Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Gambia officially recognized the Catalan Republic on twitter

here's the link --Ca7apult (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

MFA Czech Republic

Add Czechia. According to the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "The Czech Republic still considers Catalonia as an integral part of the Spanish Kingdom." http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/issues_and_press/mfa_statements/the_czech_republic_still_considers.html https://twitter.com/CzechMFA/status/923952821141204993 MrGreg (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

MFA Poland

Add Poland. According to the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "Poland fully respects the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of the Kingdom of Spain." MrGreg (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Add Canada

https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/923991732777377793

Trudeau says Canada recognizes a united Spain despite Catalonia independence declaration.

--Ca7apult (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done, though a different, non-Twitter source has been used instead. Impru20 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Portugal

The portuguese government doesn't recognize the Republic of Catalonia. https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc21/comunicacao/comunicado#comunicado-do-governo-portugues-sobre-a-declaracao-unilateral-de-independencia-no-parlamento-da-catalunha

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Sanctions

A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Norway

The Government of Norway announced they would not recognize Catalonia. https://twitter.com/NorwayMFA/status/923988214586757120

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Ruru31500 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC) This country will be added in the next update of the map

The Ballot: How many MPs didn't vote

In the article can be seen the number of votes in favor and against: 70-10. But can not be seen how many MPs didn't want to vote rejecting the validity of this ballot: 63 MPs. It's really relevant because 10 + 63 = 73 and 73 > 70. So please, indicate how many MPs didn't want to vote to have a neutral point of view. https://www.elindependiente.com/politica/2017/10/27/puigdemont-consuma-desafio-declara-independencia-republica-cataluna-dui/

Cs + PSC + PP = 52, not 63 (25 + 16 + 11). The source makes the calculation wrong, as it includes MPs from Catalunya Sí que es Pot which, contrary to them, stayed and voted against the declaration. Impru20 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Add the British and the French overseas territories

The United Kingdom and France refused to recognise the independence of Catalonia so the British and the French overseas territories should also be coloured red. These territories have no international representation and are represented by the UK and France respectively on external affairs. The same with the US overseas territories. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Ruru31500 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC) This modification will be added in the next update of the map

Also, add the British crown dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man) Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Gambia announced intention to recognize Catalonia

https://twitter.com/MFAGambia/status/923985991546888192 this account is legit, I have made some background checks.

add them to the article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRMOOMOO420 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@DRMOOMOO420: And what background checks were those? I would prefer to see a blue tick besides the name of the account. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we wait for this to be picked up by a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Impru20 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We should wait an update from the official site of Ministry of foreign affairs of The Gambia --Ca7apult (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The current president of the gambia verified twitter account (https://twitter.com/BarrowPresident/following) does follow the Foreign affairs twitter account, though we still lack an official source that 100% confirmed from the official government. Ballplay3 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ca7apult: - server not found. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Senegal is green, not The Gambia Donutcity (talk)

@Donutcity: No, Senegal is the big country around The Gambia, The Gambia is within Senegal. --Ca7apult (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's another account claiming to be the rightful Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dubbing the other one as "fake". It has no blue tick either. I would not consider none of these as reliable for now. Impru20 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That other account is actually followed by the verified President of Gambia account, which makes it look more likely to be legitimate. SJK (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

International recognition is a huge thing here, we shouldn't add The Gambia until we know the clear status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The official Gambian's foreign twitter account has posted pretty clear recognised the Catalan Republic as a separate political entity from Spain. Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs)  16:18, October 27 2017 (UTC)

There are doubts as to whether that is the actual official Gambian's foreign twitter account. See discussion above. Impru20 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok take your time. Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs)  16:21, October 27 2017 (UTC)

Oh found it and g@d damn it. Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs)  16:34, October 27 2017 (UTC

There is a report of it here but it seems to just be Catalan coverage of the Twitter comments. So I doubt we can use this as conclusive proof that the Gambia are recognising it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Now 404'd. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, almost as if they'd seen this and realised it doesn't give any credulity to the claim and makes them look like fools for citing a twitter chat from an unconfirmed account. Oops, our bad! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Its not surprising though in our new era of "fake news". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

References

According to the Spanish fact-checking outlet Maldito Bulo the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Gambia confirms that @MFAGambia is a fake account and that "Gambia has never and will never recognise Catalonia": https://twitter.com/malditobulo/status/924070040223322113 77.225.165.4 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Costa Rica doesn't recognizes the Catalan Independence.

Costa Rica joins the list of independent states that does not recognize the independence of Catalonia, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Country. Source.

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Just heard that Iceland and Estonia have recognized Catalonia. Waiting for more info. Scottish parliament too.

Estonia and Finland will discuss the matter in their Parliaments, but no recognition yet. The Scottish government has no authority to recognize a foreign State, though it expressed support for Catalan self-determination. Lekemok (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong countries

Please, someone remove South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the Donetsk People's Republic from the map. Their inclusion is based on not up to date sources, referring to events happening BEFORE the declaration of independence and/or to alleged intentions from those one month ago. These should only be added if they recognize the Catalan Republic after they've declared independence. Impru20 (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Forget it, I was able to do it myself. xD Impru20 (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

Serbia refuses to recognize independence of Catalonia http://www.blic.rs/vesti/politika/dacic-isti-je-put-kosova-i-katalonije/j98j0zc 77.243.22.33 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Following countries to be added to the list of countries refusing to recognize (map also to be updated):
Honduras: http://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/1120647-466/honduras-no-reconoce-la-independencia-de-catalu%C3%B1a-y-manifiesta-su-apoyo-a
Russia: http://www.elperiodico.com/es/internacional/20171027/tusk-reitera-que-espana-sigue-siendo-el-unico-interlocutor-de-la-ue-6384558
Senegal: http://www.worldbulletin.net/africa/195403/senegal-government-supports-spanish-unity
Switzerland: https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/portada/suiza-dice-que-no-se-dan-ahora-las-condiciones-para-facilitar-el-dialogo-en-caso-catalan/10010-3409653
Behrou (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Bolivia 🇧🇴

The Minister of Justice and Transparency of Bolivia, Héctor Arce, considered the decisions of Spanish President Mariano Rajoy to restore constitutional legality in Catalonia after the unilateral declaration of independence assumed by the Catalan Parliament. "It is the right thing in the light of the Spanish Constitution of 1978. The unity of this friendly nation should not be in doubt"

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509145649-8edbedf89633db8daf4c6ae390fd9e29 Reisukami (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

On a twitter feed seen that the first country to recognize Catalonia is a country called Nauru. Presume fake news as not even a real country. Anyway perhaps others can look into matter.

Nauru does indeed exist, but considering how we were so easily fooled with the Gambia, we should wait until a reliable source confirms it. Impru20 (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Switzerland 🇨🇭

Switzerland affirmed today that the secessionist aspirations of Catalonia must be approached "within the Spanish constitutional order" and that it respects "fully the sovereignty" of Spain

Switzerland fully respects the sovereignty of Spain Reisukami (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509183997-1993521671e223369233f34745d294bd

Already done. Impru20 (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Impru20 for keep updating the map Reisukami (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Peru 🇵🇪

The government of Peru has expressed its "full support" to the Government of Spain and has expressed its "rejection of any act or unilateral declaration of independence, as an action contrary to the Constitution and Spanish laws."

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509153078-6b5748ec03bd16cf19dcdeea447f8274 Reisukami (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Chile 🇨🇱

Chile's Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz has assured that his country will support the territorial integrity of Spain

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509147321-89fb00634eac125c9ee41bed3191dcbc Reisukami (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Ecuador 🇪🇨

This country (Ecuador) has made a "call for the solution to the situation in Catalonia to be achieved through dialogue, within the framework of the Constitution, law and the rule of law Spanish

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509148441-9355bbf27585ac33134e7a1a426c1b00 Reisukami (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Paraguay 🇵🇾

The Paraguayan Foreign Ministry has expressed its support for the measures taken by the government of Mariano Rajoy to stop the pro-independence challenge of Catalonia. Through a communiqué, the Paraguayan government has defended the "unrestricted adherence to the rule of law."

