Misplaced Pages

Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:14, 11 January 2018 editYmblanter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators269,166 edits →Mass removal of content← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:22, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,177 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(369 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{ITN talk|1 October|2017}} {{ITN talk|1 October|2017}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WPBS|
{{WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries|class=B}} {{WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums |class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums }}
{{WikiProject Spain |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Spain |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Politics |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |class=Current}}
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=28}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K |maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 6 |counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(28d) |algo = old(28d)
|archive = Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{annual readership}} {{annual readership}}
{{archives|search=yes}} {{archives|search=yes}}


== October 3 General Strike == == Alleged irregularities ==
User Arjayay eliminated a sentence in which I stated that until now there is no evidence that the images of people voting more than once at this referendum are manipulated, without providing any proof that indicates the opposite. Unless he provides a reason for that I will redo the edition.
:{{ping|2a02:908:c61:6860:a17d:34d5:bf3a:2b20}} Misplaced Pages does not work this way. Precisely, the issue with your sentence is that it is what you stated, providing no source to back it up, so what you did was just to add ] into the article. Information must come from ]. Also, please note that you must not engage in ], so unless you can cite reliable sources to back up your claims, I would highly discourage you from undoing Arjayay's edition. <span style="font-size:95;border:1px #0018A8;border-radius:50px;background-color:#0018A8;">''']'''<sup>]</sup></span> 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


I have to provide sources showing that there is no evidence of the images are not edited or manipulated? That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I found several articles talking about some manipulated images allegedly about the day of the referendum, and none of them is one of the videos or images that show people voting twice, I guess that will do it. The fact that there is no evidence of that is informative, since as it is explained now it looks like it has been proved that what those images show is not possible, therefore they must be edited. But they aren't. And that fact says a lot about the nature of the referendum, therefore it's important to tell it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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.
:You would have to show sources showing that image manipulation was an issue. By adding a sentence claiming that "Until now, there is no evidence that the images of people voting twice are manipulated", you are taking for granted that there is some manipulation issue, one which is not brought up nor sourced in the text elsewhere. You would need to prove that 1) there is controversy on the reliability of images of people voting twice; 2) that such controversy relates to the information which is sourced here; and 3) that these images were indeed not manipulated. Typically, here in Misplaced Pages we presume that what ] state is true, so we would already assume that the images of people voting twice were not manipulated unless there are other sources which state that these were. Your claim has little sense here. <span style="font-size:95;border:1px #0018A8;border-radius:50px;padding-left:0.5em;background-color:#0018A8;">''']'''<sup>]</sup></span> 14:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


1) there is controversy on the reliability of the images, since the same wikipedia page claims that "Other media reported that it was not possible to vote twice". 2)The controversy relates to the information which is sourced here: it's about the validity of the voting system used that day. 3) these images were indeed not manipulated, since no one has been able to prove the opposite and they are not among the manipulated images shown in this website specialized in debunking fake news about politics, for example: https://maldita.es/maldito-bulo/cataluna-objetivo-de-los-bulos-en-el-2017-del-referendum-a-las-elecciones/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Loose statement astray==
§PEOPLE ATTENDED IN CATALAN HOSPITALS BECAUSE OF THE SPANISH POLICE CHARGES WERE 1,066, INCLUDING 23 ELDERLY PEOPLE OVER 79 AND 2 BOYS UNDER 11. ONLY 12 POLICEMEN (11 SPANISH POLICE OFFICERS + 1 CATALAN OFFICER)<ref>http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/docs/2017/10/20/11/15/232799c8-755f-4810-ba56-0a5bbb78609c.pdf</ref>] (]) 23:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


He has a point, the existence of a system that "did not validate the second attempt" when voting doesn't prove that that system worked always, especially in an unofficial referendum. And the images of people voting more than once are there, they were reported in several media. I edit the text to include both facts.] (]) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
== Multiple voting ==
A source stating that Spanish Interior Ministry asserts that was possible voting more than one time while in the very same source the spokesman for the Catalan government denies it is used only for the first, just some words later. As no proof real multiple votings is given and only part of the info of the (unisgned) article is given, I remove it as biased, at least as references exist. --] (]) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


