Jump to content

Talk:Catalan independence movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Clarifications

I notice several ambiguities needing to be adressed:

  • The Catalan independence movement is a political movement which supports the devolution of the independence of the autonomous community of Catalonia - It's unclear in what period Catalonia was independent as to now demand a "devolution" of something that was in the past. A vague mention to some event in the "Middle Ages" is made, but i'm not sure this referst to 1711 (not quite the middle ages) or earlier, and weather in that alleged time of independence Catalonia comprised the current territories or was a part of the Kingdom of Aragon.
Reworded to make sense. Would please some Catalan nationalist care to explain the main points of their movement, to make this something better than a stub? Diego Moya 18:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not such one, but well aquainted with. Catalan nationalism, really born in the late XIX century, is a mix of a language based and an historically justified one. At the beginnig was seriously influenced by romantic german nationalism (wagnerianism in particular). Sadly, recently also an economic based one. The basic tenents (from a nationalist point of view) are
  • Catalonia was, for all purposes, an independent state prior to 1714 (the end of the Spanish war on Succession), not just a personal union with the crown (first of Aragon and latter of Castille/Spain)
  • From this year on, Catalonia suffers a Spanish (castilian) ocupation with ... The exact description of the grievances depend of the flavour of nationalism, but at the very least contains the oppresion of the language and of their own institutions. This opression has been mantained or aggravated by every single central government (with the exception, perhaps, of the II republic)
  • But national identity has been preserved against all odds, and can't be assimilated to spanish identity, but as long as is part of Spain is threatened
  • Catalan tax monies should only be used in and for Catalonia (it's a bit crude statement, and should be qualified, but too many times sounds exactly this way)
Thus, the exigence of restoration of a free Catalonia, or at least to an arrangement with the rest of Spain in a confederational form, as it is purported to have been prior to 1714.
It has to be noted that until very recently, the independentist or confederationalist approach was very minoritary in catalan nationalism, the mainstream parties prefering some form of special status within Spain.
An encyclopedic entry about a conflictive topic should contain also a critique on such theories, here are a few, most of them about differing understandings of history
  • The relationship between Catalonia and the rest of the Aragonese Crown and latter of Spain never was exactly a "personal union" as it is purported
  • Not a "personal union" true, but a dynastic union in a sole monarchy. The rest of goverment powers, administrative and judicial were still separated for each territory of the Crown of Aragon until the end of the Succesion war, so in fact it was a different state from the modern point of view with laws, taxes and commericial borders.
  • Because after 1714 the catalan institutions were supressed, the whole integration with the rest of Spain allowed to become Catalonia from a backwater into the most thriving region of Spain
  • The appearence of Bourgeoisie and Industrialization was not due to the destruction of Catalonia self-government if that was the case why it did not happen in Aragon, or the Balearic Islands?
  • Mending past errors, Catalan language has never been so protected as now. And remembering that nowadays the language spoken at home in Catalonia is aprox. 50/50 catalan/spanish
  • The suposed "Mending" is in any case started after the transition, that is about 25 years ago and basically due to the push of the nationalism in Catalonia not an initiative from the Spanish Government. In fact, much more protection should be granted to non-Spanish languages in Spain to reach the levels achieved in other countries like Canada or The Nederlands. Spain has historically tried to supress other languages since the Decretos de Nueva Planta.
  • There has been and it will be. Many Catalans have been outspoken about independence from Spain and France, because let me remind you, part of Catalonia is under French administration since the Pyrenees Treaty. So there are Catalans that are not Spanish.--Hei hei 05:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Each and every comment of yours is flourished with subjective judgments and clearly unionist-flavoure backgound. Sorry to tell you that, but in no way you can represent a legit voice for secesionism alegation. Besides it´s funny how you propose a section with critiques,but don´t mention the same for the other side


  • As for Catalonia being the remaining part of one the largest powers of the Middle Ages, what is meant by "remaining part"? what large power are we referring to?
Clearly, with the "large power", it's refering to the ancient Crown of Aragon. As to the "remaining part", is a mistery to me either (probably a bad digested catch-phase)--Wllacer 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