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509147780-612ff33f08dcbcacb5b8aae5aa0b8fd4 Reisukami (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Honduras 🇭🇳

The Honduran government has stated that it "does not recognize the unilateral declaration of independence issued by a part of the Catalan Parliament"

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509156086-de5dc700411025f3f51db2e8c0e8c4dc Reisukami (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Falkland islands

Falkland islands and all British overseas territories are part of the UK. They rely on the UK for international representation and external affairs. Same with all countries that have dependencies (Netherlands, USA, France, New Zealand, Australia etc..) Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done the Falkland Islands, will try to revise the rest. Impru20 (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Update Antarctica

I don't want to nitpick but if you all still want to show Antarctica you should update it. Reisukami (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done (I think). Impru20 (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The map

Please use the correct map, and fill the states according to the internationally recognized (de jure, and not de facto) borders. Labrang (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The following countries are to be included in the no recognition list: Chile (highlighted on the map but not in the list): https://twitter.com/HeraldoMunoz/status/924044814722715653
Ecuador: http://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/ecuador-ante-la-situacion-en-cataluna/
Russia: http://www.elperiodico.com/es/internacional/20171027/tusk-reitera-que-espana-sigue-siendo-el-unico-interlocutor-de-la-ue-6384558
Paraguay: https://twitter.com/mreparaguay/status/924047080552792065/photo/1
Peru: http://www.rree.gob.pe/SitePages/comunicado_oficial.aspx?id=CO-045-17
Behrou (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Is stupid, and adds nothing. Does anyone have a reason why we would wish to keep it? --John (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it provides a quick glance at Catalonia's international recognition, as provided by sources. Just as is done for other states such as Kosovo, Palestine, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and so on. Also, removing it because it "is stupid" doesn't look like a valid reason to remove the map. Impru20 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree the map can be somewhat of a crystal ball, but it does illustrate the developing diplomatic situation for Catalonia. The map however most certainly does not need to be 750px. Alex Shih (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't. It should be removed until there are some more data. Right now it's premature, to put it nicely. --John (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The Catalan government was already stripped of all governing power prior to their grandiose announcement. Catalan has zero ability to enforce its supposed territorial integrity, unlike truly disputed territories, so even then it would be de facto and de jure under the control of Spain in this scenario. Not to leave out the immediate nonrecognition by the entirety of the EU of this supposed Catalan Republic, and the enforcement of active direct rule from Madrid.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The dominant theory of statehood in international law says that recognition by other states is not a prerequisite for statehood. It seems like the article spends a disproportionate amount of space discussing recognition when the importance of recognition is debatable. Worse, there is nothing in the article that points out that recognition is not a prerequisite for statehood. - Hoplon (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Self-reply - 30% of the text of the article and the only in-text graphic is spent on the status of recognition. This seems seriously out of proportion given the importance of recognition in matters of statehood. I made an edit to try to balance but it seems lacking to me. Perhaps someone more talented at editing could properly incorporate the Montevideo Convention. - Hoplon (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove Finland 🇫🇮

The source [1] cited for Finland not recognising an independent Catalan Republic is not an official statement but a personal statement by Finland's Minister of Foriegn Affairs Timo Soini, in response, in fact, to MP Mikko Kärnä's proposal for parliamentary recognition of the Catalan Republic due to be debated next week. 77.225.54.74 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A statement from a Foreign Minister seems more official than a proposal from a MP. Impru20 (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is still not the official position of the Finnish Government, just the personal belief of its Foreign Minister. His statement ("En näe tällaisia yksipuolisia itsenäisyysjulistuksia hedelmällisinä" / "I do not consider such unilateral declaration of independence as fruitful") is not referring to a position adopted officially by Finland. Regarding the MP's proposal, I just referred to it as proof that the issue and thus the official position of the country is yet to be discussed in parliamentary session. 77.225.54.74 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

How does a position get officially adopted by a country? When a Foreign Minister comments on these things, he isn't doing so as a private individual, but as a holder of that office. Furthermore, the Prime Minister retweeted the Foreign Ministry's tweet that supported Spain. And BTW, Kärnä calling for a parliamentary debate doesn't mean that there will be one: that would be decided by the council of speakers of the parliament. Here's an English article on all this: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/foreign_minister_rejects_rumour_of_finnish_recognition_for_catalan_independence_spanish_government_has_our_full_support/9906032 --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, Jaakko. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Impru20 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

edit rekuest

add Gambia as not recognizing the Catalan republic

https://www.freedomnewspaper.com%2Fgambia-gambia-govt-denies-recognizing-catalonia-as-an-independent-state%2F&usg=AOvVaw330vwHpYruMkAive0iFtDQ

Correct link would be this. The one you add doesn't work for some reason. Nonetheless, I won't be adding them for now because they just said the Twitter account congratulating the people of Catalonia was fake, but did not make an statement in either sense about the Gambian government stance on the Catalan Republic. Impru20 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add 🇧🇷 Brazil

https://www.poder360.com.br/governo/brasil-nao-reconhece-declaracao-de-independencia-da-catalunha/

More one source (I deleted my topic because it's repeated) http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/en/press-releases/17726-developments-in-catalonia G.J.S. (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Now added, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Fix Brazil reference

Portuguese is not Spanish.

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Artsakh

It seems like the Foreign Ministry of the Artsakh Republic express their respect to the Catalan Declaration of Independence and the rights to self-determination.

• https://twitter.com/mfankr/status/924246747009966080
• http://nkr.am/en/news/2017-10-28/972/

Volum-ion (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Have added with that official Ministry source and a quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Unusual map

This map does not follow the general line regarding copntroversial states. Links towards what the map should look like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia#/media/File:Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia_recognition.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#/media/File:Two_Chinas.svg

(One can also compare the map of Israel or Palestine)

The Western Sahara is never shown as part of Morocco on these maps.

The claims on Antarctica are never included on these maps.

They are not valuable information because the position of those governments claiming or governing a territory is sufficiently made clear with the colour of the country itself. Why is this done? Probably to make the message "The whole world rejects Catalan independence!" stronger.

We should follow what is normally done in this kind of articles. Yuyuhunter (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Antarctica claims are not included in these because no state with claims over Antarctica territories recognize these states. As for Western Sahara, I dunno. The map is quite detailed but Western Sahara is not separated from Morocco for some reason (and I don't know how to split it without literally fucking up the .svg file). If someone knows how to do it in a professional way, I wouldn't be opposed to it remaining gray. Impru20 (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, separating countries can be tricky, it seems. Is that a technical political term you're using there? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I now see that territory for Western Sahara is shown split in this map, separating zones controlled by Morocco and the SADR. It seems this is a valid way to depict Western Sahara in maps, out of the four possibilities available, so it wouldn't need any change. Impru20 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But that is an odd map projection, suggesting that Antarctica (or its political significance) is almost as big as USA and Canada combined. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not uploaded the map, I just work with what there is. However, Antarctica is shown like this in average World Maps. Impru20 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not suggest that you had. I was just making the observation that it was misleading. I see Antarctica's support has now been removed anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Impru20. You use "these" but you have clicked on one map only. If you click on the other map you'll see why your speculation is wrong. Yuyuhunter (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, no I clicked both. No country with Antarctic claims is shown as recognizing any of these states. Impru20 (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the map should be changed. Use the correct map, and fill the states according to the internationally recognized (de jure, and not de facto) borders. Most obvious examples are Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria not colored with their respective de jure nations. Please use a text list in the case non-recognized entities start recognizing Catalonia, for example South Ossetia and Abkhazia which both have indicated to consider such (but yet have not done as such!), and do not put them with the colors in the map, as it would give a false idea of states. I am not able to edit the map myself at the moment. Thank you! Labrang (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Vatican City 🇻🇦

The Pope criticizes "the national logics". Pope Francis has charged against "particular and national logics" in Europe and has defended dialogue to prevent "extremist and populist formations" from "making protest the heart of his message."

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509208578-bd9f698b4814c3d473a367b609e8b7d0 Reisukami (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The above is neither evidence that the Vatican recognize or do not recognize the new state of Catalonia.

The source does not make it clear whether the Vatican recognizes or not. I don't think it can be counted as either. Impru20 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know the Pope is the Head of State of the Vatican City and he personally selects the President of the Pontifical Commission and he can interfere in Legislatve, Executive and Judicial powers. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I understand you may want to wait to the resolution of the Pontifical Commission. Reisukami (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Republic (2017–present)

Should be the actual name. AHC300 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It is presently 2017. Firebrace (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Display Dominican Republic as Red on the map

Reisukami (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You could ask Badefa? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

China

China backs Spain now, so thats all of the permanent UNSC members--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know your source. According to RT (not always correct), they are calling for peaceful dialogue only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.186.97 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that China does not recognize Cataloniia's independence: the source is from the 12th of October. It is more accutate to say it has not taken any position since the declaration of independence took place.

Article structure/layout

This is a very confusing article for one so short.

• I assume that there is a section heading missing somewhere as it goes straight from Background to Reactions
• There is material in the Lead that doesn't appear in the article
• The key thing that visitors want to know - when did it happen - doen't appear in the Lead
• Hopefully a better layout for a list of most of the world's states (eventually?) can be devised
• And now a big cut-and-past job of material from Catalonia seems out of place (and editors couldn't take the time to edit the text to refer to subject of this article)

Hopefully some of the editors here can address at least some of these points. Davidships (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A date has now been added in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Demographics, Culture, Geography sections

Based on what are we including all of this content, copy-pasted from Catalonia article? This article we are editing concern about the statement and ongoing issues about the unilaterally declaration. There's no point on including it as it has no concern on it. Should be deleted. --Brgesto (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree it should be deleted. Firebrace (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; seems superfluous to the actual point of this article.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Brgesto (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Val d'Aran paragraph to clarify

@The ed17: Regarding clarification, basicaly and extremely summarized Vall d'Aran is considered as an autonomous region of Catalonia (we could equate it as Catalonia autonomous region of Spain), per se, Vall d'Aran is waiting for the upcoming events to pronounce themselves on the situation, and if the unillateraly independance of Catalonia has "success" (if you allow me the expression), they will go ahead with an independance from Catalonia. --Brgesto (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of that context should be in the article. ;-) As of right now, readers are being told that some body of some government they've likely never heard of is holding a meeting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Brgesto (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Another self-proclaimed new country, within an, as-yet unrecognised, new county? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: That's why I pointed my arguments about some "rushing edits" about all the issue. Summarizing to extreme: Parlament of Catalonia without a majority of votes of the catalan society and unconstitutionaly declared an unillaretal independece. Why is it declared as legal by one part? Well, because it is in the moment that it was declareb by the Government of Catalonia. Why is it declared as illegal by the other part? Well, because it is in the moment it is not allowed under spanish laws to do referendums nor declarations of independance in the territory. Therefore it was declared illegal and non constituent by the Constitutional Court, and in three days it's more than possible that this declaration is considerend under law as illegal. That's why all countries are not recognizing Catalonian Republic. That's why I pointed that there is still an ongoing issue on its appliance. Then we have Val d'Aran, an autonomous region inside Catalonia. They are waiting to a clearer effect of the situation, and they are considering their exit of Catalonia yes. If it's all even difficult to explain for us, I can not imagine how everything looks like from abroad. --Brgesto (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased

This article is so biased it might as well be written by the Spanish Government. So far the only places that may recognize the new Republic are Scotland, Gambia (disputed), Nauru, Russian Oblast and French Catalan. Does anyone know Kosovo position and I am not being perdantic at all! As Spain was the only western country not to recognize them.