But there's literally no proof for that, we still don't know what source do we have to ensure that "several people voted various times" ] (]) 01:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
== Mass removal of content ==

I had to revert , a sweeping mass removal of sourced content, which comes across as irregular. Please bring your claims and concerns here. ] (]) 20:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
: This should have been here in the first place, and not in the article.--] (]) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC) If our only sources are only photos, then we shouldn't be that sure of anything ] (]) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

== POV ==

The article is too detailed, especially about the effects of the clashes, trying to sway the readers toward the independence POV aka narrative ] (]) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

== Can someone fix the last sentence of 2020-2021 part? ==

it says that things may change from September 2021 onwards and it's 2023 ] (]) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:22, 17 July 2024

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.
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 
In the newsA 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.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCatalan-speaking countries High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconSpain High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 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.

Alleged irregularities

User Arjayay eliminated a sentence in which I stated that until now there is no evidence that the images of people voting more than once at this referendum are manipulated, without providing any proof that indicates the opposite. Unless he provides a reason for that I will redo the edition.

@2a02:908:c61:6860:a17d:34d5:bf3a:2b20: Misplaced Pages does not work this way. Precisely, the issue with your sentence is that it is what you stated, providing no source to back it up, so what you did was just to add original research into the article. Information must come from verifiable reliable sources. Also, please note that you must not engage in edit warring, so unless you can cite reliable sources to back up your claims, I would highly discourage you from undoing Arjayay's edition. Impru20 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to provide sources showing that there is no evidence of the images are not edited or manipulated? That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I found several articles talking about some manipulated images allegedly about the day of the referendum, and none of them is one of the videos or images that show people voting twice, I guess that will do it. The fact that there is no evidence of that is informative, since as it is explained now it looks like it has been proved that what those images show is not possible, therefore they must be edited. But they aren't. And that fact says a lot about the nature of the referendum, therefore it's important to tell it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C61:6860:10FE:E6A3:4F3F:A3FC (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You would have to show sources showing that image manipulation was an issue. By adding a sentence claiming that "Until now, there is no evidence that the images of people voting twice are manipulated", you are taking for granted that there is some manipulation issue, one which is not brought up nor sourced in the text elsewhere. You would need to prove that 1) there is controversy on the reliability of images of people voting twice; 2) that such controversy relates to the information which is sourced here; and 3) that these images were indeed not manipulated. Typically, here in Misplaced Pages we presume that what reliable sources state is true, so we would already assume that the images of people voting twice were not manipulated unless there are other sources which state that these were. Your claim has little sense here. Impru20 14:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

1) there is controversy on the reliability of the images, since the same wikipedia page claims that "Other media reported that it was not possible to vote twice". 2)The controversy relates to the information which is sourced here: it's about the validity of the voting system used that day. 3) these images were indeed not manipulated, since no one has been able to prove the opposite and they are not among the manipulated images shown in this website specialized in debunking fake news about politics, for example: https://maldita.es/maldito-bulo/cataluna-objetivo-de-los-bulos-en-el-2017-del-referendum-a-las-elecciones/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C61:6860:7533:DF48:411E:C68B (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

He has a point, the existence of a system that "did not validate the second attempt" when voting doesn't prove that that system worked always, especially in an unofficial referendum. And the images of people voting more than once are there, they were reported in several media. I edit the text to include both facts.Guraat (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

But there's literally no proof for that, we still don't know what source do we have to ensure that "several people voted various times" Politonno (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If our only sources are only photos, then we shouldn't be that sure of anything Politonno (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

POV

The article is too detailed, especially about the effects of the clashes, trying to sway the readers toward the independence POV aka narrative Zezen (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the last sentence of 2020-2021 part?

it says that things may change from September 2021 onwards and it's 2023 2A02:2149:8659:A400:2836:744F:AE4E:62F6 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Categories: