Talk:Catalan declaration of independence

Existence of Declaration of Independence of Catalonia

Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a news journal. Wikipedia is not the "New York Times" or similar where current events are described or reported upon. This article should be deleted. Doesn´t make any sense but increases the confusion in this topic.

Existence of Declaration of Independence of Catalonia

Article states: The Declaration of Independence of Catalonia is a resolution that was passed by the Parliament of Catalonia on 27 October 2017 - dubious statement, since there is no any references to it. I searched for a long time for this resolution and didn't found it. I know that Parliament of Catalonia voted for declaration of independence, but where is factual document? Was it signed in a name of Parliament and issued? It seems not.--SubRE (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

True, the text of the declaration of independence isn't published in the official bulletin of the parliament (BOPC - Butlletí Oficial del Parlament de Catalunya [1]) and isn't published in the official journal (DOGC - Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya [2])----Bancki (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a merger proposal discussion here.—SPESH531Other 23:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catalan Declaration of Independence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Importance of reactions

With a lot of articles I see people push to condense "international reactions" sections after some moron shoots up a rock concert, etc. I want to emphasize that international reactions to a potential new country are far more significant, since by nature they go beyond internal affairs of a country. The exact wording is also critical - for example, the U.S. endorsement of "constitutional measures" has far different implications than Lithuania's mention of "dialogue". I would guess saying you believe in territorial integrity but recommend dialogue might mean that you're signing a trade treaty with Taiwan in a few decades' time -- but I'm not competent to draw that inference, which is why it's good to have the direct quotes assembled here. Keep up the good work and do not let anyone "clean it up". Wnt (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt, the reactions of various countries and the reasons they have given are relevant. We have similar information for other unrecognized and partially recognized states as well. Jeppiz (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Slovenia source

this source, under paywall, says the following:

The ministry said that it advocated the universal and inalienable right of all nations to self-determination, adding that it must be expressed and executed in line with democratic standards, in a lawful way and in accordance with the Spanish legislation and international law. The press release from the ministry issued on Friday adds that it was "necessary to find a solution for the Catalan issue in dialogue, within the constitutional framework, and peacefully, with fundamental rights and freedoms being fully respected in this process".''

you can see the full article (a bit glitched, it duplicates), if you run it through google translate, like this. He, who does (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Not the only one

This article has to be renamed 2017 Declaration of Independence of Catalonia, as Catalonia has declared it independence many times since the XIX century. --186.136.137.209 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There were other declarations of independence, but if they don't have articles then there is no need for disambiguation. Furthermore, if they did have articles, this still warrants being the primary article for this subject.

Agreed, this is the primary one. If other pages are created we'll need to disambiguate somehow but that can be a simple reference at the top of the page. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding to this, while this page is a nice summary of the Catalan Declaration of Independence, these comments are a clear reflection of missing context. I have intended to add the most recent and relevant background to contextualize slightly but it is important to note that this conflict (between Catalonia and Spain's central government) can be traced back to the 1700s with the "Decretos de Nueva Planta" established by the King Philip V. While I understand this page is slightly more specific, having broader historical context as well as understanding of previous declarations as mentioned by the comments in this thread, is crucial to truly understand the Declaration of Independence and therefore relevant for the issue altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwlzOfMinerva (talk • contribs) 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Russia?

Why is Russia green? It does not recognize Catalonia... 173.54.215.179 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

UN member states

People need to stop and think what a UN member state is before they post reactions. Given the nature of this thread its to be expected that it will be visited by those with a nationalist agenda, but we should be clear about this-the opinion of the Scottish devolved government, or the Welsh, government, or the Corsican authorities, or the local dog catchers association of Nowhere,Alabama, does not go in the section for UN member states, for obvious facts; Repeated attempts to do otherwise is simply indicative of an agenda trumping accuracy. If you want to put the opinion of Scotland, or Wales, or Idaho or New South Wales, then create a separate `Sub National bodies and administrations` heading.

Requested move 30 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There are more supports than opposes, and the consistency argument is a good one. The proposed title is also closer to the article's original title of Catalonia's declaration of independence, from which it was moved without discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Declaration of Independence of Catalonia → Catalan declaration of independence – Consistency with similar articles (see prior discussion at Talk:Catalan Declaration of Independence#Requested move 26 October 2017) — JFG ^talk 10:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - In addition the move to the present title was without discussion and should not have been done. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - This seems to be the naming scheme of most other articles like this, such as United States Declaration of Independence or Finnish Declaration of Independence, so it make sense to rename this article to be in line with those. Retroity (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - The current title (... of Catalonia) is more correct as this declaration aims at independence of this country, not of the ethnicity of "Catalans" (Some Catalans live outside of Catalonia, some non-Catalans live in Catalonia). Also, Catalan also refers to a language - hence, the title "Catalan declaration of independence" might suggest that the word "Catalan" refers to the language the declaration was written in. That other things exist on Wikipedia is not a valid argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support per general naming scheme. Also, in terms of conversation we would talk about Catalan independence rather than Independence of Catalonia, so it would follow that any article talking about a declaration of independence would be named accordingly. This is Paul (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I agree with the comments by This is Paul. The other example of this is Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. SethWhales ^talk 08:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Echo reasons given by Str1977, also point out that consistency with the given examples (with the exception of Finnish) would require 'Catalonia Declaration' or 'Catalonia's Declaration', not 'Catalan Declaration', either of which would be unambiguous . Would also point out that in the cases given, our title is actually the name of the formal document and statement made, albeit loosely translated in the case of Finland. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, but "Catalonia Declaration of Independence" is just poor English as it lacks a possessive determiner. "Catalonia's Declaration of Independence" is better, but "Catalan" is the word for "of Catalonia" (e.g., Catalan people, Catalan language) even when the territory is only the Catalan autonomous region (e.g., Catalan regional election, 2015, Catalan constitutional referendum, 2006). Also here on Wiki we use the common name, a search on Google news shows 22,300 results for "Catalan declaration of independence", 14,800 results for "Catalonia's declaration of independence", and only 2,290 results for "declaration of independence of Catalonia". Whilst Google only shows an estimated number of results, paging through to the last page of the results of each search shows that the ratio is accurate. "Catalan declaration of independence" is clearly the common name. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, The official title is "DECLARATION OF THE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVES OF CATALONIA"/"DECLARACIÓ DELS REPRESENTANTS DE CATALUNYA", as can clearly be seen at the links provided in the article, so I am not sure why you state that the current title of this article is the official title. FOARP (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Str1977. "Declaration of Independence of Catalonia" is clear as well as idiomatic. This concerns Catalonia exclusively, not the Catalans of, say, Roussillon. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment The article for the Catalan region of France is called Northern Catalonia, so I don't know why people think saying "of Catalonia" instead of "Catalan" clarifies this point.FOARP (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Support - As per Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Leutha (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map doesn't correspond to article text

The map shows several countries in red (i.e. as "not recognizing the Catalan Republic") that aren't mentioned in the article, e.g. Australia, Switzerland. Either there are errors in the map and said countries should be in grey ("not voicing their position on the Catalan Republic") or maybe in orange ("voicing a position but neither recognizing nor rejecting the Catalan Republic"), or these countries should be added to the list of countries "that have issued statements not recognizing the Catalan Republic as an independent entity" (with citations, of course). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: My above comment is no longer relevant for this article; I see that the mentioned content including the map has been split into Catalan Republic (2017) and missing countries have been added to the list there. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Essentially becoming a copy-paste of info from Catalan Republic (2017)

Can someone explain why it is needed that this article becomes little less than a mirror of Catalan Republic (2017)? It's funny that me trying to remove the "International reactions" section (which has been taken from the other article) was dubbed as "unilateral", but the fact is that this section was also added unilaterally copying content over from Catalan Republic (2017) (and this is acknowledged even in the edit summary starting this section). And it is not the only stance of literal content being copied from the other article to this one (sometimes being done so literally that it goes as far as to copy-paste entire paragraphs resulting in ref errors because the actual sources are elsewhere in the original article and are not copied over), or of this one trying to become a mirror of the other one. This would not have been so much of an issue if it wasn't because now some people are considering Catalan Republic (2017) as a fork of this one and moved to try to delete it, when it's currently the other way around.

This article should cover just the resolution. Just to ask, there's any reason for it to keep expanding its scope to cover the exact same content as Catalan Republic (2017)? Impru20 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Since most people would say the Catalan Republic (2017) never existed, it seems like a political statement to even have such an article. Nobody denies the existence of the Declaration, though. I think that article should be a very short one, with a prominent link to this one. If there had actually been significant work done to set up a real Republic (e.g. elections of leaders, drafting of a Constitution, etc.) then that would be a different matter. jej1997 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There have been two deletion requests, and the two of them have resulted in a speedy keep. Ongoing discussions on its talk page agree that the page should not be removed because of the topic's notability and because it has been reported by sources, nor do they agree with your call that it should be a very short one. So, it's entirely off-question to try to enlarge the scope of this article to include copy-pasted information from the other one, because it's absurd and this is not the place for it. Nobody denies that the Catalan Republic has been reported by sources. The topic related to the Catalan Republic is already covered there; as you say, this article is about the Declaration. Don't turn this into a monstruous copy-paste of the other article just based on your own personal thoughts of what Catalan Republic (2017) should be.

So, I should repeat my question again: There's any reason for the scope of this article being artificially expanded to cover the exact same content as another article? Impru20 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's probably worth looking at this stage at what is best covered here and what is best covered at the Catalan Republic page. For example, many of these "reactions" listed on this page and the Catalan Republic page are reactions to the declaration of independence and not to the Catalan Republic per se and therefore appear best-covered on this page and not on the Catalan Republic page. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The map of countries recognizing/not recognizing

Per the discussion over on the Catalan Republic talk-page, the map should be deleted. This is because at present it relies on editor interpretation of primary sources to separate countries into the red and orange classes, but this sorting of countries into two classes is not supported by any reference and is therefore original research. Additionally, many of the countries shown in orange have referred to this dispute an an internal Spanish dispute which, ultimately, means that they appear to have taken a stance against it. The only real distinction that can be made as a matter of fact is between countries recognizing and not recognizing, but at present no-one recognizes Catalan independence. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Independence declaration was de jure according to recent Spansih Constitutional court, so at least, we should consider the independence lasted 4 days until repealing of the law by spanish cnstitutional court on 12th september

On page 24 of the recently infamous outcome of the constitutional process against Catalan politics it states: Proven Facts: "1.- As of 8th September 2017, official catalan government's bulletin núm. 7451-A published the Law of Catlan's Parlament 20/2017, of juridic transitoriety and fundational of the Republic. That norm, integrated by 89 articles and three final conclusions, includes unilateral proclamations of rupture with the current constitutional system. It was presented as a superior norm of the catalan juridical order, until when new Republic's constitution was approved. It proclamed thatCatalonia is constituted by a Republic of law, democratic and social, in which sovereignty of the catalan territory was declared as composed by the territorial space, included the undergroung, corresponding to its geographical and adminsitrative preexisting limits, by the territorial see, included its ground and undersea and by the aerial espace placed over territorial espace and territorial seas of Catalonia"

https://estaticos.elperiodico.com/resources/pdf/7/9/1571135685597.pdf?_ga=2.260757325.175344844.1571268775-1030253749.1552175496  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.61.108.100 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)