Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aljullu (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 17 April 2018 (→Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:16, 17 April 2018 by Aljullu (talk | contribs) (→Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

A news item involving 2017 Catalan independence referendum was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 October 2017.

[REDACTED]

Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Catalan-speaking countries

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spain High‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Catalan independence referendum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 28 days

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

October 3 General Strike

The general strike proposal was originally put forward by the anarcho-syndicalist CGT and CNT along with some smaller anarchist groups - not the CCOO who endorsed it just recently, as did the UGT. It was also originally proposed with a neutral view towards independence and primarily as a response to the repression of the Spanish government.

Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon

Crystallizedcarbon reverted my edits with thousands of additions and many references. Before starting an edit war, let's discuss them here.

I will try to explain every edit I did one by one and why:

Removed: "and observed irregularities in the constitution of the electoral syndicate". That was an unreferenced sentence with not a lot of meaning for itself: what irregularities? only in the constitution or in the electoral syndicate itself?
Added: I added a reference to the speech of the international observers and quoted some of their sentences. Can't understand how that is controversial at all considering it's a primary source. In addition, a primary source should take precedence over secondary sources like articles from El País or La Sexta.
Added: "by the Spanish Constitutional Court". Don't see what is controversial about that, either.
Removed: "being also illegal according to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia which requires a two third majority, 90 seats, in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status". Unfortunately, I can't see that in any of the references attached to that sentence.
Rephrased: "Due to the many irregularities in the administration of the vote..." Those irregularities were only reported by Spanish media, so I think it's better to rephrase it with "Some Spanish media denounced irregularities in the administration of the vote...". Also I don't think it make sense to explain that before the question of the referendum, the results and the participation.
Added: "The Catalan government opened a bidding process to buy them but no offers were presented. The ballot boxes were finally bought by...". Any explanation about why was that removed? It's referenced and adds some info which didn't appear in the article before.
Removed: "something which is out of the question in this case". Well, that's clearly an opinion so I think it should be removed.
Removed: "Without an undisputed access to the electoral roll, the results may be deemed unreliable." Again, unreferenced sentence which looks more like an opinion than a fact.
Replaced: "high-ranking persons, administrative staff, and company CEOs" → "high-ranking officials, administrative staff, and company CEOs". I think it's more precise. But might be wrong in this case. Maybe a native English speaker could help here.
Added: "The Mossos d'Esquadra stated they weren't warned with enough time..." I think it's important to have both versions of what happened September 20th.
Added: "Footage from that night..." Again, the article was only giving a single point of view on the issue. Adding a reference with the footage I think is good. Also, considering the United Nations and Amnesty International have published communicates regarding that demonstration, I think it's important to quote them in the article.
Added: "after being fined with 12.000€ daily if they continued". It explains why the electoral board was dissolved. Again, I think it's an important information and I referenced it.
Added reference to these sentences: "According to the Catalan government, the following people were entitled to vote in the referendum" and "The question of the referendum was asked "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?"." The reference seems legit so I don't see why it should be removed.
Removed link: Catalan Republic (2017), it redirects to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia, which is also in the "See also" section. I don't see the point on having them duplicated.

In addition to all of that, there were some grammatical mistakes fixes and some contents reordered to make it easier to read.

--Aljullu (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: thank you for bringing it here. This page covers a controversial issue. There were extensive discussions and hard to reach consensus were made. Some parts of your edits changed those. I will review and try to answer one by one to each of your proposed changes and hopefully other editors will join in as well:

Removed: "and observed irregularities in the constitution of the electoral syndicate". That was an unreferenced sentence with not a lot of meaning for itself: what irregularities? only in the constitution or in the electoral syndicate itself?

Since it is unsource I agree with you that it should not go in the lead so I have removed it, If other editors can add a reference and clarify can feel free to revert.

Will continue...--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Added: I added a reference to the speech of the international observers and quoted some of their sentences. Can't understand how that is controversial at all considering it's a primary source. In addition, a primary source should take precedence over secondary sources like articles from El País or La Sexta.:

I have to dissagree. According to WP:Secondary:

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

I don't see a need to change the sources nor the wording as this is the lead and it also cites the use of force by the National police and Civil Guard. Probably not in the lead, but I think it is more relevant to include that the international observers where allegedly paid 119.700 euros by the organizers of the referendum after a budget of 200.000 was approved by the Generalitat. (sources: , ) --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I do think the wording must be changed. The sentence states: "Due to the many irregularities in the administration of the vote (with people being able to vote more than once in some places international observers declared " But I don't hear any of those words coming from their mouth: http://www.ccma.cat/tv3/alacarta/1-o-la-roda-de-premsa-integra-dels-observadors-internacionals/1-o-la-roda-de-premsa-integra-dels-observadors-internacionals/video/5692458/ Indeed, they say almost the opposite: "The process was prepared fairly and in agreement with the existing legislation of the Kingdom of Spain" (around minute 6:00) and, as my previous edit made clear, gives much more importance to "the violence of the Spanish police against voters", "the electronic sabotage" and the "removal of ballot boxes by Spanish police forces" as the reason why the referendum didn't have all guarantees.

Unfortunately, I don't think El País, La Sexta or Cadena Ser can be considered reliable sources here given that they are clearly in the "union side" so they are not impartial.

We should not draw our own conclusions from a press meeting per WP:OR. in that video the speaker also admits that at least his flight was paid by Diplocat but again that should not be used either unless it can be found in a reliable source.

El País, La Sexta and Cadena ser are all reliable sources per WP:RS and as far as bias similar to La Vanguardia on the opposite side of the issue. Others like Ara.cat or the [[Page protected

Societat Civil Catalana|SCC]] would be examples of clear bias as their stated objectives are independence for ARA and preventing it for SCC.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding it being a primary source, you're right, but the key point here is that the sentence is quoting what a person said. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Added: "by the Spanish Constitutional Court". Don't see what is controversial about that, either.

That the Constitutional Court was the court that suspended it was already mentioned in the paragraph above, so it is repetitive and the lead should be as brief whenever possible, but I agree with you that it is not controversial so If you still choose to make that particular edit I will not oppose it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed: "being also illegal according to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia which requires a two third majority, 90 seats, in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status". Unfortunately, I can't see that in any of the references attached to that sentence.

Again I have to disagree according to the reference included in sentence by The Economist: "Catalonia’s own autonomy statute, which Mr Puigdemont’s law would replace, can only be amended by a two-thirds majority of its parliament." or by The Daily Star: "But the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy requires a two-third majority in the parliament for any change to Catalonia's status." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased: "Due to the many irregularities in the administration of the vote..." Those irregularities were only reported by Spanish media, so I think it's better to rephrase it with "Some Spanish media denounced irregularities in the administration of the vote...". Also I don't think it make sense to explain that before the question of the referendum, the results and the participation.

Added a reference about the voting irregularities by CNN (US). I think it's relevant and after the reference there is no need to rephrase. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That said, this edit is not very helpful, and oozes partysanism. Verified information is being removed, which should only be done with very good justification. Using primary sources may be such one, but there are sources added that are perfectly reliable sources per EN WP standards. They should remain there.

Discussions may be taken into considerations of course, but claiming generically 'consensus' to do catch-all reverts without links or diffs sounds rather like putting off editors and/or even system gaming, which goes against the general outlook of encouraging editing, giving the impression of hermetism. Crystallizedcarbon, please be specific in your claims, your edit looks reactive and not the fruit of specific considerations. However, your explanations above look congruent, although I have not gone through them in detail.

Sorry Iñaki, I did not see your edit before. The problem is that the edit was to big, the idea was to restore it first to the stable version and then add the contents that were not controversial. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not get to follow all the changes, I think it is up to Aljullu to consider if your edit was helpful altogether and/or is interfering with accurate and relevant information.Iñaki LL (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Citing a media outlet as RTVE, a conspicuously biased, governmental TV station, as denounced by a number of its professionals and unions, and other associations, is also disquieting. By the way, El Mundo is not receiving governmental money either? (Rewarded with helfty governmental and institutional publicity, besides other concepts?) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think both of them are reliable sources for that information. El Mundo has published many articles about alleged corruption of the ruling party, so I have to disagree. and having various denouncing voices like in RTVE makes it more reliable in my opinion than other more clearly biased sources that have also been used. but if you don't like those a quick search will reveal that there are many others. for example The Turkey Telegraph or El Periódico de Aragón. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that one. The article of CNN only says a man (Aleix) said there were irregularities. But at no moment CNN states there were. Also, I can't find any international article speaking about "many irregularities", what does "many" means and why is Misplaced Pages adding that quantifier while no international media did? I still think that sentence must be rewritten. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Added: "The Catalan government opened a bidding process to buy them but no offers were presented. The ballot boxes were finally bought by...". Any explanation about why was that removed? It's referenced and adds some info which didn't appear in the article before.

The beginning of the sentence is OK. the problem is what was after the by... "...by an individual donor whose identity remains unknown" According to other sources it is not clear if it is a donor or if compensation has or will be made (, ) Ara.cat is an independentist source and so is the primary source (the book) cited by 20minutos.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ara.cat is independentist as El País, La Sexta or El Mundo are unionist. All Spanish media took sides on this issue, so it doesn't make any sense that unionist sources are accepted but independentists are not. I rephrased the sentence with "Some media reported..." which I think it makes it valid. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed: "something which is out of the question in this case". Well, that's clearly an opinion so I think it should be removed.

I fully agree. It is an opinion and even if it may likely be true it is original research so I have removed it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed: "Without an undisputed access to the electoral roll, the results may be deemed unreliable." Again, unreferenced sentence which looks more like an opinion than a fact.

The cited source from La Vanguardia states: "La disponibilidad de un censo de electores es uno de los requisitos indispensables." Both statements seem equivalent, it could be rewritten, but I don't think it should be eliminated. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Replaced: "high-ranking persons, administrative staff, and company CEOs" → "high-ranking officials, administrative staff, and company CEOs". I think it's more precise. But might be wrong in this case. Maybe a native English speaker could help here.

changed to "14 senior officials" which is what the source explicitly mentions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I will continue answering tomorrow. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Added: "The Mossos d'Esquadra stated they weren't warned with enough time..." I think it's important to have both versions of what happened September 20th.

Partially restored with proper attribution, the claim was made by Trapero, so I moved it to the next paragraph where his involvement is mentioned. Also did not restore the part about a posible police charge as it was not mentioned in either of the two sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Again I disagree with the wording here. The current text consider the Guardia Civil version to be the truth while the Mossos d'Esquadra version is relegated to the legal process paragraph. That's plainly wrong. There are two versions of what happened in that demonstration, so both of them must be in the paragraph explaining the facts. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Added: "Footage from that night..." Again, the article was only giving a single point of view on the issue. Adding a reference with the footage I think is good. Also, considering the United Nations and Amnesty International have published communicates regarding that demonstration, I think it's important to quote them in the article.

I have changed the wording to give attribution to the video and added it back to the article, also included claim by A.I. The same claim can not be made by the UN as the source does not specify either Jordi and there is no resolution calling for immediate release. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Added: "after being fined with 12.000€ daily if they continued". It explains why the electoral board was dissolved. Again, I think it's an important information and I referenced it.

I agree, so I have restored it including that the fee would range from 6 000€ to 12 000€ and citing The Guardian instead of ARA. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Added reference to these sentences: "According to the Catalan government, the following people were entitled to vote in the referendum" and "The question of the referendum was asked "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?"." The reference seems legit so I don't see why it should be removed.

I agree and I have restored it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed link: Catalan Republic (2017), it redirects to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia, which is also in the "See also" section. I don't see the point on having them duplicated.

Done as well as some grammar fixes.

I have finished the review, again thank you for bringing it here. In articles that treat controversial topics my advice would be not to make mayor rewrites at once as almost always there are previous discussions or consensus that affect some of the changes and it is harder to review them that way. But in any case many of your changes have been positive and I think the article has been improved. If you want we can further discuss any of the previous points. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I replied to some of the points and will try to make my edits shorter in the future. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I see @Crystallizedcarbon: and @Iñaki LL: have reverted (and un-reverted) an edit I did. I would like to explain it here.

