Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2017

In the 3rd paragraph: "Puigdemont and part of his cabinet fled to Belgium to escape action from the Spanish judiciary,[9][10] having been formally accused of rebellion, sedition and embezzlement by the Spanish Attorney General.[11][12]"

Puigdemonts' travel to Belgium was not an act of escaping Spain -- he did not fled Spain -- he did go to Brussels to gain support for the independence and to work in 'freedom'. He states in this article: https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/puigdemont-vraagt-geen-asiel-aan-in-ons-land-en-noemt-houding-van-spanje-oorlogszuchtig~a69eb742/ that he is not seeking political asylum. He also states that is not trying to escape his responsibilities.

The word 'fled' in the 3rd paragraph is incorrect and implies a negative perception around his visit to Belgium.

The entire article is perceived as written by someone that is pro-spain and anti-catalonia. 67.52.108.154 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly one interpretation of what he has done. But there's another, supported by reliable references, that says he's fled. See:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catalonia-leader-carles-puigdemont-left-spain-brussels-rebellion-charges-eu-independence-latest-a8027366.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/30/spanish-prosecutor-calls-for-rebellion-charges-against-catalan-leaders http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/catalan-regional-leader-flees-to-belgium-amid-regional-crisis/9103156 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/puigdemont-makes-catalan-case-to-eu-as-he-fears-unfair-trial FOARP (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

He has travelled to Belgium with members of his parliament, and the sources you cited have drawn the reasonable, if possibly incorrect, conclusion that they have fled. I'm not sure I believe that he is not trying to flee, but the article could address such speculation without actually choosing a side. It's hard to prove what his intent is, so until that is cleared up, that sentence should probably be rewritten. —mountainhead / ? 19:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

He has expressly said this morning that he was not returning to Spain because he felt he had "no guarantees" to do so ([1]). So yeah, he's fled. Impru20 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, he's scampered. And the POV tag is just plain silly. 50.111.60.244 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is 2017 being inserted next to the Catalan president's name, in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it was the year in which he served as President...? Question would be why you are keeping removing it. Impru20 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If he's still the Catalan president, then it's not required. If he's no longer the president, then remove his name. The infobox deals with the present. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It's pretty clear you haven't seen other infobox former country in use throughout Wikipedia, right? The year of the term in office is added next to the name. The year is added precisely because he was President at that time. The infobox deals with past, not present, because the state is not a present thing. Impru20 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I just read the article intro. Didn't know that the Catalan Republic had been canceled. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: There are even doubts it was even effective at all at some point, but it's now considered to be essentially over after recent events and not meeting any of the criteria of the declarative theory for being considered a state. Check discussions throughout the talk page. Impru20 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Another Thing on the Infobox

It says in there that the Kingdom of Spain is a succeeding state to the Catalan Republic. That suggests this situation will end with the status quo, which seems like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV no matter how likely it may seem. It's best here to keep the tone not suggesting a pro-independence or pro-status quo view wherever we can do so. South Nashua (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Spain is the state currently in control over Catalan territory, as reported by sources. It is not that the situation "will end" with the status quo; rather, the "Catalan Republic" is already over (or has not had any effect at all), having been suspended by the Constitutional Court after direct rule was enforced. We must report what sources say, not to try to preserve a false balance between both sides when such a balance is not presented by them. See WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASP and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Impru20 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think supporters of the Independence viewpoint would disagree with that sentiment given the current event template at the top of the article. To reiterate, I think it's best that we try to avoid the appearance of favoritism until the matter has indeed passed beyond the "current event" phase. South Nashua (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It passed the 'current event' phase as soon as it was declared and immediately dismissed by the federal gov't in Madrid. Short of an armed ressurrection, it is over, bud.50.111.60.244 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Puidgemont has indicated he would be willing to stand in the snap elections, even if not eligible. It's probably "over" after that point. Right now, it's in flux. South Nashua (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Catalan Republic really suspended?

