From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Government info is wrong[edit]

In the Info box on the right were it says the Government type, the description of the Spanish Government (Congress and Senate) is detailed. Instead there should be info about Parliament of Catalonia 135 Seats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masohe (talkcontribs) 15:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Goverment info[edit]

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

Catalonia has now declared independence[edit]

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

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

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

No. I think an analogous article could be created though, such as Catalan Republic (1931), Catalan State (1934) and so on. But this article is centered on the region and (still) autonomous community of Catalonia, as Spanish law are still into force. Impru20 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmmm when you look up Spain it doesn't come up Kingdom of Spain, why would the same go for independent Catalonia? AHC300 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You surely haven't seen the Spain article, right? "Kingdom of Spain" is clearly stated in both the lead and the infobox (but "Spain" is used in the article title as per WP:COMMONNAME). This article refers to the geographical region of Catalonia. As an example, check Crimea as opposed to Republic of Crimea or even Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Impru20 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So should we make this article about the geographic region, then have 2 separate articles for the Autonomous Community and the Republic? Ethanmayersweet (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe we should wait until seeing what happens. If Article 155 is enforced in full, independence may be short-lived and merely symbolic, and there would be no need for a separate article for the autonomous community. If it eventually turned into a full-fledged state (even if unrecognized), then something like what is done for Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija could be worked out. But then, I suggest for us to wait and see; Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we are not in a hurry to do it before seeing what the actual outcome is. Impru20 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I think the current proposal of showing Catalonia as a disputed territory and mentioning that parliament voted for independence on 27 October 2017 is fine for now. However, once Article 155 is enforced, what should we do? Impru20 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we can then give treatment to the article per what we have set up on the Crimea page, Western Sahara page, or any of the other pages involving disputed territory? Although if this independence movement is scrapped, then we would have to rework the page more. I suspect the experience on this page will be helpful in the coming hours: MarkJerue (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Other editors, what are your thoughts? It seems based purely on WP:N(E) we should list this event somewhere on this page as, regardless of outcome, it will be mentioned in "History of Catalonia" textbooks and essays in the coming years. We need opinions before we see Crimea-esque edits coming onto this page. MarkJerue (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Can someone edit this nonsense of disputed territory? Has anyone actually read what the Catalan Parliament has approved? They "start a process". So even if this was legal, which isn't from any point of view, they have not declared the independence. You just have to read.

Even if Catalonia were a republic (which is not yet), that flag is not official!!

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

For now, let's just agree that the issue of where Catalonia belongs is disputed. The Scribd doc above link states clearly "[w]e constitute the Catalan Republic as an independent state...". The passage of "start a process" refers to the writing of the constitution. I agree that we should leave out the flag issue for now.
The initial passage of the article and infobox needs to reflect that the Spanish central govt and the Catalan govt/parliament hold different views of the status of Catalonia. The map should be removed or changed, for now.
In a few days the situation will be more clear. As it is likely that we will have two contending authorities, the Catalan govt (claiming Catalonia as republic) and whatever authority is imposed from Madrid, we may opt to split the article in three, 1) on Catalonia as a historical/cultural region, 2) the Catalan Republic and 3) the autonomous community of Catalonia. --Soman (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

What a bunch of non sense on this article, obviously edited by politically motivated activists. The reality is that Catalonia is not a "disputed" territory but a region of Spain. And it is not being under "administration" of an "unrecognised Catalonian Republic" that simply does not exists. Separatists are a minority in Catalonia and most of the population didn't vote in the so called "referendum" because Spanish government declared it was illegal and ordered to abort it by the police. This article is denying reality when it claims a region of Spain is under "administration" of a non-existent Catalonian republic. I hope an admin come here to sort this out. Wikipedia is losing credibility by publishing claims like that.Charrua85 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree with above commentator. Just because there is a dispute does not make the region a ‘disupted region’. Go by what is legal and what is factual. There was a disputed referendum but Catalonia is still part of Spain Historicalchild (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, 60% of people voted, despite the violence and polling places closed by the Spanish Civil Guard. Approximately 15% of the votes cast were stolen by the Spanish piolice, leaving only 43% left. That is the 43% figure quotedc in the media. (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong content[edit]

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

@Vanjagenije: Part of the problem is in the first paragraph of the lead, which states: ...the Generalitat de Catalunya views it as an independent republic following a unilateral declaration of independence from Spain on 27 October 2017. It should be mentioned in the lead (as it does further in the article) that the Spanish parliament has approved direct rule over the region, following the declaration of independence. (As stated in the source). Coldcreation (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the way the lead reads now, it would appear Catalonia is an independent State. This is misleading to say the least. And, it appears Catalan is a "nationality" by its Statute of Autonomy (also in the first paragraph). Both points should be addressed. Coldcreation (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

@TechnicianGB: It does not appear to be solved. The first paragraph of the lead needs to end with something like: Following the declaration of independence, the Spanish parliament imposed direct rule over the region. (As stated in the source). Coldcreation (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. I agree, you are right. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Still wrong[edit]

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

I agree that the phrasing is awkward. The lead should acknowledge the perspective of the outgoing government, but shouldn't describe it in the present tense. Additionally the infobox should explicitly mention that autonomy is suspended and the position of President is vacant. There is no ongoing dispute on these facts, given that the former Catalan government has turned up to court in Madrid. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraph should be restored as it was written before de October, 27. The facts of the last few days should be explained in another section of the article, as there is no one right now that sees the autonomous region as a Republic (well, the most fervous separatists, as always), and even the separatists will go to the elections of 21-D, accepting the fact that there is no catalan republic. Most of the government of Catalonia that declared the "republic" are now in jail, or are going to be in there. --Melkart4k (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Suspended" should be added to the infobox[edit]

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

Just a note: it was intervened, not suspended. Not actually the same thing. Impru20 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Impru20 is correct, the Autonomy is still in effect, the central government has temporarily replaced some of its key figures until the 21 December regional elections. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who changed everything to the Spanish government propaganda?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article looks neutral to me, compared with earlier versions. Coldcreation (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have a very Spanish view of "neutral" - eg. 100% reflecting the Spanish side (such as this article now), which is in fact the exact *opposite* of neutral. (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC) please review the discussions to see how and why the article has evolved. About the 770,000 votes you are mistaken, that is the total number of registered voters from schools that were closed not people that voted. Reliable sources do state that fact. 770.000 would assume a 100% turnout of those voters and that in any case since there was universal census they could vote without any problem in any of the other open schools (there is no real reason to assume that most did not). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that is the ballot boxes that were seized by the Spanish Civil Guard that were sent into Catalonia. There certainly were issues regarding people not being able to vote, but that is a separate matter. The 770,000 votes refers to votes that were cast, the voters had their names crossed off and left the polling places, then the Spanish Civil Guard came in (such as the footage we've seen where they are smashing down the doors to the polling places) and seized the ballot boxes, taking them away, never to be seen again. This makes approximately 60% of all possible voters that did vote, but only 43% had their votes counted. Then there were others that were unable to vote (such as all the people we saw getting beaten up by the Spanish Civil Guard) or who were too afraid to vote. (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Then we should also mention the people voting 4 or 5 times and the ballet boxes found full before they even reached the polling booth, right? No credible source backs your statement. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That did not happen. You should please provide evidence for your Spanish nationalist propaganda, sonrisas. You are clearly mistaken you are free to provide reliable sources. In this source: El Govern anuncia un 90% de 'síes' entre las 2.262.424 papeletas contadas y asegura haber escrutado el 100,88% de votos (and many more like it) you can clearly see that the 770.000 are census for the closed voting centers and not votes (includes a tweet from the pro-independence Catalan government stating just that). All those people could have voted at any of the many other voting center thanks to the last minute change that allowed universal census. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Asked and granted - they are provided below. The article should be changed back. (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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