The paragraph stated: "That was reported as not considering the ", but the reference from El Periódico that appears after that sentence says:

"Hay que subrayar que en el recuento del domingo no se computaron los votos de los colegios electorales clausurados por los Mossos, la Policía y la Guardia Civil: unas 770.000 sufragios (según el Govern) que hubiesen encaramado la participación hasta los tres millones (el 56% del censo). Pero también cabe recordar que todos esos ciudadanos cuyas papeletas fueron confiscadas tenían la posibilidad de participar en cualquier otro centro de votación, en virtud del censo universal decretado por la Generalitat apenas una hora antes de empezar a votar."

Which is a completely different thing. At no moment El Periódico is saying Jordi Turull neither the Catalan government were not considering that fact when making the report.

Also, Crystallizedcarbon, in the reversion summary you say there was an argument about that paragraph? Where can I find it? --Aljullu (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have observed, I reverted the minor edit, the one on the "donor" word, but I actually targeted the first revert done by Crystallizedcarbon (however, I cannot do it because it goes that it "has been reverted" by now, anyways...).

For what I can see, your contribution is completely correct if it sticks to the information provided by the source, so it cannot be altered unless another source(s) dispute it clearly. Other than that, this revert is just WP:OR, personal (original) research. However, don't get me wrong Crystallizedcarbon, if the source is blatantly wrong, there should be no objections on my part. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If that stays then it should be said that according to a source it was a donor according to another expects compensation (with its reference) and according to a third the compensation would be a rezoning (corruption) citing all three sources. That in my opinion would not make too much sense, it is easier to remove the word donor as other sources dispute it clearly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, my main objection is not about that edit, but the first revert. If the statement sticks to the source, it should remain there unless you have a source to support your claim or a clear-cut explanation we all can understand disputing the source added by Aljullu. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I explained here and on my first comment my problem was only with the word donor, so the current version is also fine with me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If by first revert you were referring the 770.000 registered voters and not the first revert to the purchase of the ballot boxes the explanation is bellow, as far as the references already in that sentence the first by the Generalitat clearly stated that the 770.000 were registered voters and not votes and the second one included a tweet with the same information and this phrase: "Turull ha criticado que los 440 colegios electorales que han sido precintados han afectado a un censo de unas 770.000 personas" again referring to registered voters and not cast votes. I agree that the number of registered voters are potential votes, but the distinction needs to be made, as not all people registered to vote do so (specially in this referendum because constitutionalist parties asked their voters not to participate as it was suspended by the Constitutional Court). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Aljullu:, @Iñaki LL: I thought the idea was to reach a consensus first before making the changes. As far as the previous discussions you can check: Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_2#Lost_votes_--_what_sources_say, Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_5#Confiscated_ballots and Talk:Catalonia#Who_changed_everything_to_the_Spanish_government_propaganda? (from a different article). Here is The tweet by the Generalitat The tweet is a primary source, but it is reproduced by many secondary sources and clearly states the 770.000 were "censat" registered voters. Here are some sources: El Mundo, El Confidencial The Guardian. If you still think we should change it we can discuss it, but we have to reach a consensus first. So please restore it back to the status quo until we can come up with a better wording, as your version does not reflect what the sources are saying. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As an alternative wording, if we all agree, I propose: "The Catalan government estimated that up to 770,000 registered voters from polling stations closed off during the police crackdown may not have been able to cast their vote, although the "universal census" system introduced earlier in the day allowed electors to vote in any given polling station." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the first reference is broken and should be changed for http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/303541/ca/govern-trasllada-resultats-definitius-referendum-l1-doctubre-parlament-catalunya.do there it also mentions clearly that the 770.000 are registered voters ("censat"), not actual votes. If there are no objections and if no one does it first I will fix it this afternoon. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: I assume consensus must be found in the Talk page before editing when there is an ongoing discussion. About that paragraph, there was no discussion open. If you check my edits, the only sentence I removed is "This was reported as not considering the fact that, as a result of changes implemented by the Catalan government...". That sentence is not referenced anywhere, how did the Wikipedian know Turull was not considering that fact? That looks WP:OR and WP:POV to me. I carefully read the discussions you brought to the table, but none of them seems to talk about that sentence in particular. --Aljullu (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories: