Talk:Catalan independence movement

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Babsd001 (article contribs).

Clarifications

I notice several ambiguities needing to be adressed:

• The Catalan independence movement is a political movement which supports the devolution of the independence of the autonomous community of Catalonia - It's unclear in what period Catalonia was independent as to now demand a "devolution" of something that was in the past. A vague mention to some event in the "Middle Ages" is made, but i'm not sure this referst to 1711 (not quite the middle ages) or earlier, and weather in that alleged time of independence Catalonia comprised the current territories or was a part of the Kingdom of Aragon.

Reworded to make sense. Would please some Catalan nationalist care to explain the main points of their movement, to make this something better than a stub? Diego Moya 18:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not such one, but well aquainted with. Catalan nationalism, really born in the late XIX century, is a mix of a language based and an historically justified one. At the beginnig was seriously influenced by romantic german nationalism (wagnerianism in particular). Sadly, recently also an economic based one. The basic tenents (from a nationalist point of view) are

• Catalonia was, for all purposes, an independent state prior to 1714 (the end of the Spanish war on Succession), not just a personal union with the crown (first of Aragon and latter of Castille/Spain)
• From this year on, Catalonia suffers a Spanish (castilian) ocupation with ... The exact description of the grievances depend of the flavour of nationalism, but at the very least contains the oppresion of the language and of their own institutions. This opression has been mantained or aggravated by every single central government (with the exception, perhaps, of the II republic)
• But national identity has been preserved against all odds, and can't be assimilated to spanish identity, but as long as is part of Spain is threatened
• Catalan tax monies should only be used in and for Catalonia (it's a bit crude statement, and should be qualified, but too many times sounds exactly this way)

Thus, the exigence of restoration of a free Catalonia, or at least to an arrangement with the rest of Spain in a confederational form, as it is purported to have been prior to 1714.

It has to be noted that until very recently, the independentist or confederationalist approach was very minoritary in catalan nationalism, the mainstream parties prefering some form of special status within Spain.

An encyclopedic entry about a conflictive topic should contain also a critique on such theories, here are a few, most of them about differing understandings of history

• The relationship between Catalonia and the rest of the Aragonese Crown and latter of Spain never was exactly a "personal union" as it is purported

• Not a "personal union" true, but a dynastic union in a sole monarchy. The rest of goverment powers, administrative and judicial were still separated for each territory of the Crown of Aragon until the end of the Succesion war, so in fact it was a different state from the modern point of view with laws, taxes and commericial borders.

• Because after 1714 the catalan institutions were supressed, the whole integration with the rest of Spain allowed to become Catalonia from a backwater into the most thriving region of Spain

• The appearence of Bourgeoisie and Industrialization was not due to the destruction of Catalonia self-government if that was the case why it did not happen in Aragon, or the Balearic Islands?

• Mending past errors, Catalan language has never been so protected as now. And remembering that nowadays the language spoken at home in Catalonia is aprox. 50/50 catalan/spanish

• The suposed "Mending" is in any case started after the transition, that is about 25 years ago and basically due to the push of the nationalism in Catalonia not an initiative from the Spanish Government. In fact, much more protection should be granted to non-Spanish languages in Spain to reach the levels achieved in other countries like Canada or The Nederlands. Spain has historically tried to supress other languages since the Decretos de Nueva Planta.

• There isn't, and hasn't been for centuries, any dicotomy beeing catalans and spaniards. It's not a question of either/or but of and --Wllacer 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• There has been and it will be. Many Catalans have been outspoken about independence from Spain and France, because let me remind you, part of Catalonia is under French administration since the Pyrenees Treaty. So there are Catalans that are not Spanish.--Hei hei 05:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• As for Catalonia being the remaining part of one the largest powers of the Middle Ages, what is meant by "remaining part"? what large power are we referring to?

Clearly, with the "large power", it's refering to the ancient Crown of Aragon. As to the "remaining part", is a mistery to me either (probably a bad digested catch-phase)--Wllacer 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

About merging Catalan independentism and Catalan Countries

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

The map

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

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

Suggestion -> Merge in Catalan nationalism

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

There would make a lot of sense. I agree --Wllacer 15:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! QuartierLatin 1968 01:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Pls. Elaborate --Wllacer 08:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean I agree they should merge. QuartierLatin 1968 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Catalan nationalism doesn't claim for a separate Catalan State from Spain or France, they only ask for more rights. On the other side, Catalan indepentists work for a free Catalan state as the only way to be respected and live on their own with their language and culture. That is, a Catalan independentist is a nationalist, but a Catalan nationalist is not an independentist.--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 11:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

PSAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussed source

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

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

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

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

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

The graph is made from ICPS data, anyone can check the pages and do their own ones. Is this a problem if a reference is given? Do you want to follow the same behaviour with all the charts in Wikipedia which are not made by official institutions (usually, sadly not by-sa or GFDL) but using official data? --Toniher (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This: do you want to follow the same behaviour with all the charts in Wikipedia which are not made by official institutions (usually, sadly not by-sa or GFDL) but using official data? is not replying any of the concerns expressed above.

and this The graph is made from ICPS data is something which I do not discuss (that is why, once again, I am not removing the table, only tagging it properly). Yes, this anyone can check the pages and do their own ones is true, the problem is when this anyone is working on a loooong series of data which no one will bother to re-check and that "anyone" happens to be a Catalan independentist making a graph on Catalan independentism.

Toniher, not really related to this, but generally speaking, it would be interesting for you to sit and re-think your action in wikipedia, because it seems like your militant (en Català, not in English) nature could be narrowing your perception of things. While it is true and good that different point of views are reflected, when some point of views go beyond fairnesss, then it is quite troublesome and can end up being disruptive. Don't lose sight of this being English wikipedia, which is a quite different environment than, say, Catalan wikipedia. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Mountolive, avoid any patronizing attitude. We know each other rather enough, and anyone can easily check our own contributions. I personally do not have any problem to show who I really am, so anyone who wants to discuss openly and fairly about any topic, can freely do it with me. If I want to be 'militant' I use other places rather than Wikipedia (no matter which language). However, this does not mean to stay quiet and still and I will not. I'm correcting the links, what you are reverting refers to CIS not ICPS (which it's the correct reference), you should also read as well. By the way, for finding the data, you should only open the different PDF per year, copy the relevant text numbers (search "Independència") and note them down in a spreasheet. I do not think it's so difficult, but do not hesitate to ask for help. --Toniher (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:No soc espanyol.jpg

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

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

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

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

Polls

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

This is outdated claim.

Hi Carles.

I was expecting you here, and here you are, promptly ;)

Well, for me The Economist is the best magazine in the world (dense, but truly commendable, if you wanted my advice). These guys dont take things lightly, really. In any case, if I had to choose between The Economist and the Centre d'Estudis Soberanistes, which "makes a detailed analysis of polls over the last 18 years and infers conclusions", well... Mountolive _{le déluge} 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't disappoint you on such interesting issues! ;) Well, I am not doubting the quality of The Economist, sure. But, anyway, you will agree with me that that we should be accurate in the article and refer directly to actual polls, shouldn't we? Maybe a good neutral way would be something like: "The support to the idea of independence among Catalan population differs depending on the poll, ranging from x% (reference to actual poll) to y% (reference to actual poll)". What do you think? --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your concern and I am open to rewording. This said, I will not accept the CES as a reliable third party source for the obvious reasons (this source wears its sin in its very name like a feathered hat). About the other source which is seen at the graphic, I have no fundamental objections.

However, there is also an issue even with this other source. In the historic series they point out a peak of 45% support for independence. Sorry, but I am not buying that. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the poll is biased, but the answers are. I never felt such an independentist efervescence in Catalonia, did you? If that was true and 45% of the population was really for independence, then the political climate would have been other. Truth is that, nowadays, independence is not even a real issue but rather other manoeuvering via Estatut, whatever; maybe this is pointing out to the same result, but it is not explictly independentist nor is perceived like that. So, in all fairness, you may agree with me in that quoting 45% of the population supporting independence is quite a biased picture of everyday life in Catalonia in the 2000s.

All in all, I'd suggest something along "Recently, polling evidence suggests that no more than a fifth of Catalans adhere consistently to the idea of independence. Other polling sources quoted by the early 2000s a stable loose support of some 35% of the population, with higher peaks depending on the political situation".

As for the "loose" word, what I mean is that, since independence is no real short term realistic prospect, their support can only be quoted as loose. In the event of a real independentist referendum at sight, then we would get the real support for this cause, but not now.

What do you think?

P.s. It is actually good to feel your panca breathing in the back of my neck, otherwise I could feel the tempation of getting naughty :D

Hi again! Sorry for the delay, some flu got me almost completely out of work in the last few days. The truth is that I didn't know much about the issue of properly estimating the support to independence in Catalonia, but it is certainly an interesting topic that deserves a careful treatment in this article. I have taken a look at some sources before daring to reply and... well, I still would like some wording as the one I proposed above but I am realizing that it is difficult because it seems to be more complex than that. As far as I can see there are only three independent sources that regularly perform some polls including, among others, the issue of possible Catalan political independence: (1) Centro de Investigaciones Sociales (CIS) which belongs to the Spanish government, (2) Social and Political Sciencies Institute of Barcelona (ICPS) belonging to the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Diputation of Barcelona, (3) Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, depending on the Economy Department of the Generalitat of Catalonia (look at question number 28 in this recent poll: [3]). The (non-up-to-date) figure included in the article is based on the data provided by the second one. Then we have the recent study by the Centre d'Estudis Sobiranistes I already mentioned, which is not really a poll but a study based on the results of many different kinds of polls with some question related to the independence issue. I agree that it is not an independent polling source (but still could deserve some citation with the proper context). Finally there is The Economist article which loosely mentions some 20% support without any hint on the origin of such estimation. So, to be rigorous, I would be very careful in mentioning that source if are not able to identify where the estimation comes from (maybe from the CIS?).

My proposal: since the issue is complex (there are several different kinds of polls, doing related but not identic questions), I would carefully explain and cite all the stuff I have mentioned. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Economist source is too blunt for your point of view. I can accept that (I have my own point of view, so my 'POV' comment is not meant to be scornful whatsoever, dont get me wrong!). Indeed, there are a series of different polls (it is helpful that you summarized them down to three) so we have to be cautious when using them, especially because they seem to be giving different results.

The subject of results not being consistent adds to my point regarding the subject of independence not being a really hot topic in Catalonia currently. I mean, the prospect of independence is not at sight at this point, is it?. That would explain not only the incoherent results among polls, but also the 14% of people indifferent to the question at the last ICPS available poll. I mean, if the question of independence was a real prospect, I bet that that 14% of menfotistes would at least be halved, dont you think? Therefore, as you said, we should treat these polls with lots of precautions.

All in all, probably the fairest would be to take this contentious point out of the lead, open its own small section just pointing out that there are a series of polls which oscillate greatly between roughly 20% of support up to roughly 30%. Is that an option?

Flu can be transmitted over wikipedia? it must be a side effect of independentism :P Mountolive _{le déluge} 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. I buy that proposal. So we remove it from the lead and create a section where we can refer to all existing polls. I also agree with your analysis of the situation: not being a hot topic in the everyday discussion among the majority of population makes it hard to measure.

About contagious stuff over wikipedia... I hope flu is not yet another one (we wikipedians are already contagiating each other many insane habits over here... :P). And it's funny that you tag me as independentist... Maybe some day I will explain you privately how it feels to have a non standard approach to such a topic which is really not supported by any party nowadays... But who cares about my own ideas! We have an article here to be reworked. --Carles Noguera (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the I tag. Not really meant. I am the first to admit that I have a weird sense of humour, which, too often, is not funny, for it loses whatever fun it could have here in wikipedia and in written. My appologies. I understand you very well when you dont feel represented by either standard view, for I have the same feelings. I guess our views are too ecclectic to be summarized by a single political option. The bad part of it is that in wikipedia we feel dragged down to defend what, otherwise, is not really our personal belief. That certainly is a side effect of wikipedia. Again, my apologies if you didnt find it funny at all. I guess I've gone a bit too far. Sorry. By the way, I am willing to hear your personal views anytime you wish (and you have time) and then I could make you endure my own personal views regarding blaveros, pancas and other sweet creatures :)

So, if you feel like my proposal is ok, then, please, go ahead and put it in your own words. We will certainly work out something palatable like we've done before.

I have found some valuable tables and sources summarizing the polls in Catalan wikipedia, which I have added to the article. Please, make all the corrections, additions, nuances, etc that you might consider necessary. I know that in the discussion above we were talking about a small section just giving a rough approximation of average results, but I thought it would be more neutral to just give the raw available data instead. --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

tables

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

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

Moving away from "separatism"

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

Could you clear more that?

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

Factual Errors

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

2011[22] 41.4 22.9 26.5 9.2

should be

2011[22] 43.7 25.1 22.3 8.9

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

Catalan nationalism and Catalan independentism

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

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

"Independentism"? Dat Title

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

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

The change of title has already been made, and later reverted. I'm aware that the word independentism sounds strange to English speakers. A more exact title could be Catalan Independence Movement. Jotamar (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a change to Catalan Independence Movement or Catalan Separatism. Independentism is not an English word. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• At the moment the only difference I can see between this page and the Catalan nationalist page is that one addresses autonomy and independence whilst the other addresses only independence, however, thus far there does not appear to be any consensus on combining the page. I can see no reason to use a non-English word in the title, however, nor has anyone raised an objection to changing the title. The only posters have been in support. Let's see what happens FOARP (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Catalan independentism → Catalan independence –

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

Here's the Google News hits:

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

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

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

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

As already stated in this talk page, separatism is not a neutral word, or at least the translations of that word are politically loaded in Spain. Jotamar (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about Catalan independence movement (which already redirects here) or Catalan independence efforts? "Catalan independence" sounds awfully non-neutral, almost as much as the completely unacceptable current title. Seeing as X independence seems to be the title format of choice, why not go with Catalan independence. Therefore, support. --213.196.210.189 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to either Catalan independence movement or Catalan separatism. To me, neither sounds biased. Catalan independence, however, sounds like a done deal so I prefer one of the former two: the first if it is Jotamar's preference. But any of the three would be an improvement on the ugly independentism. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I only see one user (plus another in the RM) objecting to separatism, which seems more accurate and not necessarily pejorative. (Its connotations in Spanish are an issue for other language Wikipedias.) Catalan independence would probably be an improvement over the current title, but "Fooian independence" still looks really awkward to me, even in its current uses. I would prefer Catalan separatism, in line with usage in English-language sources. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is admittedly a WAXy point, but what about all the other "XY independence" articles cited in the request? Should they all be moved to "XY separatism" as well? If not, why not? Wouldn't a move to Catalan separatism beg that question? --87.79.208.25 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the case. I see from a quick Google search, for example, that "Scottish independence" is far more common than "Scottish separatism," so I probably wouldn't support that move. Perhaps the word choice reflects a bias in sources, but that's generally not our problem; see WP:POVTITLE. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. But isn't it a bit ironic though, that we'd use that term although its usage in English sources is very likely due to the term used in Spanish (i.e. possibly less than neutral) sources? Feels a bit like second-hand POV, for want of a better word. --87.79.208.25 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - current title is an urgent rename, and wikt:separatism is a different thing.Note nom had capital I and small i conflicting in header when I first supported, I see now that proposal is for "i" and have changed template header to be consistent with actual nom text. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Wrong picture

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

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

What is the neutral point of view concern?