As Catalonia is a brand new country it goes without saying that no other country will automatically recognize it as so until that country officially recognize it as such. That said at this present moment de facto Catalonia is an independent nation. This may not last when the Spanish police and/or army invade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.186.97 (talk • contribs)

Reality is not "biased" - it may be disappointing to you, but it isn't "biased."50.111.60.244 (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither police nor army is going to invade Catalonia, please, be serious. It's not recognized because the independence is unconstitutional and has any proccedure at all in the laws of Spain. --Brgesto (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoa - don't count on that! Friends of mine in Spain who are in military families say that forces have been put on alert. I'm seriously doubtful this will end without some measure of terrible violence. I hope I am wrong. Time - and the news from Reliable Sources - will tell.50.111.60.244 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Kosovo's independence is also unconstitutional by Serbian laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.82.41 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The two situations are vastly different. Kosovo is a de facto state supported by NATO's armed forces. That's reality. The independence of Catalonia is not recognized by the world community, and has no independent martial forces to enforce independence. What they DO face is a very strong Spanish military that hopefully will not have to act. 50.111.60.244 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Slovenia and Croatia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence were also against Yugoslavian law in 1991. The article is clearly biased but no one seems to care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ommyTu25 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, for that reason the independence of Slovenia and Croatia was not originally recognized by, for instance, the EU member states (then EC member states). --Glentamara (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it even "de facto" in the hands of any independent Catalan authority? As far as I know, Catalan has no way to enforce its alleged independence (that was enacted by a government stripped of power), and there is currently active direct rule from Madrid. This includes federal police patrolling, and control of the finances and taxes, as well as control of the current Catalan government, with the stripped one vowing to "peacefully protest," Madrid's actions. This situation appears to be utterly different from cases such as Crimea and Kosovo. It's borderline a publicity stunt for more long term goals of independence.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You got the point. --Brgesto (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

After declaration of independence Catalonia is not under Spain jurisdiction anymore. "Activity" of article 155 and "stripping of power" is at least under dispute at the moment. !-- Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.186.97 (talk • contribs)

What????????? Please. --Brgesto (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Brgesto - perhaps you can enlighten us all on your views on General Franco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.186.97 (talk • contribs)

I'll omit any comment on that message, thanks for the concern. --Brgesto (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it documents a current European political event. Furthermore, the title of the article should be renamed to reflect the process rather than the result. Dannyniu (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest Polls

I think it's important to add a section for recent polls as this article is skewed more at the moment toward international reactions and recognition and does not address the vastly more important issue of how people in Catalonia view the situation:
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/10/28/actualidad/1509189971_913953.html
Poll conducted by Metroscopia for El Pais

First Graphic: Question from probable voters (further breakdown is by party)
29% Are in favor of independnece
46% Want Catalonia to remain in Spain but with guaranteed exclusive powers
19% Want Catalonia to remain in Spain as is (i.e. status quo)

Second Graphic: Question of identity (further breakdown is by party)
19% Consider themselves only Catalan
25% Consider themselves more Catalan than Spanish
46% Consider themselves as Spanish as Catalan
5% Consider themselves more Spanish than Catalan
3% Consider themselves only Spanish

No Graphic: Question on support for the dissolution of the Catalan parliament and election called for by the central government for December 21st
52% Support
43% Against
[the rest are not mentioned but I presume it's don't know/undecided.
Behrou (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree about showing public opinion in Catalan but we cannot simply rely on 1 newspaper which is based in Madrid and is state controlled.

I completely disagree with classifying El Pais as a "state controlled" newspaper. It is one of the 3 main national dailies in Spain and it is owned by Prisa which is a publicly traded company whose majority shareholder is Amber an Irish investment company! In that sense, even though it receives state funding, it's less "state controlled" than the BBC in the UK or CBC in Canada. We certainly wouldn't label a poll from either of those entities as being biased, let alone dismiss it because they're state funded. I believe the inclusion of this poll is extremely important and relevant to the ongoing situation because the entire argument on "self determination" should be validated based on the will of the population.
Behrou (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Table

The edit summary for his edit was "there's no point in having this multi-coloured table, because no country has recognised the UDI)". How is that exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just had my edit, which essentially removed the colourful list of all the countries that have not recognised Catalan, reverted on the grounds that "the list is important". But why exactly is it important? Why ought we to put a pretty table and emblazon the page with mall swathes of colour to support a table that I cannot see the point for? If we had a situation where all countries support independent republic, there would be no need for a list of all of them. Same here. The score is like 190–0. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hiding the list by default, as previously, would avoid "mall swathes of colour"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to have a table of countries that do support the Catalan Republic? Firebrace (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

How does one judge the relative notability of (a) nations that do support, (b) nations that do not support and (c) nations that have not said. Of course we also have entities which are not Sovereign states in the mix. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think what Ohconfucius try to explain is, do we need a neverending table with all the countries and their position? Wouldn't be easier to express it as "as per October 28th none country has recognized... except for X and Y (in case needed) which stated that..." --Brgesto (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be "neverending". It might be more notable to see which nations never support. But I'd agree that any table does not need to be on permanent display. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is a map; do we also need a ridiculously huge table? Firebrace (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think the table is far more useful than the map. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think all of this will be clearer with upcoming events and I'm starting to ask myself if do we really need both map and list. I think we are rushing on creating many points of the article when it's not even clear the statement of the independance. A sentence like "X countries support or aim for a favorable resolution of Catalonian Republic" should be more than clarifying. If the process turns to be discussed on international entities then go ahead with map and list. As per today facts I think we are proclaiming competences on declaring somehow in favour of the issue. Not to mention that as per my point of view, country infobox is not a right edit to keep, at least at the moment. --Brgesto (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the "statement of the independance", as far as the vote in the Parliament of Catalonia is concerned, is quite clear. But it's legitimacy is still, quite obviously, being challenged. Perhaps Mariano Rajoy would have preferred if everyone has had just ignored it? Just for info, here's The Donald stepping in, with Rajoy, on 26 October. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I didn't make my words clear. I mean that is we are under a disputed issue, whit all parties at the moment not considering proclamation of the Catalonian Republic as an effective or valid statement, why are we concerned about further and still unknown effects? --Brgesto (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but 59 of the 206 UN-recognised Sovereign states of the world have officially reacted to something? Whether that declaration was "effective or valid", or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Roughly speaking tried to explain why are the countries reacting at the "Val d'Aran paragraph to clarify" section. It's not as easy as saying "its declared and let's say who supports it or not because the Government of Catalonia declared it". --Brgesto (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am glad to see the table has been removed. What I meant above, is that where you have total darkness, there's no point in mentioning the total absence of light in this and that place; when you have total brightness, there is no point in mentioning the total absence of darkness under the table in Timbuktu. You already have a map, two maps now, misleading though they are is. That first map needs to have the Spanish blue turned red because Spain doesn't recognise the breakaway province, so that blue is meaningless. The second map, showing the alleged support of entities that have no authority to support, is clearly in violation of WP:UNDUE -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, blue for Spain does seem a bit confusing. Also struggling to understand how the map can clearly show that e.g. Andorra has not given recognition - one has to step through to the original image at Commons and then use a huge zoom factor to even see Catalonia clearly? But the table hasn't gone, it's just collapsed? There's a separate question about the "mall swathes of colour" provided by the flags (when someone is foolish enough to open it). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • "it's just collapsed" Facepalm -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Dominican Republic 🇩🇴

The Dominican Republic today expressed its support for the "Government of Spain in defending the rule of law and the unity of its territory," and stated that "with concern the events that have occurred in Catalonia in recent days". In a statement, the Dominican Foreign Ministry also expressed its confidence that "stability and dialogue prevail in the search for solutions that guarantee peaceful coexistence throughout the Spanish territory."

"The Dominican Republic rejects any action taken against the constitutional order and the Spanish laws"

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509218722-b5c5b0ad91986bbc4d9cb0532f3a559e Reisukami (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't forget to update the map when you have a moment. Reisukami (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Iraq

Non-recognition: http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171029/432454318542/irak-expresa-su-apoyo-a-la-unidad-y-la-soberania-de-espana.html
Behrou (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

lavanguadia is a Catalan newspaper. Too biased. Finley jones (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

El Pais confirms it. https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509269042-78327acb2ff71e04344592b25813ba4f

Someone add Irak to both the list and the map.

