![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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.
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:
References
Mad Tarjan ( talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ Coldcreation: it's solved now! -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 12:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Right now the autonomy of Catalonia is suspended by Spain. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
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
/info/en/?search=Parliament_of_Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masohe ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
220.245.138.58 ( talk) 00:58, 21 November 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)
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.
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.
SO, EDIT THAT, please :)
Sergio Ramos 93 ( talk) 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"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»"
"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"
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
DK
Look at the pannels in the region itself and you will see Northern Catalonia written in them.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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.
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:
References
Mad Tarjan ( talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ Coldcreation: it's solved now! -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 12:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Right now the autonomy of Catalonia is suspended by Spain. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
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
/info/en/?search=Parliament_of_Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masohe ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
220.245.138.58 ( talk) 00:58, 21 November 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)
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.
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.
SO, EDIT THAT, please :)
Sergio Ramos 93 ( talk) 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"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»"
"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"
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
DK
Look at the pannels in the region itself and you will see Northern Catalonia written in them.