Talk:Catalan independence movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Name

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

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

Rewrite of History section

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

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

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

Scolaire Go ahead but I remind you this is a highly politicized topic and a "source" will exist for pretty much every statement imaginable, and one refuting the same statement will also be available. Its what goes with articles related to nation-building. No matter what your take on things is, you are likely to encounter objections, so proposing to rewrite the whole thing from scratch may not be the right approach. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
As an editor in the field of Irish nationalism, I am well used to controversial topics. I have experience of writing NPOV articles, and I am confident that what I write here will be broadly acceptable. My sources are well-written books and articles by foreigners, and are free from any obvious bias. Scolaire (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That's good to know Scolaire. Which sources are these, by the way? We should not disdain Spanish/Catalan language sources though nor assume English language sources are any more free of bias. More often than not, they just manage to grasp one side of the picture or repeat one view of history / reality which is presented to them. Spanish language wikipedia is a good way to gauge on how well we are doing on these articles. It tends to be the most neutral due to the large number of editors across political spectrum / divides. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I was careful to say there was no obvious bias. I'm not disdaining Spanish/Catalan language sources, but where the same facts are available in English it's obviously preferable to use those sources. Plus, there is currently no Spanish or Catalan book source in the section at the moment, and the business of cobbling together news reports of individual events is what has caused the section to be bloated and hard to follow. I think you'll find that the books I'm using give a good overview of events. I won't list them now; they'll be in the bibliography when I do my edit. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Done now. I've taken out a lot of the fiddly detail, and a number of images and tables as well, which were distracting rather than informative. Doing it has helped me understand the process. I hope the finished product will help others. Scolaire (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the feedback. It's true I didn't think to include figures for those supporting the constitution, and that would have added balance. I was not altogether happy with the bit on La Crida; I wanted to fill up that section but I didn't quite "get" it. Your explanation helps, and I'll go back and give it another go (if you don't do it first). Scolaire (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Welcome. No please go ahead. I'm sure you have a better grip of sources and writing style than me. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations

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

Per WP:LEAD, citations are not needed where the lead repeats information that is in the body of the article. I rewrote the lead as a summary of my rewrite of the History section, which was exhaustively referenced. By far the greater number of the tags that this edit added were to my rewritten lead, not to the History section. Some of the tags added to the History section were at the end of sentences where the citation was for two or three sentences together, as could have been confirmed by clicking on the link in the citation. Others were for "the sky is blue" type facts such as "Following Franco's death, Spain moved to restore democracy" and "11 September is observed as National Day of Catalonia". Some of the tags in the Legality and legitimacy section may well be merited, but it is not my job to selectively edit tags, so I am reverting the lot. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Leads in "complex, current or controversial subjects may require many citations". That's what the WP policy you've referred me to actually says. You've re-written the entire lead without any citations whatsoever. That's a long lead with zero citations. Please explain yourself. How do you stand over that? It is shameful, lazy, sloppy, arrogant and aggressive editing. It's also interesting how lazy you are here. Yet you pretend on other articles to be the defender of verifiability. Your inconsistency says a lot. It's not your job to rewrite entire leads without bothering to include any citations. If you can't be bothered to include sources, don't bother at all. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that every single fact in the History section was verifiable by reference to reliable published secondary sources, almost all books. I also – which I wasn't required to do – cited sources that are viewable online so that anybody who is interested can check the facts. These are the facts that are in the lead. There are zero facts in the lead that are not cited in the article. WP:LEAD says, "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So if you want to go through the lead and add a citation for every fact, it will not be difficult to do, and I will not stop you, although I don't think it's needed. But if you continue to add "citation needed" tags to facts that you know very well are sourced to reliable published secondary sources, then we'll know you're not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi You are being excessively anal about requiring citations. I'm sure Scolaire has made mistakes and, as discussed, written biased statements, since every single source on this matter tends to be biased or omits a counter-argument. But you are tagging non-controversial sentences and are not being supportive or productive on this particular article. This kind of mass tagging puts people off editing wikipedia. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, Frenchmalawi has no interest whatever in this article, and never had. This is just payback for me insisting on reliable sources on a totally unrelated article. That discussion is here. --Scolaire (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've already quoted what the WP guide on Leads says Scolaire. Are you disagreeing with me about what it says concerning "complex, current or controversial" subjects? Are you saying Catalonian independence isn't one of those subjects? You could answer those questions with simple yes or no so we could explore your approach by reference to the WP guide. Are you saying that the guide says "it's ok to not have sources in leads concerning complex, current or controversial subjects as long as you think the matters are sourced elsewhere in the article." You've said I can "be your guest" tidying up the mess you've made by not bothering to source your edits. Your approach is shameful. You also threatened me on my user talk page. Other Eds: Have a look at my talk page. If wanting to follow WP guides and insisting on sources is "anal" User: Asilah1981, I'm guilty. I'm sorry that's seen as a negative. WP goes downhill when sloppy, lazy edits like Scolaire's aren't challenged. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi It seems to me you have an issue with this particular editor and are somehow editing here to "get back at him". That is not a constructive attitude. You should edit articles you are interested or knowledgeable about in good faith, not as part of a wider personal feud with another editor.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
User: Asilah1981 - it seems to me that I've raised concerns about flagrant violations of a WP guide calling for citations but rather than discuss that topic, the two other participants in this discussion would like to deflect attention onto other irrelevant things. Do you think the Lead without any citations is ok? I guess the same questions I put to Scolaire apply to you. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lede consists of a summary of the rest of the article, primarily the "History" section, and by virtue of its status as a summary of facts, should not require any separate citations as per standard practice on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

'Legality and legitimacy'

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

Public opinion paragraph

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

Spanish-language name for Catalan independence

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Lliga

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

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

2017 referendum

I moved here this content: 

"On the day of the poll, Spanish police and the Guardia Civil raided polling stations in Barcelona, Girona and elsewhere. They forced entry, ejected the occupants, confronted people trying to vote, used batons and fired rubber bullets in an attempt to stop the referendum from going ahead.[1][2] The Catalan government gave preliminary figures indicating that 2.26 million (42% of the electorate) had voted, with 90% vote in favour of independence.[3] The Spanish constitutional court moved quickly to prevent a declaration of independence.[4]"

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

And this other sentence frome the lead:
"National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil were deployed to prevent voting, using batons and rubber bullets."
See [1] and [2] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Catalan referendum: 'Hundreds hurt' as police try to stop voters". BBC News. October 1, 2017.
  2. ^ Cotovio, Vasco (1 October 2017). "Hundreds injured as Spain cracks down on Catalan referendum". CNN. Retrieved 1 October 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  3. ^ Jones, Sam; Burgen, Stephen (2 October 2017). "Catalan referendum: preliminary results show 90% in favour of independence". Guardian. Retrieved 6 October 2017.
  4. ^ Jones, Sam (6 October 2017). "Spanish court blocks Catalan parliament from declaring independence". Guardian. Retrieved 6 October 2017.