"...while 770,000 ballots are said to have been lost in police raids" [1]
"The regional government spokesman, Jordi Turull, said 15,000 votes were still due to be counted and that total voting figures remain incomplete and provisional because a much larger number, an estimated 770,000, are either inaccessible or lost after some polling stations were closed and ballot boxes were seized by police..."[2]
"The officials said another 770,000 votes could not be counted because ballot boxes were seized". [3]
"According to the Catalan government, 2.3 million of Catalonia’s 5.3 million registered voters cast a ballot in the referendum on 1 October. A full count has been complicated by the fact that 770,000 votes were lost because of the police disruption". [4] (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a clear example of manipulation of information. I gave you a reliable source (El Govern anuncia un 90% de 'síes' entre las 2.262.424 papeletas contadas y asegura haber escrutado el 100,88% de votos) that without a doubt states by the now deposed Catalan government themselves (it even shows in their official Twitter account ) states clearly that the figure refers to the census of the closed voting centers, not seized ballots. It had minimum impact since people could vote anywhere and there was no real control as shown by pictures of people voting in multiple voting centers as well as children and foreigners voting etc...
Paramilitary police beating all the voters is also another clear case of misinformation. Calling the civil guard paramilitary is deeply biased, and saying that they beat all the voters is also false. National police and civil guard tried to carry out a court order to confiscate the voting material for the illegal referendum. Violence started because people blocked their access to carry out those orders, not because they were voting.
In less than a month a real regional election will take place on 21 December. Independentists as well as other political parties will participate with real census etc. We will be able to draw better conclusions then, but polls show that the independentists are still nothing more and nothing less than a very large minority. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, this source you mentioned includes that same tweet where you can clearly read in Catalan "770.000 censats a col·legis clausurats" 770.000 registered voters (census) in closed voting schools. They write it as votes in error as they were misinformed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
That article CLEARLY states, and I quote, "... The officials said another 770,000 votes could not be counted because ballot boxes were seized". This was also backed up in the other articles listed. You appear to be a propagandist, but you have clearly been shown to be incorrect. (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes it does, and I said before that is obviously a mistake by that reporter as he actually included as source the image of the tweet that states that they are census numbers "770.000 censats other reliable sources I pointed out do clearly state that fact. For some reason you choose to ignore it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There is a false interpretation of Spanish Constitutional Court proceedings.[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

SO, EDIT THAT, please :)

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

The Spanish Constitution clearly states that referendums may only be authorised by the Spanish Government (Article 149.1.32 of the Constitution). The referendum did not receive any such authorization, so it was illegal from the very moment it was called without such an authorization. I agree that what the Constitutional Court did on 6 September was to suspend the act approving the referendum (the Court did not say it was illegal until later, as you say). But it doesn't mean the referendum "was not illegal until 17 October" as you imply. Of course it was illegal, as the Catalan government did not have the legal attribution to hold it at any time. Just as you would commit an illegality if failing to comply with your country's laws (and you wouldn't need a Constitutional Court acknowledging your breaching of law as illegal in order for it to be illegal). Impru20 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This is FALSE, my friend: An act of the catalan parliament CANNOT be illegal UNTIL Constitutional Court of Spain pronounces officially (using of course, the spanish constitutional text, like you appoint, thanks), NOBODY ELSE can do that. "We" will learn constitutional law, you will see. So PLEASE, CHANGE the info and if you don't want to do that, at least help me to inform where I can report that error to the Wikipedia Administration. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Organizing and holding the referendum after it had been suspended was illegal, and many officials were officially warned about the illegality of those actions.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
FALSE. Nothing was illegal until CC pronounced, on October 17th. See the links, and read legislation. Thanks. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
An act can perfectly be illegal if it contravenes the law in force. The Catalan parliament simply could not authorise a referendum to be held, because the Constitution clearly establishes only the Spanish Government may grant such an authorization.
But even if we were to consider that, formally, the referendum itself wasn't "illegal" until the Constitutional Court formally dubbed it as such, you should keep in mind that the act approved by the Catalan parliament was immediately suspended by the Constitutional Court. The suspension meant that such an act could not be enforced by anyone until the Constitutional Court formally pronounced on its legality or lack of it. The Catalan government chose to try to enforce it anyway, ignoring the legally-binding suspension. So yes, my friend, they committed an illegal act, because holding the referendum was an illegal act from the very time it was suspended.
Also, I sincerely commend you to respect WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Writing in caps so frequently looks as very aggressive and not appropiate for a proper discussion in Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but I repeat, you are WRONG. The referendum can not be (in no way) illegal, until the decision of Spain's Constitutional Court, like I said. And this will be (if it is the case) illegal, just AFTER the decision, never before, like this article says. Of course, "suspension" and "illegal" is not the same, like I defended upwards. And please, don't try to constrain my fairly intentions to fix this important error in this article (because IT IS, in fact, important, to understand what is happening in Catalonia nowadays).
I simply try to do, the best I can, what this page of Wikipedia indicates me: "We encourage you to be bold in a fair and accurate manner, with a straightforward, just-the-facts style".Help:Getting_started Thanks. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Impru20. There are plenty of sources that back that up. If it helps clarify, you may be interested in knowing that a judge has remanded various people into custody citing among others the actions taken in organizing the referendum. Even the European commission stated in an official document on 2 October that it was not legal. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see that erroneous sources you are talking about. Can we? Thanks. Of course (perhaps surprisingly for you) the opinion of European Comission (EC) is not a legal source of "how works Constitutional Court in Spain", and it will violate the Spanish Constituion if EC never tries to do something like this. Sorry. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Suspension means that constitutional court ordered that the preparations for the referendum had to stop pending the final ruling. Continuing with its organization and holding it after it was suspended by the constitutional court is illegal as it clearly violated that suspension. the organizers were warned of this and decided to continue anyway. Here are some sources: El Constitucional tumba la Ley del Referéndum y avisa a los alcaldes y a 77 cargos del deber de "impedir" el 1-O:
"El Pleno les advierte de su deber «de impedir o paralizar cualquier iniciativa que suponga ignorar o eludir la suspensión acordada». En particular, de que deben abstenerse «de iniciar, tramitar, informar o dictar, en el ámbito de sus respectivas competencias, acuerdo o actuación alguna que permita la preparación y/o la celebración del referéndum». Y se les apercibe «de las eventuales responsabilidades, incluida la penal» si no atienden el requerimiento»"
Las claves de los autos de la juez Carmen Lamela: (Reasons for which responsible parties were remanded into custody)
"En el auto, la juez menciona tanto el referéndum ilegal del pasado 1 de octubre como la declaración de independencia del Parlament del pasado día 27"
If you do a search you will be able to find many more. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So, can we revert this now?[edit]

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

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

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

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

The new parliament of Catalonia has not (yet) supported/agreed with the proclaimed independence that the previous catalan parliament did, so the proposed line is simply not true. Let's wait a bit to see what the new parliament will be actually doing. (PS Your comment above is clearly biased - e.g. Catalans won - it seems like almost 50% did not support succession parties so not all Catalans won; so consider WP:kettle) Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
<Edit conflict> : Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda. There is no dispute over the legal status of Catalonia. The December elections are autonomic regional elections. By participating all political parties accepted their legality (as opposed to the referendum). The sum of the three pro-independence parties does allow for another majority in the parliament, so they can regain its control, but within the boundaries of the constitutional law. Saying that the legal status is the object of a dispute is not objective: You choose to ignore that both ERC and JxCat declared that they abandoned the unilateral declaration way, that the proclamation of independence has been declared illegal and that no state recognized it.
You also fail to mention that the political party that got the most votes and representatives is C's which is against independence and that the sum of all voters of independentists political parties is less than in the previous elections and amounts to 47.49% (less than half of the people that cast their votes, this is possible due to the electoral law). So yes, separatists will probably continue to hold a majority (by two representatives, two less than before) in the Catalan parliament, but no, the legal status of Catalonia is not an object of dispute. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
If over-excited IP addresses start coming here again virtually proclaiming Catalan independence, I suggest this page is protected before it suffers more damage. Wikipedia credibility suffered as a result of the last incident when Catalonia was defined as a de-facto state for some weeks here before it was corrected. Let's hope it doesn't happen again. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not possible to agree on something in the lead?[edit]

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

Just my two cents ...

-- MC (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)