How can I view the Spanish Supreme Court as legitimate? AHC300 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard to suspend something that was only words. But, yeah, the declaration was immediately dismissed by the federal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.244 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the time-line in the infobox needs some work. There is no evidence that, beyond the declaration, any actual steps were taken to establish a republic, so it is very hard to say that anything was actually undone by the government other than the dismissal of the local government. Let me repeat that this is not an argument to delete the article, since the declaration is undeniable, but an argument against the idea that the republic ever actually existed in any real form that required undoing by the Spanish government. The infobox at present shows a timeline where the following events happened: Republic declared -> Republic existed -> Republic disestablished. The problem is that there is no evidence that the Republic ever actually existed beyond the declaration. The Spanish flag remained flying over government buildings in Barcelona throughout the period in question. Instead the process was more like: Republic declared -> autonomy suspended -> Catalan regional government sacked. I don't think the suspension of the declaration by the Spanish Supreme Court has any relevance in this. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Would agree with FOARP. The Republic in and of itself never really existed beyond the proclamation (at least not by reliable sources). The failure to recognise their independence would, I would say, support their non-existence. Koncorde (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously states exist without recognition so recognition is not essential. Much more relevant is the fact that not even the minimum was done to give any effect to Catalan independence - for example the Spanish flag remained flying over the parliament building. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia is a province of Spain - if the federal authorities immediately - within minutes, actually, crushed it politically, it never truly existed. World recognition was irrelevant. Just words, nothing more.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pro-independece population are in fact confused and talk about that they hope this process continue until the Republic will be established. That way seems the best option to keep (again, at least per today). Propably if not that suggstion, this one: Republic declared -> autonomy suspended -> Republic declaration nullity declared --Brgesto (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this what is already shown in the infobox? I mean, it shows it as "Declared" on 27 October 2017, "Direct rule enforced" 28–30 October 2017 (this includes the sacking of the Catalan government, but is spelled like this for simplicity as we must take into account that this is an infobox. Also, autonomy has not been actually suspended; it's still in force, but under direct rule from Madrid) and "Declaration suspended" 31 October 2017. Impru20 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

At present it has a "preceded by/succeeded by" section, which implies that there was a time during which it had effective existence beyond that which it has now (i.e., none). Probably the best things is just to delete that section. Similarly the lede describes it as a "short-lived state", which again states that it existed. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As there are different POV about it's current status it status is 'disputed'. Wikipedia can't establish if Catalonia Republic is a (1) non existent, (2) short lived suspended or a (3) occupied state after it declarated independence without picking sides.

We only can say that it's status is disputed as a result of intervention from Spanish institutions during it's proces of establishment.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption, but I reverted on the basis of multiple spelling errors, bad terminology, and grammar. I am not sure about the POV of the contents of the edit I reverted, but please do not reinstate it because there should be no grammatical mistakes at the lead of such a visible article. Thank you. Dr. K. 02:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So far, Niele~enwiki has been adding NPOV material as of lately contrary to sources, openly violating WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, then blaming me of NPOV myself on the basis of entirely non-sense claims such as me picking one side (when it's clear he's picking one side himself). If and when sources say this is "disputed", we should add it, but as of currently it's pretty much clear no one but Niele~enwiki (which is, of course, not a reliable source, as users' claims are not reliable sources) considers this as being in dispute. If this user wants to discuss this issue, then by all means do so in this talk page. But stop engaging in disruptive editing or engaging in personal behaviour against me. Impru20 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Piking side is choosing between Spanish-unionist stance and Catalan-indépendantiste stance. Being neutral is saying the status is disputed between the two parties. I in no way am pushing Catalan-indépendantiste stance or Spanish-unionist stance on the page but write it is status is disputed. You push Spanish-unionist stance as sole reality on the page. You are NPOV pushing with in favor of the Spanish flags and unionist infoboxes on you're profile. This isn't that difficult...--Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've picked no side at all (I just report on what sources say), so it's just unacceptable that you come here accusing me of picking a side, then you yourself adding unverified and original research content which clearly favours one side. Trying to say this is "disputed" is a clearly a pro-independence stance, as that's what pro-independentists claim: that Catalonia's status is currently disputed. But that is false; no source considers control over Catalan territory or institutions is disputed, or that there's any territorial dispute, so trying to make such an assertion is clear POV-pushing and a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. There has even been extensive discussion in this talk page widely agreeing that this "state" cannot be considered a current entity at all, as it has never actually disputed Spanish control over Catalan territory. You have not even participated in such discussions, yet you seemingly unilaterally claim to know what is right and what is wrong here. You should respect both WP:CONSENSUS and the aforementioned policies above, as well as avoiding keeping commenting on me through the edit summaries and not on actual content, despite the policy stating that you should comment on content, not on the contributor. It's disgusting. Impru20 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Bosnia and Herzegovina 🇧🇦 & Haiti 🇭🇹 to the map

Reisukami (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. Impru20 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether the state still exists

So I have seen some user used the terms was and paste tense but the supporters still claims it exists and since there hasn't been an official message saying against the Independent state by ex-leaders I presume it should stand as IS. Leaders have already refused to given up on the idea and Puigement is right now battling legally with Spain against human rights violations. Multiple protest in favour of Independence are also planned. So the final question is should it be presumed that the state is still self-declares Independence or should it be change to was ? Yessy1205 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There's already a section on this. Bring this there.

Nonetheless, it's not relevant what some supporter may say, but whether this state exercises any control in practice. There are four requisites under the declarative theory for a state to be defined:

1. a defined territory
2. a permanent population
3. a government, and
4. a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As of currently, the Catalan Republic is not sourced and/or proven to meet any of these, as

1. it does not exercise any kind of control over the territory
2. if it does not exercise control over territory, it does not have any population under its control
3. half the government has fled to Belgium, while the status of the other half is disputed. Any resemblance of what was once the Catalan government is in disarray
4. it is fairly obvious that it does not meet this one. Impru20 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This was a "state" that was D.O.A. It is nothing more than an ideal, a goal for the separatists - it ended the moment it was supposedly born when the federal authorities acted. Without an armed revolution (which would be virtually impossible) or some really radical changes of thought in Madrid, this province will remain - however reluctantly - part of Spain. I'm not pro or con - neither are many other editors who have reverted those with an agenda pushing this as a real independent state - we are just reflecting reality and what the RS news sources have stated.50.111.60.244 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. There wasn't such a state even for a moment. Somebody's vote doesn't make states.--SubRE (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also you wrote half the government - do they proclaimed themselfs as a government of a new state? Never heard about it. They are former members of Catalan government, but not Catalan Republic (which in fact wasn't declared since Declaration of Independence of such a state doesn't exists).--SubRE (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a clear argument to saying that this state never existed as it was never actually established: at no point were any of the four factors described above met. However, it clearly was declared and for that reason this page should be kept, but without supporting references stating otherwise, it should reflect the fact that it never effectively existed beyond the declaration of independence. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@FOARP: SubRE I think the argument supporting it existed is the fact that pro-independence parties did indeed control the Generalitat of Catalonia (both the Parliament and Government) and that doubts about who was in control of Catalan institutions were not entirely cast off until Monday 30 October, when it became obvious that the Spanish government had reasserted control over these and that Puigdemont and some of his cabinet had fled the country. Sure, I myself defend that, as of currently, none of the four criteria is met, so the state, in any form it existed, does no longer exist now. But from the time of declaration until yesterday, I think there was a good case for claiming the existence of criteria 3 and, in some incomplete form, 1 and 2 (municipalities governed by pro-independence parties could be counted as being under this state's control). This was not like some random guy going out and saying "hey guys, I'm proclaiming my own independent state!" but rather, a Parliament and a Government claiming as such. Even if illegally. Even if its proclamation revealed a lot of democratic shortcomings and was literally imposed to half the population without a qualified majority in Parliament as required by the Statute of Autonomy. These are not arguments to claim the state did not exist, but rather, that it was somewhat deficient and/or of dubious origin/legitimacy. That the state as such has not been shown to exercise any effective control is an obvious thing, but that it was proclaimed/declared is currently beyond any doubt (sources report on it and there was even a massive international reaction in response, even if it was against the state). If anything, this would have been short of being a sovereign state (rather, more akin to a proto-state or a failed state). But control by pro-independence parties over the Generalitat of Catalonia until 30 October means this was something more than a mere "ideal" or "goal". Impru20 (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20:. States is declared by Declaration of Independence or any similar document. Where is this document, I'm asking you. Catalan Republic doesn't need it? Catalan politicians signed their own declaration on october 10. Now move on to Parliaments vote, they voted, that's OK, but they didn't declared it - that's the thing. They are free to vote 100 times for various things they like, the only thing which matters - are they gonna endorse they votes. And in this case they didn't. They voted but they didn't proclaimed 'Catalan Republic'. Catalan Republic stayed in october 10 declaration by 72 politicians (some random guys) and never was declared by Catalonian parliament, neither Government (putting aside questions about their right to do so). If you think they did - provide link to such a document.--SubRE (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@SubRE: Here's the document. In its page 4 it clearly says "CONSTITUÏM la República catalana, com a Estat independent i sobirà, de dret, democràtic i social" (WE CONSTITUTE the Catalan Republic, as an independent and sovereign state, of law, democratic and social). Then in its page 5 it says "INSTEM al Govern de la Generalitat a adoptar les mesures necessàries per fer possible la plena efectivitat d'aquesta Declaració d'independència i de les previsions de la Llei de transitorietat jurídica i fundacional de la República" (WE URGE the Government of the Generalitat to adopt all necessary measures to make possible the full effectivity of this Declaration of Independence and the provisions of the Law of juridic transition and foundation of the Republic). This, coupled with all reliable sources considering independence was declared (even the Spanish government considers the declaration had "juridical and binding effectivity" (Source)). Another whole issue is the extent of such effectivity (which was very limited in practice). But that independence was declared is beyond any doubt this time (unlike what happened on 10 October). Impru20 (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: - My issue here is that "doubt about control" lacks a supporting reference, and even if it was supported would still show nothing more than that - doubt, and not the existence of a Catalan state at any point during the period of doubt. From memory even the Spanish flag was not taken down from the parliament building. Again, this is not an argument that this page should be deleted since the declaration is undeniable, but unless reference can be found that state otherwise to state that it ever existed (beyond merely being declared) during this period is .... well, doubtful. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@FOARP: I think we may safely assume no sovereign state in such a right has ever existed (as I stated, this would be more similar to a proto-state or a failed state, though even that is still not fully explanatory of what happened). Sources do indeed acknowledge an independence declaration took place and some sort of "Catalan Republic" existed (take this one, for example, though they are all throughout the article), even with all its accounted-for deficiencies. It self-styled itself as such, but pro-independence people made little to enforce such a declaration. Adding to the confusion is the fact that this happened over the weekend, when public administrations in Spain are mostly closed down (thus, the extent of Spanish/Catalan government control was not fully unveiled until Monday, because it couldn't happen before). It's also correct that Puigdemont and his cabinet did little to enforce their authority or even to dispute their sacking (though hinting at it in the 28 October's speech), but also that this confusion existed and was reported by Spanish and other media. Then, we also have that period of time between the independence declaration and Rajoy's enforcing the sacking of Catalan government (a couple hours passed between both events). So, the Catalan government was indeed in office and the Parliament undissolved without any dispute on control for a time after the declaration. Finally, there was a legal framework for this Republic, based on the Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic (though still deficient).

But well, the whole issue is quite chaotic. So, to summarize it: if you ask me whether I consider a Catalan state existed, I would say "no" as a sovereign state, but leaning to "yes" as some sort of juridical entity contravening established Spanish laws (but with no other practical effect whatsover). It would be: more than "nothing", but still short of being "something". Impru20 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20:. Document provided is a Proposal, but not actual Resolution. There is hundreds of proposals, projects which are voted for in every Parliament. Usually general public not even know about them. They are not legislative documents like bills, laws, resolutions. I'm well assured some sources claim this Proposal is equivalent of Declaration, but it's not. They voted for proposal, but not for the actual resolution. That's two different things - proposal (project) and actual legislative act. And members of parliament clearly knew that, that's why they not voted for actual resolution, since proposal (unlike resolution) doesn't evoke any kinda of obligations and legal actions whatsoever.--SubRE (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@SubRE: Yeah, it was a proposal BEFORE being voted, but it became a resolution once voted. There's no doubt that the declaration took place; you're keeping discussing one of the few things not in doubt in this whole ordeal. xD You can also not claim the "general public" did not know this happened, because it appeared on all media. Also, we must report what sources say, so if they say this is a declaration we must abide to them (we can't original research them and claim there was no declaration at all when they say otherwise). Impru20 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20:. No, you are wrong. Once proposal is passed, then a vote for a real legislative act follows (that's if it is not recalled or there is no other proposals on a table). That's how it is.--SubRE (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, we must report what sources say. OK then - Catalan parliament votes to declare independence from Spain. They voted to declare as BBC reported, but not actually declared. That's two different things.--SubRE (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We assume everything related to independence of Catalonia is not legal according to Spanish law (or even to Catalan regional and Parliament laws), so well, it cares little how things should be. xD Pro-independence parties obviously declared independence within their own legality and sources consider that this happened. That, in legal terms, mostly everything was deficient? Sure. But this is not so weird for states/entities trying to achieve independence historically so...

Also, "voted to declare" means the declaration was voted, not that they voted for it but did not declare it. Otherwise, direct rule would not have been imposed, because the Spanish government itself does consider independence was (illegally, of course) declared. Impru20 (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Direct rule of Catalonia was imposed because Parliament of Catalonia no longer were fulfilling their duties and started to make things on their own. Naturally they were dismissed, much like one would be dismissed if found sleeping or drunk on a job. Dismissal of parliament itself isn't evidence they declared independence. Such a evidence is a clear legislative act like declaration, resolution, manifest or alike (example).--SubRE (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Parliament of Catalonia was doing "things on their own" since 6 September (even earlier if we consider some other passed acts throughout 2015 and 2016). Direct rule was not imposed until the independence declaration was announced for 27 October, and Article 155 measures were not applied until independence was declared. Sources are very clear on this. Impru20 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20:Sources are very clear about Spain Government's intentions to evoke article 155 on Friday well before so called independence was declared (it wasn't). They needed vote from Senate of Spain which was scheduled at Friday week before. If you wanna see some conspiracies in here, you should ask why Parliament of Catalonia decided to vote on proposal right before Senate vote.--SubRE (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@SubRE: Sorry, but sources do not say what you claim: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, and so on. Impru20 (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: No, Mariano Rajoy announced plans to remove Catalan government week ahead, he needed only approval of Senate which was scheduled on Friday. Maybe sources you cite didn't know that - that's another think, though.--SubRE (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@SubRE: The Spanish government considers the UDI had "juridical and binding effects". What's the doubt behind it? Impru20 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: About what "doubts" you are talking about?

Also Spanish PM asks Catalonia: have you declared independence or not? on October 11, I guess he still didn't receive an answer.--SubRE (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You had doubts about whether a declaration existed. I've shown you plenty of sources showing even the Spanish government itself acknowledges it existed. Obviously, up to date sources (from yesterday), not sources from 11 October. It's clear that independence was not declared on 10 October, but on 27 October, so bringing a source from 11 October is not actually relevant. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, and so on. Impru20 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Spanish government itself acknowledges it existed, really? You should check facts first.--SubRE (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, really. Just check the sources I provided you twice that show very clearly that the Spanish government acknowledges an independence declaration "with juridical and binding effects" existed (that is why they're prosecuting those who forced the declaration into the Parliament to be voted and passed). This does not mean they recognise the state, obviously. They just recognised an illegal act under Spanish law was consummated. Impru20 (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry @BrendonTheWizard: did not sound harsh, in fact I must thank all for the calm and polite tone we are all having here despite the conttroversial subject. In response I'll say that @Impru20: and @SubRE: are heading the debate were I think it should be pointed to. Without entering on the actions from Spain Goverment over Catalonia which declare all null, we should ask and discuss about the proposal-resolution-declaration issue and the actual effects. Thats the dispute. --Brgesto (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably the most obvious way to do it is to ask Carles Puigdemont (former Catalan president) question: are Parliament of Catalonia declared Independence of Catalonia and proclaimed Catalan Republic on October 27? If yes, by what means. I searched a lot and still didn't found any direct proclamation by Parliament of Catalonia or Carles Puigdemont.--SubRE (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If Puigdemont did not proclaim Independence, why are they prosecuting him ? He never made or suggested acts of violence, so the only reason for prosecution should be a declaration like that. You are missing that Catalan leaders put the declaration of independence on hold for some time, to allow talks, but after the wait, made a full declaration. After the December vote, if Spanish repression continues, we may well expect Catalans intending to set up a government in exile. --Robertiki (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys, Wiki is not a forum and we are not going to ask Puigdemont questions. There are many, many reliable sources reporting a declaration of independence or something similar. If there are reliable sources casting doubt on what the actual effect of what the Catalan government did is, then edit these into the article (but don't remove the other content). FOARP (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, I ask an enphatic plea on avoiding terms as "repression" or "prosecuting". Going on with the debate, Constitutional Court of Spain has precautionary suspended the independence declaration as per its nullity alegation of this Court about the referendum and also its transitoriety law process. We have to consider all on the context and the article. --Brgesto (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the word "repression" is in the article. And "criminal complaint" is another description for "prosecution". --Robertiki (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologize. That's the point? In which terms is "repressed"? I think this should not be expressed like that. --Brgesto (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Any reliable source in this case is only Declaration of Independence itself. Because it wasn't issued or published, then Catalan Republic simply do not exist and never was in first place as a state. Many people in Talk suggest since "independence was declared, then Catalan Republic was established". But why Republic and not Kingdom or Empire? How do they know this without Declaration of Independence Act (real document)? Also, I want to note that neither Puigdemont, nor any other catalan politician, who supposedly voted for "Independence", never referred to Catalan Republic as a legal and functional entity. Maybe there is some other means they think Catalan Republic is a state (ex. Lilliput and Blefuscu) - those means should be reflected in a article. Now it became even more ridiculous as article states: Catalan Republic ... was ... state. So, it no longer exists? Was dissolved, annexed? By whom, by which means, when?--SubRE (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because: Wikipedia always has articles for newsworthy self-declared countries, whether or not they exist in a concrete sense on the ground. As long as the article makes clear that the "Catalan Republic" is unrecognized, and fairly portrays the situation on the ground, there is no need for deletion. The "does not exist" criteria" is not intended to refer to concepts whose existence is asserted by real people, no matter how imaginary those concepts may be. --GeoEvan (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well put Boeing720 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully Agree. If there's any weight in "I think therefore I am", the Catalan Republic "exists" even if it's in the minds of its supporters. Not to mention that the mere non-recognition of its existence by so many countries means the issue of its existence, thus far, is not a matter of fact but debate. Behrou (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, many states declared they will not recognize Independence of Catalonia (that is if it will be proclaimed), not that they not recognize. Also you should note that neither of these countries didn't made a reference to Catalan Republic either. So no any other country knows anything about existence of such a state? Why? Maybe because it do not exist at all?--SubRE (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No Catalan Republic existed, delete article

I wonder why this article was created when the state in question didn't even exist because of absence of territorial control. Based on what I've read there was only an "independent declaration". It doesn't seem Madrid lost full control over the region even if it's autonomous. Despite independence there was no real "independence". The Catalan government and parliament was removed from power immediately after the declaration. I think the article shouldn't exist. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You could raise an WP:AFD. But I think you might find that quite contentious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