Community Sanctions

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

Motivation not really covered in article

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

Requested move 25 October 2017

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

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

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

  • Move. The article is about the independence movement. It is in Category:Independence movements, in which "independence movement" articles outnumber "independence" articles. "Independence" in general is inapropriate for a place that doesn't have independence. This article was originally titled "Catalan indepententism", which is closer to "independence movement " than to "independence". Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move. See, e.g. Quebec sovereignty movement. Fluous (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move. It certainly seems premature to call it "Catalan independence" when independence has yet to happen. Just my two cents. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 05:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Stay. Independence was declared today. UnknownM1 (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2017 (EST)
    • That doesn't alter the fact that the article is about the independence movement. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move. I support the move because this article is not about Catalonia during periods iof indipendence but rather about the historical movement that has been ongoing since the union of Aragon and Castile. Also, as of now, the article doesn't really talk about the independent Catalonia which would be better suited to a completely new article rather than changing this one. Alex the Nerd (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move as they declared their independence today – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 19:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move per Scoliare. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move per Scolaire. Impru20 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CEO 2017 3rd series

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

Introduction

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

This is the proposed updated lead. In what way does it summarise? One sentence on 1714, one sentence on 1932, one sentence on 1979, one sentence on 2006, and one sentence on 2017; and none of those except the last deal with Catalan independence in any way, shape or form. There's a statement that the Spanish government opposes independence, but where's the summary of the section on parties and individuals in Catalonia that support or oppose independence?
I wrote the lead last October, taking care not to include anything that was not in the History section (which I had previously re-written because it was an utter mess) or the Support or Oppose sections. Perhaps mgSH could detail the "ideas" that are introduced in the lead and not discussed in the article body? And isn't it then a contradiction to say that "it places too much emphasis on events that are discussed in great depth in the main body of the article"? Not to mention that that is precisely what the lead is intended to do. There is emphasis on the last decade because it is only in the last decade that a significant independence movement has existed in Catalonia. It is the post-2010 movement that this article is about and has always been about. The lead should reflect that. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Self-rule has been mooted for hundreds of years. It appears that Scolaire's argument is predicated on the fallacy that a significant independence movement has only seriously entered anyone's consciousness in the last decade, which is simply untrue. This very article shows that support for independence was, according to one source, at a greater level in 1991 than 2007.
On the point of including lists of supporters and opponents in the lead, it makes little sense to include unwieldy lists of current supporters and opponents in preference to the historical context of independence. I do not think the point of the lead is to summarise each and every section of the main article, as is reflected in the lack of mention of a summary of the opinion polls in the current lead.
Anyway, if this article is about the drive for independence in the last decade, I would suggest changing its name, as it is currently misleading. mgSH 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The point of the lead is to summarise main article; if not each and every section, then certainly the major ones. The failure to summarise the opinion polls is something that could be remedied, but it's not an excuse for wholesale deletion of the summary of the other sections.
When I was writing the History section, I read a lot of high-quality English-language sources that I found on Google Books – they can be seen in the References section. I was personally interested in finding out about independence movements (as opposed to general Catalan history) in the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the Franco and post-Franco period. I didn't find a lot. What I did find, I put in the Beginnings and 20th century sections. If either of you has a high-quality, English-language source (preferably a book) that details an active and well-supported independence movement in those periods, then by all means add the information to the History section of the article. It can then be summarised in the lead. User:84.77.111.111, while taking issue with my views, is saying that independence in the Franco and post-Franco period was "utopian to an almost taboo point". How is that different from what the article says?
mgSH says, This very article shows that support for independence was, according to one source, at a greater level in 1991 than 2007. There is no such statement in the article. There is a table in the section on opinion polls that shows that support for independence went up and down between 30% and 35% in the years 1991 to 2007, being at the high end in one of those years and on the low end in the other, but since the whole thrust of the article is that a mass movement has only existed since about 2010, that table doesn't actually show anything, apart from the beginnings of an increase in 2011. Scolaire (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Color scheme for international recognition map

The international recognition map [3] could not have picked a worse color scheme for people who are red-green colorblind. All I can tell is that most of the world either recognizes or doesn't recognize the Catalan Republic, and that most of Africa and the middle east have no opinion. Perhaps one of these colors should be changed to yellow or light blue or something. Or stick with red and green, but make it light green and dark red. 2601:601:9C00:4E0D:9452:910C:FD72:A331 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Some suggestions

The introduction had a complete lack of citations.

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

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

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

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

Hi XabiChristo. The lead is a summary of the article body. For every statement in the lead there is a citation in the article body. As a summary of facts, it does not require any separate citations. This is standard practice on Wikipedia.
On the 2015 elections, Artur Mas said that it would be a "referendum on independence". If pro-independence parties had received more than a 50% share of the vote, he could have said that Catalans had voted unequivocally for independence. The fact that they fell short of 50% complicated the matter. I agree that this could be better explained in the article. Your other suggestions are excellent. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No, there isn't any 'bias' in the article - the article reflects summaries of what the Reliable Sources say. If there is no source for your point of view, then that's just how it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is CEO Reliable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was no more edits on these lines at the moment. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Are there reliable sources informing on this (and no, an opinion text in a clearly anti-independence media such as Crónica Global does not count as such, for the sake of WP:NPOV. These should be either academic or, at least, coming from one or several experts on the issue, not from a random columnist)?
If yes, provide them. If no, then that's it for the discussion, because we must base ourselves on reliable sources, not on opinions. None of your points is backed by reliable sources. For example:
  • The underrepresentation of non-nationalist voters in Catalonia happens in all polls, not only in the CEO, and it has always happened. Something similar happens in the Basque Country.
  • "Excess of weight in survey sample" to rural areas does not necessarily relate to overall polling results if those have been weighted accordingly thereafter. CEO interviews around 1,000-2,000 people in each poll. It's all but obvious it can't sample a rural area proportionally to the samples they obtain in urban areas, because Barcelona alone is worth 1.6 million out of Catalonia's 7.5 million inhabitants, and Barcelona Province is worth over 5.5 million. A sample dependant on population would mean rural areas would be statistically neglected; thus, they sample these a little more so as to obtain useful data. They would later weight those results according to population, though, but that the sample does not look weighted in itself tells you nothing. The CIS and other pollsters do the same. Even so, such differences in the CEO are actually small (of 1 percentage point or less).
  • It may be because TV3 is the dominant TV in Catalonia, while pro-independence media also have a wide audience. Results shown by the CEO in this sense don't tend to differ much from those shown by the CIS, for example.
  • And Mariano Rajoy presides over a party which was founded by a Francoist Minister, and he started off politically as a member of another party founded by yet another Francoist Minister (UNE). And what? What has any of this to do with the way opinion polls are conducted? The only sources I can find from his alleged "manipulation" of CEO polls are non-academic, opinion articles coming from entirely anti-Catalan nationalist media. Btw, it is completely false that he was leader (or even a member at all) of Terra Lliure, lol. He was member of pro-independence MDT in the past (as well as of ERC and CDC), but not even its leader.
  • Other opinion polling has also been way off-line in the past. And? If opinion polling was exact, we wouldn't have elections. Impru20 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Impru20 re whether Crónica Global is a reliable source. Additionally, WP:Identifying reliable sources, under News organizations, says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact...When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." Carles Enric López is not an expert on anything.
But the edit did not actually cite Crónica Global. It cited Dolça Catalunya, a blatantly propagandist organ. And this is the problem with the edit. It's an edit that does nothing more than push a POV, using a non-reliable, biased source. That's not how we improve Wikipedia. If you want to know whether CEO is reliable, ask at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If they decide it's not, then all the content should simply be removed from the article. If they decide it is, then the content should stand as it is; Wikipedia does not preface opinion poll tables with the comment that some individuals don't like the polls. In the meantime, please do not try to restore that edit. Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Impru20 Why does the under representation of non-nationalist voters happen in all polls, as you say? A survey with around 70% of nationalists/independence supporters in sample can hardly be considered credible...Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Slight differences between the population and the sample are probably the result of random sampling error. The claim about TV viewership seems to be simply conjecture by someone who doesn't quite get how the stats work - a network's audience share at a given time doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how many people view a network as a primary news source.
CEO polling appears to be widely cited among mainstream and expert sources, and I don't see major criticisms of its polling in those sources. Obviously no poll is perfect, but by conventional standards this meets the general requirements for an RS. Nblund talk 20:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Nblund 70% is not a "slight difference". Nationalists obtained 39% of votes in last election and are 70% of the sample. How is that attributable to random sampling error??Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that in a normal western country like Spain a government agency like CEO should be credible. But in Catalonia, anything is possible. Impru20, I would like to point out a couple of things: You mention Mariano Rajoy, well yes, if Mariano Rajoy or an ideologue of the Partido Popular was the head of the CIS (national statistical agency) I would consider the CIS results suspect. But Mariano Rajoy is the PM and leader of a Centre-Right party and the president of the CIS is Cristobal Torres Albero, an academic with no known political affiliation. Arguelaget being President of the CEO is the equivalent of a hardcore rightist politician with a background in some far-right pro-terrorist organization such as Fuerza Nueva being president of the CIS and yes, the MDT was the political wing of Terra Lliure, a terrorist group, so no lolling required there. Opposition parties have also called for his dismissal including the Socialist Party of Catalonia due to his sectarian and incompetent management of CEO and its surveys https://delcamp.cat/general/sabate-exigeix-a-mas-la-destitucio-del-director-del-ceo and SCC openly refers to it as bias for the reasons given above. El Pais (as credible as Spanish language sources get) discusses the issue of over-representation but does not openly accuse them of bias. https://elpais.com/ccaa/2013/03/08/catalunya/1362779533_655765.html I admit I am not an expert on this matter, so I should not make such categorical statements (I did so earlier, perhaps unfairly). But it is an issue which is worth to consider and discuss here. Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
On the matter of TV3, Impru20 you say that it is the "dominant channel in Catalonia". Although its share has spiked significantly last month, in 2017 it has been consistently in third place behind the national stations Telecinco and Antena 3, with a share of below 10%. So that is another false premise in your argument.http://www.lavanguardia.com/television/20170502/422207701404/tv3-audiencias-batacazo.htmlSonrisas1 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Another matter which is getting very tiresome among editors here because it is based on rather outdated cliches: I am no Partido Popular supporter nor have ever voted for them, but continuing to associate Spain's major centre-right party to a dictatorship which ended 40 years ago is just silly. The PP is a rather meek and centrist conservative party by European standards and Rajoy is very much a centrist and moderate by PP standards. Only recently Rajoy warned of the dangers of "Spanish nationalism" while defending himself from criticism of accepting Basque fiscal privileges whereby the richest region in Spain gets the most investment from the central state.http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2017/11/27/5a1be266468aeb4b5f8b45c0.html So let's just leave the Franco-Paella-Flamenco-Bullfighting imagery out of discussions on Spanish politics, please. Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
For now, I am not pushing any addition/modification to the article. But I suggest we continue to monitor this topic of CEO credibility since it does seem a possible concern. Perhaps more sources will clarify down the line. Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

CIS Survey

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

I see a question in that survey on "alternative formulas of territorial organization of the State in Spain." I don't see a question on independence for Catalonia. Can you point me to the correct page/question? Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Sonrisas, since you're bringing the issue back up, I'll try to answer the question you asked above: similar sample proportions to a recent election aren't really an indication of reliability. Vote intention is an attitude, not a demographic - it changes over time and it doesn't necessarily reflect actual behavior. U.S. Republicans had a similar complaint about the polling in 2012 (read here), but the efforts to "unskew" the polls were wildly incorrect.
More importantly, reliability is determined by the reputation of the source - not by our own individual intuitions about which source seems "right". CIS might also be a reliable, but we need outside analysis to start talking about which source is "better". Nblund talk 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire Question 20 (and I guess 21 and 24). CIS surveys are already in the article, this is just the latest one which was missing - not proposing any new source. Question 20 shows that currently 44% of Catalans want the Spanish state to allow regions to have the right to self-determination - an increase of 3% since last series. User:Nblund Thanks. I still think that no survey in the US on, say, attitudes towards abortion or gun rights, would have a proportion of 70% republican voters though. But I am not an expert in this matter and I can't categorically question the methodology. Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Sonrisas1, a question on whether you want the Spanish state to allow regions (plural) to have the right to self-determination is not a question on whether you want Catalonia to be independent. To infer anything about attitudes to independence from such a question is synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I can't find any CIS surveys in the article. Is it the same as ICPS? ICPS surveys in the past included a question on independence for Catalonia; the survey you linked to does not. Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire Correct, it is a CEO not a CIS poll, sorry. Asks pretty much the same question though, that is why I assumed it was same source. Calling it SYNTH is a bit finicky. Results are similar, I'm not going to fight over it. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
If you're not going to fight over it, then let's draw a line under the whole thing. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced or questionable material

Regarding this edit, and this one

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

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

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

Do you speak Spanish Nblund? I suggest assisting the editor with Spanish language sources, they are easy to find. Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The problems with these edits are (1) that they are adding POV and opinion to what was a factual lead, and (2) that they use articles in biased Spanish newspapers as a source. Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Spanish language sources are easy to find. Spanish language sources that are reliable sources per WP:RS seem to be much less easy to find. The lead before those edits was a summary of the History section in the article body, which is scrupulously sourced from reliable secondary sources, i.e. books written by acknowledged experts published by reputable publishers. Specifically, regarding these latest edits:
  1. "The modern independence movement allegedly began..." This is just silly. Who says it's an allegation? When is the "true" beginning supposed to be? It is also based on a misunderstanding of what was there. It said, "The modern independence movement began when the 2006 Statute of Autonomy...was challenged in the Spanish High Court of Justice, which ruled that some of the articles were unconstitutional..." It didn't say that the 2006 statute was the beginning of the movement, but rather that its rejection by the Spanish court led to the movement.
  2. "14 out of the 223 articles were unconstitutional (6,27%) and provided a valid, constitutional interpretation for another 27." This is opinion, and also irrelevant. The number of articles as a percentage of the total means nothing if the articles were significant ones, which they were; and of course a court is going to presume that its ruling is constitutional and valid. What is relevant is not whether the ruling was fair according to its own lights, but what the ruling said.
  3. "Òmnium Cultural then already turned into a pro-independence political masss [sic] movement." This is unnecessary, since the sentence says that the pro-independence demonstration was organised by Òmnium Cultural.
  4. The 2015 elections were billed as "a referendum on independence", so the fact that the popular vote was less than 50% for pro-independence parties is significant. The 2012 elections were not billed as a referendum, so the percentage of the popular vote does not need to be stated. Also, what is the difference between "pro-sovereignty" and "pro-independence"?
  5. The criticism of the polling organisation CEO in Crónica Global was discussed above. It was agreed not to include it. It should not have been re-added.
There do seem to be some matters of fact that either were mis-stated or are now outdated. These can be fixed. Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I have been focusing on recent events in my editing. There were problems. I agree some of these statements are POV. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that most of the statements added on Dec 20th were truthful, and probably reliable sources could be found for most of them. At the same time, some of them could also be adding some degree of POV to the text by giving excessive attention to certain non-essential facts. After the latest edits, the current version is probably better. --Savig (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree this is an improvement, thanks Scolaire and Sonrisas. Nblund talk 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

POV section tag

Hispalois put a "POV section" tag on the Beginings section here with a rather ambiguous summary. He failed to open any discussion on this talk page to state what facts he is disputing, or what his arguments against them are. According to the policy, WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." To dispute the neutrality of a section, you need to

  1. state what facts you believe are contentious (do you think that the reapers won in 1652? that Aragon did not support the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession?)
  2. show that there are opposing views in reliable published in reliable sources, and say what they are
  3. state why you believe one of these views has been given undue weight over the other(s).

I'm removing the tag until somebody does. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire for the clarification above. I have directly edited the section so as to balance what I thought was NPOV. I have also added some extra information on the two wars explained in the section.--Hispalois (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
In general, your edit is fine, Hispalois. But can you tell me why you changed "Aragon supported..." to "most of Aragon supported..."? That's not in the cited source. It says simply, "The War of the Spanish Succession pitted as opponents the Crown of Aragon...together with their English allies, and Castile with their support from the French." That's pretty definitive. Do you have an equally good quality source that says a significant part of the Crown of Aragon did not support the Habsburgs? And why did you remove "fearing that the Bourbons would suppress regional autonomy"? That is clearly stated in the cited source, and it is significant because, of course, the Bourbons did intend to suppress regional autonomy and did in fact suppress regional autonomy, which was the major grievance of Catalan nationalists. Again, I question your use of "NPOV". Which of two opposing views in reliable published sources did my edit over-represent or under-represent, what are those opposing views, and how did your edit restore NPOV by representing those opposing views proportionately? If that's not what you did, then all you did was to remove some facts you didn't like, and change some facts you didn't like. That has nothing to do with neutrality. Scolaire (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire. Per your request, I have added a reference to support the fact that "most" and not all of the Crown of Aragon supported the Habsburg. I have made a point of choosing an article from an overtly pro-independence historian, to show that this particular fact is not disputed by anyone today and is not a matter of political controversy. I quote from the abstract of the article: "Within the Spanish monarchy, most of the states in the Crown of Aragon sided with Archduke Charles of Austria (Charles III), while...". If your source says what you have quoted, I advise you to consider that book as just plainly unreliable.
In the same line, the idea that Spanish Austracists (Catalans and many others) supported the Archduke because they were "fearing that the Bourbons would suppress regional autonomy" is just a mystification. The story is more nuanced and complex. As you can see in the reference I have added, open revolt in Catalonia only started in 1705, four years after Philippe d'Anjou had been sworn in. The main reasons for the revolt were 1) intense enmity between Spain and France after sixty years of war, a feeling that was particularly strong in Catalonia; 2) impression that the Archduke's international alliance was about to militarily defeat France. I am not denying that the Bourbon may have had a more centralizing policy than the Habsburg (even though the Kingdom of Navarre was allowed to keep its autonomy after 1714), but this is not what triggered revolt and civil war in the first place. Please read the reference I have provided (which, I remind, is the work of an active member of ERC) and, if you agree, please remove the phrase "fearing that the Bourbons, if successful, would suppress regional autonomy".--Hispalois (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Translations of the names of the flags.

Regarding this revision by Scolaire, I am wondering why it was undone and commented as "not an improvement". The current translations are not only incorrect, but confusing. The Estelada Blava is not "blue-starred", there are no blue stars on it. This certainly makes for some confusing alt text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmhamilton (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I followed that edit with this one, with the edit summary "maybe better without the hyphen, since the 'blue starred flag' doesn't actually have a blue star, but rather a blue background." My problem is with the word "starry", which suggests many stars rather than just one (as in "starry night"). It is usually used for the American flag (see google results for "starry flag"), which has 50 stars. On the other hand, searching for "starred flag" gives you multiple results for the Estelada. "Starred flag" is the common way to describe the Estelada in English, and therefore it should be used in this article. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
At least without the hyphen, maybe switch "starred" and the colour around. In standard English, this adjective order evokes a comma even when one isn't present. The description of condition (starred) should come before a description of colour (blue) (e.g. orange crumpled origami [evoking that an orange is responsible for crumpling the origami] vs. crumpled orange origami). Aaron Muir Hamilton <[email protected]> (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. "Blue starred flag" is shorthand for "the blue version of the starred flag" – just as "Estelada blava" is. "Starred blue flag" would mean "a blue flag with a star". The flag is not blue; it is primarily red and yellow. Again, "blue starred flag" is common usage; "starred blue flag" is not. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


The lists of supporters and opposers

Note this is a NPOV ISSUE it doesnt matter either way in terms of how the Catalan independence movement looks. I just think that if we open the list on support and opposing to non-catalans you will destroy the purpose of the list. Practically ALL non Catalan Spaniards oppose independence. Are we going to include every single personality in Spain who has said something about the topic in the NO list? If Catalonia is split on the question 50/50, it is much more interesting to restrict the list to Catalans.180.94.83.10 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

LOVKAL: As a middle way solution I suggest a third list of international personalities (which may include VERY famous Spaniards like Rafa Nadal, but not people who are only famous in Spain. And the rest foreigners like Bjork or whatever. 180.94.83.10 (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Follow-on Criticism section: Supremacism and Xenophobia

Ok until a consensus is reached, and since there articles on anti-independence parties have criticism sections pretty much accusing them of being fascists on very flimsy (borderline surreal) grounds and with very weak sources, I propose, out of consistency to have a "Criticism" section here based on any of the following sources:

This is a first batch based on a quick google search. Can continue finding more appropriate sources. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have raised this disruptive campaign at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sonrisas1 disrupting a talk page to make a point. There is no point in discussing this further, except to say that partisan Spanish news organisations are not reliable sources for this kind of content, as Sonrisas1 knows. Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a RfC would be a better means to resolve this issue, but I don't see how Sonrisas1 is being disruptive now. He has been told by another user that in order to mention them in the article, he has to show evidence that the accusations towards this independentist movement of being supremacist and xenophobic are not merely a fringe view, and he's presenting now a list of articles from well-known Spanish (including Catalan) media showing his point. El País, El Mundo, La Vanguardia, El Periodico de Catalunya... we have here the main newspapers in Spain and Catalonia, we can hardly despise the lot of them as being 'unreliable' or 'partisan'. --Savig (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sonrisas has now been indefinitely blocked. Unless somebody else is anxious to try and write an encyclopaedic section on this, I suggest we draw a line under it. Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he has been blocked but, curiously enough, not for the reasons you proposed. Be that as it may, his points about xenophobia and supremacism within Catalan independentism, backed with numerous sources, stay entirely valid and open to debate - unless there is a Wikipedia policy that forbids any criticism within politics-related articles, that is. --Savig (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll let you have The Last Word, then. Scolaire (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
That's so kind of you :') --Savig (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
On the basis of overwhelming number of credible sources, I add a neutral criticism section which is evidently warranted. Censoring the opinion of even the winner of the Catalan elections on this matter is ridiculous. 94.204.228.165 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Supremacism and Xenophobia

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

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

Reason 1: "racial theories" have nothing to do with the independence movement, 5 October 2017.
Reason 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism, result was Delete, 1 November 2017.
Reason 3: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Catalan Racism, strong consensus to delete, 26 November 2017.
Reason 4: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
You have been trying to peddle this POV rubbish ever since you joined Wikipedia. You have never got even a sniff of a consensus to do it. I asked you a month ago to delete the content of your sandbox, since that content had been rejected in its totality by a large number of uninvolved editors, and your answer was essentially that you were going to keep it so you could push it somewhere else. This is disruption, pure and simple.
And reason 5: whatever goes on at the Ciudadanos or any other article (and for what it's worth, I think far-right is crazy!) is not an excuse to bring the battle to this article. I and others have worked bloody hard to keep this an encyclopaedic, neutral and factual article despite all the stupid POV wars that have been going on elsewhere. Can you not try to respect that? Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Scolaire No need to be so aggressive. Numerous Catalans (actually a large segment of Catalan society) disagree with your perspective and consider that the independence movement is essentially far right supremacism: for example Albert Boadella, a former anti-francoist activist. In any case, ,my point here is exactly that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so we should tone down criticism of specific parties. Thank you. I would thus ask you to support me on removing the "alternative views" section in the Ciudadanos article. It would be nice if you worked hard "to keep things NPOV" on both sides, not just one - since you are among the most active editors on Catalan issues. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not. I got involved in this article and the Catalan Countries article late last year, when nothing much was happening. I think that the people who worked on those articles at that time did a good (and collaborative) job on getting encyclopaedic, neutral and factual articles; I'd like to keep them that way, and I've edited both articles with a view to doing that. I did get involved in some other articles around the time of the referendum (as well as the deletion discussions I mentioned above), but I regretted it and I've more or less stayed out since then. I don't see why defending the neutrality of an article I've worked on obliges me to intervene in an article I have nothing to do with, and I don't wish to be guilt-tripped into doing so. And by the way, if you sincerely believe that we should tone down criticism of specific parties, then I don't see how you can reconcile that with adding an attack on the whole independence movement. Also, Numerous Catalans (actually a large segment of Catalan society) disagree with your perspective and consider that the independence movement is essentially far right supremacism is soapboxing; it has nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Can you still not see the difference? Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Im making a point. And no its not soapboxing since Im discussing in talk page, not including it in the article. Sonrisas1 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Soapboxing is soapboxing. You can "make a point" on the talk page if you wish, but you have still not proposed any encyclopaedic content. Trust me, Wikipedia is not a forum for people to people to attack political movements they disagree with. Click Special:Random. Click it as many times as you like, and see how often you come to a page that does that. Read Encyclopaedia. See if it says it's for people to "make points". Either you're interested in building an encylopaedia or you are looking for a forum to air your political prejudices. You need to decide which it is. Scolaire (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire. Maybe a section describing some (many, I would say) people's critical view on the separatist movement would be soapboxing as you say (and therefore not encyclopedic), I'm not sure about that, but then you have to admit that Sonrisas' remark about the content in Citizens_(Spanish_political_party)#Alternative_views_and_past_membership is quite on the spot. Either both sections are appropriate or none is. --Savig (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
But this is not the Ciudadanos talk page. What goes on there should not even be brought up here. Read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The Ciudadanos article is an unholy mess. Of course there shouldn't be an "alternative views" section. What's more, 90% of the article should be cut because it's just endlessly repeating that different people have different views about what the party policies and ideologies are. But saying "let's propose an attack section on Catalan independence movement to goad people into participating in the Ciudadanos talk page discussion" is disruptive. I decline to wade into that mess, just as I am staying out of a dozen other related articles. If people can't propose concrete, policy-compliant improvements to this article, then they shouldn't be posting to this talk page. Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'm staying out of those articles too (unfortunately my time is limited). But I think that by bringing for a moment that other article (Ciudadanos) into this discussion we have been able to make an interesting observation here: different criteria are being applied in similar articles. If Wikipedia's policies are not clear on wheather an article about a political movement should include criticisms about it or not, and/or how, perhaps this could be a good moment for somebody raising a thread about that -not in this talk page of course but in the right place- in order to find a solution. --Savig (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
So stop posting on this talk page, then. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Savig Fully agreed. It is concerning that:
1) editors here forbid any reference to criticism in the article on the Catalan independence movement when it is largely defined as a xenophobic movement by half of the Catalan population, a good portion of Catalan intelligentsia, the leader of Catalonia's most voted party and pretty much all political parties in Spain except Podemos; and
2) Simultaneously, the article on Ciudadanos, the most voted party in Catalonia, has a section on "alternative views" which basically misconstrues a centrist liberal party as some kind of fascist neo-nazi party on the basis of opinions/claims by pro-independence media and individuals. Defending this reality while talking of NPOV is a bit rich, to say the least.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
1) Editors have no power to forbid anything on any article. They can only continue to point out the difference between an encyclopaedia article and a forum for warring about political prjudices. I still haven't seen anything except soapboxing in respect of this article.
2) What happens simultaneously in the article on Ciudadanos has nothing to do with this article. Read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Causing grief on one article to highlight what is happening on a different article is disruptive. Please stop. Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Its not grief or disruption. It is a discussion on whether we should have "criticism" sections on these articles, what the policy is and consistency across them. The discussion can take place here or any other relevant article such as Ciudadanos. Lack of balance has been pointed out, and it makes sense to discuss it. Don't know why it bothers you so much. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it is unclear whether you sincerely want to include a Xenophobia and Supremacism section in this article - or if you're proposing this section simply to make a point about an entirely different article. FWIW: we should include all major viewpoints in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. If there are a significant number of prominent critics who believe that the Catalan Independence Movement is racist and xenophobic, then we can include those claims. We cannot, however, present a fringe view as a widely held opinion. Nor can we cobble together a bunch of unrelated statements about specific figures or organizations across history in order to present an argument that isn't explicitly stated by any particular source. Nblund talk 22:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Nblund I cannot separate one issue from the other. The question is whether in articles on Spanish political parties or movements (including this one) we should have a section where to dump all the criticism and accusations by opposition and opposing media, which is quite extreme in all cases (invariably accusations and examples of fascist ideology, racism, xenophobia etc.) Currently, it is the case for some parties (Ciudadanos) but not others (Catalan nationalist parties and other national parties). The question is what is the policy issue and we need to sort it out together through consensus and apply it consistently. Where can we start this discussion? I have to say there are much more reliable sources (and solid examples) accusing Catalan nationalism of xenophobia and supremacism than there are accusing Ciudadanos of being far-right. If you want me to compile them here, there is no issue. However, I personally would prefer to delete the mud-slinging from all Spanish political parties rather than expand it to nationalist parties. I want to avoid trouble, not create more. This is why I would be satisfied with deleting the "alternative views" section from Ciudadanos article. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
You still don't get it! If you want a central forum for discussing what should be the policy concerning "criticism" sections, you should raise it a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If you want an RfC at Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party) (as you've just stated here) then start an RfC instead of continuing your endless bickering with CodeInconnu in a section that nobody else is reading. If you want somebody else to open an RfC for you, then ping me on your talk page. It makes no more sense to make this article a forum for your war with CodeInconnu than it would to make Talk:Republican Party (United States) a forum for that war by proposing a "criticism" section in that article; it makes less sense, in fact, since this is not an article about a political party, and the other article has far more people watching it. I repeat: what you are doing here is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Note that disrupting a talk page is disruption, the same as disrupting an article. Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
A controversies section would resolve this.94.205.213.10 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion at all?? Adding a made-up Controversies section to one article because you object to having a Controversies section in another article is disruptive. The "ethnic supremacism and racism" idea has been debated at length in multiple forums (see my links at the top of this section), and there is a very clear consensus that it is not encyclopaedic. Scolaire (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Apologies I reverted an edit here by mistake. I don't know about that article. I'm referring to this specific article. 94.204.228.165 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I see no such consensus. I see political edit warring. Criticism section is warranted on basis of overwhelming number of credible sources above. It is normal and encyclopedic to have a criticism section. Nothing wrong with that. Do you see an issue, Scolaire? Shouldn't we have the opinion of politicians who won the Catalan elections, and dozens of Catalan public figures across the political spectrum who coincide on this diagnosis. It is presented as opinion not fact and is encyclopedic and neutral. 94.204.228.165 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A recent article certainly worth reading on the supremacism question published on Spain's most read and respected newspaper

