENSORSHIP, PERHAPS?? WHO KNOWS...[4] --Sclua (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will improve this article with sources but, meanwhile, it has not to accept editions full of lies with no reliable nor prestigious sources. All the legends of the Middle Ages relate the pales to the Counts of Barcelona so it is not so easy to refuse them because all the legends has got a part of truth. Any symbol associated with Ramon Berenguer IV was personal of him. The Count of Barcelona became the ruler of Aragon so the symbol was the symbol of the Count of Barcelona.--Sclua (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you are finally going to remove that odontcat.com source :) I was waiting for Wikipedia:RSN#unsigned_website_with_zero_sources_and_severe_bias_hosted_on_an_odontology_website the thread at RSN to get archived before removing the source, in case some editor made some insight there --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are historians that explain on detail those legends. Those historians explain on what are those legends based, and which parts are based on facts, and which parts are based on myths. Just find the sources and cite them, and don't remove the explanations that falsify the legends just because you don't like what they say, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My comment about Sagarra's work was for Jotamar not for you. I don't know what it means "editor made some insight there" but I don't know where is the problem with Odoncat source. All that is said is common known. I agree that it has errors, the coat of arms was personal-familiar of the count-kings not territorial of the notcalled Crown of Aragon but if you tell me where is the problem it can be deleted. The statement about Bars of Aragon is false. The ultranationalists Fatás/Redondo did not repeat this falsity on "Blason de Aragon" on 1995 like he did on 1978 "Bandera de Aragón". The Middle Ages chronicles (james I, desclot, Muntaner) where this is supposed said (Foix, Lauria, Moncada) don't say this so if you do not tell me soon the chronicle and the chapter where this is said i will delete this statement.--Sclua (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I already listed all problems with odontocat.com at the RSN thread. I'm not going to repeat them here just because you refuse to acknowledge them (translation of difficult sentence on behalf of non english native editor: no voy a repetir los problemas sólo porque te niegues a aceptar que existan). That source is simply not reliable by wikipedia standards and it has to be removed. I'll just replace it with a "fact" tag so you can find a better source for the sentence. Since it's a common known thing, you shouldn't have trouble finding a better replacement.

I'm not talking about the origin of the coat, Sclua. I'm talking about sourcing the Wilfred the hairy story with painting the four bars in blood and similar stuff which has been shown to be a legend. I'm talking about using sources from historians that explain the problems with that legend. I was only talking about the legends, ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I made an overall "improvement" to a big part of the article. Enric, let me know what you think about it. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another nationalist spanish war

Maurice27 say me "the plural of pales is PALLETS. You are absolutly ignorant in heraldic matters" ok see here "In British heraldry when two or more pales(PLURAL) appear on a field, they are conventionally termed pallets. (o sea, una cosa son cuatro palos y otra un escudo palado (muchos palos). you are the ignorant, horizontal pales are bars not fess.--Sclua (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only you are completely ignorant in heraldic matters, but also you want to know more than anybody else! May your explanation here above prove my point. Read what you just linked! "In British heraldry when two or more pales(PLURAL) appear on a field, they are conventionally termed pallets". Thanks for proving my point, but it was unncessary.

On the other hand:

• Should I indicate to you that some of your passages have been tagged as NOT following the standard writing conventions of modern English, including correct grammar, punctuation and spelling as well as NOT presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. Please, read Wikipedia:The perfect article. If you keep erasing what other editors are tagging in order to improve the article in NPOV, you will be reported.
• You are constantly Edit warring with nonsense explanations. Please, read Wikipedia:Edit war if not wanting to be reported
• You have just broken the 3 revert rule. Please, read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. One more revert to this article, and you will be reported.
• Your "another nationalist spanish war" style is completely uncessary, undesirable and shows your bad taste. Please, read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith if not wanting to be reported.

After reading some of the edits on your talk page and noticing that other users have already warned you before because of your behavior even if you blanked the page, I will post this very same advice in your talk page before following the steps indicated how to deal with disruptive editors.

--MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have started editing without any explanations here, you have begun this edit war and the three rule revert. You has call me "ignorant" =personal attack. I have all this talk page full of reasonings.

I think you have not read enough to edit this article.

ok, if two or more pales on a field are conventionally termed pallets please, do not write again "four pallets".

Leges palatinae miniature, or, laws of the king James III for the Kingdom of Mallorques, 14th Century, you can see the coat of arms of the pales, so do not repeat again "used exclusively by the monarchs of the Crown (of Aragon i supposed) because is an Aragonese nationalist lie --Sclua (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "Aragonese nationalist lie" style is completely uncessary, undesirable and shows your bad taste. Please, read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith if not wanting to be reported. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume that by "used exclusively by(..)" thing, you are referring to the Crown of Aragon article, where you are edit-warring to remove the sentence. You see, a coat of arms is not a pennon. The source talks about a pennon. There were several coats of arms of different families using a number of bars, and nobody disputes that. Provide sources that the pennon was used by anyone other than the monarchs of the Crown, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] articel about legends sourcing a historical fact

This sentence:

and the pre-heraldic forms indicate pre-heraldic times,before the second Third of the 12th Century. <ref>Marti de Riquer. "Llegendes històriques catalanes. Quaderns Crema. 2000.pag.16. Barcelona. ISBN 84-7727-296-4</ref>

I restored it, but, is a book about legends really a good source for disputed historical facts? Won't a book about legends be usually giving lots of space to any legendary fact without criticizing it? I also tagged it as "fact", since there is a study on the age of the chemicals of the paintings, showing that there are doubts about the age of those paintings on the tombs. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Migration of some content to the recently created article Coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon

Something I believe much people have not yet realized is that the coat of Catalonia and the coat of the Crown of Aragon are NOT the same one.

The Catalan has the spanish royal crown as ensign (making it the Coat of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia), while the one of the Crown has none (or, in modern times, a spanish heraldic dukal crown in order to portray its relation to the spanish royal family)

In order to prevent future edit warring, I recently created that new article which I believe could contain the "Theories of origin" and "Variations" sections.

As it is now, an uninformed reader could believe that the arms of all former territories from the Crown come from the Coat of Catalonia when this latter is from a recently creation (statute of autonomy).

This article should only include the origin, official election and heraldic description of the coat of Catalonia and leave all the other sections to its "daddy" (the coat of the Crown of Aragon aka the coat of the House of Barcelona).

Let me please know your opinions about this. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 11:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit warring

i think it's incredible what's going on here, two user with very few knowledges about this item, who has not read a book but only several bias websites, in an edit-warring like they were the owners of this article. i hope with the new article of Maurice they leave alone this article. The work of Ampelio Alonso de Cadenas y López and Vicente de Cadenas y Vicent "Heráldica de las Comunidades Autónomas y de las capitales de provincia" say that is admitted all kind of royal crowns so is false that the crown has to be Spanish. --Sclua (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is out of place and shows your complete lack of respect towards other users. Not only you just don't care about erasing what IS a fact (that the coat of arms of Catalonia DOES use a spanish royal crown as ensign, no matter if this boils your anti-spaniard blood), but you also keep erasing references which YOU decided are not worth enough.

As I mentioned in this and your own talk-pages, you might want to have a look at what vandalism is in the context of Wikipedia. There is a consensual solution in these articles (to show both aragonese and catalan POV on the origins of the coat), reached over a period of time, which you are removing and/or tweaking consistently. You have a particular politically-motivated viewpoint, as is your right, but this viewpoint should not be forced on the article, and as far as possible neutrality should be sought. If you are not happy with the consensual solutions previously reached, please take your concerns to the relevant discussion pages, and reopen the debate, rather than engaging in edit warring.

That said, persistent edit warring in pursuit of a narrow political objective without debate and discussion comes close to vandalism

I ask you, again, to respect other users' edits or you will be reported. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

i am waiting any explanation from you on this talk page, trying to reach an agreement before to change something, several weeks ago. i have counted 26 edition from you without any explanations here, without any consensus so your behaviour is antiwikipedician. You arrived here and began to do huge changes without any consensus and then you started to threaten me. I beg you to stop to threaten me, you are not an expert Chilean on this item nor your editions have prestigious sources. You are who are obssesed to write "Spanish" "Spain" "Aragon"... in every line, you are the obssesed who is trying to avoid and clearing all Catalan versions on articles relates with Catalonia.

I see today you have to come back with the merely "prince" demonstrating your anti-catalanism. I think it would be impossible to find a user like you on all the wikipedia. It would be impossible to find a Corean user on an edit-warring of the Coat of Arms of Belarus. You have demonstrated that you do not know what you're talking about, ie, your sources num. 7 and 8 are about Valencian government not Catalan one, ignorant, or " lur propri senyal Reyal de bastons o barres grogues e vermelles" means yellow and red bars but i am wonder what is the relation between the coat of arms of the city of Valencia with this article. It doesn't matter, do you? you "have" the right to edit all what you want and "dot".

Enric Naval cleared the odoncat source when he did not received any support from no administrator to do it, i think is a bad style, and clearly biased behaviour. Besides, he cleared twice my references to the IHA member sources but he has not do the same with this other list "the main point held by Aragonese authors (Fatás, Ubieto, Montaner)" so he has demonstrated his biased point of view.--Sclua (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, my list hapens to be sourced with an inline reference to an encyclopedia, while your list is a personal selection of authors with no source, as I have already explained you, which is why I removed it again. While, on the other hand, you remove a catalan author from the sourced list, and then you state than only aragonese suthors back that theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)