Iraq has been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also someone add Dominican Reublic to the map. Reisukami (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Update Russia

Hi. Russia isn't indicated on the map since this morning early. Please update the label. Simone Serra (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok now it's fixed Simone Serra (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-recognition from Russia doesn't have credible source. Reference 92 (in recognition table) refers to El Pais article, which does not contain reference to official Russian source. Falsification or poor work.

^ Additional link confirming Russia's position (non-recognition): http://www.elperiodico.com/es/internacional/20171027/tusk-reitera-que-espana-sigue-siendo-el-unico-interlocutor-de-la-ue-6384558
I'm new to suggesting edits on Wiki (certainly not new to using the wealth of information) but what's with all the unsigned comments with the IP address removed?
Behrou (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional source is not better than previous. Spanish newspapers are not unbiased on current topic. Credible source should be linked to Russian official statement on official Russian MFA webpage or Russian news agency and indicate date, showing that statement is issued after independence declaration. Such sub-standard references make whole article unreliable and destroy credibility of other peoples work.

^ Sweet mother of god! El Periodico is a Catalan newspaper located in Barcelona!

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Peri%C3%B3dico_de_Catalunya 

Behrou (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Barcelona's newspaper is not official Russian source and does not have clear link to dated Russian official statement. Recognition is not an opinion and should have link to official source of corresponding government. Otherwise whole recognition table is worthless. Wikipedia should not be battlefield of information war.

^ While I fully appreciate your disappointment that no one has recognized the Catalan Republic and your obvious desire to suppress or dispute the facts (all without a signature and by removing your IP address), a statement from the official spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry is not an "opinion" and would be considered an official government position by any objective person.
Behrou (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact - you recognized Catalan Republic, by offering Barcelona's newspaper source as replacement for Spanish newspaper. My IP: 80.235.82.41

I’m confused. Why is Russia green now?? 173.54.215.179 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Belgium (again)

"A political crisis can only be solved through dialogue. We call for a peaceful solution with respect for national and international order"

https://twitter.com/CharlesMichel/status/923929269931270145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolitica.elpais.com%2Fpolitica%2F2017%2F10%2F27%2Factualidad%2F1509118059_068644.html Reisukami (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

N Not done. There's currently some controversy regarding Belgium's stance. Charles Michel's statement is not unambiguous enough, and while it could be considered a rejection to recognize Catalan independence if such was the unanymous position of his government, as of currently there are some claims that a member of his government, Theo Francken, left the door open to granting Puigdemont "political asylum". ([2] [3] [4] [5]). For now, the less controversial choice would be to have Belgium unmarked. Impru20 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes it is from the Prime Minister Charles Michel. But I don't see direct support for either side there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Reisukami (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Belgium is torn between the liberal ideas of the current governement and its commitment not to go against the official EU statement. The biggest party NVA is in favour of the Catalan State, as show by the comments of Theo Francken and Geert Bourgeois, but doesn't want to push it through. Prime Minister Charles Michel has only condoned the violence after the referendum and called for dialogue. So at the moment, Belgium has not taken an official position, and I doubt it will come anytime soon. And maybe the Theo Francken comments should be added to the aricle as well? 2A02:1810:4D35:C300:985F:9395:F863:EFFE (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed table

Mélencron, if collapsing the table of countries not recognizing the state is necessary, despite normal discouragement from MOS:COLLAPSE, and if you want the table to remain collapsed, which countries should be mentioned in prose (as summarization in the "Foreign relations" section) to express denial toward recognizing the Catalan Republic? Honestly, I thought collapsing is unnecessary, so why collapsing it besides trying to make article look good? Readers curious about the list are forced to click the "show" button by default to see the list. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC); edited, 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. If the information is important and the concern is article density or length, consider dividing the article into more sections, integrating unnecessarily list-formatted information into the article prose, or splitting the article. In the case of, say, the article on Kosovo, the list is simply split to a separate article and a map of states recognizing Catalonia is provided. I'm also not convinced that it's the best way to present it given the amount of vertical space it takes up relative to prose. In this case I think it'd just be preferrable to integrate it as prose (newlines aren't needed, flags aren't needed, it doesn't actually need to be presented in table format) as below, which is far more compact:

Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

reflist

Mélencron (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about naming just a few or couple states. If no one minds including all states in prose (despite the awkwardness), I won't object. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it's less awkward than the table in it's uncollapsed form! Mélencron (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh... It did happen. ...Carry on then. --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia dissolved?

From the main page:

"Prime Minister of Spain Mariano Rajoy dissolves the Parliament of Catalonia, dismisses the Government of Catalonia and calls a regional election for December 21. He also fires the police chief and announces the takeover of regional ministries by national ministries. (Reuters)"

Should we place this in the article to reflect Catalonia being dissolved or is this just word of mouth only? (Symbolic) Are there Spanish boots in Catalonia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia as an autonomous community has not been dissolved. The Spanish government has just sacked everyone it seems, but regional institutions are still standing (Parliament has been dissolved, but obviously, as a regional election was called). Impru20 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So should we use this article in past tense then for an independent state that existed for less than 24 hours? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Mostly what I tried to explain, but my edit was reverted. I'm not used to en:wiki rules so I leave it up t your consensus. Regards. --Brgesto (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It didn't existed at all, because independence of Catalunya wasn't declared.--SubRE (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies I just wanted a formal discussion on the matter first is all as this all seems so fluid. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not even know if independence, as has been declared, has resulted in any real effect as of yet, or if the Catalan government has full control over the entire Catalan territory. As of now we can defend the Catalan Republic exists as a declared intelligible concept, but outside that, it's quite chaotic. To say that it has ended you should be able to say it has started, which we can't clearly say (but can't deny, either). As reliable sources say independence was declared, we should treat it as such right now, but there's still not clarity as to whom de facto controls Catalan territory. By tomorrow, Article 155 should have taken full effect and we should be able to see what happens next (I hope). Impru20 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to mention, article 155 starts tomorrow, but it's already officialy declared at BOE, which means that president Puigdemont is officily ceased, and October 27th Parlament of Catalonia session and facts stated nullity declared. As Impru20 properly indicates, is chaothic. We can say independance is declared? Illegaly, but yes, under a no military Coup d'état. Can we say it's revoqued? Not attending to the fact that it's illegal, and suposing it is recognized, article 155 and evening Senate resolution says yes, it it revoqued. Summarizing, what is not is an ongoing republic, so we should start writing on it in past tense. It was nully declared few hours later it was illegaly "declared". --Brgesto (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC) PD: Clarifying this point, Constitutional Court of Spain is as today's date (saturday 28th) evaluating the proccess to suspend the declaration of independence in an open window of three/four days, therefore today we can say (not state) that is still and despite is illegal, a República de Cataluña ongoing on the territory. --Brgesto (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Rajoy says Catalonia's government has been sacked and dissolved, but Puidgemont says he's not stepping down. Both sides are doubling down on who they assert controls Catalonia. Declaring it illegal doesn't declare it nonexistent, it would be wrong to use past tense here. Don't draw any conclusions from either side yet. We know that de jure the Catalan Republic isn't recognized, but de facto is what we're most concerned about right now. With reports as conflicting as what we've seen, it's difficult to know whose legislation is actually in effect. Pro-Spanish sources and their English translations are more likely to say that Article 155 has stripped Catalonia of authority over the region making their declaration ineffective and Pro-Catalan sources are more likely to say that Madrid's orders have no real meaning as they've already declared independence making Article 155 ineffective. So far, Belgium suggested that if Spain were to charge Puidgemont with criminal rebellion that he would not receive a fair trial and described the possibility of granting asylum as "not unrealistic"[6] and if that were to happen there'd be an unrecognized government in exile. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Tinfoil hat brigade
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My fellow Catalans and non-Castilian, Non-Leonese, Non-Galician decent human beings, as Prince of Catalonia, I encourage you all to consider the prospect of a much more insured means of guaranteeing the end of occupation of Spanish forces over Catalonia. The Earth does not belong to humans. None of the countries nor their laws are respected in Galactic Affairs. Yes, there is a Galactic Government. If you are skeptical or dumbfounded, then consider this as an experiment as you continue to read and then become a believer after the experiment proves to be valid. Humans are considered Xenophobic (non-compliant and extremely hostile towards extraterrestrials), which is why no contact has ever occurred, but you can change that. I am not trolling nor doing anything profanely stupid, ridiculous or insane. You can perform an experiment to verify what I say is true. There is a youtube channel by Scott Waring titled "Send A Message Into Space! How To Make A Laser Communicator. DIY, UFO Sightings Daily." Watch that video and observe the blueprints to making a laser communicator. It is a Ramsey Laser Beam Communicator. You must have a violet pen laser of 350 Megawatts (so the signal will go into space). The video will specify that information in detail. Build or buy and assemble that kind of device. Test it out as the video demonstrates. Then glue that device to a telescope, so you can direct its aim towards the moon. Before you say anything else, know this: The Universe is over 13.8 billion years old, the Earth is only 4.6 billion years old and life has been progressing in a near steadily increment-progressing advancement in evolution for about half of a billion years. That is when a certain alien species that had colonized this planet, stopped and moved to a different planet. You can ask them when you see them about more of this information in order to verify it. After all, if you cannot verify the aliens, you cannot verify anything else I am saying. Nevertheless, if you do the math, you have about 13.3 billion years of evolutionary difference between life on Earth and life on another planet. Civilizations that could had existed and arisen similar to ourselves would now be 13.3 billion years older. That level of supremacy would crush any government or all of the governments on Earth in an instance. Once you have the device, tested it out and made plans to communicate to the Galactic Government personnel on the moon, understand that you will need to convince the extraterrestrials that you are not a xenophobe in order to sway and change the Galactic Government's position with humans. As that is achieved, humans such as yourself will then have the opportunity to encounter and speak directly with representatives of the Galactic Government. It is not as difficult to sway them to take over the Earth which will immediately end the oppressive regime in Madrid as well as secure Catalonia's future. They want to maximize the cultural distinctions of humans as it guarantees a maximum value in humanity. Therefore, they will support Catalonia's independence even by force against the police and military of Spain as well as any other country on the planet. They don't care about your territorial sovereignty, because it is lowly primitive tribal thinking. As they see it, you should already be unified as a species with a central world government holding more power than the CCP, America and Russia combined as well as guaranteed regional sovereignty scattered about for as many diverse regional entities as possible. The Galactic Government can guarantee this to become a reality under their administration. However, they cannot simply invade/liberate the Earth with the prospect of zero percent support from the human population. Furthermore, they really do not possess any interest in the Earth it self. Certain members may have an interest similar to how Muslims hold the sacred Mosques of Mecca and Medina or the Jews have towards the Temple Grounds in Jerusalem. This information you will have to request from them. I know this is asking for quite a lot, you will have to be brave, you will have to be tolerant, and you will have to believe me enough to at least test the premise of what I am addressing. You will also have to save the entirety of this message and share it with as many people as possible to guarantee that a majority of humans or at least a decent percentage has support for the Galactic Government before it decimates and suspends all human governments across the entire planet before proceeding with its administrative goals to insure humanity's survival. It will take about two weeks for information to circle across all important parts of the Galactic Government, in which you should receive a response. Do make sure when you contact them, you are friendly with intention to prove you are not a xenophobe and you ask to meet with a representative as soon as possible of any individual of any species or population willing to meet with you for a face-to-face verbal communication and exchange. ~ Prince of Catalonia