"Does the new Catalan premier Quim Torra, with his savagely xenophobic views, truly represent today’s pro-independence movement?" https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/05/15/inenglish/1526373293_276622.html

217.165.72.165 (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitalize the title?

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

Catalan independence movement is not a proper name, i.e. there is no specific organisation entitled the "Catalan Independence Movement". Per MOS:Capitalisation, it should not be capitalised. See Category:Independence movements, where none none of the articles are capitalised. Scolaire (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The move above was based on a false premise (independence needs to have already occurred for there to be an article on independence). See Scottish independence, Welsh independence, Taiwanese independence and many others. However, the issue is pretty minor so I can't be bothered to start another move discussion. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

On criticism section

Evidently sources warrant a criticism section, particularly regarding the xenophobia accusation which is clearly widespread in the anti-independence camp in Catalonia. However, I suggest arguments/supporting examples are not provided on either side of the debate or it will lead to endless edit warring it, particularly with editors with strong views here such as Scolaire and the like. Limit it to A says X and B says Y, without going into specific supporting examples on either side. That is my suggestion. It will give us a neat and balanced section. 94.205.253.198 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I made an edit on top of yours adding back some references that were removed. Feel free to improve it if you want. -- (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not need a "unionists say that nationalists are xenophobes, nationalists say that unionists are xenophobes" section. Can either of you provide reliable sources for accusations of xenophobia against the independence movement – the actual movement that revolves around the referendums of 2009-11, 2014 and 2017, and not Catalan nationalism in general or individual politicians in particular? This is an encyclopaedia article, not a message board for throwing allegations around. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument Scolaire. Of course there are reliable sources. [ This article www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2018/05/12/5af739ee46163f392f8b46de.html ] is on the front page today This denial of reality is not sustainable in the long term. They are already listed in this talk page. Why do you ask questions for which you already know the answer? In any case, there is no doubt than an accusation as serious as that of Xenophobia and ethnic supremacism from the winner of the Catalan elections (among numerous others in Catalonia) warrants attention, particularly considering the xenophobic writings of the upcoming Catalan president for which he has had to apologize. I suggest also including position countering allegations by Gabriel Rufian or someone of the sort. 94.204.228.165 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Aljullu Overall I agree with your edits, forgive me I have only deleted the last sentence and I explain to you why. The last sentence is a specific "allegation" which can be countered. For example, giving examples of Far right pro-independence MIC. I suggest you replace this sentence with something related to pro-independence people considering such allegations also being part of a wider are campaign to fuel catalonophobia. No one can counter or deny that they hold so position. If we get into the substance the section will be inherently unstable. I hope u agree. 94.204.228.165 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I rephrased it so it says "allege" instead of "point out". --Aljullu (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Some quotes from current Catalan President Quim Torra

All taken from the Spanish version of Snopes "Maldito Bulo" which dispels fake news from all political sides in Spain - including anti- and pro independence.

https://maldita.es/maldito-bulo/que-ha-escrito-realmente-quim-torra-y-que-no/

*1. On differences between North and South of Spain

"Here [in Catalonia] there are people who have said enough and, each in its own way, fights for ideas and a country. People who have forgotten to look south and look north again, where people are clean, noble, free and cultured. And happy.

*2. On the "beasts"

"Now you look at your country and see the beasts talking again. But they are of another type. Scavengers, vipers, hyenas. Beasts with human form, however, that are rinsed with hatred. A disturbed, nauseating hatred, like false teeth with mold, against everything that the tongue represents. " "They are here, among us. They are disgusted by any expression of Catalanness. It is a sick phobia. There is something Freudian in these beasts. Or a little blemish in their DNA.

*3. On Speaking Spanish in Catalonia

"No, it is not natural to speak in Spanish in Catalonia. Not wanting to speak the language of the country is the uprooting, provincialization, the persistent will not to assume the identity of where you live."Without language there is no country. And when you decide not to speak Catalan, you are deciding to turn your back on Catalonia."

"In Barcelona you always end up being overtaken by a group of boys and girls speaking in Spanish [...] You go out into the street and nothing indicates that this is the street of your parents and your grandparents: the Spanish advances, impeccable, voracious, very fast . You open the newspapers or watch television and talk to you about things that have nothing to do with you and your world.

*4. On founder of paramilitary fascist-racist-supremacist organizations Nosaltres Sols! and Estat Catala

In the golden age of the double and triple readings and the neoliberal Catalan politics, his spontaneous clarity was fought with a mocking smile or a general splash of stereotypes (resistential, minority extremists, dreamers, identity, etc.).

(Here is the link to his article in Punt Avui if anyone doubts it. http://www.elpuntavui.cat/article/7-vista/8-articles/710557-pioners-de-la-independencia.html

5. On immigration from other parts of Spain

"Today we realize, stupefied, that we were there where we were; even worse, that the feeling of national urgency has multiplied and that there is a risk that the nation will fall apart like a sugar in a glass of milk, caught between the migratory avalanche, the monstrous fiscal plunder and a globalization that only respects those who belongs to the world order: (Nation) States ".

Miska5DT (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Miska5DT:, you should read WP:FORUM.
In addition to that, the quotes you post are all of them out of context and misleading. Just to give a quick example: the first one is a quote from a poem written by Salvador Espriu and "South" refers to Catalonia and "North" to the rest of Europe. You can read the entire poem in Catalan here: [4] --Aljullu (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I am simply google translating an article on the Spanish Snopes which tries to bring clarity to what he said and what he didn't say. You, being sympathetic with this man, can portray it as benignly as you wish.
Considering the history of xenophobic statements towards southern Spain over the past years, starting with Jordi Pujol's "worthless Andalusian man" and ending with Oriol Junqueras article explaining how much closer Catalans are genetically to Swiss than to other Spaniards, I think it is you who are trying to mislead or whitewash these statements. They are crystal clear.
And I don't want to get into bringing up the racial theories of early Catalan nationalists on the pure European blood of Catalans as opposed to the African/Jewish heritage of Andalusians and Castilians. Such racism was espoused by the organizations such as Nosoaltres Sols! that the current Catalan president has (in public) expressed admiration for. Miska5DT (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Junqueras' article is based on a scientific study which was also published in The New York Times. Feel free to edit The New York Times page with your accusations of 'supremacism' if you disagree with that study. By the way, per WP:FORUM I will not answer any other comment from you if you can't make any serious contribution to the discussion, so feel free to WP:WORD. --Aljullu (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Include just positions by X or how they substantiate their positions in criticism section?

