Talk:Republican Left of Catalonia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 29 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arlosiegel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Correction: Lluis Companys was not imprisoned in 1934 by Franco's Regime. Among other reasons, Spanish Civil War didn't start until 18th July 1936 and wasn't won by the General's Nationalists until 1st April 1939.

General Franco, then at service for the Republic, was indeed responsible of the repression the leftist insurrection in Asturias, which was also a protest again the entrance of right-wing CEDA (Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Right-Wingers) ministers into the Spanish government.

ERC is a Spanish political party of Catalonia, therefore the Spanish template must be considered. User:Coco may be doing apology of terrorism.

Carod-Rovira talks with ETA
Can anyone explain why the mention of Carod-Rovira's talks with ETA was deleted??? Wasn't that the reason for him resigning??? Or is Wiki supposed to portray only the positive part of a person? Then it shouldn't be called "encyclopeida" but "public relations leaflet"


 * Because that is already in Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira entry. I do not think it should be included here, but more specific info of the party Toniher 12:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

ERC-supported government in Catalonia establishes censorship laws! Freedom of speech is being abolished
The hand of Catalonia's infamous "CAC" (Catalonian Audiovisual Committee) is also reaching the internet!! Whatever news goes against the interests of the Catalan government is being eliminated.

Read the words of E. Markham Bench, the Executive Director of The World Press Freedom Committee writing to Mr Maragall and Ernest Branach the speaker of the Catalan Parliament. This letter is located at http://www.wpfc.org/Protests.html:

December 23, 2005

His Excellency Pasqual Magarall i Mira President Generalitat of Catalonia Plaça de Sant Jaume, 4 (Palau de la Generalitat) 08002 Barcelona, Spain

His Excellency Ernest Benach Chairman Parliament of Catalonia Parc de la Ciutadella, s/n 08003 Barcelona, Spain

Your Excellencies:

On behalf of the World Press Freedom Committee, an organization representing 45 press freedom groups in six continents, I wish to express my consternation for the “report” by the Catalan Audiovisual Committee (CAC) in which, under the guise of an alleged moral authority, uses an arbitrary mandate in an attempt to censor and silence the opinions of a whole radio network.

CAC —a censoring entity established in September by the Regional Parliament of Catalonia in order to detect “untruthful information”— had already recommended, a day after its inception, to revoke the broadcasting license of the COPE network for “exceeding the limits of freedom of speech.” On Dec. 20, the CAC report accused the network of failing to fulfill “its prerequisites of constitutional veracity.”

Further, this entity —unique in Western Europe and the European Union, which offers perhaps the world’s most exemplary press freedom environment— concluded that COPE fails to meet its journalistic and editorial duties, calling its opinions “most grave accusations,” “insulting” and “public humiliations.”

Regardless of the veracity or “insulting” intentions of the network’s speech, we find unjustifiable that a state entity, bestowed with censoring powers typical of painful autocratic regimes of the past, be the arbiter of the behavior of a media outlet. COPE or any other media outlet in Spain has every right to express their opinions in an atmosphere of liberty consecrated in the Spanish Constitution.

The mere existence of CAC is in direct contradiction with the democratic and freedom of expression norms adopted by the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights and the vast majority of the world’s democracies. In fact, we have not seen anything similar to this ever since the Franco dictatorship’s censoring committees, which, with extraordinary zeal, controlled the country’s media for almost 40 years.

CAC is not a court of justice but a political body controlled by the ruling majority of the Catalonian Parliament. As such, it is neither independent of political considerations nor equipped with the procedural mechanisms required to offer an accused party a fair trial when charged. It just happens that COPE’s opinions are in opposition to the political goals of such a parliamentary majority. The political antagonism of both entities, in a true democracy, should not bear any relevance. What we find extremely grave is the fact that a government — whether it is national, regional or local— abuses the power emanating from its constituents in order to silence the voices that such a government finds strident or uncomfortable.

It is unacceptable that a censoring organ should receive the blessings of a democratic parliament in order to outright silence a media outlet.

Therefore, I urge the Catalan judicial power to dismiss the CAC calls to revoke COPE’s license, and the Catalan Parliament and the Generalitat to take the appropriate measures in order to dismantle CAC, and thus adhering to international norms of freedom of expression and of the press.

Respectfully,

E. Markham Bench, Executive Director World Press Freedom Committee


 * I don't know who represents this "freedom comittee", but the Generalitat and the Parliament of Catalonia are fully legitimate democratic elected institutions. Of course, the CAC is controlled by the Parliament, and submited to Catalan, Spanish and EU laws. This guarantees its democratic behaviuor. I dont't know a best way to control such an entity, do you?.
 * Similar entities are established in most countries, in order to asign frequencies and regulate the market. Of course CAC is not a court. This letter is a protest against a mere report.


 * Your references on CAC as a "censoring entity" are biased. Your comparisons to Franco dictatorship are biased and offensive. Your publication here of such a letter is a biased act, with the intention of damaging these institutions. Your publication here of such a letter is a biased act, since its an individual opinion, and this is not a forum. This is an enciclopaedia, not a place for opinions, but for facts. --Joan sense nick 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

- Exactly. Your references on CAC are biased, and you should not publish it here, but in a forum. Wether someone agrees or not with the CAC is not important. It´s about facts, not opinion.


 * Navarra government also has an audiovisual council with the same competencies than CAC and nobody says anything to stop it. It has existed since 1999. You can see it in http://www.consejoaudiovisualdenavarra.es/ --SMP - talk page (en) - talk page (ca) 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Name change
We could change the article's title to Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya and explain the meaning in the introduction. Anyway a redirect with Republican Left of Catalonia can be left. This would be consistent with other changes, like Convergència i Unió, another catalan party. --Francisco Valverde 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Moved --Twenex 11:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you all agree? We should have a consensus... I believe proper names shouldn't be translated. --Francisco Valverde 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia policy is to translate organization names into English, unless another name is more commonly used in English media. Thus it would be weird to move Sinn Fein to "We Ourselves", but I can't see that ERC would constitute a special case. --Soman 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent mods.
Modifications made as follows:


 * - Definition of Catalonia as understood by ERC: see http://www.esquerra.cat/web_nova/arxius/declaideologica.pdf


 * - "form of government", rather than "way of organising a state", as a closer definition of Republican: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

YuriBCN 10:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I substituted the phrase "Catalan regional Parliament" by its official name "Catalonia Parliament", since there is no reason to substitute a name for (biased) description; if a clarification is needed, it should be made as an additional phrase where adequate. Finally, Constitutional law in Spain and Catalonia do not define Catalonia as a region, so whatever clarification may be needed, it should state also that it is defined as "nationality" or "Nation". However, I do think that at this point there is no need to complicate the matter with detailed explanations or qualifications. EnricX, 15:32 June 8, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the word "regional" can lead to another bitter discussion about Catalonia's status legal status within Spain (as well as the word "national"). Furthermore no arguments were stated in this discussion page supporting this additional definition. Hence I must ask Mountolive to revert the change he did without consensus neither argumentation.--Civit cardona (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, after nearly a week with no argumentation or news, I must understand everybody agrees with this change, which was undone with no discussion . --Civit cardona (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Preamble of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia states the Parliament of Catalonia defined Catalonia as a nation, but that the Spanish Constitution recognizes Catalonia's national reality as a nationality."

''The preamble is not legislative but descriptive, and the term "nation" was not, therefore, adopted into law.

''If we look at the text:

''"El Parlament de Catalunya, recollint el sentiment i la voluntat de la ciutadania de Catalunya, ha definit Catalunya com a nació d'una manera àmpliament majoritària. La Constitució espanyola, en l'article segon, reconeix la realitat nacional de Catalunya com a nacionalitat."

''This does not state that Catalunya is a Nation, it states that "El parlament de Catalunya" has defined Catalonia as a nation. Even if if the Preamble had legal validity, all it does is state that 2 different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive)opinions as to the "National status" of Catalonia exist.

''The text which created the AC of Catalonia (and which has legislative value), the constitution, states that Catalonia is "nationality". However, that term is meaningless in English when used to describe an entity such as the Catalan Autononmous Community, so we explain the factual case in the "legal status" section, and leave the term "Autonomous Community" in the intro. (written by user:boynamedsue in Catalonia's article)''

And as I always say, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it must reflect referenced and true facts. As of July 2009, Catalonia independence hasn't been asked by the Catalan parliament nor accepted by the Spanish parliament. It hasn't been recognised by any UN member states either, nor has received international acceptance. As of July 2009, the facts are that Catalonia is nothing else than a self-governing region within Spanish sovereigncy. So as much as your opinion is respectable, Wikipedia is not the place to exercise your right to express your POV.

The parliament of Catalonia is a regional parliament and because of that, there is no point in erasing "regional" from the description. -- MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede! ). 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you have finally accepted discussing this change and posted your opinion in the talk page.
 * First of all we are not discussing Catalonia's status here. Even if I think autonomous comunity would be more appropiate and not region (since they are not synonims). We are talking about a change performed by Montoulive. He added a controversial word without discussion. It was added unnecessarily (unless you are willing to have bitter debates likes this one time and another). Furthermore it was added back with the only reason of "Montoulive is right".
 * First, Catalonia's Parliament represents Catalonia's people and their will. Hence it has jurisdictional authority in this Autonomous Community and it defines itself as Catalonia's Parliament. Then Mountolive's comparission is biased and doesn't makes sense, because the parliament doesn't have authority all over the planet...
 * Furthermore no one (neither you or me) is entitled to deny this authority.
 * Second: Adding controversial adjectives at your will, inevitablily leads to this kind of conversations.
 * As I pointed out before it was unnecessary to add this adjective, as it would have been adding "Sovereign" or "National" in a US Congress link but worst because of the inherent meanings and hence debates it would get us all to.
 * Third (and related to the last point): Writting regional or any other adjective in every single link, page or sentence "Catalonia", "Catalan" or any of its derivatives appears is a teddious and boring writting and also reading. I think is common sense to add descriptive sentences and adjectives in description pages only, unless you are trying to beat a Guiness World Record...
 * And I'm sorry. May be I'll get myself blocked, but I'm goning to revert your change until we reach an agreement since it was done without discussion.--Civit cardona (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like people to notice that high quality English language sources tipically include the qualificative "regional" when referring to the catalonian government or to its parliament. They use expressions like "regional Parliament of Catalonia", "regional parliament" or "regional government" in the same articles where they also say "Parliament of Catalonia" in other part of the text: New York Times, the UN Refugee Agency, AFP , The Economist , history book by Paul Preston, a cite of Stanley G. Payne in a history book.


 * So, our article can perfectly say "regional Catalan Parliament" (with "regional" being outside of the wikilink), since high-quality sources have no problem making that qualification. Also, looking at the sources, specially the NYT, I think that they do it to distinguish it from the "national" Parliament/government, so we should also say "national Spanish Parliament" in the article, since they also do that. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that too often Catalan-Spanish users forget that this is the English version of wikipedia, which does not always automatically equate to a literal translation of Catalan texts, either legal or wikipedian. In this regard, Enric's arguments and sources look conclusive. MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 17:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Republicanism
In the ideology section of the infobox, there is really need of a "citation needed" tag after "Republicanism" as the ideology of a party named "Republican Left of Catalonia"?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Yes, this is still very much needed. Just because a political party has something in its name doesn't always mean it is still concerned with that ideology. The party is a very old party, originating in the 1930's. Therefore this may have been of greater importance to the party in its creation and potentially something it no longer holds a political ideology in, but has merely maintained its original name. All political positions should be supported with at least one citation. Helper201 (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Republican Left of Catalonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011154930/http://www.esquerra.cat/web_nova/arxius/DIangles.pdf to http://www.esquerra.cat/web_nova/arxius/DIangles.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227060130/http://www.esquerra.cat/web_nova/arxius/Hangles.pdf to http://www.esquerra.cat/web_nova/arxius/Hangles.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Eurosceptic or Pro-European?
In the infobox the party's ideology is defined "European federalism". But it has been categorized as Eurosceptic. Who is right?--Carnby (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Bloat
I propose reducing the amount of ideologies in the infobox to these two:
 * Catalan nationalism
 * Social democracy

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see a necessity for reducing detailness / thoroughness of the infobox's ideology field if all of its entries are well sourced. –Vipz (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with reducing the number of ideologies and don't see it as "bloat". Helper201 (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All references would be moved into an ideology section. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at Vlaams Belang before I started the discussion to reduce the number of ideologies in the infobox, there were quite a number of them. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , : What are your opinions? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)