Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"de jure" - proposition to add note[edit]

As status is "disputed", the term "de jure" should have reference to note that "de jure" refers to Spanish legal system, not Catalonian. Unsigned comment added HERE. Pincrete (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi We have the choice to add no infobox, the infobox former country of the infobox country. Have you got an opinion ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No info box. How can we decide what to put in the infobox when none of the details that would fill it were ever decided? This Catalan state was certainly declared, but no flag was ever chosen, no president elected, no capital declared, no anthem made official etc. etc. etc. If you are going to have an infobox then every single detail in it will be without a supporting reference and marked "(de facto)" FOARP (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No infobox seems as per today the best option. --Brgesto (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I concur, no infobox seems best option, due to lack of international recognition and lack of effective home rule (past or present). Nothing about the Catalan Republic resembles a government, even their political parties agreed to concur in new local elections organized by Spain. Baidelan (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep an infobox with as much information as possible. I'm indifferent on the extent to which Catalonia can be considered a presently existing state and whether or not it can be considered a government in exile. However, I disagree with FOARP's statements because (as previously detailed further in other subsections of this talk page) Catalan legislation from September of this year detailed that what applied to Catalonia as a region under Spain (its anthem, its flag, its capital, its elected officials, etc) - everything he cited all transferred to the new Catalan Republic. I'd rank the choices as follows: Country infobox > Former country infobox > No infobox. Perhaps someone could propose an alternative compromising approach, but I'd say that entirely removing the infobox would be the worst approach for the readers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox former country, as per my arguments in the section above as well as per sources. Bloomberg says Spain took control of the Catalan government with little resistance, bringing the restless region back from the edge as grassroots supporters of the independence movement cried betrayal. Under the transitional law approved on 6 September, the most basic elements from the state (flag, coat, anthem or capital) are clear (they would be the same as those of the autonomous community), whereas the infobox would also be useful for listing the most notorious events throughout this period. I agree with most of BrendonTheWizard's reasoning that keeping an infobox with as much information as possible is preferable, though I'd rank my choices as Former country infobox > No infobox (making no mention of country infobox unless someone can actually prove this Republic is functioning as of currently, if it ever has). Impru20 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that ther's no statement nor official document declaring that Catalonia "infobox-details" are transferred to the Catalan Republic. We have a signed document (27 October) approving the transitoriety to become a Republic as the only document. Nothing else. --Brgesto (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Brgesto, I mean this not to be harsh, but that is simply incorrect. The document is titled Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic which states as follows: Article 10. Continuity of the valid law 1. The local, autonomic and state regulations in force in Catalonia at the time of entry into force of this Law shall continue to apply in all matters not in contravention of this Law and the Catalan law passed subsequently. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
We have it, which is the Law 20/2017, of 8 September, of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic. It was approved by the Parliament of Catalonia on 6 September, and published on the Official Gazette of the Generalitat of Catalonia on 8 September (sourced here and here). While suspended by the Constitutional Court of Spain, it is obviously taken as a point of reference by the pro-independence Generalitat. Article 10 clearly says that Spanish laws, Catalan laws and local laws still in force would be kept unless they clashed or were expressly rejected with the Law (this includes the community's symbols and nearly everything not posing a legal conflict between Spanish and Catalan legalities). And the approved independence declaration signed on 27 October clearly said such a law was of application (Source. Page 4). Impru20 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
There was never any form of effective government, so former country infobox is not appropriate. Baidelan (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Asserting that the article's subject as a Catalan Republic never existed is an argument for deleting the article entirely more so than it is an argument for deleting the infobox, but we just had that discussion with a speedy keep. To keep the article but have its subject referred to as something that never existed in the first place would be nonsensical. I'd say there are two legitimate arguments to make with regard to the infobox: arguments for a former country infobox and arguments for simply a country infobox. Arguments for a former country infobox would be that the Spanish State has reasserted its control over the country and arguments for a country infobox would be that it is by definition a "government in exile" (A government in exile is a political group which claims to be a country or semi-sovereign state's legitimate government, but is unable to exercise legal power and instead resides in another state or foreign country). BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox former country - The fact is that the Republic of Catalonia no longer exists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