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

I agree with you. --88.2.25.229 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes people place the tag on articles just because the article doesn't contain the information they want to know, and instead has content that they find "inconvenient" or offensive. I think if someone has just put the tag there but hasn't mentioned what their concerns are, then they aren't really interested much in getting it fixed, they just want to protest. You can probably remove it. CodeCat (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Given these comments and the absence of a stated concern, I have detagged. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Article name

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

It was already moved a year ago. If you want to move it back, you should get consensus from the people involved in the earlier move first. CodeCat (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Native speakers have repeatedly stated that the word independentism makes no sense in English, and I guess they must be right. --Jotamar (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, let me reply to your two comments separately:

CodeCat, I opened this discussion precisely to get consensus. I see that you have reverted my change to the first sentence of the article, and that's fine because I agree we should get consensus first. That said, could you please explain why you have reverted all my other edits?

To Jotamar: That argument is interesting. It is true that the word doesn't appear in the English dictionaries I have checked, except as the name of certain church. However I have found examples of its use in several academic works written by scholars who presumably had English as their mother tongue:

• The Death Blow to Independentism In Georgia by John E. Talmadge (1955)
• Independentism a Challenge to the Florida Democracy of 1884 by Edward C. Williamson (1948)

And there are numerous examples of recent academic publications by authors with other mother tongues but published in English-language circles who use the term "independentism" in its political sense as well:

• The Western Mediterranean islands and the many faces of independentism by André Fazi (2012)
• Orientalist Ethnonationalism: From Irredentism to Independentism by Dukagjin Gorani (2011)

Therefore I still think that the article should be renamed "Catalan independentism". --Hispalois (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleven days have passed since my comment above, without any reply. Should I take that as consensus? Should I invite specific user(s) to participate? Please advise. --Hispalois (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because there's still the previous move. The discussion is above. Have you read it? CodeCat (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep the discussion open then. I think that I have shown that the term "independentism" is indeed used in English-speaking academic circles and should therefore be acceptable as an article title. As a second choice I would concur with one of the proposals of the previous discussion: "Catalan independence movement" because the article, as it is written now, describes this political movement and that is also the name of the Category:Catalan independence movement‎. Those editors who suggested "Catalan independence" based on the parallel with "Scottish independence" failed to notice that the latter article is about the "political aim", not only about the movement that supports it; in it, both positions for and against Scottish independence are equally discussed. --Hispalois (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not change the result of the previous move without a new consensus. Regarding the four references you provide, these are all obscure works and do not counter the wide-spread use of the term Catalan Independence discussed in the previous move. Two of the works you cite do not appear to be written by native English speakers based simply on their names (Dukagjin Gorani and André Fazi) the other two are more than 60 years old and appear to discuss the Independent Party (a party that operated in the Southern United States). None of them addresses the present situation in Catalonia. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Referendum November 9 2014 and political analysis

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

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

Only one side viewpoint

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

Polls

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

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

The topic is quite complex. Some newspapers do some polls but not regularly. Furthermore, they change the questions and possible answers trying to get up to date and cover different perspectives of the complexity of the topic. As an example, you can see one of the latest polls by a newspaper here [6]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.95.223 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article linked first on Scottish Independence is the correct format to follow. There, there are various different polls and polling organisations all put together in a single, easy to read table, giving an overall view of the public support for independence. It is also easier to update. You can then have a second subsection for questions that give more than two options. The topic of Independence for Catalunya is not more complex than the topic of Independence for Scotland. The article you linked was not a poll on independence, it was a poll on the political situation in CA vis a vis CA's relations with Spain. We can start with the last 20 polls and then add them as they come out, I urge anyone with more time than me to get started on this. I will do it soon if I get a chance. - 86.45.31.80 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Catalan independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121231120913/http://www.catalannewsagency.com:80/news/politics/15-million-people-demonstrate-peacefully-catalonia%E2%80%99s-independence-spain to http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/15-million-people-demonstrate-peacefully-catalonia%E2%80%99s-independence-spain
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130404212651/http://setmanaridirecta.info/noticia/marxa-independentista-davui-ha-superat-primer-cop-historia-milio-manifestants to http://www.setmanaridirecta.info/noticia/marxa-independentista-davui-ha-superat-primer-cop-historia-milio-manifestants

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Name

Does no one else find the name of this article wierd? Shouldnt it be independence movement or something?Asilah1981 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been discussed before. --Jotamar (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of History section

The History section as of now is messy and hard to follow. Events have been added as they occurred, with the result that there is no flow, just a jumble of facts. It is also unbalanced, with several paragraphs given to a demonstration, one sentence to an election, and other important matters not covered at all. Doing it properly will require:

1. that it reads like an article
2. English language sources
3. preferably book sources, where available

I believe a complete rewrite is needed, not just an edit or series of edits to the existing content. I propose to do that in the next day or so. Scolaire (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire Go ahead but I remind you this is a highly politicized topic and a "source" will exist for pretty much every statement imaginable, and one refuting the same statement will also be available. Its what goes with articles related to nation-building. No matter what your take on things is, you are likely to encounter objections, so proposing to rewrite the whole thing from scratch may not be the right approach. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

As an editor in the field of Irish nationalism, I am well used to controversial topics. I have experience of writing NPOV articles, and I am confident that what I write here will be broadly acceptable. My sources are well-written books and articles by foreigners, and are free from any obvious bias. Scolaire (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's good to know Scolaire. Which sources are these, by the way? We should not disdain Spanish/Catalan language sources though nor assume English language sources are any more free of bias. More often than not, they just manage to grasp one side of the picture or repeat one view of history / reality which is presented to them. Spanish language wikipedia is a good way to gauge on how well we are doing on these articles. It tends to be the most neutral due to the large number of editors across political spectrum / divides. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was careful to say there was no obvious bias. I'm not disdaining Spanish/Catalan language sources, but where the same facts are available in English it's obviously preferable to use those sources. Plus, there is currently no Spanish or Catalan book source in the section at the moment, and the business of cobbling together news reports of individual events is what has caused the section to be bloated and hard to follow. I think you'll find that the books I'm using give a good overview of events. I won't list them now; they'll be in the bibliography when I do my edit. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Done now. I've taken out a lot of the fiddly detail, and a number of images and tables as well, which were distracting rather than informative. Doing it has helped me understand the process. I hope the finished product will help others. Scolaire (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire One very obvious example of accidental bias I see in your first draft here: You state the % of Catalans who approved the first statute of autonomy and ommit that the Constitution was approved by referendum and support for the Spanish Constitution in Catalonia was over 90% (higher than in Madrid). Your explanation of "La Crida" is also quite borderline. How did "Spain" (we refer to the central government, not Spain) attempt to "put a break on autonomy"? Do you have a sourced specific example? All I can think you may possibly referring to is the short live LOAPA law of July 1982 which aimed to harmonize the pace at which competences were transferred according to the capacity of each region. It was, in its majority, thrown out by the Constitutional Court because a state law can't modify constitutional rules. What were these "attacks" on Catalan culture? Were people out in the street burning catalan flags? As far as I know the Crida was born as a response of a joint declaration by 2300 Catalan intellectuals who came out against "Cultural Inmersion" (the education system being solely in Catalan when a majority of Catalans didn't use it) and making Catalan the sole official language of Catalonia. La Crida was a direct response to this declaration. Is that an attack on Catalan culture or rather a defense of it? Depends on the political viewpoint. The Crida's response, among other things, by the way, was to threaten "direct action" against small business who refused or were incapable of fully catalanising. Asilah1981 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It's true I didn't think to include figures for those supporting the constitution, and that would have added balance. I was not altogether happy with the bit on La Crida; I wanted to fill up that section but I didn't quite "get" it. Your explanation helps, and I'll go back and give it another go (if you don't do it first). Scolaire (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. No please go ahead. I'm sure you have a better grip of sources and writing style than me. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations

There is a total absence of any sources whatsoever from the rewritten sections of the article. Other sections in places don't have enough sources but at least have some. Unsourced content should either be deleted or sourced. In the meantime, I've added "citations needed" flags. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, citations are not needed where the lead repeats information that is in the body of the article. I rewrote the lead as a summary of my rewrite of the History section, which was exhaustively referenced. By far the greater number of the tags that this edit added were to my rewritten lead, not to the History section. Some of the tags added to the History section were at the end of sentences where the citation was for two or three sentences together, as could have been confirmed by clicking on the link in the citation. Others were for "the sky is blue" type facts such as "Following Franco's death, Spain moved to restore democracy" and "11 September is observed as National Day of Catalonia". Some of the tags in the Legality and legitimacy section may well be merited, but it is not my job to selectively edit tags, so I am reverting the lot. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Leads in "complex, current or controversial subjects may require many citations". That's what the WP policy you've referred me to actually says. You've re-written the entire lead without any citations whatsoever. That's a long lead with zero citations. Please explain yourself. How do you stand over that? It is shameful, lazy, sloppy, arrogant and aggressive editing. It's also interesting how lazy you are here. Yet you pretend on other articles to be the defender of verifiability. Your inconsistency says a lot. It's not your job to rewrite entire leads without bothering to include any citations. If you can't be bothered to include sources, don't bother at all. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that every single fact in the History section was verifiable by reference to reliable published secondary sources, almost all books. I also – which I wasn't required to do – cited sources that are viewable online so that anybody who is interested can check the facts. These are the facts that are in the lead. There are zero facts in the lead that are not cited in the article. WP:LEAD says, "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So if you want to go through the lead and add a citation for every fact, it will not be difficult to do, and I will not stop you, although I don't think it's needed. But if you continue to add "citation needed" tags to facts that you know very well are sourced to reliable published secondary sources, then we'll know you're not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi You are being excessively anal about requiring citations. I'm sure Scolaire has made mistakes and, as discussed, written biased statements, since every single source on this matter tends to be biased or omits a counter-argument. But you are tagging non-controversial sentences and are not being supportive or productive on this particular article. This kind of mass tagging puts people off editing wikipedia. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Frenchmalawi has no interest whatever in this article, and never had. This is just payback for me insisting on reliable sources on a totally unrelated article. That discussion is here. --Scolaire (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've already quoted what the WP guide on Leads says Scolaire. Are you disagreeing with me about what it says concerning "complex, current or controversial" subjects? Are you saying Catalonian independence isn't one of those subjects? You could answer those questions with simple yes or no so we could explore your approach by reference to the WP guide. Are you saying that the guide says "it's ok to not have sources in leads concerning complex, current or controversial subjects as long as you think the matters are sourced elsewhere in the article." You've said I can "be your guest" tidying up the mess you've made by not bothering to source your edits. Your approach is shameful. You also threatened me on my user talk page. Other Eds: Have a look at my talk page. If wanting to follow WP guides and insisting on sources is "anal" User: Asilah1981, I'm guilty. I'm sorry that's seen as a negative. WP goes downhill when sloppy, lazy edits like Scolaire's aren't challenged. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi It seems to me you have an issue with this particular editor and are somehow editing here to "get back at him". That is not a constructive attitude. You should edit articles you are interested or knowledgeable about in good faith, not as part of a wider personal feud with another editor.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User: Asilah1981 - it seems to me that I've raised concerns about flagrant violations of a WP guide calling for citations but rather than discuss that topic, the two other participants in this discussion would like to deflect attention onto other irrelevant things. Do you think the Lead without any citations is ok? I guess the same questions I put to Scolaire apply to you. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lede consists of a summary of the rest of the article, primarily the "History" section, and by virtue of its status as a summary of facts, should not require any separate citations as per standard practice on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 - that's not standard practice nor in line with all the WP guidance - ones I've pointed to included. If it's standard practice, perhaps you could point me to a comparable article with a lengthy lede and no sources?Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalan independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620185859/http://www.icps.es/sondeigs.asp?con=35&apr=1 to http://www.icps.es/sondeigs.asp?con=35&apr=1#35

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

'Legality and legitimacy'

After edits were made to the "Legality and legitimacy" section today, I did a bit of research and found that the section had been copied verbatim from Scottish independence#Legality and legitimacy. In both articles, the section is mostly original research anyway, but in this article it's also grossly misleading, in that neither the Modern Law Review article nor the Times letter made any reference to Catalonia, only to Scotland. Taking out the affected statement, and the wholly OR discussion of "declarative theory of statehood", "constitutive theory of statehood" and "rule according to higher law", which was written for a different article, the only sourced content is an off-hand remark by Ban Ki-Moon, which is not enough to justify this section. I'm chopping it. Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Public opinion paragraph

The sentence beginning "The position of Catalans regarding the independence..." was added in August 2009, and was and remains unsourced. The fact is that none of the several tables that follow do appear to take account of the fact "that a huge number of Catalan citizens are of immigrant origin", nor do any of the opinion polls on which they are based, nor do any of the books or news stories that I have read. The sentence is therefore irrelevant. The remainder of that paragraph is facts and figures on population flow, which are therefore also irrelevant, since any effect on public opinion is not shown. I'm chopping that paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish-language name for Catalan independence

Since we have the name for Catalan independence in Catalan on the page we should also have the Spanish name for it (since Spanish is an official language there and the main language of Spain. I have copied the names for it from the Spanish language wiki page. I think it almost inevitable that someone will try to remove the Spanish name "secesionismo catalán" as some editors on this page have said how they did not like the English version of this name, however, this IS a common name (as far as I can tell) used for it in Spanish and therefore is appropriate to list it here. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catalan independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407040427/http://www.intereconomia.com/programa/gato-al-agua/tenor-jose-carreras-camara-visca-catalunya-lliure to http://www.intereconomia.com/programa/gato-al-agua/tenor-jose-carreras-camara-visca-catalunya-lliure
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303053339/http://www.cronica.cat/noticia/Lultima_batalla_dels_catalanistes_del_PSC to http://www.cronica.cat/noticia/Lultima_batalla_dels_catalanistes_del_PSC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lliga

Why is there no mention in this article either of the Lliga Catalana or of its precursor the Lliga Regionalista? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.86.9 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

People criticizing independence is in my opinion a section of no informative value, especially if there is no counterpart (think of people like Guiardiola) and even more if the peopl is not relevant in international context (this is english wikipedia=. Its clear most people there are catalan-born people that live or work on national audienced media, so it´s not presumably neutral. It´s like the socttish prime minister who is aa catalan spporter but it´s obviously biased.

Introduction

I have attempted to trim down the introduction in line with WP:LEAD but have been unsuccessful on the basis that another user believes it does not summarise the contents of the article. The proposed updated lead in fact succinctly summarises the article's contents, whereas the current lead introduces ideas not discussed in the main body of the article and fails to recognise any notion of independence prior to the 20th century before its gets to 3 bloated paragraphs discussing the last decade of the subject. In doing so, it places too much emphasis on recent events that can be and are discussed in great depth in both their own articles and the main body of this article. What are people's thoughts? mgSH 17:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the proposed updated lead. In what way does it summarise? One sentence on 1714, one sentence on 1932, one sentence on 1979, one sentence on 2006, and one sentence on 2017; and none of those except the last deal with Catalan independence in any way, shape or form. There's a statement that the Spanish government opposes independence, but where's the summary of the section on parties and individuals in Catalonia that support or oppose independence?

I wrote the lead last October, taking care not to include anything that was not in the History section (which I had previously re-written because it was an utter mess) or the Support or Oppose sections. Perhaps mgSH could detail the "ideas" that are introduced in the lead and not discussed in the article body? And isn't it then a contradiction to say that "it places too much emphasis on events that are discussed in great depth in the main body of the article"? Not to mention that that is precisely what the lead is intended to do. There is emphasis on the last decade because it is only in the last decade that a significant independence movement has existed in Catalonia. It is the post-2010 movement that this article is about and has always been about. The lead should reflect that. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your last sentence is false to a manipulative extent, you need some context. Catalonia or his geographic peoples have rejected Castilian dominance since Trastamaras (1420). We self-proclamed a catalan republic/state as early as s.xvii (pau claris) -.> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Republic. After the civi war and franco regime, people was struggling to recover democratic normality and independence was socially regarded as an utopy to an almost taboo point, along with the fact of an spanish massive immigration during the second half of Francos regime. It´s only after that last sparkle with the promised estatut lie/crisis (2008) that new generations back to strike again feeling completely supported socially for aiming the ever present end: independence. all dominant parties after francos end but psc (which is federalist republican spanish, anyway) have always recognized that this was the ultimate objective when the support was latent (pactist fashion) as well as now that emerged suddently from all social feedback. I am pro-independence so I know exaclty how this is working from inside. Please prove it wrong. Frankly, I think this entry should be exclusively voiced by independentist people with the exception of facts, events and criticisms. Of course I am talking of nationalistic (always an electoral majority), I am not implying all catalans support the movement..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Self-rule has been mooted for hundreds of years. It appears that Scolaire's argument is predicated on the fallacy that a significant independence movement has only seriously entered anyone's consciousness in the last decade, which is simply untrue. This very article shows that support for independence was, according to one source, at a greater level in 1991 than 2007.

On the point of including lists of supporters and opponents in the lead, it makes little sense to include unwieldy lists of current supporters and opponents in preference to the historical context of independence. I do not think the point of the lead is to summarise each and every section of the main article, as is reflected in the lack of mention of a summary of the opinion polls in the current lead.

Anyway, if this article is about the drive for independence in the last decade, I would suggest changing its name, as it is currently misleading. mgSH 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The point of the lead is to summarise main article; if not each and every section, then certainly the major ones. The failure to summarise the opinion polls is something that could be remedied, but it's not an excuse for wholesale deletion of the summary of the other sections.

When I was writing the History section, I read a lot of high-quality English-language sources that I found on Google Books – they can be seen in the References section. I was personally interested in finding out about independence movements (as opposed to general Catalan history) in the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the Franco and post-Franco period. I didn't find a lot. What I did find, I put in the Beginnings and 20th century sections. If either of you has a high-quality, English-language source (preferably a book) that details an active and well-supported independence movement in those periods, then by all means add the information to the History section of the article. It can then be summarised in the lead. User:84.77.111.111, while taking issue with my views, is saying that independence in the Franco and post-Franco period was "utopian to an almost taboo point". How is that different from what the article says?

mgSH says, This very article shows that support for independence was, according to one source, at a greater level in 1991 than 2007. There is no such statement in the article. There is a table in the section on opinion polls that shows that support for independence went up and down between 30% and 35% in the years 1991 to 2007, being at the high end in one of those years and on the low end in the other, but since the whole thrust of the article is that a mass movement has only existed since about 2010, that table doesn't actually show anything, apart from the beginnings of an increase in 2011. Scolaire (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Express it like you want with the polls with the questions you consider, in any context, but I can assure you if you put a red button on the table and let people choose to be part or not of spain in the last century peacefully, most people born here would have press it. I cannot prove it factically so just for the record. I am one of the guys that probably answered at that time I supported federalism instead of independence. THAT should be included in the poll, since federalism is indeed an important step ahead on autonomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten about this but will (briefly) respond. Put it down to lack of energy, inclination, dedication and time! Anyway, it is misleading to suggest that independence movements began in earnest only in the last 10 years. This is obvious from previous independence declarations made - it doesn't make sense for a movement that dates back hundreds of years to have such a sharp focus on the last decade. This is an article entitled 'Catalan independence movement' (previously 'Catalan independence') and it does not even mention a 1641 declaration of independence! This and other declarations should be given due weight in the lead and the main body. Perhaps the easier thing to do given the incomplete nature of the article would be to rename it Modern Catalan independence movement or some variation of it which satisfies naming conventions. mgSH 23:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a "List of Declarations of Independence". And, in any case, I can see no record of any document entitled "Declaration of Independence" in Catalan history. The Reapers' War, which takes in 1641, gets an appropriate mention in the article body; it got no mention in your version of the lead – nor, for that matter, was the word "independence" used in that lead at all before the last two sentences, which dealt with 2017. Now, you talk about "a movement that dates back hundreds of years". Well, can you tell me what that movement did between 23 January 1641, when the Catalan Republic came to an end after six days, and the foundation of Estat Català in 1922? I can't find mention of it in the War of the Spanish Succession, where Catalans chose one contender for the Spanish throne against another. I can't find mention of it in the proclamation of the Catalan State of 1873, which was a Catalan State within the Spanish Republic. So what was the independence movement up to for those 281 years? Who were its leaders? How was the banner passed from one generation to the next? How many "Declarations of Independence" did it issue, and where are they recorded? Likewise for the years between 1934 and 2006. What can you tell us about the independence movement in those years that isn't already in the History section? We can't just conjure up 18,000 words to "balance" the 1,200 words on the last ten years by asserting (without evidence) that "the movement dates back hundreds of years". We work with what we have. Scolaire (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 referendum

I moved here this content:

"On the day of the poll, Spanish police and the Guardia Civil raided polling stations in Barcelona, Girona and elsewhere. They forced entry, ejected the occupants, confronted people trying to vote, used batons and fired rubber bullets in an attempt to stop the referendum from going ahead. The Catalan government gave preliminary figures indicating that 2.26 million (42% of the electorate) had voted, with 90% vote in favour of independence. The Spanish constitutional court moved quickly to prevent a declaration of independence."

We have to adjust per WP:NPOV. See Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Request for Comment. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And this other sentence frome the lead:

"National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil were deployed to prevent voting, using batons and rubber bullets."

See [7] and [8] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 October 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG ^talk 10:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Catalan independence → Catalan independence movement – This article is about the movement for Catalan independence, not about the topic of Catalan independence in general.  ONR  (talk)  00:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Move. The article is about the independence movement. It is in Category:Independence movements, in which "independence movement" articles outnumber "independence" articles. "Independence" in general is inapropriate for a place that doesn't have independence. This article was originally titled "Catalan indepententism", which is closer to "independence movement " than to "independence". Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move. See, e.g. Quebec sovereignty movement. Fluous (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move. It certainly seems premature to call it "Catalan independence" when independence has yet to happen. Just my two cents. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 05:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Stay. Independence was declared today. UnknownM1 (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2017 (EST)
  • That doesn't alter the fact that the article is about the independence movement. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move. I support the move because this article is not about Catalonia during periods iof indipendence but rather about the historical movement that has been ongoing since the union of Aragon and Castile. Also, as of now, the article doesn't really talk about the independent Catalonia which would be better suited to a completely new article rather than changing this one. Alex the Nerd (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move as they declared their independence today – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 19:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move per Scoliare. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move per Scolaire. Impru20 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community Sanctions

A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Percent of what? & no citation

Article says, "Results showed a 90% vote in favour of independence, with a turnout of 43%." This statement should be clarified and reliable sources given. I think what the truth is, is that 90% of those who voted favored independence. But what does the 43% refer to? 43% of registered voters? 43 percent of the citizens? 43 percent of adult citizens? 43 percent of those who are eligible to vote (excluding criminals who can't vote)? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC))

Turnout is conventionally understood to mean percentage of eligible voters. It is not usually defined precisely in Wikipedia articles because it is not usually defined precisely in the sources. To answer the question you didn't ask except in the section heading, there is a citation (to this source) in the relevant section of the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Motivation not really covered in article

The article makes no mention of the motivation behind the drive for separation, including the most prominent; the Catalans, as the wealthiest and most industrially developed region of Spain are opposed to sharing the wealth with poorer regions like Andalusia and want to keep it all to themselves. I think this is important to mention, as this bourgeois nationalism differs from a lot of other kinds of separatist or anti-colonial nationalism of people who are actually oppressed. This unusual dynamic of a "rich" region wanting to break away from the poorer ones, makes it similar to something like Lega Nord's "Padania" or if the English Home Counties decided to declare themselves a country and should probably be mentioned in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

CEO 2017 3rd series

Data has been released today. Culloty82 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalize the title?

It might be best to capitalize the title of this page. Geek1064 (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Catalan independence movement is not a proper name, i.e. there is no specific organisation entitled the "Catalan Independence Movement". Per MOS:Capitalisation, it should not be capitalised. See Category:Independence movements, where none none of the articles are capitalised. Scolaire (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions

The introduction had a complete lack of citations.

From reading this it wasn't exactly clear why the Catalans wanted independence, other than nationalist sentiment. Perhaps discuss more of the motives and feelings behind the separatist movement and those who wish to stay a part of Spain.

How does winning a majority of the seats in Catalonia's parliament without the majority of votes complicate Catalonia's mandate for independence?

The economist cited that there was a 10 billion euro gap between taxes paid from Catalonia and benefits received. There was no mention of this in the article and it seems to be a big reason why many Catalans want independence and why Spaniards want to have them stay. More so than nationalist sentiment perhaps.

Perhaps there should be a section discussing directly the relationship dynamics of Spain and Catalonia. Many Catalan officials feel as though they aren't respected by the Spanish Government this isn't discussed at all. Whereas the Spanish case concerning the legality of secession is made quite clear. This feels like an area of bias in the article. XabiChristo (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC) XabiChristo UCSD

Hi XabiChristo. The lead is a summary of the article body. For every statement in the lead there is a citation in the article body. As a summary of facts, it does not require any separate citations. This is standard practice on Wikipedia.

On the 2015 elections, Artur Mas said that it would be a "referendum on independence". If pro-independence parties had received more than a 50% share of the vote, he could have said that Catalans had voted unequivocally for independence. The fact that they fell short of 50% complicated the matter. I agree that this could be better explained in the article. Your other suggestions are excellent. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't any 'bias' in the article - the article reflects summaries of what the Reliable Sources say. If there is no source for your point of view, then that's just how it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Color scheme for international recognition map

The international recognition map [9] could not have picked a worse color scheme for people who are red-green colorblind. All I can tell is that most of the world either recognizes or doesn't recognize the Catalan Republic, and that most of Africa and the middle east have no opinion. Perhaps one of these colors should be changed to yellow or light blue or something. Or stick with red and green, but make it light green and dark red. 2601:601:9C00:4E0D:9452:910C:FD72:A331 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It was too much for this article. It's fine It might have been okay for Catalan Republic (2017) and related articles (or not – it seems to have been removed from all of them), but this article is much broader in scope, and it just distracted from the text. Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Is CEO Reliable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result was no more edits on these lines at the moment. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I have had a a look at the CEO survey and it certainly does not seem reliable to me.

• Only 22% of sample surveyed on independence opinion were non-nationalist voters, when non-nationalist voters represented over 39% of votes in last election.
• An excess of weight is given in survey sample to pro-independence rural areas.
• There is a massive overrepresentation of respondents who inform themselves using TV3 and other pro-independence media. In fact double, which is ridiculous.
• The president of CEO is a hardcore pro-independence guy, Jordi Argelaguet Argemí, former leader or political wing of terrorist group Terra Lliure.
• Their opinion polling has been way off line in the past, always vastly overestimating support for pro-independence parties.

Here is one source touching on the topic. https://cronicaglobal.elespanol.com/redirect/verguenza-encuesta-ceo-generalitat_43414_102.html

It seems to me a clear cut case of manipulation of public opinion by Catalan authorities to create the fiction of a majority of the population supporting independence. This should at the very least be discussed in the article Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources informing on this (and no, an opinion text in a clearly anti-independence media such as Crónica Global does not count as such, for the sake of WP:NPOV. These should be either academic or, at least, coming from one or several experts on the issue, not from a random columnist)?

If yes, provide them. If no, then that's it for the discussion, because we must base ourselves on reliable sources, not on opinions. None of your points is backed by reliable sources. For example:

• The underrepresentation of non-nationalist voters in Catalonia happens in all polls, not only in the CEO, and it has always happened. Something similar happens in the Basque Country.
• "Excess of weight in survey sample" to rural areas does not necessarily relate to overall polling results if those have been weighted accordingly thereafter. CEO interviews around 1,000-2,000 people in each poll. It's all but obvious it can't sample a rural area proportionally to the samples they obtain in urban areas, because Barcelona alone is worth 1.6 million out of Catalonia's 7.5 million inhabitants, and Barcelona Province is worth over 5.5 million. A sample dependant on population would mean rural areas would be statistically neglected; thus, they sample these a little more so as to obtain useful data. They would later weight those results according to population, though, but that the sample does not look weighted in itself tells you nothing. The CIS and other pollsters do the same. Even so, such differences in the CEO are actually small (of 1 percentage point or less).
• It may be because TV3 is the dominant TV in Catalonia, while pro-independence media also have a wide audience. Results shown by the CEO in this sense don't tend to differ much from those shown by the CIS, for example.
• And Mariano Rajoy presides over a party which was founded by a Francoist Minister, and he started off politically as a member of another party founded by yet another Francoist Minister (UNE). And what? What has any of this to do with the way opinion polls are conducted? The only sources I can find from his alleged "manipulation" of CEO polls are non-academic, opinion articles coming from entirely anti-Catalan nationalist media. Btw, it is completely false that he was leader (or even a member at all) of Terra Lliure, lol. He was member of pro-independence MDT in the past (as well as of ERC and CDC), but not even its leader.
• Other opinion polling has also been way off-line in the past. And? If opinion polling was exact, we wouldn't have elections. Impru20 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Impru20 re whether Crónica Global is a reliable source. Additionally, WP:Identifying reliable sources, under News organizations, says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact...When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." Carles Enric López is not an expert on anything.

But the edit did not actually cite Crónica Global. It cited Dolça Catalunya, a blatantly propagandist organ. And this is the problem with the edit. It's an edit that does nothing more than push a POV, using a non-reliable, biased source. That's not how we improve Wikipedia. If you want to know whether CEO is reliable, ask at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If they decide it's not, then all the content should simply be removed from the article. If they decide it is, then the content should stand as it is; Wikipedia does not preface opinion poll tables with the comment that some individuals don't like the polls. In the meantime, please do not try to restore that edit. Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Impru20 Why does the under representation of non-nationalist voters happen in all polls, as you say? A survey with around 70% of nationalists/independence supporters in sample can hardly be considered credible...Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Slight differences between the population and the sample are probably the result of random sampling error. The claim about TV viewership seems to be simply conjecture by someone who doesn't quite get how the stats work - a network's audience share at a given time doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how many people view a network as a primary news source.

CEO polling appears to be widely cited among mainstream and expert sources, and I don't see major criticisms of its polling in those sources. Obviously no poll is perfect, but by conventional standards this meets the general requirements for an RS. Nblund ^talk 20:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Nblund 70% is not a "slight difference". Nationalists obtained 39% of votes in last election and are 70% of the sample. How is that attributable to random sampling error??Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that in a normal western country like Spain a government agency like CEO should be credible. But in Catalonia, anything is possible. Impru20, I would like to point out a couple of things: You mention Mariano Rajoy, well yes, if Mariano Rajoy or an ideologue of the Partido Popular was the head of the CIS (national statistical agency) I would consider the CIS results suspect. But Mariano Rajoy is the PM and leader of a Centre-Right party and the president of the CIS is Cristobal Torres Albero, an academic with no known political affiliation. Arguelaget being President of the CEO is the equivalent of a hardcore rightist politician with a background in some far-right pro-terrorist organization such as Fuerza Nueva being president of the CIS and yes, the MDT was the political wing of Terra Lliure, a terrorist group, so no lolling required there. Opposition parties have also called for his dismissal including the Socialist Party of Catalonia due to his sectarian and incompetent management of CEO and its surveys https://delcamp.cat/general/sabate-exigeix-a-mas-la-destitucio-del-director-del-ceo and SCC openly refers to it as bias for the reasons given above. El Pais (as credible as Spanish language sources get) discusses the issue of over-representation but does not openly accuse them of bias. https://elpais.com/ccaa/2013/03/08/catalunya/1362779533_655765.html I admit I am not an expert on this matter, so I should not make such categorical statements (I did so earlier, perhaps unfairly). But it is an issue which is worth to consider and discuss here. Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of TV3, Impru20 you say that it is the "dominant channel in Catalonia". Although its share has spiked significantly last month, in 2017 it has been consistently in third place behind the national stations Telecinco and Antena 3, with a share of below 10%. So that is another false premise in your argument.http://www.lavanguardia.com/television/20170502/422207701404/tv3-audiencias-batacazo.htmlSonrisas1 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Another matter which is getting very tiresome among editors here because it is based on rather outdated cliches: I am no Partido Popular supporter nor have ever voted for them, but continuing to associate Spain's major centre-right party to a dictatorship which ended 40 years ago is just silly. The PP is a rather meek and centrist conservative party by European standards and Rajoy is very much a centrist and moderate by PP standards. Only recently Rajoy warned of the dangers of "Spanish nationalism" while defending himself from criticism of accepting Basque fiscal privileges whereby the richest region in Spain gets the most investment from the central state.http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2017/11/27/5a1be266468aeb4b5f8b45c0.html So let's just leave the Franco-Paella-Flamenco-Bullfighting imagery out of discussions on Spanish politics, please. Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For now, I am not pushing any addition/modification to the article. But I suggest we continue to monitor this topic of CEO credibility since it does seem a possible concern. Perhaps more sources will clarify down the line. Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

CIS Survey

This recent CIS survey certainly looks more reliable in terms of sampling. Similar sample proportions to recent votes on elections. http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2017/12/04/cis_elecciones_catalanas.pdfSonrisas1 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I see a question in that survey on "alternative formulas of territorial organization of the State in Spain." I don't see a question on independence for Catalonia. Can you point me to the correct page/question? Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonrisas, since you're bringing the issue back up, I'll try to answer the question you asked above: similar sample proportions to a recent election aren't really an indication of reliability. Vote intention is an attitude, not a demographic - it changes over time and it doesn't necessarily reflect actual behavior. U.S. Republicans had a similar complaint about the polling in 2012 (read here), but the efforts to "unskew" the polls were wildly incorrect.

More importantly, reliability is determined by the reputation of the source - not by our own individual intuitions about which source seems "right". CIS might also be a reliable, but we need outside analysis to start talking about which source is "better". Nblund ^talk 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Question 20 (and I guess 21 and 24). CIS surveys are already in the article, this is just the latest one which was missing - not proposing any new source. Question 20 shows that currently 44% of Catalans want the Spanish state to allow regions to have the right to self-determination - an increase of 3% since last series. User:Nblund Thanks. I still think that no survey in the US on, say, attitudes towards abortion or gun rights, would have a proportion of 70% republican voters though. But I am not an expert in this matter and I can't categorically question the methodology. Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonrisas1, a question on whether you want the Spanish state to allow regions (plural) to have the right to self-determination is not a question on whether you want Catalonia to be independent. To infer anything about attitudes to independence from such a question is synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I can't find any CIS surveys in the article. Is it the same as ICPS? ICPS surveys in the past included a question on independence for Catalonia; the survey you linked to does not. Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Correct, it is a CEO not a CIS poll, sorry. Asks pretty much the same question though, that is why I assumed it was same source. Calling it SYNTH is a bit finicky. Results are similar, I'm not going to fight over it. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're not going to fight over it, then let's draw a line under the whole thing. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced or questionable material

Regarding this edit, and this one

I count five edits that appear without a citation, or that are not supported by the cited source. They are as follows:

• "No significant protest demonstrations were organized [by the Catalan independence movement] until 2012"
• The Spanish high court "provided a valid, constitutional interpretation for another 27" articles of the Statute of Autonomy.
• Omnium Cultural had "already turned into a pro-independence political masss[sic] movement" by 2010
• The 2012 elections resulted in a pro-independent coalition because "CiU was not an openly independentist coalition" at the time.
• The 2012 victory "was in MP seats, not in vote: 47,87% adding CiU, ERC and CUP"

User:Savig: Perhaps these are known facts, but, if that's the case it should be easy to find appropriate citations. The edit also contains a variety of typographical errors, problematic wordings and assertions that are little more than bare assertion from opinion columnists. My view was that it was better to simply revert rather than attempt to fix an edit that had very little salvageable material, but I'm open to alternative suggestions. Nblund ^talk 00:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you speak Spanish Nblund? I suggest assisting the editor with Spanish language sources, they are easy to find. Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The problems with these edits are (1) that they are adding POV and opinion to what was a factual lead, and (2) that they use articles in biased Spanish newspapers as a source. Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Spanish language sources are easy to find. Spanish language sources that are reliable sources per WP:RS seem to be much less easy to find. The lead before those edits was a summary of the History section in the article body, which is scrupulously sourced from reliable secondary sources, i.e. books written by acknowledged experts published by reputable publishers. Specifically, regarding these latest edits:

1. "The modern independence movement allegedly began..." This is just silly. Who says it's an allegation? When is the "true" beginning supposed to be? It is also based on a misunderstanding of what was there. It said, "The modern independence movement began when the 2006 Statute of Autonomy...was challenged in the Spanish High Court of Justice, which ruled that some of the articles were unconstitutional..." It didn't say that the 2006 statute was the beginning of the movement, but rather that its rejection by the Spanish court led to the movement.
2. "14 out of the 223 articles were unconstitutional (6,27%) and provided a valid, constitutional interpretation for another 27." This is opinion, and also irrelevant. The number of articles as a percentage of the total means nothing if the articles were significant ones, which they were; and of course a court is going to presume that its ruling is constitutional and valid. What is relevant is not whether the ruling was fair according to its own lights, but what the ruling said.
3. "Òmnium Cultural then already turned into a pro-independence political masss [sic] movement." This is unnecessary, since the sentence says that the pro-independence demonstration was organised by Òmnium Cultural.
4. The 2015 elections were billed as "a referendum on independence", so the fact that the popular vote was less than 50% for pro-independence parties is significant. The 2012 elections were not billed as a referendum, so the percentage of the popular vote does not need to be stated. Also, what is the difference between "pro-sovereignty" and "pro-independence"?
5. The criticism of the polling organisation CEO in Crónica Global was discussed above. It was agreed not to include it. It should not have been re-added.

There do seem to be some matters of fact that either were mis-stated or are now outdated. These can be fixed. Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have been focusing on recent events in my editing. There were problems. I agree some of these statements are POV. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that most of the statements added on Dec 20th were truthful, and probably reliable sources could be found for most of them. At the same time, some of them could also be adding some degree of POV to the text by giving excessive attention to certain non-essential facts. After the latest edits, the current version is probably better. --Savig (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is an improvement, thanks Scolaire and Sonrisas. Nblund ^talk 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Supremacism and Xenophobia

There is sufficient material to have a section on the Xenophobia and Supremacism in history and contemporary discourse of Catalan independence movement. Anyone disagrees with including a section on accusations/discussions/examples of this? If so why? Opinions welcome.

Particularly interesting in the context of there being a "Alternative views" section in Ciudadanos article accusing the most voted party in Catalonia of being far right. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason 1: "racial theories" have nothing to do with the independence movement, 5 October 2017.

Reason 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism, result was Delete, 1 November 2017.

Reason 3: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Catalan Racism, strong consensus to delete, 26 November 2017.

Reason 4: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

You have been trying to peddle this POV rubbish ever since you joined Wikipedia. You have never got even a sniff of a consensus to do it. I asked you a month ago to delete the content of your sandbox, since that content had been rejected in its totality by a large number of uninvolved editors, and your answer was essentially that you were going to keep it so you could push it somewhere else. This is disruption, pure and simple.

And reason 5: whatever goes on at the Ciudadanos or any other article (and for what it's worth, I think far-right is crazy!) is not an excuse to bring the battle to this article. I and others have worked bloody hard to keep this an encyclopaedic, neutral and factual article despite all the stupid POV wars that have been going on elsewhere. Can you not try to respect that? Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire No need to be so aggressive. Numerous Catalans (actually a large segment of Catalan society) disagree with your perspective and consider that the independence movement is essentially far right supremacism: for example Albert Boadella, a former anti-francoist activist. In any case, ,my point here is exactly that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so we should tone down criticism of specific parties. Thank you. I would thus ask you to support me on removing the "alternative views" section in the Ciudadanos article. It would be nice if you worked hard "to keep things NPOV" on both sides, not just one - since you are among the most active editors on Catalan issues. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. I got involved in this article and the Catalan Countries article late last year, when nothing much was happening. I think that the people who worked on those articles at that time did a good (and collaborative) job on getting encyclopaedic, neutral and factual articles; I'd like to keep them that way, and I've edited both articles with a view to doing that. I did get involved in some other articles around the time of the referendum (as well as the deletion discussions I mentioned above), but I regretted it and I've more or less stayed out since then. I don't see why defending the neutrality of an article I've worked on obliges me to intervene in an article I have nothing to do with, and I don't wish to be guilt-tripped into doing so. And by the way, if you sincerely believe that we should tone down criticism of specific parties, then I don't see how you can reconcile that with adding an attack on the whole independence movement. Also, Numerous Catalans (actually a large segment of Catalan society) disagree with your perspective and consider that the independence movement is essentially far right supremacism is soapboxing; it has nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Can you still not see the difference? Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Im making a point. And no its not soapboxing since Im discussing in talk page, not including it in the article. Sonrisas1 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Soapboxing is soapboxing. You can "make a point" on the talk page if you wish, but you have still not proposed any encyclopaedic content. Trust me, Wikipedia is not a forum for people to people to attack political movements they disagree with. Click Special:Random. Click it as many times as you like, and see how often you come to a page that does that. Read Encyclopaedia. See if it says it's for people to "make points". Either you're interested in building an encylopaedia or you are looking for a forum to air your political prejudices. You need to decide which it is. Scolaire (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. Maybe a section describing some (many, I would say) people's critical view on the separatist movement would be soapboxing as you say (and therefore not encyclopedic), I'm not sure about that, but then you have to admit that Sonrisas' remark about the content in Citizens_(Spanish_political_party)#Alternative_views_and_past_membership is quite on the spot. Either both sections are appropriate or none is. --Savig (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

But this is not the Ciudadanos talk page. What goes on there should not even be brought up here. Read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The Ciudadanos article is an unholy mess. Of course there shouldn't be an "alternative views" section. What's more, 90% of the article should be cut because it's just endlessly repeating that different people have different views about what the party policies and ideologies are. But saying "let's propose an attack section on Catalan independence movement to goad people into participating in the Ciudadanos talk page discussion" is disruptive. I decline to wade into that mess, just as I am staying out of a dozen other related articles. If people can't propose concrete, policy-compliant improvements to this article, then they shouldn't be posting to this talk page. Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm staying out of those articles too (unfortunately my time is limited). But I think that by bringing for a moment that other article (Ciudadanos) into this discussion we have been able to make an interesting observation here: different criteria are being applied in similar articles. If Wikipedia's policies are not clear on wheather an article about a political movement should include criticisms about it or not, and/or how, perhaps this could be a good moment for somebody raising a thread about that -not in this talk page of course but in the right place- in order to find a solution. --Savig (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So stop posting on this talk page, then. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Savig Fully agreed. It is concerning that:

1) editors here forbid any reference to criticism in the article on the Catalan independence movement when it is largely defined as a xenophobic movement by half of the Catalan population, a good portion of Catalan intelligentsia, the leader of Catalonia's most voted party and pretty much all political parties in Spain except Podemos; and simultaneously

2) Simultaneously, the article on Ciudadanos, the most voted party in Catalonia, has a section on "alternative views" which basically misconstrues a centrist liberal party as some kind of fascist neo-nazi party on the basis of opinions/claims by pro-independence media and individuals. Defending this reality while talking of NPOV is a bit rich, to say the least.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)