While - obviously - this state does not exist except on paper and the mouths of revolutionaries, the nationalist fervor of editors who support independence will overwhelm common sense in any effort to delete the article at this time. It might be best for some Wiki authorities to step in and use their power to suspend the article until/if they somehow defeat the Spanish military and form an actual state.23:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedia articles for imaginary concepts. That's not criteria for deletion. GeoEvan (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Silly response. Use your head about things before you post, good grief. 50.111.60.244 (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree not only with the original statement, but also the "there's plenty of Wikipedia articles for imaginary concepts." There's plenty of Wikipedia articles for self-proclaimed, unrecognized states. See Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh Republic, see Western Sahara, see Somaliland, see South Ossetia, see Abkhazia, see Transnistria/Pridnestrovia, see Taiwan/Republic of China, see Kosovo, see Donetsk People's Republic, and see Lugansk/Luhansk People's Republic. These are self-proclaimed states, de-facto states, proto-states, and etc. Depending on where you are, you'll see maybe 2 or 3 of them on your maps, but not one of them is represented in the United Nations. The degrees to which they exist also vary; Western Sahara doesn't actually control all of the territory that it claims and has no recognition, while Kosovo has recognition only by some states (though far more than the others). Transnistria doesn't have recognition by a single UN member, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or warrant an article. What these states all have in common is that they've declared themselves to be sovereign, yet they lack the recognition they need to truly "exist." That doesn't mean that they don't exist, and to say that the very existence of this article only exists on "the mouths of revolutionaries" is an insulting level of ignorance regarding what articles do and do not exist on Wikipedia. There was already a deletion discussion that resulted in a speedy (and unanimous) keep result. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that this article should be deleted as the Catalan Republic has at least been declared. However, it is entirely another thing to act as though this country actually exists at present, since there is no evidence, yet, that it has actually been established rather than simply declared. There are no Catalan embassies, passports, border-posts, military forces, diplomatic corps, national police etc. etc. etc. and no evidence that a Catalan state controls the territory concerned or any part of it. Compare this to Somaliland, ROC (Taiwan) and even Western Sahara which do have some territorial control and government. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's far too early to reach a conclusion on the extent to which the Catalan Republic has been established and disestablished. Upon declaring independence, Transnistria lacked anything it did not inherit from Moldova/Moldavian SSR and Moldova didn't lose its de facto control until the next year. It wouldn't be accurate to already switch to the "Former Country" infobox and declare this new breakaway state dead as soon as Spain reasserts its control; I'd say referring to it as "disputed" is very accurate as this is a current event and significant changes can develop rapidly has they have so far. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been said that "There's plenty of Wikipedia articles for self-proclaimed, unrecognized states".

While that's true, that doesn't make the current wording in the article that the "Republic of Catalonia was a short-lived state" true. the Republic of Catalonia might have been declared by the Catalonian parliament but that declared state never came into existence. So, it might be self-proclaimed and unrecognized but it wasn't short-lived, it never lived at all. We do not need an article for an entity that undoubtedly never existed (thus far) - until the Republic of Catalonia comes into existence, the article should be redirected to and the information can be covered under the Declaration of Independence article or 2017_Spanish_constitutional_crisis. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no logical reason to delete this article. A Catalan Republic was proclaimed by the Parliament of Catalonia, all be it acting outside of its legislative competences. This fact alone makes the subject noteworthy according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Similar articles exist on Wikipedia for all the other proclaimed Catalan states throughout the course of history, including one that lasted just a few hours (Catalan State (1934)) and one that lasted for three days (Catalan Republic (1931)). One of purposes of an encyclopedia is to document current events to produce a resource for future historians, which is what this article is for. We have articles for similar self-proclaimed states such as Republic of Benin (1967), Kruševo Republic and Republic of Alba (1944) which were not recognised internationally. We also have articles for institutions that have been proposed but never existed such as the Scottish Assembly. The guiding principle is always, "is it notable", in this case it clearly is so warrants an article.Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree on that. Not delete but should be renamed. --Brgesto (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't think what it could possibly be renamed to and the current name seems OK. The issue is with the idea that it ever effectively existed. There is no evidence of this. From the article there seems to be the idea that it existed for a day, but there is no evidence that even during this day anything was done to actually establish an independent state. FOARP (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the earlier Catalan Republics but this one here was merely proclaimed but (thus far) never came into existence. That's different from political entities that existed but were driven into exile or ended after a long or short existence. The only political entity that existed - and still exists - during 2017 was the autonomous region inside the Kingdom of Spain. I don't want the information to be lost either but, as of yet, this article is under the wrong name, with all the wrong formalia that go with it. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Catalan Republic thing spawned a lot of buzz in a press, but there is no any evidence it existed beyond imagination of some supporters of independent Catalan state. And while a lot of these people proclaimed such a entity exist, it was actually never proclaimed by legislative body.--SubRE (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)