Remove paragraph about Finland considering recognition

The Finnish prime minister and foreign minister have stated their support for Spain. The chairman of the Centre party's parliamentary group (Antti Kaikkonen) has said that the statements of the MP in question (Mikko Kärnä) are his own and do not represent the party or the government, and that he will not be bringing the matter up in the parliament. (Source: Helsingin Sanomat YLE YLE ) OfficialEeki (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment. Could be added at Antti Kaikkonen? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The MP in question isn't the foreign minister, but they actually did express their intention to bring the matter up to parliament. I'd say this warrants at best a small footnote as to not overreach what is due; it certainly shouldn't be as long as a paragraph, but if it's added it should note that the current position of the Finnish FM is unsupportive. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Make Belgium Yellow?

Since Belgium hasn’t recognized or not recognized the republic, shouldnt it be yellow on the map? Oh and Slovenia as well? Maybe also Finland, considering it will be voting on the issue. 173.54.215.179 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Belgium hasn’t recognized or not recognized the republic, shouldnt it be yellow on the map? Oh and Slovenia as well? Maybe also Finland, considering it will be voting on the issue. 173.54.215.179 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Belgium, Hungary, Russia and Slovenia are orange in the map (though as of currently there is an user hotly contesting the issue keeping reverting these to red, despite their statements slightly differ from those of other countries which outrightly reject Catalan independence. As for Finland, it's not sure it'll even vote on the issue, and nonetheless what is shown in the map is governments' stances on the issue so for now that would be opposition to recognition for Finland. Impru20 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. When I care to the page everything was red, so sorry. I understand what you said about Finland, so okay! Thanks. 173.54.215.179 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Russia does not recognize the Catalonian independence

The Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs states that the Catalan question is a Spanish internal affair, to be solved according to Spain's constitutional order. (La Vanguardia is a Catalan newspaper edited in Barcelona)

Thus, why is Russia in yellow on the map? Fmercury1980 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the key says "States neither recognizing nor condemning the Catalan Republic". Russia has not clearly declared, either way, if they recognise or not. Essentially they are saying "it's none of our business". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fmercury1980: It's exactly as Martinevans123 says. They neither recognise Catalonia or refuse to do it, but just say, basically, "we don't care (for now)". This is in contrast to red-depicted countries, which have clearly condemned or rejected Catalan independence. So yes, there's a difference. Impru20 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There's this Crimea situation which prevent them to positionate themselves per cross interests. --Brgesto (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?

On mobile, when I’m searching in google and this comes up as a suggested article, the subtitle is “lordship children of god” not sure how or why. 173.54.215.179 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The subtitle comes from Wikidata. Lord knows what happens there. Stikkyy t/c 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism though Stikkyy t/c 05:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan

Can be added to the "neutral" camp, judging from the official statement by its Foreign Ministry. Culloty82 (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it's actually correct to refer to Taiwan as taking a neutral position on this. The statement clearly refers to "central and regional governments of Spain" - this clearly shows that Taiwan consider the Catalan government to be a regional government of Spain. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Japan 🇯🇵

The Government of Japan today expressed its support for the application of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution to the crisis in Catalonia, and has trusted that the situation be resolved "peacefully" and in accordance with national legislation

https://elpais.com/Comentario/1509361713-f0be80c911edabca41a0f59bd8e5f77b Reisukami (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Recognition by other non-sovereign or disputed entities

How can Scotland and Corsica have recognized the Catalan Republic formally, as claimed in the caption to the map right under the section title "Recognition by other non-sovereign or disputed entities"? Have they taken a formal decision and do they even have legal capacity to do so? Or is this some Wikipedia-made-up thing? --Glentamara (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's some wikipedia made up thing. Scotland and Corsica don't have the legal capacity to extend diplomatic recognition. IJA (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Further, the Scottish government has not recognised Catalan independence. It's not in the source given , and multiple sources point out the Scottish Government hasn't done so MegaPowerTape (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't say anything about "formal recognition". It just reports what those sources say? There's nothing there that's "some wikipedia made up thing." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It did, but it is now removed. See [7]. --Glentamara (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so we're all in agreement then? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Can we agree on an infobox?

The editing back and forth on this isn't helping. Lets form a consensus here with the two options. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A "government-in-exile" (even if that is formed, which is not clear as of yet) means the non-exiled form of the state does no longer exist, so infobox former country (as added by several users and supported by customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia) would be the most appropiate here. Specially as there are sources acknowledging that there is no Catalan Republic acting as such as of currently, with Catalan authorities acknowledging the election call by the Spanish government and Puigdemont's cabinet having fled to Belgium. Impru20 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That does make sense as the government is pretty much gone. @BrendonTheWizard: do you have a say in the matter? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The source of "government in exile" is this only. But I don't think that this is not reliable source. And this source said "proposed for Catalan government in exile" only, not "became an exile". So, We should not anticipate the future of the Catalan Republic in advance as per WP:FUTURE, I think. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This may be a valid point but please keep in mind WP:BRD. You placing a comment here then reverting the article doesn't really help much without others weighing in on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thanks for your advice. But original version is not "government in exile". So, if we need some discussion, now version in article is correct, I think. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The now version is incorrect as it implies that Catalonia is a functioning state. The "exiled" comments still remain in the article as Carles Puigdemont is no longer the president. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: But it is a problem in Spain only, not Catalan Republic. And Puigdemont is no longer a president, becuase he is the head of the government of Catalan Republic, before president of Catalonia. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused and feel that you are as well. Do you support or oppose the idea that the Catalan government is in exile? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: We shouldn't predict anything until the official announcement. Therefore, my position is not important in this situation, I think. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia's parliament has been formally dissolved so how can we say that Carles Puigdemont is still leading the government? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: The "parliament" is parliament of Spain Kingdom, not Catalan Republic. I think it is meaningless, because Catalonia has already declared independence. In other words, already Spain and Catalan are different countries (de facto). Of course, no any countries of United Nations recognizing the Catalan Republic as independent country. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Catalonia had its own parliament as an autonomous community. Spain went in and formally dissolved it, the WP:RS are solid on this. In the source I just added it says Catalan parliament. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: The "Catalan parliament" is of local government in Spain, not Catalan Republic. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know which infobox is most relevant. However, I do know that, as others were saying, the government is no more. I would add that it never achieved international recognition and home rule is, if anything, contested. So no de jure and no de facto rule. It's a very weak claim for a country. Baidelan (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Baidelan: Please see WP:NPOV. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know the policy. Where do you think my comment is biased? Baidelan (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

However, I do know that, as others were saying, the government is no more.