About merging Catalan independentism and Catalan Countries

Both ideas AFAIK depeloped separately and have different backgrounds. Beside some punctual exceptions, the Catalan Countries idea, originating in Valencia, didn't came into the radical nationalist of Catalonia till the 1970's (I remember a group called PSAN beeing the most vocal about then ) and for what I recall it only latter became part of the ERC ideology-. I don't think they should be merged -Wllacer 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The map

The map [1] in the article as of 27 October 2005 makes absolutly no sense in this context, and even less the caption. If nobody objects (why?) I'll remove it in a few days --217.12.16.56 16:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree Toniher 10:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion -> Merge in Catalan nationalism

Since we are not talking of the actual independence of Catalonia or the Catalan Countries. I think this article should be merged in Catalan nationalism as it is done with other nationalist movements. Catalan independentism may be regarded as a part of Catalan nationalism and it can be further developed there. Toniher 09:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There would make a lot of sense. I agree --Wllacer 15:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! QuartierLatin 1968 01:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Pls. Elaborate --Wllacer 08:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I mean I agree they should merge. QuartierLatin 1968 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Catalan nationalism doesn't claim for a separate Catalan State from Spain or France, they only ask for more rights. On the other side, Catalan indepentists work for a free Catalan state as the only way to be respected and live on their own with their language and culture. That is, a Catalan independentist is a nationalist, but a Catalan nationalist is not an independentist.--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 11:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well. PSC is a nationalistic party but not independentist. There is even a general understanding that the traditional flag currently reprsenting the autonomous region represents continuism on the vein of moderate nationalistim wherea s the estelada flag, with the blue/red triangle and the star, represents the more extremist or independent view

As the above, Catalan indepentism is a name used by the Catalan nationalist left due to aversion to the term Nationalism. It is a subset of nationalism, and its main representatives, the ERC, no longer really advocate independence as anything other than a vague aspiration. boynamedsue That´s false. nationalism and independentism is not the same as I exlpained before. The real discussion is among the three words secessionism, independentims and separatism. The third one is clearly used with negative connation by unionists. Seceesionism sounds more formal, and it´s preferred by unionists because it sounds destructive (divorce), whereas independentism is preferred by the other side since it sounds more ocnstructives and I think it´s fairly the most common in both medias. Also all PDCat, ERC and CUP are openly supporting independence.e, I guess your comment is outdated

PSAN

Would not be interesting to note that it was created mainly by valencians ?

A couple of trivia (personal memories) which would be perhaps interesting to the article, or one of its own. It's up to you.

In 1977 (it's the official date, but i recall they acted as-if earlier) PSAN adopted a "marxist-leninist" ideology.

Around that time the party was split in an oficial and a provisional branch. The latter, a very small group, favored armed fight and were excelently funded (they had a wonderful printing press in Perpignan, and even published poetry books). As terrorist they were a disaster. They tried a couple of actions and were caught in the act and the group had disbanded by 1978

The last two years of the decade were marked with the reality bite of the lack of social support and the relations with basque counterparts. Some favored EIA and others HASI, with all it meant.

By that time I had lost any interest in them, but I've heard they still exists, and once i saw its webpage. --Wllacer 09:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wllacer, thanks for the info. This could be used as a starting point to improve ca:PSAN and then a future English version. Toniher 10:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussed source

I have tagged the table with the evolution of support for independence per [WP:OR] concerns because it is extracted from a personal page (secondary at best, if not tertiary, source) which supports Catalan independentism (added [WP:POV] concern).

I paid a quick look at it and I remember, for example, that the percentages were in some cases calculated by the person in charge of the blog. While not necessarily having to be wrong, given the non compliant nature of this source with NPOV, the safest is to tag them until a better, academic, source is found.

This said, please note that I am assuming good faith from this table; that is why I am not removing it, just tagging it. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the diagram is wrong. The correct one is http://www.icps.cat/sondeigs.asp (that is, an official Spanish institution). Look arround page 100 of the pdf's for every year Marc B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.136.166 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this hasnt been properly understood. The ICPS source is fine. But there is a secondary source (which is a personal page supporting Catalan independentism, by any means compliant with NPOV) which is the one actually summarizing the original (and valid) source. Since the original source is valid, I won't ask for this graph removal, but, all the same, since the secondary source (the personal blog) is the one summarizing and elaborating the primary data, an WP:OR still remains. In other words, to remove the OR concern, it would be needed the ICPS itself (or any other given scholarly institution) to be the one elaborating the graph, not a likely to be biased individual. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 11:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The graph is made from ICPS data, anyone can check the pages and do their own ones. Is this a problem if a reference is given? Do you want to follow the same behaviour with all the charts in Wikipedia which are not made by official institutions (usually, sadly not by-sa or GFDL) but using official data? --Toniher (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This: do you want to follow the same behaviour with all the charts in Wikipedia which are not made by official institutions (usually, sadly not by-sa or GFDL) but using official data? is not replying any of the concerns expressed above.
and this The graph is made from ICPS data is something which I do not discuss (that is why, once again, I am not removing the table, only tagging it properly). Yes, this anyone can check the pages and do their own ones is true, the problem is when this anyone is working on a loooong series of data which no one will bother to re-check and that "anyone" happens to be a Catalan independentist making a graph on Catalan independentism.
Toniher, not really related to this, but generally speaking, it would be interesting for you to sit and re-think your action in wikipedia, because it seems like your militant (en Català, not in English) nature could be narrowing your perception of things. While it is true and good that different point of views are reflected, when some point of views go beyond fairnesss, then it is quite troublesome and can end up being disruptive. Don't lose sight of this being English wikipedia, which is a quite different environment than, say, Catalan wikipedia. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Please Mountolive, avoid any patronizing attitude. We know each other rather enough, and anyone can easily check our own contributions. I personally do not have any problem to show who I really am, so anyone who wants to discuss openly and fairly about any topic, can freely do it with me. If I want to be 'militant' I use other places rather than Wikipedia (no matter which language). However, this does not mean to stay quiet and still and I will not. I'm correcting the links, what you are reverting refers to CIS not ICPS (which it's the correct reference), you should also read as well. By the way, for finding the data, you should only open the different PDF per year, copy the relevant text numbers (search "Independència") and note them down in a spreasheet. I do not think it's so difficult, but do not hesitate to ask for help. --Toniher (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


In my opinion, it is not the best option to have a self-proclaimed Catalan independentist to elaborate the relative graph on Catalan independentism. It's a matter of NPOV and, if you may, even a matter of style.

SO you expect the catalan independence cause article is written only by non-independentist people, which aren´t obviously biased? We should value each and every contribution, specially those that refer to facts.

How do we know that he hasnt rounded up data? who is controlling that he's been perfectly true to the data he has summarized? No one will bother to do so (at least I won't). I think these are legitimate concerns which should be covered by the OR tag.

In contrast, I have no problem to admit the value of the table and that it could surpass the concerns associated to it. Therefore I won't insist on this tag for the time being.


Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:No soc espanyol.jpg

Image:No soc espanyol.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polls

I was surprised about the last edition in the article where it is stated that according to last polls the support to independence by Catalans is no more that one fifth of the population. Well, I am not sure that estimation is accurate for two reasons: (1) it is referred to an article in The Economist where, as far as I can see, no source for such a poll is cited, and (2) according to other sources the estimation is much higher [2]. In fact, higher estimations are even referred afterwards in the article, which makes it inconsistent. We should find a better wording and sourcing about that particular issue.--Carles Noguera (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is outdated claim.

Hi Carles.
I was expecting you here, and here you are, promptly ;)
Well, for me The Economist is the best magazine in the world (dense, but truly commendable, if you wanted my advice). These guys dont take things lightly, really. In any case, if I had to choose between The Economist and the Centre d'Estudis Soberanistes, which "makes a detailed analysis of polls over the last 18 years and infers conclusions", well... Mountolive le déluge 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't disappoint you on such interesting issues! ;) Well, I am not doubting the quality of The Economist, sure. But, anyway, you will agree with me that that we should be accurate in the article and refer directly to actual polls, shouldn't we? Maybe a good neutral way would be something like: "The support to the idea of independence among Catalan population differs depending on the poll, ranging from x% (reference to actual poll) to y% (reference to actual poll)". What do you think? --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do understand your concern and I am open to rewording. This said, I will not accept the CES as a reliable third party source for the obvious reasons (this source wears its sin in its very name like a feathered hat). About the other source which is seen at the graphic, I have no fundamental objections.
However, there is also an issue even with this other source. In the historic series they point out a peak of 45% support for independence. Sorry, but I am not buying that. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the poll is biased, but the answers are. I never felt such an independentist efervescence in Catalonia, did you? If that was true and 45% of the population was really for independence, then the political climate would have been other. Truth is that, nowadays, independence is not even a real issue but rather other manoeuvering via Estatut, whatever; maybe this is pointing out to the same result, but it is not explictly independentist nor is perceived like that. So, in all fairness, you may agree with me in that quoting 45% of the population supporting independence is quite a biased picture of everyday life in Catalonia in the 2000s.
All in all, I'd suggest something along "Recently, polling evidence suggests that no more than a fifth of Catalans adhere consistently to the idea of independence. Other polling sources quoted by the early 2000s a stable loose support of some 35% of the population, with higher peaks depending on the political situation".
As for the "loose" word, what I mean is that, since independence is no real short term realistic prospect, their support can only be quoted as loose. In the event of a real independentist referendum at sight, then we would get the real support for this cause, but not now.
What do you think?
P.s. It is actually good to feel your panca breathing in the back of my neck, otherwise I could feel the tempation of getting naughty :D
Hi again! Sorry for the delay, some flu got me almost completely out of work in the last few days. The truth is that I didn't know much about the issue of properly estimating the support to independence in Catalonia, but it is certainly an interesting topic that deserves a careful treatment in this article. I have taken a look at some sources before daring to reply and... well, I still would like some wording as the one I proposed above but I am realizing that it is difficult because it seems to be more complex than that. As far as I can see there are only three independent sources that regularly perform some polls including, among others, the issue of possible Catalan political independence: (1) Centro de Investigaciones Sociales (CIS) which belongs to the Spanish government, (2) Social and Political Sciencies Institute of Barcelona (ICPS) belonging to the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Diputation of Barcelona, (3) Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, depending on the Economy Department of the Generalitat of Catalonia (look at question number 28 in this recent poll: [3]). The (non-up-to-date) figure included in the article is based on the data provided by the second one. Then we have the recent study by the Centre d'Estudis Sobiranistes I already mentioned, which is not really a poll but a study based on the results of many different kinds of polls with some question related to the independence issue. I agree that it is not an independent polling source (but still could deserve some citation with the proper context). Finally there is The Economist article which loosely mentions some 20% support without any hint on the origin of such estimation. So, to be rigorous, I would be very careful in mentioning that source if are not able to identify where the estimation comes from (maybe from the CIS?).
My proposal: since the issue is complex (there are several different kinds of polls, doing related but not identic questions), I would carefully explain and cite all the stuff I have mentioned. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the Economist source is too blunt for your point of view. I can accept that (I have my own point of view, so my 'POV' comment is not meant to be scornful whatsoever, dont get me wrong!). Indeed, there are a series of different polls (it is helpful that you summarized them down to three) so we have to be cautious when using them, especially because they seem to be giving different results.
The subject of results not being consistent adds to my point regarding the subject of independence not being a really hot topic in Catalonia currently. I mean, the prospect of independence is not at sight at this point, is it?. That would explain not only the incoherent results among polls, but also the 14% of people indifferent to the question at the last ICPS available poll. I mean, if the question of independence was a real prospect, I bet that that 14% of menfotistes would at least be halved, dont you think? Therefore, as you said, we should treat these polls with lots of precautions.
All in all, probably the fairest would be to take this contentious point out of the lead, open its own small section just pointing out that there are a series of polls which oscillate greatly between roughly 20% of support up to roughly 30%. Is that an option?
Flu can be transmitted over wikipedia? it must be a side effect of independentism :P Mountolive le déluge 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. I buy that proposal. So we remove it from the lead and create a section where we can refer to all existing polls. I also agree with your analysis of the situation: not being a hot topic in the everyday discussion among the majority of population makes it hard to measure.
About contagious stuff over wikipedia... I hope flu is not yet another one (we wikipedians are already contagiating each other many insane habits over here... :P). And it's funny that you tag me as independentist... Maybe some day I will explain you privately how it feels to have a non standard approach to such a topic which is really not supported by any party nowadays... But who cares about my own ideas! We have an article here to be reworked. --Carles Noguera (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for the I tag. Not really meant. I am the first to admit that I have a weird sense of humour, which, too often, is not funny, for it loses whatever fun it could have here in wikipedia and in written. My appologies. I understand you very well when you dont feel represented by either standard view, for I have the same feelings. I guess our views are too ecclectic to be summarized by a single political option. The bad part of it is that in wikipedia we feel dragged down to defend what, otherwise, is not really our personal belief. That certainly is a side effect of wikipedia. Again, my apologies if you didnt find it funny at all. I guess I've gone a bit too far. Sorry. By the way, I am willing to hear your personal views anytime you wish (and you have time) and then I could make you endure my own personal views regarding blaveros, pancas and other sweet creatures :)
So, if you feel like my proposal is ok, then, please, go ahead and put it in your own words. We will certainly work out something palatable like we've done before.
I have found some valuable tables and sources summarizing the polls in Catalan wikipedia, which I have added to the article. Please, make all the corrections, additions, nuances, etc that you might consider necessary. I know that in the discussion above we were talking about a small section just giving a rough approximation of average results, but I thought it would be more neutral to just give the raw available data instead. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that raw data is definitely the best option. I have made some tweaks, basically, salvaging The Economist source, cut-pasting a paragraph to relocate it in a more proper section, removing the outdated graph and some remarks which I think are worth noting. Your turn, please :) Mountolive fedeli alla linea 02:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

tables

just to reduce their lenght, do you think trimming the tables would be a good idea? for example, in the ICPS series, we could use data from every 5 years rather than year by year. Then we would have results from the years 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007. We could do something similar to the other table and get rid of some months.

The idea is just to make the whole thing more appealing to the eye and readable. Mountolive fedeli alla linea 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving away from "separatism"

Separatism is a pejorative term, and should not be used in an article such as this. It is unfortunately all too common in the press, although it is clearly a biased name for it.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm about seven years too late to this discussion, but, even accepting that "separatism" is perjorative per se, there is no actual reason why a non-perjorative title has to be chosen. The wiki rule is to chose a common name regardless of whether it has negative connotations. There is no way to talk about the Brighton hotel bombing that doesn't sound bad, because it was bad. Now, as luck would have it, "Catalan independence" is almost as commonly used as "Catalan separatism" and avoided the edit-warring that using "separatism" would have caused, so it was chosen, but had it not been available "separatism" would have been the obvious choice. Euqally, there is no reason why "separatism" should be banned from this page. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest to revise some of the things that had been writing down below the polls of people supporting the independence of Catalonia and people being agains it.

Just down below the last poll where you read that the last poll is 45% and 32% you can read that 51% of people in Catalonia is against independence?

Could you clear more that?

Carlos Manrique Pérez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.14.241 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


Factual Errors

I went to the source number [22] sand the figures there do not match the ones stated in the article. Page 109 of document [4] states that instead of

2011[22] 41.4 22.9 26.5 9.2

should be

2011[22] 43.7 25.1 22.3 8.9

Morover I agree with the problem pointed out by Carlos Manrique Pérez. The Figure of 51% refers to one poll of 2007, and the independence option in Catalonia has been changing in these last years (check the tables to see Pro has increased, Against has decreased and Abstain or Undecided has gown). How should I proceed? I can change the wrong figures and rephrase the sentence go 51% to a sentence that explain this rapid changes from 2007 to 2011. Enric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enric) [26/01/2011] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Catalan nationalism and Catalan independentism

What is the difference (if any) between this article and the Catalan nationalism article? If none, can the two articles be merged? Gfcvoice (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Catalan nationalists needn't be supporters of the independence of Catalonia. Simplifying a bit, those in favor of the independence are a subset of Catalan nationalists. Jotamar (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Independentism"? Dat Title

"Independentism"? This does not really sound like an English word - we normally simply say "Catalan independence". See Scottish independence, Welsh independence, Taiwan independence, etc. Do a Google search for "independentism" and it comes back to this page - the newspapers, academia etc. all use the phrase "Catalan independence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone got a problem with changing it to "Catalan Independence?" FOARP (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The change of title has already been made, and later reverted. I'm aware that the word independentism sounds strange to English speakers. A more exact title could be Catalan Independence Movement. Jotamar (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • At the moment the only difference I can see between this page and the Catalan nationalist page is that one addresses autonomy and independence whilst the other addresses only independence, however, thus far there does not appear to be any consensus on combining the page. I can see no reason to use a non-English word in the title, however, nor has anyone raised an objection to changing the title. The only posters have been in support. Let's see what happens FOARP (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Catalan independentism → Catalan independence –

"Independentism" is not an English word, and is not the word commonly used to describe support for independence for Catalonia or the Catalan countries. Instead, Catalan independence or separatism is the commonly used term.

Here's the Google News hits:

"Catan Independentism" - 1 hit (a blog written by a Spanish-speaker)

"Catalan Independence" - 4,420 hits including major outlets

"Catalan Separatism" - 5,530 hits including major outlets

Clearly this page needs a new title which reflects proper English usage - independence or separatist both appear viable candidates. "Separatist" has been suggested and rejected several times, so if it is not acceptible, I suggest Catalan independence, similar to Welsh independence, Scottish independence and Taiwan independence. FOARP (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As already stated in this talk page, separatism is not a neutral word, or at least the translations of that word are politically loaded in Spain. Jotamar (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to either Catalan independence movement or Catalan separatism. To me, neither sounds biased. Catalan independence, however, sounds like a done deal so I prefer one of the former two: the first if it is Jotamar's preference. But any of the three would be an improvement on the ugly independentism. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I only see one user (plus another in the RM) objecting to separatism, which seems more accurate and not necessarily pejorative. (Its connotations in Spanish are an issue for other language Wikipedias.) Catalan independence would probably be an improvement over the current title, but "Fooian independence" still looks really awkward to me, even in its current uses. I would prefer Catalan separatism, in line with usage in English-language sources. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This is admittedly a WAXy point, but what about all the other "XY independence" articles cited in the request? Should they all be moved to "XY separatism" as well? If not, why not? Wouldn't a move to Catalan separatism beg that question? --87.79.208.25 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the case. I see from a quick Google search, for example, that "Scottish independence" is far more common than "Scottish separatism," so I probably wouldn't support that move. Perhaps the word choice reflects a bias in sources, but that's generally not our problem; see WP:POVTITLE. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. But isn't it a bit ironic though, that we'd use that term although its usage in English sources is very likely due to the term used in Spanish (i.e. possibly less than neutral) sources? Feels a bit like second-hand POV, for want of a better word. --87.79.208.25 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - current title is an urgent rename, and wikt:separatism is a different thing.Note nom had capital I and small i conflicting in header when I first supported, I see now that proposal is for "i" and have changed template header to be consistent with actual nom text. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2012 (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.

Wrong picture

The picture whose description says Catalonia is not Spain tagged on a wall in the suburbs of Madrid is not right. It makes nonsense being near Madrid. According to the picture's description itself in Commons, it is taken in Catalonia. The text must be Catalonia is not Spain tagged on a wall in Catalonia, for instance. Enric.enwiki (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jotamar (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the neutral point of view concern?

Maybe I'm just blind but I don't seem to see the relevant discussion on what's not neutral about this article. I could see why this article would be controversial but isn't it necessary for those with NPOV concerns to talk about it in the talk section? --69.126.210.25 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. --88.2.25.229 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes people place the tag on articles just because the article doesn't contain the information they want to know, and instead has content that they find "inconvenient" or offensive. I think if someone has just put the tag there but hasn't mentioned what their concerns are, then they aren't really interested much in getting it fixed, they just want to protest. You can probably remove it. CodeCat (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Given these comments and the absence of a stated concern, I have detagged. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I think this article should be renamed "Catalan independentism" because it is about the political movement, not about a hypothetical future independence of this territory. In addition that is the term used in both the Catalan-language and Spanish-language wikipedias. However the article with that title already exists, which makes the move technically complicated. I would therefore like to make sure that nobody objects to the move before requesting it. --Hispalois (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It was already moved a year ago. If you want to move it back, you should get consensus from the people involved in the earlier move first. CodeCat (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Native speakers have repeatedly stated that the word independentism makes no sense in English, and I guess they must be right. --Jotamar (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, let me reply to your two comments separately:
CodeCat, I opened this discussion precisely to get consensus. I see that you have reverted my change to the first sentence of the article, and that's fine because I agree we should get consensus first. That said, could you please explain why you have reverted all my other edits?
To Jotamar: That argument is interesting. It is true that the word doesn't appear in the English dictionaries I have checked, except as the name of certain church. However I have found examples of its use in several academic works written by scholars who presumably had English as their mother tongue:
And there are numerous examples of recent academic publications by authors with other mother tongues but published in English-language circles who use the term "independentism" in its political sense as well:
Therefore I still think that the article should be renamed "Catalan independentism". --Hispalois (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Eleven days have passed since my comment above, without any reply. Should I take that as consensus? Should I invite specific user(s) to participate? Please advise. --Hispalois (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
No, because there's still the previous move. The discussion is above. Have you read it? CodeCat (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep the discussion open then. I think that I have shown that the term "independentism" is indeed used in English-speaking academic circles and should therefore be acceptable as an article title. As a second choice I would concur with one of the proposals of the previous discussion: "Catalan independence movement" because the article, as it is written now, describes this political movement and that is also the name of the Category:Catalan independence movement‎. Those editors who suggested "Catalan independence" based on the parallel with "Scottish independence" failed to notice that the latter article is about the "political aim", not only about the movement that supports it; in it, both positions for and against Scottish independence are equally discussed. --Hispalois (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not change the result of the previous move without a new consensus. Regarding the four references you provide, these are all obscure works and do not counter the wide-spread use of the term Catalan Independence discussed in the previous move. Two of the works you cite do not appear to be written by native English speakers based simply on their names (Dukagjin Gorani and André Fazi) the other two are more than 60 years old and appear to discuss the Independent Party (a party that operated in the Southern United States). None of them addresses the present situation in Catalonia. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Referendum November 9 2014 and political analysis

November 9 the Catalans are voting in a referendum about the EU; while Spain is tired of rightwing conservatives AND the old left wing, they seem to go towards new leftwing party Podemos. Meanwhile, Catalunia will be more rightwing conservative if it will be independent. This is the general opinion in the streets of Tarragona and Barcelona.Basvossen (talk)BasvossenBasvossen (talk)

9N was a vote on independence, not about the EU... :D 31.148.194.52 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Only one side viewpoint

The reason for not NPOV compliance: it would be appropriate to include Against-independence public figures, as it is also a significant viewpoint (see WP:DUE)). It is also easy to find references for against-independece catalan public figures. Otherwise, only one side receives attention and creates a partial, therefore not neutral, point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.69.83 (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Polls

Have there really been so few recent polls? Do only the CEO and CIS do regular polls on this subject?

The polling section has a lot of very old polls, I think it could do with being trimmed and made concise, like for example the [[5]] article (and even that section could be trimmed a bit) - 95.44.48.43 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The topic is quite complex. Some newspapers do some polls but not regularly. Furthermore, they change the questions and possible answers trying to get up to date and cover different perspectives of the complexity of the topic. As an example, you can see one of the latest polls by a newspaper here [6]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.95.223 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The article linked first on Scottish Independence is the correct format to follow. There, there are various different polls and polling organisations all put together in a single, easy to read table, giving an overall view of the public support for independence. It is also easier to update. You can then have a second subsection for questions that give more than two options. The topic of Independence for Catalunya is not more complex than the topic of Independence for Scotland. The article you linked was not a poll on independence, it was a poll on the political situation in CA vis a vis CA's relations with Spain. We can start with the last 20 polls and then add them as they come out, I urge anyone with more time than me to get started on this. I will do it soon if I get a chance. - 86.45.31.80 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catalan_independence_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1145678534"