Talk:Catalonia/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Extremely embarrassing for wikipedia

This article referring to Catalonia as "a disputed territory" not saying it is part of Spain is calling into question the reliability of the entire wikipedia project in English. Regular regional elections are being held in December, secessionist parties are participating (i.e. they recognize they are part of Spain), the declaration of independence (if one can call it that) was voted and signed anonymously to avoid criminal prosecution and half the government promptly left the country. No control of territory, no international recognition. Please wikipedia admins, be more firm with lala-land political activists. It damages the entire project. Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It would help if both Spanish and Catalonian nationalist would refrain from grand claims about what damages Wikipedia. In addition it would help if we stop making inferences about who recognises what without providing reliable, neutral secondary sources (and I do realise it is probably too early for any of those to even exist). Until the deposed government of Catalonia explicitly say they accept Spanish intervention; or until we have not heard from them for a sizable amount of time (as in multiple months), or until majority independent (as in non Spanish and non Catalonian) secondary, preferably academic sources provide a clear interpretation of the situation - we simply do not know what their final position is. As I and many other editors said above, let's calm down and wait until it is clear what happens next. Arnoutf (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Arnoutf: That is a sloppy statement. Plenty of sources exist, we are talking about an EU country not an obscure war in central Africa. You cannot assume your own lack of knowledge is shared by the rest of the world. Both ERC and PdC have explicitly said they will participate in the elections. Catalan democratic institutions and Carme Forcadell speaker of parliament have accepted the dissolution of parliament and new elections. What is more, their MPs are still in the national Spanish parliament and have stated they have no intention to resign. It just takes a little bit of research. Its not about nationalism its about getting facts straight. And Wikipedia directly contradicting reality IS embarrassing.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If so many reliable, neutral, secondary sources do indeed exist; why were they not mentioned when embarrassment was posited. If anything making such a grand claim requires very strong backing, or be considered extremely sloppy indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The declaration of independence by the parliament of Catalonia is a very relevant event and should be included in the lead, but the current wording violates WP:NPOV for various reasons. According to the policy:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

A large majority of the sources do confirm that it is still part of Spain. This is shared by official statements by all nations and supranational bodies (please see Declaration_of_Independence_of_Catalonia#International_reactions). Giving the same weight to both views and not mentioning the fact of the total lack of recognition in the lead, violates NPOV. I can provide sources if you need, but you can search by yourself with a quick news search in Google.

The other major problem is that the very controversial "disputed territory" claim is original research the cited WP:RS used as reference states only that the Catalan Parliament declared independence. Nowhere in the article does it mention "disputed territory" or the repercussions of such declaration. We must write what the sources say and not what we think they say. If there are sources that state directly that Catalonia is a "disputed territory" they should be added to the article with proper attribution. If not the term "disputed territory" must be removed as it violates WP:OR. Additionally, there are plenty of sources that I can provide that show that the local police is under the central government, that the Parliament flies the Spanish flag etc.

After eliminating "disputed territory" the wording to include the declaration of independence could be based on es:Cataluña or on the suggestions made by WakiWiki on section "Restore normality on the article" above. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

'I agree. Whole Catalan Republic thing in Wikipedia is more like a fiction by some fans. It reminds me myself, when I was a kid I fought wars, created and conquered states in a front of map of Europe of Napoleonic wars time.--SubRE (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Another relevant information missing that goes on the same line is that Puigdemont himself just declared that his political party will participate in the Spanish regional elections for Catalonia called by the central government and that they will respect its results (see here). The lead needs to state the fact that Catalonia is a Spanish autonomous region along with the claim of independence the "disputed territory" claim is not only WP:OR, it makes no sense. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to point out that no real drama is going on over at Catalan Republic (2017). The WP:RS sources are in the lead, and they describe a Catalonia government takeover by Madrid with "little resistance". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is indeed living in an alternate reality

Just a quick look at some of the main global news sources (all in English) shows it. In all of them, Carles Puigdemont is referred to as the "ousted", "sacked", "deposed" Catalan leader. So, Wikipedia insists on ignoring that 1) Mr. Puigdemont has been deposed by the central Spanish government; 2) the Catalan parliament has been dissolved and new parliamentary regional elections have been called by the Spanish Government for December; 3) even the pro-independent parties have announced that they will run for those regional elections; 4) Mr. Puigdemont has fled to Brussels, arguing that the official investigation brought against him by the Spanish Attorney General is unfair. Let's hope the page administrators will in some point add all those facts to the page. Sources:

• BBC (UK): "Catalan independence: Sacked leader Puigdemont 'not seeking asylum'"
• The Guardian (UK) : "Catalonia's ex-president Puigdemont: I'm not in Belgium to seek asylum"
• Independent (UK): "Ousted regional president denies he is seeking asylum in Brussels"
• Reuters (UK): "Ousted Catalan leader accepts new election, says 'long road' to independence"
• CNN (USA): "Deposed Catalan leader 'not seeking asylum in Belgium'"
• Fox News (USA): "Ousted Catalan leader says he is not seeking political asylum, supports snap election"
• ABC News (USA): "Catalonia's ousted regional president said Tuesday he traveled to Brussels to seek 'freedom and safety'"
• France24 (France): "Sacked Catalan leader Puigdemont 'will respect results' of regional December vote"

References

Mad Tarjan (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The alternate reality is that of 48 hrs ago. We should take into account that Wikipedia is not a newpspaerWP:NOTNEWS. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but Mr. Carles Puigdemont and his secretaries were sacked (and new elections were called) by the Spanish Government last Friday, that is, four days ago, not 48 hours ago. BTW, the dismissal of the Catalan government and the calling for new regional elections happened in the same day in which they unilaterally declared the independence. Nevertheless, the latter information is in the article, but the former are not. And since then, many editors are pointing this out here in the talk page, there's no dispute about that, but, since the article is protected, it continues showing incorrect information. Mad Tarjan (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For as long as Catalonia was disputed territory, we couldn't just take Spanish side. So far, Spain has not given a single reason why Catalonia should be part of Spain other than the Spanish constitution claiming Spain is inseparable. However, obviously, Spain cannot oppress their laws on foreign nations, neither can they sack a foreign government. If we were to just take the position of the Spanish government while Catalonia disagrees, we might as well start editing Gibraltar, as Spain claims that to be their own too, and Spain after all is inseparable. It's a miracle they haven't sacked the Gibraltar government yet. Or the Portuguese, because after all, if we would just take Spain's word for it and let them live by their constitution alone, they can just claim any country to be their own, and let them sack that country's government for not acknowledging Spain's unity. In other words: Spain has no valid reason to just claim a territory theirs if that territory claims independence. Catalonia is a disputed territory until there is consensus between the Spanish and Catalonian government. PPP (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Arnoutf: The "disputed territory" was WP:OR 48 hrs ago as well as now, since the source did not mention such a term. It merely stated that there was a declaration of independence. Current wording violates NPOV as it gives the same weight to both versions and most sources as well as nations and supra-national bodies still consider Catalonia a region of Spain despite de declaration of independence. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here since we are not talking about including all those details on the lead, but rather eliminating the unsourced claim. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The major issue with the "disputed territory" claim has been fixed by Vanjagenije who has restored a previous version adding a phrase about the declaration of independence by the Generalitat. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing still is Spain's imposition of direct rule over Catalonia following the unilateral declaration of independence. Coldcreation (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not missing. It is mentioned in the "Independence movement (2014–present)" section. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong content

Your page on Catalonia contains factually wrong content (e.g., Puigdemont is no longer president, and it is also not an independent country). Sound like political propaganda to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.233.134 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Part of the problem is in the first paragraph of the lead, which states: ...the Generalitat de Catalunya views it as an independent republic following a unilateral declaration of independence from Spain on 27 October 2017. It should be mentioned in the lead (as it does further in the article) that the Spanish parliament has approved direct rule over the region, following the declaration of independence. (As stated in the source). Coldcreation (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the way the lead reads now, it would appear Catalonia is an independent State. This is misleading to say the least. And, it appears Catalan is a "nationality" by its Statute of Autonomy (also in the first paragraph). Both points should be addressed. Coldcreation (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: it's solved now! --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: It does not appear to be solved. The first paragraph of the lead needs to end with something like: Following the declaration of independence, the Spanish parliament imposed direct rule over the region. (As stated in the source). Coldcreation (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. I agree, you are right. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Suspended" should be added to the infobox

Right now the autonomy of Catalonia is suspended by Spain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: it was intervened, not suspended. Not actually the same thing. Impru20 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Impru20 is correct, the Autonomy is still in effect, the central government has temporarily replaced some of its key figures until the 21 December regional elections. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Government info is wrong

In the Info box on the right were it says the Government type, the description of the Spanish Government (Congress and Senate) is detailed. Instead there should be info about Parliament of Catalonia 135 Seats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masohe (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but you are locked, so how can it be corrected? 220.245.138.58 (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Goverment info

In the infobox on the right, the Government info is wrong. There appears the info of Spain (congress and senate). Instead there should be the Parliament of Catalonia info: 135 seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.151.103 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia has now declared independence

I think the editors should refrain themselves from constantly changing these articles. The declaration of independence has been passed with half the members of the Catalan Parlament absent. This was caused to the voting being illegal not only under Spanish law, but also under Catalonian procedure. The declaration of independence has been proclaimed by three political parties that do not represent the people of Catalonia. Thus, the absence of international recognition.

Catalonian Parliament has no power to declare the independence of the region, as the Spanish Constitutional Court has stated repeteadly. The day I declare the independence of London, will London be independent?

shouldnt the map of spain show catalonia in a ligher colour to show the ambiguousness of its status as part of spain?

No. I think an analogous article could be created though, such as Catalan Republic (1931), Catalan State (1934) and so on. But this article is centered on the region and (still) autonomous community of Catalonia, as Spanish law are still into force. Impru20 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmm when you look up Spain it doesn't come up Kingdom of Spain, why would the same go for independent Catalonia? AHC300 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You surely haven't seen the Spain article, right? "Kingdom of Spain" is clearly stated in both the lead and the infobox (but "Spain" is used in the article title as per WP:COMMONNAME). This article refers to the geographical region of Catalonia. As an example, check Crimea as opposed to Republic of Crimea or even Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Impru20 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So should we make this article about the geographic region, then have 2 separate articles for the Autonomous Community and the Republic? Ethanmayersweet (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe we should wait until seeing what happens. If Article 155 is enforced in full, independence may be short-lived and merely symbolic, and there would be no need for a separate article for the autonomous community. If it eventually turned into a full-fledged state (even if unrecognized), then something like what is done for Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija could be worked out. But then, I suggest for us to wait and see; Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we are not in a hurry to do it before seeing what the actual outcome is. Impru20 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd support showing Catalonia as a republic in the article, but heavily noting that this status is disputed. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Catalonia has declared independence, perhaps we can do as EthanMayer suggested? This seems to make sense. It recognizes that the event occurred, but also recognized that international recognition has not occurred - or had time to occur yet for that matter. Then we will hopefully not have to make too abrupt of changes as further events unfold, whatever they may be. MarkJerue (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the current proposal of showing Catalonia as a disputed territory and mentioning that parliament voted for independence on 27 October 2017 is fine for now. However, once Article 155 is enforced, what should we do? Impru20 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can then give treatment to the article per what we have set up on the Crimea page, Western Sahara page, or any of the other pages involving disputed territory? Although if this independence movement is scrapped, then we would have to rework the page more. I suspect the experience on this page will be helpful in the coming hours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation MarkJerue (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Other editors, what are your thoughts? It seems based purely on WP:N(E) we should list this event somewhere on this page as, regardless of outcome, it will be mentioned in "History of Catalonia" textbooks and essays in the coming years. We need opinions before we see Crimea-esque edits coming onto this page. MarkJerue (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We can say that the Catalan Parliament has approved a declaration by which they start to take steps towards the independence, which is not going to happen in any case. That's the most that can be said. From all points of view, Catalonia is a region of Spain.

Can someone edit this nonsense of disputed territory? Has anyone actually read what the Catalan Parliament has approved? https://www.scribd.com/document/362773786/Texto-de-la-Declaracion-de-Independencia They "start a process". So even if this was legal, which isn't from any point of view, they have not declared the independence. You just have to read.

Even if Catalonia were a republic (which is not yet), that flag is not official!! https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandera_de_Catalunya

I would say we balance both points of view and state that the status is different in different opinions.Tart (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For now, let's just agree that the issue of where Catalonia belongs is disputed. The Scribd doc above link states clearly "[w]e constitute the Catalan Republic as an independent state...". The passage of "start a process" refers to the writing of the constitution. I agree that we should leave out the flag issue for now.

The initial passage of the article and infobox needs to reflect that the Spanish central govt and the Catalan govt/parliament hold different views of the status of Catalonia. The map should be removed or changed, for now.

In a few days the situation will be more clear. As it is likely that we will have two contending authorities, the Catalan govt (claiming Catalonia as republic) and whatever authority is imposed from Madrid, we may opt to split the article in three, 1) on Catalonia as a historical/cultural region, 2) the Catalan Republic and 3) the autonomous community of Catalonia. --Soman (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

News sources are saying they have declared independence. Although this doesn't make it a solid fact, it shows that people are justified in editing the document to reflect that it's AT LEAST disputed or unrecognized. 209.160.129.5 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What a bunch of non sense on this article, obviously edited by politically motivated activists. The reality is that Catalonia is not a "disputed" territory but a region of Spain. And it is not being under "administration" of an "unrecognised Catalonian Republic" that simply does not exists. Separatists are a minority in Catalonia and most of the population didn't vote in the so called "referendum" because Spanish government declared it was illegal and ordered to abort it by the police. This article is denying reality when it claims a region of Spain is under "administration" of a non-existent Catalonian republic. I hope an admin come here to sort this out. Wikipedia is losing credibility by publishing claims like that.Charrua85 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with above commentator. Just because there is a dispute does not make the region a ‘disupted region’. Go by what is legal and what is factual. There was a disputed referendum but Catalonia is still part of Spain Historicalchild (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 60% of people voted, despite the violence and polling places closed by the Spanish Civil Guard. Approximately 15% of the votes cast were stolen by the Spanish piolice, leaving only 43% left. That is the 43% figure quotedc in the media. 60.242.34.100 (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Still wrong

There is no government in Catalonia until after 21 december elections. First para says "from the perspective of the government of Catalonia..." What government? They don't exist and have accepted direct rule and have accepted regional elections - both parties which compose government!Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing is awkward. The lead should acknowledge the perspective of the outgoing government, but shouldn't describe it in the present tense. Additionally the infobox should explicitly mention that autonomy is suspended and the position of President is vacant. There is no ongoing dispute on these facts, given that the former Catalan government has turned up to court in Madrid. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph should be restored as it was written before de October, 27. The facts of the last few days should be explained in another section of the article, as there is no one right now that sees the autonomous region as a Republic (well, the most fervous separatists, as always), and even the separatists will go to the elections of 21-D, accepting the fact that there is no catalan republic. Most of the government of Catalonia that declared the "republic" are now in jail, or are going to be in there. --Melkart4k (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Who changed everything to the Spanish government propaganda?

This article used to be quite even-handed, but is now very, very biased and does not portray a neutral point of view with regards to Catalonia.

The introductory section used to state the disputed status re independent republic vs part of Spain, but that has been removed, and there does not appear to be any mention of Catalonia's current status at all.

Has this article been re-written by Spanish propagandists? I say this as someone who is not Spanish or Catalan, and would like to see this article returned to a neutral point of view.

Also, in the "Independence movement (2014–present)" section well into the article, it states that the turnout was only 43%, whereas the turnout was actually 60%, but 770,000 votes (approximately 15% of the potential votes) were cast but seized from polling booths as entire ballot boxes by the Spanish police sent into Catalonia.

Since this article is locked, can someone with administrator privileges please revert the intro section to the way it was and amend the 43% turnout figure?

Thank you kindly. Violet 220.245.138.58 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article looks neutral to me, compared with earlier versions. Coldcreation (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a very Spanish view of "neutral" - eg. 100% reflecting the Spanish side (such as this article now), which is in fact the exact *opposite* of neutral. 60.242.34.100 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

220.245.138.58 please review the discussions to see how and why the article has evolved. About the 770,000 votes you are mistaken, that is the total number of registered voters from schools that were closed not people that voted. Reliable sources do state that fact. 770.000 would assume a 100% turnout of those voters and that in any case since there was universal census they could vote without any problem in any of the other open schools (there is no real reason to assume that most did not). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that is the ballot boxes that were seized by the Spanish Civil Guard that were sent into Catalonia. There certainly were issues regarding people not being able to vote, but that is a separate matter. The 770,000 votes refers to votes that were cast, the voters had their names crossed off and left the polling places, then the Spanish Civil Guard came in (such as the footage we've seen where they are smashing down the doors to the polling places) and seized the ballot boxes, taking them away, never to be seen again. This makes approximately 60% of all possible voters that did vote, but only 43% had their votes counted. Then there were others that were unable to vote (such as all the people we saw getting beaten up by the Spanish Civil Guard) or who were too afraid to vote. 60.242.34.100 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Then we should also mention the people voting 4 or 5 times and the ballet boxes found full before they even reached the polling booth, right? No credible source backs your statement. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That did not happen. You should please provide evidence for your Spanish nationalist propaganda, sonrisas.

60.242.34.100 You are clearly mistaken you are free to provide reliable sources. In this source: El Govern anuncia un 90% de 'síes' entre las 2.262.424 papeletas contadas y asegura haber escrutado el 100,88% de votos (and many more like it) you can clearly see that the 770.000 are census for the closed voting centers and not votes (includes a tweet from the pro-independence Catalan government stating just that). All those people could have voted at any of the many other voting center thanks to the last minute change that allowed universal census. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Asked and granted - they are provided below. The article should be changed back. 220.245.138.58 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Could we please deal with facts, and not propaganda, please? The 770,000 votes (just less than 15% of all possible votes) were cast, and then sezed by the Civil Guard (the paramilitary police force sent to Catalonia from Spain, who were the ones who were beating up all the voters in the footage on the news, which the Spanish foreign ministers claimed was "fake news", even though foreign journalists filmed it. It's all over the internet, though I admit that the wikipedia page about the referendum says that people were just turned away, the votes were cast, those people went home, and the votes were seized, so those voters were disengranchised, without even knowing that their votes were not cast. Here is just a few article that a simple interner search reveal (and these are third-party, non-partisan sources, not the Spanish nationalist sources used in the arguments above).

"...while 770,000 ballots are said to have been lost in police raids" [1]

"The regional government spokesman, Jordi Turull, said 15,000 votes were still due to be counted and that total voting figures remain incomplete and provisional because a much larger number, an estimated 770,000, are either inaccessible or lost after some polling stations were closed and ballot boxes were seized by police..."[2]

"The officials said another 770,000 votes could not be counted because ballot boxes were seized". [3]

"According to the Catalan government, 2.3 million of Catalonia’s 5.3 million registered voters cast a ballot in the referendum on 1 October. A full count has been complicated by the fact that 770,000 votes were lost because of the police disruption". [4]

220.245.138.58 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a clear example of manipulation of information. I gave you a reliable source (El Govern anuncia un 90% de 'síes' entre las 2.262.424 papeletas contadas y asegura haber escrutado el 100,88% de votos) that without a doubt states by the now deposed Catalan government themselves (it even shows in their official Twitter account ) states clearly that the figure refers to the census of the closed voting centers, not seized ballots. It had minimum impact since people could vote anywhere and there was no real control as shown by pictures of people voting in multiple voting centers as well as children and foreigners voting etc...

Paramilitary police beating all the voters is also another clear case of misinformation. Calling the civil guard paramilitary is deeply biased, and saying that they beat all the voters is also false. National police and civil guard tried to carry out a court order to confiscate the voting material for the illegal referendum. Violence started because people blocked their access to carry out those orders, not because they were voting.

In less than a month a real regional election will take place on 21 December. Independentists as well as other political parties will participate with real census etc. We will be able to draw better conclusions then, but polls show that the independentists are still nothing more and nothing less than a very large minority. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this source you mentioned includes that same tweet where you can clearly read in Catalan "770.000 censats a col·legis clausurats" 770.000 registered voters (census) in closed voting schools. They write it as votes in error as they were misinformed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That article CLEARLY states, and I quote, "... The officials said another 770,000 votes could not be counted because ballot boxes were seized". This was also backed up in the other articles listed. You appear to be a propagandist, but you have clearly been shown to be incorrect.220.245.138.58 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I said before that is obviously a mistake by that reporter as he actually included as source the image of the tweet that states that they are census numbers "770.000 censats other reliable sources I pointed out do clearly state that fact. For some reason you choose to ignore it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is so sad. Your propaganda here would be funny, if only it weren't so serious, Crystallizedcarbon et al. So, according to you, all the authors in all the posts shown to you above were wrong, and we must trust the Spanish articles - though the Spanish journalists themselves (not Catalan journalists, *Spanish* journalists from Madrid) protested against the rampant bias - up to and including outright lying and misrepresenting facts - of Spanish TV and print journalism on this issue.

You were provided with concrete examples of articles, all in English so you can't "translate for us", and each one from a different, respected English-language publication. But according to you, your Spanish propaganda press overrules them all. How very Spanish.

But hey, you lost the election anyway. And considering the outrageous behaviour of my beloved Spain towards the gentle Catalans and the indifference of the so-called democratic EE.UU., if I were a Catalan, I would have voted for the secessionists too. Maybe not a year ago, but since all this anti-democracy? You bet! 220.245.138.58 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not vote in Catalonia, so I did not loose any election, the winner was C's (against independence) 25.37% almost 4 percentage points over the second JxCat (of Puigdemont) with 21.65%. The sum of all three independentist parties does have majority of representatives, but the total percentage adding all three did not even reach 50% (47.49%) which is even less than in the last real elections. As far as the translation of the tweet that the English sources used as primary source, you can even check it in Google Translate for yourself [5] The fact that the English media wrote it as votes instead of census when the image of the Tweet says otherwise is a clear example on how media has been manipulated by the independentists. ¿Do you really still want for us to believe that 90% of Catalans want independence?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly that means that they voted and that the voting centre was subsequently closed. 770,000 voted registed as having been cast at polling booths that were then stormed by the Spanish Guard, and we all saw the footage of the Spanish Guard removed ballot boxes filled with votes, never to be counted or seen again. You are just plyaing with semantics. 220.245.138.58 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Registered voters is not the same as votes registered. Please read WP:NOFORUM. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Catalans in Spain are by definition Spanish so your comment on journalists makes no sense. Please avoid expressing your political in a way that doesn't help us build an article. I get it you hate Spain but that is not an attitude you should bring here. I have already removed one of your comments as it had nothing to say about the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That comment doesn't make any sense at all, and you should not be censoring peoples' comments here. Honestly, who do you people think you are? It is one thing to revert an edit to an article, but to delete or edit/remove some of someone's comments in this "Talk" section is unacceptable. Very clearly, you are bullies. And also, supporting the Catalan people and their government is not the same as "hating" Spain. The amount of anti-Catalan censorship on wikipedia is just shocking, and unacceptable. 115.186.200.46 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a false interpretation of Spanish Constitutional Court proceedings.

This is just false, and HAS TO BE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY by the credibility of Wikipedia in English:

"A (...) referendum (...) was declared illegal on 6 September 2017 and suspended by the Constitutional Court of Spain because it breached the 1978 Constitution."

FALSE.

It cannot be declared illegal BEFORE Constitutional Court pronounces officially about it. This, in fact, happened WEEKS later, in october 17th of 2017. The referendum was NOT illegal UNTIL THIS DAY, it was just SUSPENDED, so the legal implications of this ARE, in fact, VERY IMPORTANT: A suspended act, is just invalid, void. NOT ILLEGAL. I will repeat: NOT ILLEGAL.

In fact, the spanish media, and even spanish government, repeated this FALSE claim so many times before the celebration of the referendum (and this can be another subject to talk), but this does not affect the FACT that NO ACT LIKE THIS CAN BE DECLARED ILLEGAL, without the OFFICIAL declaration by the SPANISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT (CC). NEVER BEFORE. Because, obviously, the CC can decide in favor of its legality (or not).

The implications of this helps to understand why the violent spanish government actions against the celebration of that suspended referendum are so reprehensible: The Constitutional Court has not been decided YET, and until then, the referendum had just NO consequences in the spanish jurisdiction. So, spanish government decided to use heavy physical force against a simply void, (BUT NEVER ILLEGAL) act.

In this following news link, actual Madrid's Mayor, Manuela Carmena, says what I explained. She is in fact a Spanish Judge with many years of experience.

http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/09/13/carmena-el-constitucional-no-declara-ilegal-el-referendum-sino-que-lo-suspende_a_23207257/

And in the following links, the news (and date) of the REAL official declaration by Constitutional Court, AFTER (NOT BEFORE) the celebration of the referendum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catalonia-catalan-independence-referendum-spain-constitutional-court-void-a8004941.html

http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171017/tribunal-constitucional-declara-inconstitucional-ley-referendum-cataluna-6359087

SO, EDIT THAT, please :)

Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish Constitution clearly states that referendums may only be authorised by the Spanish Government (Article 149.1.32 of the Constitution). The referendum did not receive any such authorization, so it was illegal from the very moment it was called without such an authorization. I agree that what the Constitutional Court did on 6 September was to suspend the act approving the referendum (the Court did not say it was illegal until later, as you say). But it doesn't mean the referendum "was not illegal until 17 October" as you imply. Of course it was illegal, as the Catalan government did not have the legal attribution to hold it at any time. Just as you would commit an illegality if failing to comply with your country's laws (and you wouldn't need a Constitutional Court acknowledging your breaching of law as illegal in order for it to be illegal). Impru20 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is FALSE, my friend: An act of the catalan parliament CANNOT be illegal UNTIL Constitutional Court of Spain pronounces officially (using of course, the spanish constitutional text, like you appoint, thanks), NOBODY ELSE can do that. "We" will learn constitutional law, you will see. So PLEASE, CHANGE the info and if you don't want to do that, at least help me to inform where I can report that error to the Wikipedia Administration. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Organizing and holding the referendum after it had been suspended was illegal, and many officials were officially warned about the illegality of those actions.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

FALSE. Nothing was illegal until CC pronounced, on October 17th. See the links, and read legislation. Thanks. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

An act can perfectly be illegal if it contravenes the law in force. The Catalan parliament simply could not authorise a referendum to be held, because the Constitution clearly establishes only the Spanish Government may grant such an authorization.

But even if we were to consider that, formally, the referendum itself wasn't "illegal" until the Constitutional Court formally dubbed it as such, you should keep in mind that the act approved by the Catalan parliament was immediately suspended by the Constitutional Court. The suspension meant that such an act could not be enforced by anyone until the Constitutional Court formally pronounced on its legality or lack of it. The Catalan government chose to try to enforce it anyway, ignoring the legally-binding suspension. So yes, my friend, they committed an illegal act, because holding the referendum was an illegal act from the very time it was suspended.

Also, I sincerely commend you to respect WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Writing in caps so frequently looks as very aggressive and not appropiate for a proper discussion in Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but I repeat, you are WRONG. The referendum can not be (in no way) illegal, until the decision of Spain's Constitutional Court, like I said. And this will be (if it is the case) illegal, just AFTER the decision, never before, like this article says. Of course, "suspension" and "illegal" is not the same, like I defended upwards. And please, don't try to constrain my fairly intentions to fix this important error in this article (because IT IS, in fact, important, to understand what is happening in Catalonia nowadays).

I simply try to do, the best I can, what this page of Wikipedia indicates me: "We encourage you to be bold in a fair and accurate manner, with a straightforward, just-the-facts style".Help:Getting_started Thanks. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Impru20. There are plenty of sources that back that up. If it helps clarify, you may be interested in knowing that a judge has remanded various people into custody citing among others the actions taken in organizing the referendum. Even the European commission stated in an official document on 2 October that it was not legal. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see that erroneous sources you are talking about. Can we? Thanks. Of course (perhaps surprisingly for you) the opinion of European Comission (EC) is not a legal source of "how works Constitutional Court in Spain", and it will violate the Spanish Constituion if EC never tries to do something like this. Sorry. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspension means that constitutional court ordered that the preparations for the referendum had to stop pending the final ruling. Continuing with its organization and holding it after it was suspended by the constitutional court is illegal as it clearly violated that suspension. the organizers were warned of this and decided to continue anyway. Here are some sources: El Constitucional tumba la Ley del Referéndum y avisa a los alcaldes y a 77 cargos del deber de "impedir" el 1-O:

"El Pleno les advierte de su deber «de impedir o paralizar cualquier iniciativa que suponga ignorar o eludir la suspensión acordada». En particular, de que deben abstenerse «de iniciar, tramitar, informar o dictar, en el ámbito de sus respectivas competencias, acuerdo o actuación alguna que permita la preparación y/o la celebración del referéndum». Y se les apercibe «de las eventuales responsabilidades, incluida la penal» si no atienden el requerimiento»"

Las claves de los autos de la juez Carmen Lamela: (Reasons for which responsible parties were remanded into custody)

"En el auto, la juez menciona tanto el referéndum ilegal del pasado 1 de octubre como la declaración de independencia del Parlament del pasado día 27"

If you do a search you will be able to find many more. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So, can we revert this now?

I'm doubtful we can change the hopelessly biased Spanish-language article, but I suggest we now revert this article back to the unbiased version we had before, which read something along the lines of:

"its legal status is the object of a dispute between the parliament of Catalonia which proclaimed independence from Spain on the 27th of October and the Kingdom of Spain, which considers Catalonia to be an autonomous communty within Spain".

That wording gave equal weight to both sides, and now that the Catalans won the 21st of December election, surely it's an independent country once more, so at the very least this article can stop being English-language propaganda for the Spanish government? Unless Spain is going to seize control again?

Heaven help us all if they do that again - maybe they'll also decide to dissolve the parliament of Australia and claim this country next? 220.245.138.58 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The new parliament of Catalonia has not (yet) supported/agreed with the proclaimed independence that the previous catalan parliament did, so the proposed line is simply not true. Let's wait a bit to see what the new parliament will be actually doing. (PS Your comment above is clearly biased - e.g. Catalans won - it seems like almost 50% did not support succession parties so not all Catalans won; so consider WP:kettle) Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

<Edit conflict> : Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda. There is no dispute over the legal status of Catalonia. The December elections are autonomic regional elections. By participating all political parties accepted their legality (as opposed to the referendum). The sum of the three pro-independence parties does allow for another majority in the parliament, so they can regain its control, but within the boundaries of the constitutional law. Saying that the legal status is the object of a dispute is not objective: You choose to ignore that both ERC and JxCat declared that they abandoned the unilateral declaration way, that the proclamation of independence has been declared illegal and that no state recognized it.

You also fail to mention that the political party that got the most votes and representatives is C's which is against independence and that the sum of all voters of independentists political parties is less than in the previous elections and amounts to 47.49% (less than half of the people that cast their votes, this is possible due to the electoral law). So yes, separatists will probably continue to hold a majority (by two representatives, two less than before) in the Catalan parliament, but no, the legal status of Catalonia is not an object of dispute. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If over-excited IP addresses start coming here again virtually proclaiming Catalan independence, I suggest this page is protected before it suffers more damage. Wikipedia credibility suffered as a result of the last incident when Catalonia was defined as a de-facto state for some weeks here before it was corrected. Let's hope it doesn't happen again. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonrisas1, while I agree that this nonsense needs to stop, Wiki has serious credibility issues before, during and after the rather minor Catalan event - I wouldn't worry too much about that angle, as Wiki is full of crap that gets it pasted by academia over and over again. Just try to make the articles as good as can be.104.169.16.173 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not possible to agree on something in the lead?

I haven't really been involved in this article before so this is just a comment from an outsider. Is there really nothing that can be objectively stated in the lead about the fights over independence? It is a major current event being widely covered in the news. To omit something this significant and current entirely from the lead smacks of censorship, though I certainly understand the awkwardness of it all given the lack of consensus in Spain. Seems, though, that at least some kind of objective statement to acknowledge the dispute and the protests is called for.

Just my two cents ... -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It smacks of poor editing. There should be a neutral, balanced, short statement.50.111.3.17 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I added a short sentence regarding that. Feel free to rephrase it if you come with a better one. --Aljullu (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Introductory text

Did someone translate the introductory text in Spanish and put here? It's pretty similar. It isn't neutral and I think that anyone who wants to know about Catalonia should also know the Catalan point of view, because from the introductory text already, only the Spanish point of view is shown and that is not the full version of the subject, it's half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montserrat-Alba (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. 49.183.27.126 (talk)

Elided years

On 27 October 2017, the Catalan Parliament declared independence from Spain following a disputed referendum. The Spanish Senate voted in favour of enforcing direct rule by removing the entire Catalan government and calling a snap regional election for 21 December [elided]. On 2 November [elided], the Spanish Supreme Court imprisoned 7 former ministers of the Catalan government on charges of rebellion and misuse of public funds, while several others, including the President Carles Puigdemont, fled to European countries.

I don't do a lot of sequential reading on Wikipedia, and tend to land in the middle of paragraphs using "search" quite a lot.

These elided years are jarring for my primary use case, and I really don't see much marginal economy to justify forcing the entire paragraph to be read as a block. — MaxEnt 00:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Formation in the infobox

Before starting, let's make things clear and let's be neutral. Catalonia is a region, it's not a country, as we all know. Unlike Scotland, for example. Which is a country inside a sovereign monarchy.

So why is the "formation" information inside the infobox? It leads to the page History of Catalonia, so this "formation" text in the infobox is completely senseless since this is already mentioned as well in the paragraph History. Catalonia is a region, it's not a country. Leaving political or ideological issues apart, this is the reality and how it is. So it should be standarized as all of the other Autonomous communities of Spain. Just the Statute of Autonomy has to be mentioned there, and the "formation of historical events" have to be mentioned in the History paragraph and the separate page History of Catalonia, where they're already mentioned. Why is such an information in the infobox? It makes no sense at all. This information is good for sovereign countries, or countries at all. But not regions.

It makes sense for the page Spain, the page France or the page Italy. But it doesn't for the page Navarre, Corsica or Sardinia so they haven't got those "formation" things in the paragraph, even considering all of those 3 territories are historical entities as well, but if you see their pages, they're standarized as the other Spanish, French or Italian regions. Why is Catalonia separated from the rest of Spain in the Wiki infobox? Please give elaborated, comprehensive reasons or eitherwise I will delete it by 1 May, 2019. It makes no sense. And there is no reason or source to back this up. Officially and really, it's a region, not even a country within a sovereign entity like Scotland. Even to make it better, all of this information inside the "formation" part of the infobox is already mentioned in the History paragraph, Catalonia is a region so it shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox what happened with the formation as an historical entity, for that there is a separate page already, called History of Catalonia. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop being so offended the contents of the infobox. Having a formation date does not mean that Catalonia is a sovereign state. The article uses Template:Infobox settlement which has a section called "Established" which allows various milestones in the settlement's history to be provided. This info is given in all types of settlements - cities, regions, countries etc. All settlements, including Catalonia, are formed i.e. they have not existed forever. So there is no issue in saying Catalonia is formed. If other Spanish regions don't have this information you should try and add these to those regions rather than deleting content from Catalonia simply because of your personal political views. This isn't a race to the bottom - we are trying to create encyclopedic content.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not offended, I am just pointing the reality from a neutral point of view. Are you sure it's my political view and not yours? The fact is that Catalonia is here: autonomous communities of Spain and not here: sovereign country. So where is exactly my personal political view shown up there? Anyways, what you said is not a valid reason, as required. I repeat, since it's already mentioned in the History paragraph and the separate page of History of Catalonia as any other territory in the world. Putting the historical entity names inside the infobox data is completely senseless for a region, and Catalonia is a region, or is a sovereign state? Like it or not, as far as neutrality goes and as reality shows up, Catalonia is a Spanish region, styled as an autonomous community. I guess I don't need to prove it.

So then, why it has a "formation" infobox as countries, and not the normal one like every other region from every other country? I've seen some of your edits before and you carefully try to separate Catalonian articles from Spanish ones... I entirely recommend you to check Wikipedia:Neutral point of view first, better than accusing me of using my "own political views" while I just point out that Catalonia is a region, not a country. Am I wrong or something? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The infobox clearly states at the top that Catalonia is a "Autonomous community". Why can't you see this? Because of your own political views, your dislike of Catalonia and your desire to make this article as crap as other Spanish autonomous communities.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nationalities in the Spanish Constitution

In the section "4.1 Statute of Autonomy", it says "In the Spanish Constitution of 1978 Catalonia, along with the Basque Country and Galicia, was defined as a "nationality". Despite that Constitution speaks about historical nationalities, unfortunately, it doesn't specify which ones are these. Therefore, this sentence is not correct.193.240.195.178 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Introduction should be totally rewritten

The introduction is completely hispanocentric and therefore biased: it completely ignores North Catalonia by just considering it an spanish autonomus community instead of an spanish autonomus community AND a french region (par pf the Pyrénées-Orientales deparmnet.

If we want to refer solely to Spanish Catalonia we should create an "Spanish Catalonia" article or subdivision, otherwise it should be threated like any other region split between several States (ex. Kurdistan or Tyrol). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:3028:AF00:1932:3CB2:5A09:45EF (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be because this article focuses on the Spanish autonomous community, and "Catalonia" is how it is commonly referred in sources and how it is widely known, as per WP:COMMONNAME. You're probably mistaking the topic of this article with that of Catalan Countries, which does include Northern Catalonia (and other lands). Impru20^talk 12:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So its wrong? As the previous user said, if you want an Spanish Catalonia focused article we can allways create "Spanish Catalonia" page.Raicopk —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Catalonia is the name by which one commonly refers to the Spanish autonomous community, not necessarily including the so-called "Northern Catalonia", also known as the French region of Roussillon.--Dk1919 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

DK

Look at the pannels in the region itself and you will see Northern Catalonia written in them.

--Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)