@Baidelan: We don't know yet what will happen next in Catalan Republic. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

True, but you can say the same about almost anything in life. Situation so far is: lack of international recognition and lack of effective home rule. Nothing about the Catalan Republic resembles a government: parties agreed to concur in new local elections organized by Spain and key figureheads fled to other countries. Baidelan (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Baidelan: And we don't know yet whether the actions is "fled" or not. For this, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: the current infobox haven't made sense. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The infobox should be deleted. Every single detail in it at present is without a supporting reference since they refer to things that were never actually decided. You cannot simply copy/paste the details of the Catalan local government to here, since supposedly this is an entirely different body. For example the infobox includes a list of the official languages, but these are the official languages of the Catalan Autonomous Region, NOT of this Catalan state, which has not decided what its official languages are. Likewise the dialling-code: these are the regional codes within Spain. It is enough to say that this state was declared, but there is no evidence that it ever existed beyond that declaration. FOARP (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is obvious this can no longer be considered as a state in any form.

1. Things are working as normal throughout Catalonia, as if no independence declaration had ever took place. There is little (if any) opposition to direct rule from Madrid. ([8] [9]) No act has been made from any Catalan authority to try to enforce a state-like appearance. Authorities are not acting as if they were a separate state. Catalonia is not working as a separate state.
2. Its parliament was dissolved by the Spanish government in order to call a regional election. Instead of rejecting it, Parliament speaker Carme Forcadell, one of the most prominent pro-independence figures as well as the Catalan authority in charge of most parliamentary functions, has acknowledged that the Parliament of Catalonia was dissolved. ([10])
3. Pro-independence parties have accepted to contest the regional election, despite knowing it is a regional election not called by them, but by Spanish authorities, and thus under Spanish law and constitution. ([11] [12])
4. Pro-independence parties in the Spanish Cortes Generales have so far refused to vacate their seats. ([13])
5. The Mossos d'Escuadra have been put under Spanish control since 28 October and do not recognize the authority of Puigdemont's cabinet. ([14])
6. Puigdemont and part of his cabinet, which would be the ones supposedly in charge of the Republic, have fled to Belgium amid reports that they may seek political asylum. ([15])

There is no sign at all an effective independence has been enforced (much to the contrary), and by all means and purposes Catalonia still remains under effective Spanish control. While I may agree that in some cases, this by itself would not be enough to say a state has been disestablished, all other circumstances, coupled with the fact that the pro-independence leader has fled the country, and taking sources that do indeed affirm that Rajoy's and Spanish strategy has prevailed, we've little evidence to keep this working as if it was still an independent territory, but rather, as something which has already ended. Impru20 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Luxembourg 🇱🇺

Luxembourg foreign affairs minister Jean Asselborn has said that the proclamation of the independence of Catalonia was “breaking the democratic rule of law.”

http://delano.lu/d/detail/news/asselborn-catalan-independence-illegitimate/160268

http://www.gouvernement.lu/7505206/29-asselborn-catalogne?context=3393647 Reisukami (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y} Done. Impru20 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that it's still missing in the map. Baidelan (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y also Done. :) Impru20 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

Please delete succeeded by Spain Seeing as Spain hasn't reoccupied the region. Treydaprogdude (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Sources seem to say otherwise ([16]). Impru20 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Update the map

I know I'm being really nitpick here but the current map has some inexactitudes that I think affects its crediblity since it already includes some overseas territories but not all of them. Since there has been controversy in the use of a map I think these should be corrected when possible. If anyone has the time to do these minor corrections it would be appreciated. I want to thank @Impru20 and all the team that has been updating the map since the beginning. Here are the ones I've seen:

UN Members

1. Lebanon

Overseas Territories and Dependences

1. Puerto Rico (US)
2. US Virgin Islands (US)
3. British Virgin Islands (UK)
4. New Caledonia (FR)
5. Falkland Islands (UK)
6. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (UK)
7. French Southern Territories (FR)
8. Isle of Men (UK)
9. Jersey (UK)
10. Gernsey (UK)
11. Saint Helena Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (UK)
12. San Pierre and Miquelon (FR)
13. Guam (US)
14. Northem Marianas Islands (US)
15. Bonaire sin Eustatius and Saba (NL)
16. Cuaracao (NL)
17. French Polinesia (FR)

Reisukami (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done (I hope). Impru20 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Uruguay 🇺🇾

The President of the Republic, Tabaré Vázquez, said this morning in Trinidad that "Uruguay's formal position is the only one there is: Uruguay has diplomatic friendly relations with the Kingdom of Spain and this is the reality and we have those historical relations and that it is the starting point of any analysis of the situation. " Then he said: "The dispute that the Spanish have is an internal problem of the country and the Spaniards have to solve it, what we want is a peaceful solution."

https://elpais.com.uy/informacion/uruguay-marco-posicion-independencia-cataluna-relacion-espana.html

Essentialy he says it's a matter of Spanish internal affairs, same as Hungary said. So maybe it should be coloured as orange. Reisukami (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Tunisia 🇹🇳

Tunisia supports the efforts of the Spanish government to find a solution to the Catalan crisis, in accordance with the Constitution and the Spanish laws.

https://www.agenzianova.com/a/59f74a4b37f9b2.97938180/1687411/2017-10-30/spagna-tunisia-sostiene-gli-sforzi-del-governo-spagnolo-per-risolvere-la-crisi-catalana

Add Tunisia with colour red Reisukami (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Algeria 🇩🇿

Spokesman for Foreign Ministry Abdelaziz Benali Cherif said Algeria "reiterates its commitment to the integrity and unity of the Kingdom of Spain," stressing the important traditional bilateral relations backed by "high-level political dialogue and substantial economic cooperation." He further specified that Algeria is confident that the people and the authorities of Spain will resolve the crisis within the framework of respect for its constitution and democratic institutions.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/31/c_136715983.htm

Add Algeria with colour red Reisukami (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Mauritania 🇲🇷

The Mauritanian government has said it is backing the unity of Spain in view of ongoing moves by the Catalan leadership to break away from the rest of the country.The Foreign Affairs and Cooperation ministry issued a statement on Wednesday, stating Nouakchott’s position on the issue, affirming its unconditional support for the indivisibility of Spain.

https://www.journalducameroun.com/en/nouakchott-backs-madrid-over-catalan-secessionists/

Add Mauritania with red colour Reisukami (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Flag

This is not the correct flag to be displayed. The flag is still the senyera, which is the Catalan flag. What appears on this article is the estelada, the independentist flag -that is to say: the pro-independence movement flag. Could you please change it? On the original article the flag appears as it should appear. Thanks. --95.23.151.98 (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed. Kudo417 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudo417. I've made the same petition on Catalonia's discussion page. --95.23.151.98 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Garam: - Your edit does not have consensus and will no doubt be reverted again. Please do not reinstate the flag. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Where is the evidence that File:Flag of Catalonia.svg is official? Already many Catalan people using File:Estelada blava.svg or similar flag, but not File:Flag of Catalonia.svg. (See [17], [18], and [19]) Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Article 10.1 of the Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic states:

Article 10. Continuity of the valid law

1. The local, autonomic and state regulations in force in Catalonia at the time of entry into force of this Law shall continue to apply in all matters not in contravention of this Law and the Catalan law passed subsequently.

Thus the official flag is that of Catalonia, not that of the independence movement. This doesn't mean that there won't be a change as some point in the future, but it hasn't happened yet. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: In other words, now no have flag, right? If so, the flags using by Catalan people is official as de facto, I think. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Garam: No, that is not correct. The red and yellow flag is the designated official flag of Catalonia. The red, yellow and blue flag is (currently) an unofficial flag used by the independence movement. It may, it time, become the official flag, but it hasn't yet. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Please, see WP:NOTFUTURE. Now we don't know, really anyone will be the official flag, or not. Then, In the present situation the flags (2 types) using by Catalan people is official as de facto, I think. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Umm, now you said, "The red and yellow flag is the designated official flag of Catalonia". Where is the evidence? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It was very clearly presented above. Where is the evidence of the estelada being the official flag, though? We all know that demonstrators use it, but that doesn't make a flag a state's official one. Impru20 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The caption links to Catalan flag which is a DAB page. Is this deliberate? Unavoidable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Don't we need a section on the 2 flags in the article? Basically it should say what's been said here - otherwise it's very confusing for our readers. I may try to start one myself, but I'm not sure that I'll do a very good job of it.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no confusion at all; the Catalan government has not made any move to change the current flag as of yet, so there is no controversy around it. If it does, then we could consider covering it. Impru20 (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The confusion is to our readers who see all these esteledas on the news and get no explanation from us as to why this is happening - clearly even some editors here were also confused, hence the above lengthy discussion. Anyhow I've added a section explaining it. I think it's not all that pretty at present, but I assume other editors with more experience at handling images will soon improve it.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, then go to explain it on the flag of Catalonia page. This article is about the Catalan Republic declared on 27 October 2017. As it has not declared the estelada as its flag, there's no controversy about it. You should not create controversies yourself. Provide sources showing there is indeed an actual confusion about the flag used by the state. Otherwise, the section is WP:OR. Impru20 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not creating a controversy. I am trying to improve the article for the benefit of our readers. Nor is there anythng OR about what I put there. However I don't have time to fight an edit war, so our unless other editors do something about it, it looks like the article will continue to keep our readers uninformed.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What you consider "the benefit of our readers" is a supposed flag controversy which is not supported by sources. If it is not supported by sources, it is original research. If consensus arises that a section about the flags should be added, then we could add it, but as long as it is only you unilaterally considering it should be added, then it should not unless there are sources backing it. Impru20 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, clearly my wording was unsatisfactory (though that can normally be fixed by re-wording rather than deleting the entire section). I am not trying to claim there is a controversy. I am trying to explain for the benefit of our readers why they are seeing different Catalan flags on their TV screens. This may not have confused a native Spanish speaker like you, but it certainly confused a non-Spaniard like me. And the only way my confusion got cleared up was by reading this Talk section. And our readers should not have to go to the Talk Page to find such info, it should be easily seen by them in the article. So would my section be acceptable if I changed the wording of the second sentence to something like "The current official flag should not be confused with the Estelada Blava, the traditional flag of Catalan Separatism." If not, can you please suggest some other wording or changes which would meet your objections? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to explain for the benefit of our readers why they are seeing different Catalan flags on their TV screens This is trying to claim there is a controversy, because it assumes the estelada is an official flag when its use in demonstrations is akin to any other poster they may bring. Do we need to explain in Spain why do some people bring the Second Spanish Republic flag in left-wing demonstrations as opposed to the official national flag? If anything, that belongs to the Flag of Spain on the different use of flags. That would be the case here as well. The estelada (of which there are two types, btw, red and blue) is not used officially by the Catalan Republic as of yet, so implying that the current flag should not be confused with another flag means we would be purposedly acknowledging the estelada as some sort of official symbol contrary to sources, when no one has declared it as such. Impru20 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I was not assuming or implying it's an official flag, nor does mentioning it in the article imply anything except that we are trying to tell the readers why they are seeing different flags. If necessary the proposed rewording could read "traditional but unofficial" (and any other re-wording that might be deemed necessary). And I really don't think there is much similarity with the use of the flag of the Second Republic by left-wing demonstrators, at least not in terms of the amount of confusion created and in need of clearing up for the benefit of our readers. It's not a confusion I've ever experienced, and I don't think there has been a long section on Talk:Spain because seemingly genuinely confused editors had to be told using referenced legal quotations why it wasn't the official flag of Spain, as has happened here. But for all I know the Spain article may well include the flag of the Second Republic and may well explain what it is. The Catalonia article certainly includes the Estella Blava (presumably we should remove it from there also, as supposedly implying some sort of non-existant controversy). But I guess I'm just wasting my time as I'm not going to get anywhere with this. Have a nice day. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahem.... the caption links to Catalan flag which is a DAB page. Is this deliberate? Unavoidable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. IMHO, the Flag of Catalonia needs to be created as an article. The official flag and that used by the independence movement can be explained there. The flag article can be linked from the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

To the editor that made statements asking if Catalonia now has no flag or tried to invoke WP:CRYSTAL, hopefully this will help clarify: "Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic" detailed that the incumbent government & its symbols of the Catalan Autonomous Region transfer to the Catalan Republic. This includes use of the Senyera as the national flag and use of The Reapers as the national anthem. The Estelada has not been adopted as the official national flag, but due to its use as the pro-independence flag it is being heavily used now that Catalonia declared independence unilaterally. Only if it is announced that the Estelada flag will be replacing the Senyera as the official flag should it be used in the infobox instead of the Senyera. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The Estelada flag is more commonly used with us Catalonians and it would be with best interest to demonstrate a familiar flag with most of the public (outside Spain) which has made a cognitive approach that the Estelada symbolises the state of Catalunya. In addition since Independence was declared was pro-Independence fractions it should represent their actions towards setting up the Republic of Catalonia Yessy1205 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Impru20 (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add United Arab Emirates 🇦🇪

Abu Dhabi: His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, affirmed the UAE’s full support to Spain’s national unity and territorial integrity. Shaikh Mohammad stressed UAE’s support for Spanish government’s commitment to the constitution and laws in force in the kingdom, during a discussion over the phone with King Philip VI of Spain.

http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/government/mohammad-calls-king-philip-of-spain-1.2115853

Add United Arab Emirates with red colour Reisukami (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Croatia 🇭🇷

"Croatia believes that events in Catalonia are an intern affair of Spain and advocates for democratic and peaceful solutions in line with European values. Croatia considers that the proclamaton of Catalan independence was not in line with the Spanish Constitution. Croatia thinks that the best solution is one based on diogue, with full respect for the rule of law and the protection of rights of all citizens living in Catalonia."

https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/23081-croatia-does-not-support-catalonia-s-independence

Add Croatia with red colour Reisukami (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It was already in the list, but for some reason it was removed from the map. Impru20 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional opinions feedback needed on Catalan supremacism article

Currently subject to AfD. Comments appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_supremacism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catalan_supremacism Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why the recognition map should be reomvoed

1. If Catalonia is not recognised by any country in the world, what is the point in having a map to demonstrate the obvious? Seriously! What is encyclopaedic about it? Also please see WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON.
2. The countries coloured in red, grey and blue all have the same stance - they do not recognise the independence of Catalonia. Why use three different colours to indicate/ illustrate the same diplomatic positions?
3. Some countries currently in grey will have issued similar statements to the countries currently coloured in red, meaning that this map will not be up-to-date. Not to mention that this map is ENTIRELY based upon WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
4. The countries coloured in red at the moment could easily change their position in the future when new governments come to power. How do people realistically propose keep this map up to date? We had this issue on the International recognition of Kosovo article.
5. When new governments come to power, how do we know for sure (without assumptions) that the new government has taken the same position as their predecessor?
6. This next issue really irritates me. Why do we have a map showing every single administrative region in the world? If people insist on having a useless map, can't we just show countries? Why are we using a map which shows sub-divisions in Greenland? What are we trying to achieve here? Do we really need to show the borders of every Russian oblast? Ultra high detail SVG maps like this are extremely pointless.
7. Do you really want me to rant about Antarctica being on the map? Do you really want me to rant about the disputed national territorial claims? Please don't make me unnecessarily rant about Antarctica and its supposed sub divisions!!!
8. There are only two diplomatic positions a country can take. You either recognise Catalonia or you don't. Any recognition map should reflect this!

For the reasons above I DEMAND that this stupid, useless and pointless map is removed!!! Kind regards IJA (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you can't "DEMAND". The map is useful. Res shows the countries that do not recognise the Catalan Republic. Grey shows the countries that haven't made a decision yet. If any country in the future recognise Catalonia as a country, the map will change to reflect the change. As for your 6th point, you may be right. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I really have read what the colours indicate, I don't require you to explain them to me. Your arguments in favour of the map go against WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, therefore like the map itself, not in line with Wikipedia policy. IJA (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

1. International recognition is essential in this type of situations. A map shows clearly which countries support and don't support Catalonia Independence.
2. Countries in grey neither support nor are against Catalonia Independece; they are just neutral or haven't proclamed anything yet. Spain/Catalonia are blue in order to show cleary which country holds the current issue.
3. Map will be updated when required.
4. Map will be updated when required.
5. Map will be updated when required.
6. Agree.
7. Agree. Antarctica may be unnecessary
8. You can't demand to throw away the map just because you don't like it. Reisukami (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have not addressed the Wikipedia policies which this map violates. IJA (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't, either. Most of your arguments are not policy-based at all, and those which are have no connection with the policy in question. You say the map is OR because some gray countries have issued similar statements? Say which ones and provide sources, and these will be added right now. As of now, every country depicted in the map has a source showing its stance, so it isn't OR. Then you say that "The countries coloured in red at the moment could easily change their position in the future when new governments come to power". Ok, when and if that happens, do not worry because the map will be updated. As of now, however, such a statement of yours is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Impru20 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you're asking me to say "which ones and provide sources" proves my point that this map is based on Original Research. IJA (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Aside of the all-caps demand, which doesn't hold much weight, if you don't feel it should be there then by all means you're free to take part in the Commons deletion discussion around it here @IJA: . The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• @IJA: Your arguments might be more effective if you didn't call it "stupid", didn't drop a couple unnecessary f-bombs, didn't use all caps and didn't make "demands". Wikipedia operates through civil discussion and consensus, not demands and poor language. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes. Please realize that text communication like this does not usually convey humor or any feelings/emotions just by reading it; using a lot of foul language, even if you somehow mean it as humorous, will not necessarily be seen the way you mean it to be. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Map should be removed. Because 'Catalan Republic' never was declared in first place. Existence of map supposes that countries has gone through some process of recognition/nonrecognition what was not. For ex. UK said they will not recognise which is different from UK do not recognize Catalan State and obviously refers to UK's stance that there is no such a state at all. Also a bunch of countries expressed support for Spain's integrity (ex. Estonia) with no word about recognition/nonrecognition of Catalan Republic. In short, map is misleading, why other states of the world should or should not recognize state which do not exists? --SubRE (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

EU membership

Just a comment regarding the EU membership. Isn't it very clear from international law that a new state is a new, legal entity, which is not a contracting part to any of the treaties and international agreements that the state it previously belonged to is part of. There are many examples of states that have seceded from other states, and in general the new states have to establish all their international relations and agreements anew. For instance, they have to apply for UN membership (e.g. Montenegro). The same goes for the international treaties laying the foundation for the EU; it is Spain as a legal entity that is the contracting part of the EU treaties, not its territory. A new legal enetity, like Catalonia, has nothing to do with the EU treaties, even though its geographic territory happens to overlap with Spain. Therefore, I'm really surprised by the claim in the article that this is an unprecedented situation (is it? what about Algeria?) and that it is unclear what would/will happen. --Glentamara (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you suprised by Wiki quality level?--SubRE (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Republic does not exist or has been dissolved