:::BrendonTheWizard, Impru20 - Good points. Changing my vote to keeping the infobox as-is. I think it might well be worth explaining as a footnote in any infobox that these are the details of the autonomous region and were automatically transferred to the new Republic by Article 10 of the declaration of independence - but only those details that are supported that way (I doubt the currency details are). I disagree, however, that the argument that this state never effectively existed is an argument for deleting this page. The state was obviously declared (and therefore justifies the article), it's just that there is no evidence that that declaration was ever given effect. Care must therefore be taken not to imply that it was without a supporting reference. I think particularly the assertion that Spanish rule was restored on the 30th does this, as there is no evidence that Spain ever lost effective control of the territory. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC) No info box. per FOARP: How can we decide what to put in the infobox when none of the details that would fill it were ever decided? This Catalan state was certainly declared, but no flag was ever chosen, no president elected, no capital declared, no anthem made official etc. etc. etc. If you are going to have an infobox then every single detail in it will be without a supporting reference and marked "(de facto)" FOARP's original post makes more sense to me than the modified one. There would be few supporters for deletion of this page, but currently the referendum page/ declaration page/ Spanish crisis and this page (+ others?) duplicate an enormous amount of info. The country did not meaningfully exist EXCEPT as a referendum/declaration IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Regarding "when none of the details that would fill it were ever decided" I strongly encourage you to read the full discussion here as such details that are found in the infobox (Catalonia's legally recognized flag, anthem, capital, etc) were decided and we've cited the specific legislation (Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic) that details in full how things such as the flag would transition from their use as autonomous subnational to sovereign national flags in the event of an Independence declaration. This was first brought up in the discussion on which flag if any to display in the infobox, but was also previously mentioned. That being said, I agree with many that are hesitant to support the infobox based on genuine questioning of the extent to which the self-proclaimed Catalan Republic was able to govern as its own entity. What we can say with confidence was that this state was unrecognized as said in the infobox, used the Senyera as its flag as seen in the infobox, and per Article 10 recognized the capital to be Barcelona. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No info box - at least until such a time where they actually control the territory with armed Catalan forces. At the moment this has no (? I think) external recognition and no de-facto control. If Catalan armed forces emerge and actually control the territory, then we should treat the same as Transnistria or Abkhazia.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    At this point I think it's very fair to say that Catalonia cannot still be compared with Transnistria because Transnistria still exerts full de facto control over the region. However, other states throughout history have proclaimed their independence only to be quickly reintegrated, such as the Bavarian Soviet Republic which was declared in 1919 as separate from the Weimar Republic and Bavaria, only to then be re-integrated in 1919 back into the Weimar Republic and Bavaria without ever having any recognition. I continue to hold the position of my !vote (which was more of a support for an infobox in general) by saying that Infobox Former Country is far more fitting than no infobox at all. Perhaps a better example to reiterate this is Catalan Republic (1931) which, much like the 2017 Catalan Republic, declared independence from Spain but only a few days later was taken back by Spanish forces. In a timespan that short, one could genuinely question just how effective it was at exerting de facto control, but it fully warrants an infobox nonetheless. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The previous Catalan Republic articles are little better than stubs so I'm not sure they're demonstrative of anything. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Even if I agreed that previous Catalan articles demonstrate nothing, I've cited articles on other short-lived states (such as the Bavarian Soviet Republic) which reaffirmed the substance of what I said. With that being said, I disagree with the starting position that a visible trend in how to display the infobox of a former short-lived state is lessened if the articles in question were rated as "Start" articles. Catalan Republic (1641) lasted only several days and has a similar infobox, as does Catalan State (1873) and Catalan State (1934). Unless we count Aragon, there has not been a long-lived Catalan state and there is a consensus among articles of this subject on how their infoboxes should appear. We have far more research for the most recent (2017) Catalan Republic and as a result have an article with far more detail, but there's not an argument that the length is relevant when discussing the best way to displaying an article's infobox. I would also reject an assertion that this instance is different because one may question the legitimacy of the self-proclaimed state of 2017; the 1934 state lasted one day, the extent to which we can view these states as having legitimate control over their claimed territory is evidently not a factor when our article is covering a self-proclaimed state. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately this is all a "What about X" argument. Stub articles that assert that states existed created by one or two editors without a source saying that they existed (or how long they existed) are always going to suffer a WP:NOR problem, regardless of how many of them there are. FOARP (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep infobox. Yes, the Catalan Republic was extremely short lived, but a declaration was technically made. The infobox summarizes key facts for the readers, especially the dates, so there is utility. We should not hurt the ability of readers to most efficiently find information over academic disputes on if a unilateral declaration was sufficient. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No infobox. This is too soon. Right now it does not qualify even as an unrecognized country - based on description in majority of RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Too soon? I'd say too late is far more accurate; of course right now it does not qualify as an unrecognized country because right now it is not a country at all. That's why the infobox we're using right now is the infobox former country. As history has shown again and again, self-proclaimed Catalan states are very often short-lived and this is no exception. Very little time has passed before Spain reintegrates them, but for that short period of time the region regards itself as sovereign nonetheless even as its people may be divided. Once Catalonia declared independence, it had declared itself to be a state (albeit an unrecognized one) in the form of a parliamentary republic where per the frequently mentioned Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic was de jure led by Puidgemont and the Catalan Parliament with the Senyera as its flag and The Reapers as its anthem. That is all in the past now. It's no longer ambiguous. Catalonia lacks de facto independence now, and the extent to which Spain has reasserted its control has now eliminated the possibility of viewing it as a government in exile. The Catalan Republic of 2017 is a former country and should be presented as such. To remove the infobox would deprive readers of valuable, reliable, and accurate information. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem: if it is now a former country, then when did it exist? It is not enough to simply point to primary evidence about two events and say "it existed between these events" if no secondary source states so. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


Remove Palestine. I think that it was colored when Israel was colored.

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[edit]

Remove the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I think that it was colored when Morocco was colored.

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"States not recognizing and/or rejecting the Catalan Republic" vs "States voicing a position but neither recognizing nor rejecting the Catalan Republic"[edit]

Isn't clear that the two classes overlap? A state "not recognizing and/or rejecting" the Catalan Republic (i.e., all of them) can also be a state "voicing a position but neither recognizing nor rejecting the Catalan Republic". The only real distinguisher here is actual refusal to recognise. It also has to be said that many of the states listed as "neither recognizing nor rejecting the Catalan Republic" refer to Catalonia as an autonomous region of Spain. For example the Taiwanese said they "[hoped] for peaceful dialogue between central and regional governments of Spain to resolve the Catalonia issue." The Belgians said "The only solution is a dialogue inside the country, which does not only concern Madrid and Barcelona, ​​there are other autonomies in Spain, and if a balance has to be found, it will probably be necessary to go through a dialogue with other Spanish autonomies." Even Slovenia talks about the requirement for legality within the Spanish constitution.

In truth it appears that there is no real difference between the position of states like Germany and states like Belgium - only the language and the strength with which the non-recognition has been expressed. It would probably be better to simply merge these classes into "States not recognizing the Catalan republic". In fact there are probably only two classes at present: not recognising and not expressing a view. The green colour should be done away with as, at present, no-one recognises the Catalan republic. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is obviously not the same. Some states have voiced a stance on the Catalan Republic issue, but have refused to expressly reject or refuse to recognize the Catalan Republic. Would you say Venezuela has rejected the Catalan Republic? Israel? Red shows those states either expressly rejecting the Catalan Republic or publicly supporting Spain's territorial integrity or the constitutional measures in force. Orange shows those which, while not recognizing the Catalan Republic, have not refused to do so either. Showing Germany and Venezuela-Belgium-Israel-etc in the same colour would seem like if those countries' stances are the same, when they aren't.
As for the green colour, it's there because the fact that no one recognizes the Catalan Republic now does not mean it may not happen in the future. It's one of the options possible; agree that it's one not actually in use nowadays, but it's good for the sake of WP:BALANCE to show that such an option exist in the map in the event in is required (also, showing green does no harm at all). Otherwise, readers may get a wrong idea from the map, that it is only a map showing non-recognition of the Catalan Republic, when it is by no means so. Impru20 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Any state that does not recognise the Catalan Republic does not recognise the Catalan Republic, whether or not they have said so. While there may (or may not) be a difference in political position between the red and orange (and grey) countries on the map, this sort of difference is very poorly suited to this format as it strips all nuance from any statement made.

If a map is to be used, the most useful parallel is with maps used for Kosovo and Abkhazia/South Ossetia. These use one colour for countries that recognise and another for countries that do not recognise, regardless of statements made. Kahastok talk 14:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kahastok and Impru20: Agree with Kahastok, there's no point trying to use colours to describe nuance in the differing positions of countries all of whom, ultimately, share the same position (non-recognition). This is the case even for Israel and Venezuela. In trying to assert that there is a difference between two overlapping classes ("not recognising and/or rejecting" and "not recognising but not necessarily rejecting") we are also engaging in mind-reading as to what the position of the statement actually is: where do the Belgians, for example, actually say that they do not reject Catalan independence? The Venezuelans spoke about "solidarity with the Catalan people", but what does this actually say about recognition? The answer is "nothing". The real answer is that none of them have recognised the Catalan Republic. (EDIT: Interpreting the Hungarian government's statement that Catalonia is purely an internal matter for Spain as a statement of neutrality of some kind is also, umm, a bit dubious).
As for keeping a colour that isn't actually used on the map in the box - and may well now never be used - I really cannot see the justification at all for this. Arguing that it is needed "for balance" begs the question of why we are including content that is not relevant to the subject (since no countries at present recognise) merely to please a subset of readers. You may say that this is to emphasise that this is not just a map showing non-recognition, but since that is actually all that it shows now (countries not recognising the Catalan Republic), as there are no countries recognising the Catalan Republic, that is effectively all that it is.FOARP (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@FOARP: Then we should paint the whole map red, remove green from the legend and have a nicely wholly-red map with no other choice? For that, then no map is needed at all.
I mean, what's the point of having such a map when it's obvious no state (even gray ones) has recognized Catalan independence? I thought the purpose of the map was to show those states expressly rejecting independence, yet states painted in orange have not done so, so that's why they were put in a different colour. If you want a map showing just non-recognition, then have all of it red but... what's the point of it at all? Impru20 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Impru20:Many of the states in the red list haven't actually explicitly said that they "reject" Catalan independence, instead this is an interpretation of what they have said. Take Tunisia for example: they never actually explicitly said they wouldn't recognise Catalonia, instead this is an interpretation of what they've said. Neither did Poland, whose statement isn't actually all that different to that of Hungary.
Equally none of the orange countries has actually recognised the Catalan Republic and many of them refer in their statements to Catalonia being part of Spain (e.g., Belgium, Taiwan, Hungary) or saying that the situation should be resolved in line with the Spanish constitution (e.g., Pakistan). Even Israel referred to this situation as an "internal crisis in Spain” - the idea that they take no sides is spin from journalists reported in an NRG piece from before the Israeli government's official statement, probably based on off-the-record briefings, but not actually anything that the Israelis have said on the record. Saying that they are in some sense neutral is an interpretation of what they have said which does not appear supported by the source, and anyway has to explain the fact that none of these "not rejecting" countries actually recognises the Catalan Republic.
As for the map being pointless, well, at present it includes a green colour that is not on the map, imputes statements and positions to countries that have not actually been said. If it has to include information that is either wrong or irrelevant to have a point, then I would rather have it be pointless.FOARP (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Then again: should we just show the entire map as red? Generally, there's no "neutral" stance in recognition. Either a state recognizes another, or not. So, even those shown in gray wouldn't be recognizing Catalonia. Practice has been, however, to colour states as they actually voice their position on the issue, with the vast majority of them showing a rejection of Catalan independence or defense of Spanish territorial integrity. So, as we were showing those who expressly said something in the issue, it only makes sense for states voicing a position but not in support or in opposition to the Catalan Republic to be coloured differently, as their position differs slightly from those of others.
However, if you propose that we cast off orange based on your reasoning (and that we also remove green from the legend), under the same reasoning we should just extend red to everything. Which just makes the map entirely pointless until (and if) one state actually recognizes the Catalan Republic, because you don't need a wholly red map to say that "no one recognizes Catalonia".
I understand your stance perfectly, but it is you who does not seem to understand what the map is intended for, which is not exactly what you claim it is. Impru20 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Impru20: "the vast majority of them showing a rejection of Catalan independence or defense of Spanish territorial integrity" - Including many of the countries currently coloured Orange. How would you interpret the Hungarian and Israeli government's statements that this is an internal Spanish matter? And Belgium and Taiwan's statements that basically amount to the same thing (as they refer to Catalonia as a Spanish autonomy)? What is the difference between Poland's statement and Hungary's?
Again, the big problem here is the inaccuracy of the map. If fixing that renders the map pointless this is neither here nor there. A map that has to be inaccurate to have a point is a pointless map ab initio FOARP (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If the map is intended to do anything other than show recognition or non-recognition in a binary manner, then I would suggest that the data should not be presented in map form because of the nuance problem. Maps are a pretty rubbish way of representing what you seem to suggest that this map is intended to represent.
If there is a map, recognition is the sensible measure to use. At this time that means that everything should be the same colour (be that red or grey or whatever) except Catalonia. If you feel that this would render the map superfluous or pointless, I wouldn't disagree. The solution would be to remove the map completely. I don't see why that should be a problem. Kahastok talk 16:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that you think the map has the purpose of showing recognition or non-recognition in a binary manner, when it hasn't. "Fixing it" wouldn't be really a fix, but a change of the map's purpose. And seeing how the alternative you propose is, indeed, to remove the map, then I would say no, unless there's more than just two users agreeing on it, considering how widely accepted the map has been. Impru20 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, the big issue here is you think the map has the role of reflecting nuance in government statements, but it doesn't (and probably can't) do that, and hence is inaccurate. Again, the countries coloured orange at present include countries that have made statements little different to those in red. Most of them refer to Catalonia as part of Spain and to this issue as an internal Spanish matter. Whether or not the map has a point is a secondary matter.
As an example, Hungary said “The Hungarian Government views the declaration of Catalonian independence as a matter of Spanish internal affairs” but is coloured in orange despite this being a fairly unambiguous statement that Hungary does not recognise Catalan independence and views Catalonia as part of Spain. By contrast Poland said much the same kind of thing and is coloured in red. The same goes for Belgium, Taiwan, Israel in varying degrees. Only Slovenia doesn't seem to have stated that Catalonia is part of Spain, but since this amounts to "not voicing a position on the Catalan Republic" but only on the crisis, they might as well be grey.FOARP (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kahastok, Impru20, and FOARP: I agree with Kahastok and FOARP. The orange/red theme is confussing and adds nothing of valuable information to the whole map. Pakistan clearly says Catalonia Independence should be resolved in compliance with the Spanish constitution and law, yet is marked as orange. Hungary Catalonia Independence is a matter of Spanish internal affairs, meaning they do not reconize Catalonia as a sovereing state. Israel says Catalonia crisis should be resolved through a broad national consensus. And so on.
These are clearly instances that show a clearly regection towards Catalonia Independence. I ask to remove to orange colour and mark them with red. You can keep the annotations if you think they explain these countries declarations better but remove the orange colour from the map. Reisukami (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I put it this way:

Please find me a secondary source, that does not depend on Wikipedia itself, that clearly separates these cases. I'm not interested in editors' interpretations of primary sources because that's not useful to us (even if it is, as it appears, the sole means of sourcing the map). I want to see clear secondary sourcing showing that the distinction that you are claiming between the red states, the orange states and the grey states is actually made by reliable sources outside Wikipedia.

If that cannot be produced, the map as it stands cannot be included in the article because it is a violation of WP:NOR. Kahastok talk 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Reactions from UN member states" section[edit]

Misleading statements and map description accordingly since representatives of these countries in their statements didn't mention Catalan Republic at all. Why Wikipedia would then? --SubRE (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have a point here. Every single one of these responses listed here is a response to the Catalan declaration of independence (which has its own page and includes all of the same information about international reactions), not to the Catalan Republic per se. I think it is worth considering deleting the "International reactions" section here.FOARP (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


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.
Redirect to Catalan declaration of independence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan Republic (2017) (3rd nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talkcontribs) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

{{merge|Declaration of Independence of Catalonia}}

Hi According to the former president of Catalan Parliament, the republic has never been proclamed, but it was only a symbolic resolution and a proposal. We should merge the article with Declaration of Independence of Catalonia. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree This page actually duplicates a lot of the material on Declaration of Independence of Catalonia so size isn't an issue. The state did not exist beyond the declaration of independence. Almost everything on this page (Edit: everything that isn't WP:NOR) is actually about the declaration of independence and not about the Catalan Republic per se. In fact, it's very hard for me to point to anything on this page that isn't really about the declaration of independence. For example everything in the international reactions section is detail of reactions to the declaration. FOARP (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, but perhaps further clarification on the page is needed.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree: There is literally no Catalan Republic beyond the symbolic declaration. It is a duplicate article which adds no value. It was created by over-exicted editors at the time, now needs to be corrected.* Symbolic nature of declaration was also stated by Carme Forcadell, former speaker of Catalan Parliament.Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. As a resident of Catalonia, I can tell you that the only practical effect of the Declaration of Independence seemed to be the party they threw in front of the Generalitat Palace. --Jotamar (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. The central article is the declaration, but this was (as identified by everyone so far) symbolic. Koncorde (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, for all the above reasons.Hogweard (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very few of these arguments are valid based on Wikipedia's policies and can legitimately be reduced to either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See our articles on other declared Catalan states. This is not a WP:FORK article, but I will agree with editors that dislike the amount of replicated information. For example, the reactions section appears to be replicated and takes up more space than is due, but merging the article is highly undue. Like other articles on short-lived Catalan states, the very nature of a short lived state inherently necessitates that the majority of the article covers two things: 1) the declaration of the state 2) the dissolution of the state. In other related discussions such as our discussion on the infobox, I've cited most of the other Catalan State articles as well as other short-lived states such as those in Germany. I encourage other editors to read those articles as they reaffirm what I'm trying to convey. This article follows protocol for an unrecognized short-lived state. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • This argument boils down to "other stuff exists" and so is not convincing. Especially that the Catalan Republic of 2017 was not a short-lived state; it's a never-lived state – or a still-born state, if you will. — Kpalion(talk) 07:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Seems fallacious to say it's matter of liking or disliking something, which seems reductive of others opinions in the extreme. The presence of other articles is not justification for this article, the context for other articles is often very different and outcomes (such as formal rebellion being put down) are markers of the existence of something. However it doesn't mean that those articles are correctly named, or in the right context (versus, say, being called "Catalan rebellion 1937" or similar). Seems self evident that this may well be a POV issue that extends beyond this article. Koncorde (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I think the big problem here is that there is not, and cannot, be any way of identifying the "dissolution" of this state, which does not appear to have existed beyond the declaration of independence. Attempts at identifying when this state is supposed to have been dissolved all appear to be editor interpretations of primary evidence. It is not enough to simply point to two events and say "between these events the state existed" without having a reliable source stating that it did. To do so violates WP:NOR. This is particularly the case when there is equally primary evidence that can be interpreted as saying it didn't exist (e.g., the fact the Spanish flag remained flying outside the Generalitat, the statements by Catalan officials that it was only a symbolic declaration). FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
        • PS - I mean this in the nicest possible way BrendonTheWizard, but I think you should familiarise yourself with the reasons for deletion/merging on Wiki. You will see that they include WP:NOR and WP:Redundant, both of which have been invoked above. The reasons given for merging are therefore not simply based on "I don't like this", but instead on the grounds that, in as much as this page is not original research (e.g., Editors asserting that the state existed based on an interpretation of events from primary sources) it is a redundant duplication of the Declaration of Independence of Catalonia page. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. There was never any form of effective government. Lack of international recognition and lack of effective home rule (not even during the 24 hours following the declaration). Several political leaders behind the declaration stated publicly that it was a "symbolic act" (including the regional government's spokesperson) and all independentist parties have agreed to concur in new local elections organized by Spain. Baidelan (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree the two articles should be merged into a single article on the declaration. Most of the size issues noted above are quickly fixed by eliminating duplicated text, and ultimately the republic was ephemeral and never had any working government. The declaration itself is historically important and significant, but the promised independent state never materialized as a working entity, and any information about what did happen is sufficiently covered elsewhere. --Jayron32 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SIZE, the split as it stands is fine. (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:PROPORTION. Also, it is false that it is a state. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Once you remove the material that duplicates other articles (Catalan independence referendum, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis, Declaration of Independence of Catalonia) and unsourced speculation (most of the infobox), then size will no longer be an issue. — Kpalion(talk) 09:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was a state that was already functioning basically autonomously already, so when they declared indepenedence for a few hours it was a real independent(albeit unrecognized) state. Also we shouldn't merge this because if Catalonia declares independence in the future and uses these same statistics then there will be a need to create a new article. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@YuriGagrin12: please read WP:OR. No source said that it was a state.--Panam2014 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Or described it as existing at any point. The idea that it was a former state requires that we state definite points when it existed, beyond the declaration of independence. There is no source for that. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It didn't function autonomously, other than its already established attributions as an autonomous region within Spain. Even pro-independence leaders acknowledged such a state was never legally proclaimed. Impru20 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge; there's no claim that Catalonia attempted to function as an independent state apart from the declaration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. Catalan Republic is only a Wikipedia-created entity. Aotearoa (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. After even the pro-independence leaders stated the declaration was merely "symbolic", there's little sense in maintaining this was an independent state of some sorts, specially since we now have two articles covering essentially the same topic. Impru20 (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87, Sigehelmus, BrendonTheWizard, and YuriGagrin12: I copied the October 30 event into the "Catalan declaration of independence", but I noticed that most of the article is already duplicated into the target/destination page. As it seems, the whole majority, if not consensus, favors the merge. May you please allow me to redirect "Catalan Republic (2017)" to that page? I will still allow the discussion to be open, but I don't mind someone else closing it. George Ho (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Will there be an infobox for the entity? --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Please feel free to add another infobox at the target article if you want to, Sigehelmus. However, I could not find a space within the article that would allow room for another infobox. Into where can you put another infobox? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC); struck, 04:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I forgot that there is #Infobox discussion. If the discussion results in "no infobox", then let's not put a section infobox please. George Ho (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per my comments at the AFD. This is largely duplicative of the other article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge (or Oppose) Since there have been a number of shortlived Catalan republics through the years I see no reason for a separate article about "Declaration of Independence of Catalonia" just concerning the proclamation of the latest Catalan Republic from this year (2017) - the article about Catalan Republic (2017) must be sufficient to keep. - when I write Oppose that is because I see the sence in prefering to have only one article on this matter, but the article to keep should be Catalan Republic (2017) since it reflects a relationship to the other articles about previous Catalan Republics therefore I'm only agreeing to let the article Declaration of Independence of Catalonia go and keeping the article Catalan Republic (2017). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge/redirect per my comments at the AFD. We jumped the gun by creating this article, leaving with a duplication of other articles. Kahastok talk 14:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith:/@Sandstein: - can you close this discussion as well so that the edit history is clear? FOARP (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.