This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
So, as a spin-off from the 2017 discussion that decided that, since there was no unequivocal evidence that the republic ever existed, only that a declaration of independence had been made, it should instead be merged with the article related to the declaration of independence, I thought I'd look at the references to this article. What I see here is that the same thing appears to have occurred - none of the references cited here unequivocally states that a country existed in the two days between 14-17 April 1931. Instead we have:
3) Juliá, Santos (2009). La Constitución de 1931. Lustel, Madrid pp. 31-32 ISBN 978-84-9890-083-5 - I do not have access to this reference, but it is only being relied on in this article to describe the general situation in 1931, and not the existence of a Catalan Republic.
4) Balcells, Albert (2006). «El reto de Cataluña». La Aventura de la Historia (15). ISSN 1579-427X - similarly to 3) above, I don't have access to this source, but it is not being relied on in this article to substantiate the existence of this state.
What we appear to have is a conclusion reached by editors based on original research - that a Catalan Republic existed from 14-17 April, 1931. This is not permitted. If no evidence that this state actually existed can be found in reliable, secondary sources, then it should be re-named "1931 Catalan declaration of independence" or something similar. FOARP (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. Francesc Macià proclaimed the Catalan Republic on 14 April 1931. A provisional government was formed, and the government of the Spanish Republic negotiated with this provisional government, after which it disestablished itself in favour of autonomy within the Spanish Republic. A Google Books search of "Catalan Republic" 1931 gets plenty of hits, showing both that adequate sources exist and that "Catalan Republic" is both a natural and a common name. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It does not require a test of whether a thing "really existed" in law or in fact, only whether reliable sources exist for that thing, and that thing's name. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire, firstly, this is not a rename proposal but a question as to sourcing (as in, there isn't any). Please go and look at the sources that come up in your Google search. They repeatedly say things like "The Esquerra chief, Colonel Macià, had originally demanded a Catalan Republic" (not an existing republic), "left-wing nationalist leader Francesc Macià31 proclaimed an independent Catalan republic" (proclaiming something is not the same as it existing), "Macià, was only persuaded to withdraw his proclamation of a 'Catalan Republic within a Spanish Federal Republic' by the.." (so the proclamation was withdrawn... did the republic exist?). In fact your search supports a renaming to "the proclamation of the Catalan Republic" which is the terms used in many of the sources. FOARP (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, the proposal starts from a wrong assumption by considering that this was the result of a "declaration of independence". Actually, what was declared was a "Catalan Republic within the Iberian Federation", i.e. a non-independent state. Arguing that the name should be changed because no independent state existed is misleading with respect to the scope of the article itself. In fact, the article itself does not establish that this was an independent state, and much to the contrary, makes reference to the content of the actual declaration. Impru20talk14:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the state had to be independent. I am saying that there is no reference showing that the state, independent or not, ever existed asides from the proclamation. Additionally, this is not a rename discussion listed using the WP:RM template. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You stated as a spin-off from the 2017 discussion that decided that, since there was no unequivocal evidence that the republic ever existed, only that a declaration of independence had been made, it should instead be merged with the article related to the declaration of independence (...) What I see here is that the same thing appears to have occurred - none of the references cited here unequivocally states that a country existed in the two days between 6-7 October 1931 (...) What we appear to have is a conclusion reached by editors based on original research - that a Catalan Republic existed from 14-17 April, 1931.
This was not a declaration of independence, but the proclamation of a federated state within Spain. A provisional government was even formed which was later given continuity in the form of the Generalitat of Catalonia, but this was never intended as an independent entity. Trying to point this as if this was an actual independent republic is misleading and flawed in concept, because the article does not reflect that anywhere. Impru20talk14:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that this was an independent state - just that it asserts that a state existed without a reference stating that it did, and that this is similar to the 2017 independence issue. It does not matter whether it was independent or not, what matters is whether it existed at all in the form described on this page (i.e., as a republic between 14-17 October 1931). None of the references cited here state that it did. For example - how do we know that it ceased to exist on 17 April 1931? No reference actually says this. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
17 October 1931? Seriously, while you may have some points in some of the points made (such as the anthem or flag), I think you are confusing all three 1931, 1934 and 2017 periods in such a way that it is absolutely pointless to continue with this discussion, because I'm not sure whether you are actually treating each article within its scope or merely copy-pasting the same text in all three of them as if they were equal and interchangeable. In both 1931 and 1934 there were active governments behaving its own way after their respective declarations, whereas the 2017 declaration was merely symbolic and did not have any practical effect beyond the declaration itself. Impru20talk15:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the typo, but the point still stands - how do we know that the state was disestablished on the date stated in the article? And if we are not even sure about that then how can we be sure that this state existed as such? FOARP (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
17 April 1931 is reflected as the date for the "Establishment of the Generalitat", not the "disestablishment date". This is clear, references for it are very clear and we can be sure about that. We then can be sure that this entity exerted a power of its own (so this was not a mere "proclamation"). Note that "state" should not be confused with sovereign state or country. If you look for references on the latter, you will probably find few ones that can be considered neutral, indeed, but this isn't the article's business here. Impru20talk15:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If 17 April 1931 is the "Establishment of the Generalitat" (and I agree with you that the references do say this), then why does this article describe it as the end-point of the existence of a Catalan Republic (e.g., "It existed between 14 and 17 April 1931")? None of the references states that it is. Saying it is is an WP:OR interpretation of the events. The only thing that the references state is that it was proclaimed, not that it was established and then became something else. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, you do not need to cite that the sky is blue. The article already mentions (and sources) that this entity was replaced by the Generalitat of Catalonia. You do not need any sources claiming "hey guys, the Catalan Republic of 1931 was disestablished on 17 April 1931" because this was immediate. Just as the First Spanish Republic and Second Spanish Republic are widely regarded to have started on the date of abdication by the previous monarch, despite this in itself having been much more complicated and involving many more events and causes than that. Or the end of the Second Spanish Republic, which is widely regarded to have occured on 1 April 1939 with the end of the final offensive. You would need sources for specific and non-official details such as the anthem (of which there wasn't any official one until 1993) or the flag (1933), but not for obvious things; in fact, should you bring your argument to the extreme, you will find out that very few states, sovereign states, countries and regimes in the world have "official" disestablishment dates, because disestablishment ceremonies or acts are very rare. Impru20talk15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have to cite a source stating that the sky is blue, but the existence of a state is not an automatic consequence of a state being declared. No-one believes, for example, that Macias' 1927 declaration made from France resulted in a state, even though it was the same man declaring the same state. I am not saying that there is no sourcing that could possibly demonstrate this, what I am saying is that no such sourcing could be found in the article and I have not seen anything yet showing that it existed - it could be as simple as a secondary source saying "the republic existed only for 3 days" or something like that. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: Firstly, It should be re-named "1931 Catalan declaration of independence" or something similaris a rename proposal. The clue is in the word "re-named". Secondly, you seem to have your own personal definition of "existence" that excludes all others, and you're not even telling us what that definition is! Macià proclaimed a Catalan Republic; the Catalan Republic formed a provisional government; the government of the Spanish Republic negotiated with the provisional government of the Catalan Republic. Therefore, the Catalan Republic was a thing. Whether it "existed" according to your or anybody else's definition is neither here nor there, unless you can point to a reliable source that discusses in depth the question of whether it "existed". Don't like the way the article is written? Then improve the article. Don't like the sources? Then improve the sourcing (or take the easy way out and slap a template at the top!). Beyond that, there's nothing more to be said. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a proposal to rename if sourcing cannot be found to support the existence of the subject during the claimed period, not a rename proposal per se (that would imply that I am already sure that no such sourcing exists - I am not, but nothing presently cited in this article supports it). Saying that date X something and that on a later date Y something else happened is, unless it automatically follows from the two points, OR. That was the problem with the 2017 articles. FOARP (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Scolaire - Please assume good faith. I have had concerns for a long time about the articles regarding short-lived states in general on Wiki since they appear almost like a form of fan-cruft and often rely almost completely on OR to fill out the details of the supposed state. It's OK when there's actually sourcing stating that the state existed, but often they just pick events from history and say "the state existed between these dates, prove me wrong". That's why I took List of Shortest-lived States to AFD back in 2017, with the resulting consensus being for delete because it was almost all OR. This is why I am also raising a similar issue on pages like Russian Democratic Federative Republic which is probably the worst case of this (the claim, completely unsupported, is that a state existed for a few hours because the Duma passed a resolution declaring one and was dissolved a matter of hours latter). Again, I'm perfectly OK with saying that a state existed if there is secondary source referencing saying this, but at present there is no such source cited in the article - there might well be one that could be found but I didn't find it. And surely you do not support keeping a claim on this wiki if it cannot be substantiated? FOARP (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith, of course. But sometimes I have these feelings and can't help expressing them ;-) Seriously, though, I'm glad you linked to those other unrelated discussions, because I can now see your thought processes. I still don't agree with you, however, and I don't think that a consensus to delete a rather silly list says anything about any articles that might have been in that list.
So, there are now apparently two distinct issues. The original issue is the question of whether something "exists". Does Wikipedia require that the subject of an article should "exist"? There is an article on the Yeti that is 50 kb long and is rated C-Class, and an article on an old gentleman who allegedly only appears one night of the year, which is 110 kb long and is also rated C-Class. So no: the requirement is that the subject should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not that it should meet any undefined criterion of "existence". The new issue is one of longevity. But the Mayfly only exists for a few hours to a few days, yet the article is a Featured Article! In short, I think your concerns about articles relating to short-lived states, especially whether they "existed", is misguided and myopic. It is certainly not to do with applying Wikipedia policies, your endless throwing about of the word "sources" notwithstanding. As a matter of interest, is there any talk page of short-lived states articles where you have got support for your arguments? I see the post on the Russian article did not get any response at all. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scolaire - I have contributed on various argument regarding mythical beasts and have always maintained the position that they are notable, so long as there is actual sourcing about them to verify that such a myth exists (i.e., not that the myth is real, but that the myth is an actual cultural phenomenon rather than the invention of an editor). In this case the issue is there is no source presently cited in this article saying that the republic was anything more than merely proclaimed. In that case, surely the actual subject is the proclamation? If not, then where is the sourcing to support the flag, capital city, leadership, currency, languages, seal (etc. etc.) currently recited on this page? I keep mentioning the importance of sourcing because of WP:V which is basic policy (i.e., Wiki shouldn't recite things as true that we have no way of knowing are true). However, if the unsourced material was removed (which I'm not going to do right now because it would be very WP:POINT-y, there would likely be no infobox, and nothing about the state other than its proclamation.
As for your follow-up question, go and see the original discussion on the 2017 Catalan Republic page and the discussion at the AFD linked above. The point that we needed evidence beyond the declaration to say that a state existed appears to have been seen as convincing at the 2017 discussion e.g. ("No source said that it was a state" from Panam2014, "there's no claim that Catalonia attempted to function as an independent state apart from the declaration" from power~enwiki, "The "Catalan Republic" never existed" from Kpalion, "There is literally no Catalan Republic beyond the symbolic declaration"Sonrisas1, "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)" from Baidelan, "for all the above reasons" from Hogweard, "the only practical effect of the Declaration of Independence seemed to be the party they threw in front of the Generalitat Palace" from Jotamar). Apologies for pinging those editors in here, but I want to make sure they do not feel they have been mis-quoted.
Now this case is not exactly the same as the 2017 case but it is also not entirely different: in 2017 a declaration was made that was subsequently said to be only "symbolic" and which the Spanish courts overturned. In 1931 a declaration was made that was subsequently withdrawn (so did that declaration ever really take effect?). Also, as we are including the 1934 discussion here, in that year a declaration was made but the Spanish army subsequently overturned it (so again, did the declaration ever really take effect?). In 2017 also there was a page-duplication issue, I would say there is also a potential duplication issue for the Catalan State (1934) page as that is basically just describing events already covered on the Events of 6 October page.
I am fine with keeping this article as-is so long as the material on this page can be sourced, it may well be that sourcing exists, particularly in Spanish or Catalan, to support it, and if it does it should be added - but there is none on this page right now. FOARP (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a spin-off from the 2017 Catalan Republic discussion? So much for me assuming good faith! Is there any talk page of short-lived states articles other than Catalan states where you have got support for your arguments? I'm guessing there isn't.
So, one more time you are throwing WP:V at me. Let's do this once again, then. Facts stated in this article are sourced. Other facts stated in this article can be sourced. Facts not stated in this article do not require to be sourced. Nowhere in this article does it state that the Catalan Republic "really existed", therefore there is not, and never will be, any requirement for a source to verify that. I have said that three times now, and Impru20 said it three or four times, but you just keep repeating the same meaningless mantra as if the Deity is going to suddenly make it meaningful the nth time you say it. This discussion is circular and therefore unproductive. I will not take any further part in it. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with every word Scolaire wrote, so there is little point in arguing anything else. Sources are provided, and trying to depict this as a WP:V issue just because such sources are not agreed with does not turn into an actual WP:V issue. I had not seen this, but seeing the same proposal being essentially copy-pasted at the same time into at least three different articles does indeed look like some sort of continuation of the same 2017 discussion (which I had supported, basically because that was a different situation). I am not going to keep going around in circles here either, as our points have been made clear. Cheers. Impru20talk18:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire 1) The same argument applies to every "short-lived state" that lacks sourcing for it existing beyond being declared, it's just that the Catalan state of 2017 was the first that made me aware of this. WP:AGF means not just imagining some vendetta on my part against Catalonia (for some reason) and using this as your reason to object. If you recall, the 2017 dispute even included a claim that a Catalan state had existed for 8 seconds and an article was started on this basis. 2) As for "copied and pasted", well, the same point applies to all - they need sourcing to say that a state existed. 3) As for "nowhere in this article does it say that this state really existed" it says it did right there in the lede ("It existed between 14 and 17 April 1931") - but I assume you won't object if I edit it to say it was only ever proclaimed? 4) As for sourcing - where are the following sourced: flag, currency, capital city, president, leadership, seal, languages, currency? You are basically just saying "there's loads of sources so we don't need to source this" which cannot be right. Finally I note that both you and Impru20 have argued strongly against apparently any changes to this article based on a lack of sourcing, but not indicated why you believe this article to be properly sourced or suggested any sourcing. It's fine to end the discussion - but let the record show that there have been no additional sources cited whatsoever in this discussion, nor explanation in any detail of why the present sources are sufficient, yet the lack of sources is supposedly not a problem. FOARP (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I note that both you and Impru20 have argued strongly against apparently any changes to this article based on a lack of sourcing. No, this is false. And you know it, because I told you literally about it ([1]) and even made some edits to the articles to fix several anachronisms ([2][3]). The rest of it is just the same mantra repeated over and over and over again, i.e. you requiring other to source "currency, capital city, president, leadership, seal, languages, currency". You are pretending a probatio diabolica: this was NOT an independent state, and as such wasn't able by itself (not that it ever attempted to, btw) to change the already official such symbols, currency, capital and the such. As a result, you won't be able to find specific sources claiming their establishment as such for the specific period, but not because this fails WP:V, but because those were left unchanged. You can obviously look for and find sources establishing those as official in their specific time, as well as those still being the official things at the time this occured. So please, do not manipulate neither WP:V nor, more specifically, my own words in order to try to pretend that I have "argued strongly against apparently any changes to this article", because that is absolutely false (speaking of WP:AGF?). Impru20talk20:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, I apologise. "It existed" was right in front of my eyes and I never saw it. I have edited the sentence to correct it. If I read you right, your other objections are against infobox items, not body text. I agree with you that many items are not needed and shouldn't be in infoboxes on short-lived states. So, in order, flag: Jacobí added a source that said the Catalan republican flag was flown, but it doesn't say whether that was a Senyera or an Estelada, so I've removed the flag from the infobox; currency: not needed; capital city: not needed; president: I added a source in the article body, though I would prefer if somebody found a better one; government: sourced in the article body; seal: not in the infobox or anywhere in the article, and not needed; languages: sourced in the infobox; currency: not sure why you listed it twice, but still not needed. Is there anything else in the article body that you think is wrong or controversial, or can we consider the matter closed? Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire - I think that's a big step in the right direction and am happy to close out my participation on this discussion there. Apologies if my excessive wordiness/repeated tangents above have made my points hard to follow.