So far Aljullu wants to substantiate countering allegations of xenophobia. Do we substantiate or don't we substantiate for both positions? I STRONGLY advise against. If we substantiate, we have dozens of sources and examples of xenophobia and supremacism in the Catalan independence movement. The section will become very big and very interesting but it will also be a source of conflict.Miska5DT (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Miska5DT: Thank you for bringing this topic to the Talk page. I think there are two things to discuss here:
  • You seem to want to add information about SOM Catalans and Catalan Identitarian Movement but I argue those are irrelevant organizations that have never played a role in the Catalan independence movement. I couldn't find any information about membership, but they don't seem to be any bigger than a dozen people. The first one, for example, doesn't have a page neither in the English Wikipedia nor the Catalan one; the second one only has a page in the English Wikipedia created by you and with no other significant contributions.
  • You removed a paragraph about independence organizations integrated by immigrants even though they are clearly relevant (Súmate leaders were part of the Junts pel Sí and CUP candidature in the Catalan elections and the organization has over 35.000 members). --Aljullu (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Aljullu:Yes, I can also include a para on the Catalan Identitarian Movement or SOM Catalans, I can include a para on Jordi Pujol saying Andalusians are sub human, or how pro-independence political parties only have Catalan surnames, unlike the Catalan population as a whole. I can mention Artur Mas' xenophobic rants about "Spain steals from us" and "the subsidized Spain", or Junqueras' discussions of Catalan genetics and Spanish genetics. I can mention Arrimadas being told to return to Andalusia, I can mention the attacks on Rivera's parents convenience store with spray paintings saying they are not Catalans, I can mention the speaker of Catalan parliament calling anti-independence Catalans "settlers, enemies of the people etc..", I can mention Catalan mayors comparing the rest of Spain to North Africa, I can mention an entire body of Catalan nationalist literature, up until the 1980s espousing the superiority of the Catalan race over the African and Semitic Spanish races. I can mention the philo-nazi organization Estat Catala, to which the current president of Catalonia has publically paid homage to. Its eternal. It can all be backed by sound secondary sources, SUBSTANTIATING the positons of relevant figures.
The thing is that I consider this is a bad avenue to take. But if you want the positions of either side to be substantiated, then we will have to do so for both sides... So long as everyone else agrees. Until then, we should keep this section neutral in my opinion.Miska5DT (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Sumate and the Moviment Identitari Catala. I don't know where you are getting figures of "a dozen members" from. Sumate does indeed have 37,000 followers on Facebook, a large number (a majority?) of which are probably from Catalan-speaking pro-independence followers. M.I.C has currently about 1,200 followers on Facebook and SOM Catalans has over 2000 followers, none of which are likely to be from other parts of Spain.Miska5DT (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Miska5DT: Please, remember WP:FORUM. You are free to add as much information as you think it might be relevant to the Criticism section, but that information must be relevant and be backed by sources. That's the reason I think Catalan Identitarian Movement and SOM Catalans shouldn't be there. I couldn't find any source stating that they played an important role in the Catalan independence movement, on the contrary, the few references I could find refer to them as a very small group of about a dozen members with no incidence at all. Did they organize any big demonstrations? Have they published any numbers about membership? Did they influence the Catalan independence movement in any way? To me, the answer to all those questions is 'No', and that's why those groups are not relevant enough to appear on this article.
On the opposite site, the answer to those questions regarding Súmate is 'Yes', they participated in some of the biggest demonstrations in the last years, they have published numbers regarding their membership and they played an important role in the independence movement (some of their leaders entered the Catalan Parliament with Junts pel Sí and CUP in the Catalan elections). --Aljullu (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to have understood my point Aljullu. Shall we include all the xenophobic statements by leaders of ERC, CiU, PdeCat, Heribert Barrera, all the early Catalan nationalist thinkers talking about the inferior Spanish race, Jordi Pujol and a long etc as justifying accusations of xenophobia and racism. Its all sourceable. Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then this can be a very long and interesting section.
Btw, Súmate is a sham, its akin to "Mexicans for Trump", a whitewashing campaign. How many "Charnego" Catalans are currently in the Catalan parliament for PdeCat and ERC? How many in the Torra government? How many Lopez, Gonzalez, Garcia, Fernandez? None, or close to none. Saying Spanish speakers played an important role in the independence movement when the current President claims he feels sick when he hears children speaking Spanish in the street is laughable at best. The movement has a token uncle tom it has sent to Madrid, Rufian. That's it. Miska5DT (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Given that you seem to be a WP:SPA, you first broke WP:BRD and now are constantly breaking WP:FORUM and don't seem to want to engage in a productive discussion, I will revert your previous edits and suggest you, as WP:BRD says, to bring here any new modification you want to make. --Aljullu (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Miska5DT it appears you have attempted to resurrect text from this deleted article. I'm sure it's a coincidence, but since you appear to share Sonrisas1's singular obsession with the "Catalan Supremacist" talking point, you should take note of the deletion discussion for that article and the reasoning behind the deletion. To the extent this idea can be referenced anywhere on Wikipedia, it should follow the guidelines for reliable sourcing and due weight. We should avoid attempting to paint this criticism as more prevalent than it actually is, and we should not cobble together disparate criticisms of specific politicians in an effort to imply an accusation of racism against the movement as a whole. Nblund talk 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually that text is currently on both English and Spanish Wikipedia. "Catalan Supremacism" is discussed in pretty much every main stream media source in Spain and is a term used by politicians on the left and right in Catalonia and in the rest of Spain. Hardly the obsession of a single editor. Its a concept which deeply annoys pro- Cat independence wikipedians and they have made huge efforts to banish any reference to Catalan supremacist thought from the project. Just another example of activism on Wikipedia. Pretty harmless though. 81.43.27.76 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If this is more than the obsession of a single editor (or a rotating cast of WP:SPAs), then I suggest that those editors work together to create something that resembles the text of a Wikipedia entry. This contains no citations and is barely coherent. Nblund talk 00:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:There is no cabal. We can safely say that all the information in that deleted text can be sourced. It is common knowledge and/or was in front pages of Catalan/Spanish newspapers. Any text containing the substance of accusations of Catalan supremacism by politicians, intellectuals, historians, mainstream media outlets and various Catalan personalities can be easily drafted and sourced. There are dozens of reliable sources to choose from. Just saying... As a Spanish speaker, I can reinstate it and source each sentence myself, if you request me to.81.43.27.76 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If you can write something that conforms to Wikipedia policies you should do that. If you simply re-add a lightly edited version of an already deleted article, it's unlikely to be successful. I would also recommend creating an account and considering making a few edits to non-controversial topic areas before delving in to this topic. Nblund talk 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Miska5DT: I removed the content you added again here. Several of the statements attributed to living people (Inés Arrimadas and Francisco Frutas) are unsourced. The statement that several politicians have argued that racism and xenophobia is at the heart of the Catalan Independence movement isn't really supported by a single statement by one person. The stuff about Quim Torra seems to be conflating a politician with the whole movement. You also removed well-sourced editorial commentaries from the Guardian, and you still haven't participated in the conversation here (unless you are the IP user above) despite being pinged. Nblund talk 19:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Nblund Do you speak Spanish or Catalan? How can you claim they are unsourced? For Arrimadas: https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171010/431966269654/ines-arrimadas-puigdemont-nacionalismo-europa-independencia.html For Francisco Frutos https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/10/29/catalunya/1509291177_925632.html If you don't speak the languages of this topic, I suggest you edit less aggressively.Miska5DT (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I said it was "unsourced" because it didn't have sources. Sources need to be in the text, not just exist in your head. This is especially true when it comes to material about living people. Sorry, but that's far from aggressive, and I don't need to be fluent in Spanish to correct something so obviously problematic.
Regarding these new edits, a few issues:
  • You've been reverted repeatedly here, so you obviously don't have consensus support for these edits. You need to work something out in talk.
  • You need to actually use a proper citation template, don't just stick a URL inside ref tags.
  • You need to dial it back a little to avoid looking like you're just trying to create a WP:COATRACK section. This editorial from two Ciudadanos members gives a milder version of the critique you're trying to make. The authors note that Catalan nationalists have made appeals to ethnicity and racist dog whistles. They don't say that this sentiment characterizes the entire movement, and it's a small part of their overall complaint, but it is one part of the argument. I added this article to the entry in an effort to compromise, but for some reason you keep removing it. Nblund talk 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
User Miska5DT is vandalising other articles like Catalan Civil Society, Somatemps, Josep Alsina and Javier Barraycoa. He has even put a deletion notice in the article of Somatemps alleging that the sources used to state they are far-right do not state that. The deletion page can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Somatemps Maybe the user is a sock-puppet or is avoiding a ban. Filiprino (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you and editing against your blatant propaganda garbage is not vandalizing, Filiprino. You are calling these living individuals Nazis without credible sources. This is worth a topic ban as well as alerting these guys personally of your editing. Miska5DT (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't discuss what you think about me. The talk pages are for discussing how to write the information published by the press. Filiprino (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Miska5DT: you still haven't really engaged in a discussion here, so I'm reverting again with some slight wording changes. Looking more closely at the sources, it's pretty clear that none of these speakers mentioned in this section say that xenophobia is central to the origins of Catalan independence - none of them appear to discuss the origins of the movement at all. It's also not clear that they support the claim that racism is central to the contemporary movement: for instance, in the source above, Arrimadas says Puigdemont represents supremacism. Further, the undue focus on the racism claim ends up overshadowing other criticisms mentioned in the editorials cited.
Additional note, could you clarify whether you are the IP editor above? There's no rule against editing while logged out, but you should be open about whether or not you and 81.43.27.76 are the same person. Nblund talk 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nblund: yes you have a point regarding "at the origins", certain media and academics make that claim. Although these individuals do consider it to be a component of independence movement as is clear from sources. I have left the overall structure of your edit. Although, we do need to keep Frutos and Boadella in there. Regarding historical link to racism, that would require another paragraph making it clear who states it. Miska5DT (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Paco Frutos was deauthorised by the PCE: https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/MINUTO-Diada_13_685361458_15073.html Yet, you removed that information. It is important to know that he is not backed up by PCE because PCE is being used as a propaganda for his speech. Filiprino (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Filiprino I am not going to discuss with a person who makes edits on wikipedia claiming 1950s immigration from Andalusia and Flamenco music are a threat to the survival of the Catalan people (see your edits in Sardana). You, personally, are a racist and a supremacist who considers Catalans of foreign extraction less Catalan than yourself. It is ironic you are simultaneously making racist edits in other articles such as Sardana and here trying to delete any source with accusations of xenophobia in the criticism section. These are the people we have to deal with. It is so sad this ideology exists in western Europe in 2018. Miska5DT (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what simply listing Boadella and Frutos adds to the article. WP:NPOV requires that we describe points of view, and we can name a few prominent proponents of that view in order to give a sense of it prevalence. However, we don't need to compose indiscriminate lists of everyone who has stated a position. If they add something new or interesting to the debate, then maybe its's worth citing them, but simply saying "here are four other people who said something similar" isn't useful. I think this is a reasonable compromise given that this section was edit warred in to existence over reasonable objections by other editors. Nblund talk 21:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catalan_independence_movement/Archive_2&oldid=1158760191"