Hi @Impru20: Mossosare with Rajoy government so the Republic has been destablished. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If, as seems likely to happen tomorrow, the Catalan Government is prevented from assembling, then the Republic can be said to have ceased, but as of now, they still have the capacity to operate. Culloty82 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Culloty82: But Puigdemont refuge in Gerona and have no military force. They also called to resist peacefully. And if the council of ministers of Puigdemont is not prevented but canceled? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

True, but the situation won't be officially clarified until they are completely unable to function. Culloty82 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Forcadell's announcement suggests it can now be considered disestablished. Culloty82 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Making that consideration ourselves based on an event which does not claim such and with no sources backing such a statement would be OR. Impru20 (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Amending myself, if it's confirmed that Puigdemont and his cabinet have fled to Belgium to refugee themselves from the Spanish judiciary, then that would be a wholly different scenario. Impru20 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A bit warmer than Scotland, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on the sources I am seeing it looks like business as usual under Spanish direct rule. [20], [21]. Spanish and Catalan flags are fluttering atop the Generalitat Palace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20, Knowledgekid87, and Martinevans123: But have you got a source saying that the Catalan Republic acted as state during three days ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any reference showing evidence that this state existed during these days. It was declared, but being declared is not the same as being established. The article should remain (since this state was clearly declared) but the article itself needs to be edited to reflect the fact that, as yet, this state does not exist and has never effectively existed in any real form. This means avoiding statements to the contrary unless there is a supporting reference. FOARP (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

At what point can a state really be said to exist? Post-WWII consensus appears to be that a state may only exist with the consent of the "international community", a vague term used selectively by Western governments and media, and which in practice means "the US and its allies". I am not sure if Wikipedia should adhere to this unspoken rule of international politics or ignore it completely. What do you think? Firebrace (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The situation seems similar to the 1931 and 1934 attempts - both also had such brief lifespans, that it's unclear whether the previous entities could exert meaningful control either. Culloty82 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Impru20 (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@FOARP: It wasn't even declared. Catalonian parliament voted for declaration but never declared it by issuing Declaration of Independence.--SubRE (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

They voted for the declaration, thus endorsing it. Yes, illegally under Spanish law, but I don't think we can simply ignore the declaration they voted for. I think arguments based on the previous Catalan republic pages are not on firm ground as those pages did not receive the kind of attention that this one has. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

They voted for it, but not endorsed. Vote alone doesn't automatically grant endorsement. You can see this from many examples in parliamentary states. If you specifically refer to october 10 declaration, it was endorsed by 72 Catalonian politicians based upon "referendum" (see link). If Parliament of Catalonia voted for it this document needed to be endorsed by the name of Parliament, if it wasn't (it seems so) - it stayed in status of october 10 declaration (not a declaration by Parliament but only by 72 politicians).--SubRE (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just 2 short notes but important

About "Institutional reactions"

Spanish Government did not apply article 155 in response to the unilateral declaration of independence. Application of article 155 (which goes along with the dismission of the Executive Council of Catalonia, the dissolution of the Parliament of Catalonia and the regional elections for 21 December 2017 among many others) was a proccess called to apply as per Constitution law preserve days before. All the proccess finaly came to an end just the same day (27 October) that the Parlament of Catalonia voted. Of course some of the approved points were in line with what the Catalan parlament would do, but they were going on parallely.

The "Institutional reactions" section does not say that Article 155 was applied "in response to the unilateral declaration of independence", but that In response, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy dismissed the Executive Council of Catalonia, dissolved the Parliament of Catalonia and called a snap regional election for 21 December 2017, after obtaining the Spanish Senate endorsement to the invoking of Article 155. "In response" does not refer specifically to the declaration of independence, but to the whole chain of previous events. Impru20 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood, seems a bit confusing. That little appreciation about "in response" affecting to the whole process would help. Or am I the only one having this difficulty? --Brgesto (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

About "27 October facts"

What happened in Catalan parlament on 27 October is a debate happening this days in Spain. Context is as follows (Must say this is a summarized debate about what happened, not my opinion, not statements):

"They voted the operative part of a proposed resolution of the pro-independence partys, where the Government is urged to adopt the necessary measures to make possible the full effectiveness of the Transitional Law of the foundation of the republic [law suspended by the Constitutional Court]. The President of the Parlament now dismissed, Carmen Forcadell, first read the preamble that the declaration of independence that the pro-independence deputies signed on October 10 in the Auditorium of the Parliament (proclaming independence), and that did not come into force because it was not voted full on. Next, Forcadell took great care in announcing - and reading - that the operative part of the motion for a resolution of these deputies was submitted to the vote of the chamber, where the Government is urged to enforce the Transiency Act."We will vote on the resolution," Forcadell told the chamber. That is, he did not vote the preamble, which contained the Unilateral Declaration of Independence although he had been forced by his own to read it. This initiative of the sovereign deputies was also presented in the form of a Motion for a Resolution, which is the equivalent of a No Law Proposal (NLP): a resolution without legal force although it has political value. Somehow that's why they are making pro-independence people believe that they declared the independence they wanted, when it was not, and why the Republic was not formally declared as per Spanish and international Governments according to Spanish laws and Courts."

Wass really independence declared?

Spanish Lawyer Borja Adsuara explaining all above --Brgesto (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

What you propose is a debate on the legal content of the declaration. Surely, there could be a lot of reasons to argue that independence has not been effective or even that it was not declared, but surely, the vast majority of reliable sources consider that independence was declared, as well as dozens of sovereign states which have openly rejected such a declaration. Wikipedia limits itself on reporting what sources say. Impru20 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to be cautious on affirming that. It is clear among the ones who support independence, and apparently Wikipedia: "Catalonia, a country that only exists in Wikipedia: not a single international recognition". I keep on my position that we are rushing on all of this and that we are considering the proclamation from the point of view of the declaration and showing opposition to worlwide reaction, while it should be on the contrary (my opinion), but we need to express all of this in a more neutral point of view. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court of Spain is still deliberating if an independence was declared, because it had no "action" since 27th (brief and simple examples: Catalan sport clubs are still playing on spanish competitions, Spanish flag still on Catalan Government, no public statement of the Republic...) We are bulding with bricks and no concrete, if may I exprees it that way --Brgesto (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, a source from La Razón would not be my preferred choice for looking at neutral information about Catalonia. XD Much less when it tries to mock Catalan independence based on the country "only existing in Wikipedia" (i.e. in reference to this article), but then using the .svg image of international recognition provided in this same article to justify it has "no international recognition".

So far, I agree with you that this was probably done like this to make pro-independence voters believe independence was declared while trying to avoid criminal persecution from the Spanish judiciary at the same time. But legal or not, this declaration has undoubtely sparked a wide international reaction opposing it. So, even if we were to consider from the text put up to vote in Parliament that independence was in fact not declared, it's obvious that the intention from pro-independence parties was to make it seem like it, to the point that English sources and worldwide sovereign states have considered it happened. And that is what this article reflects.

In any case, I don't think the current "independence" is any more effective than it was in 1934, for example. Impru20 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree on you on the "neutralism" of La Razón XD, just trying to build the point. I see what you're getting at, is the same discussion everywhere. I suppose they are also ways of seeing it. As much as I read day by day the more it points to a non recongnition because of the process and its illegality. Other case would be on a legal via and the international States positioning one side or another what would bring us to this article don't you think? You are right about the point in 1934, that's why in es:wiki is called as "proclamation of the Catalan State in october 24th" (en:wiki "Events of 6 October 1934") which I think is much more appropiate. --Brgesto (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is credible support for including material in the article doubting that a republic was ever created (beyond being declared) then we should include this content somewhere in the article. This does not mean removing content which is supported by credible references stating that it was (in some form) created - teach the controversy. I aslo agree that we cannot draw any real conclusions form the existing articles dealling with previously-proclaimed states, since these are essentially stubs. FOARP (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Bit of bright --Brgesto (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Date of entering into force of the independence

Does the text of passed declaration of independence is available on-line? Some press relation states that no date of entering into force of this declaration, and that's why there is an ambiguity if independent state was established at the moment of passing the resolution or just the resolution is on future independence only. Aotearoa (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Republic is a fantasy not a 'state'

No there is no such passed declaration of independence as you mentioned. I searched hard for it, but there is no one. As such, Catalan Republic is a pub's vote 'state' at best and should be referred in such a way in Wiki. To be honest, if Catalan parliament would vote for a war against France would Wikipedia create article Catalonia - France war (2017) simply because of vote, without actual fact? I think it needs some time to pass for some wikiusers to cool off.--SubRE (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which must report on what sources say. If in such a case as you expose, sources consider a war existed between Catalonia and France, we would indeed have to report on it. That's not the current situation though, as the current situation is not of a war, but of an independence declaration which reliable sources and even the Spanish government itself consider to have taken place. Impru20 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Israel

Perhaps someone can add Israel's stance on the issue[22]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Map

Hi We should create a map with light green because the republic controlled any territory, only claimed it. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)