Support rename I think FOARP makes a good point. For all practical reasons, this was a symbolic declaration as well. Yes, some officials from the Spanish republican government held talks with the self-proclaimed representatives of the Catalan Republic, but that doesn't qualify as proof for a new state, nor that they formed a government cabinet or took decisions. The key is: the new Spanish republican government could have very well ignored the declaration and continued to run things in the Catalan region. The reason why the provisional Spanish government sent people to "talk" was more to calm the situation and give stability to the new Spanish Republic, rather than to acknowledge they had lost control of a region (Catalonia). When a country's political system collapses (as was the case with the Spanish Restoration in 1931) it is very common to see opportunistic but ephemereal political declarations that try to take advantage of the chaos. The Catalan region was very much under control of the Spanish state and Macia knew this, which is why he was all too happy to call off his declaration of independence so quickly. Baidelan (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. The key is: some officials from the Spanish republican government held talks with the self-proclaimed representatives of the Catalan Republic, so there was such a thing as a self-proclaimed Catalan Republic, and the natural and common name for it is "Catalan Republic". Your philosophical ruminations are completely off-topic. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Governments across the world frequently hold talks with different groups, that doesn't mean they acknowledge the other position's claim. Even the US government holds talks with terrorists that make outlandish claims about what is theirs by divine right. They do so for many reasons, such as deescalating the situation. Holding talks is not a sign of concession. The Spanish Republic did not acknowledge a new Catalan state had been formed. Baidelan (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the article is said that the Catalan Republic existed because the Spanish Republic acknowledged it. Nor has anyone in this discussion (but you) said so. However, holding talks with one another is an acknowledgement on the other's capacity to hold such talks (and thus, as a valid interlocutor), be it as a government, as a terrorist group or whatever. I think this is being attempted to be brought once again to the "the Catalan Republic was not an independent state and as such this article shouldn't exist like this"-type of argument, when this is never stated in the article itself. Focus on actual facts and on which ones would require sourcing, rather than pointing out non-existant assumptions that are (obviously) not sourced because they are not even mentioned in the article. Impru20talk17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment was a response to Scolaire, who emphasize the existence of talks to support the current naming. You are misquoting me; I am arguing for a rename of this article (that is how I started my contribution to this thread "Support Rename"), not a deletion; because the current title [Catalan Republic (1931)] is misleading. Baidelan (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the conciseness. Based on those policies I would argue that the opposite is true. In terms of WP:COMMONNAME, I grew up in Spain during the 90's before the recent political turmoil (I'm not Catalan though) and Macia's declaration in class was covered as such; just a declaration, not the establishment of a new state. For WP:PRECISE I'd say the Spanish republican government never really lost control of the Catalan region. And for WP:CONCISE, just adding to the title "Declaration of the..." or "Macia's Declaration of the..." still makes it concise. Let it be known that I would also change some sections of the infographic as they are indicative of an actual state being established. Specifically, the "Preceded by..." and "Succeeded by..." and the "Today part of...". The rest of the article looks good. Baidelan (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
