Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:07, 14 January 2018 editBallenaBlanca (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,901 edits →Mass removal of content: fix template← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:45, 14 January 2018 edit undoIñaki LL (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,820 edits →Mass removal of content Next edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:
	::In spite of everything, I have taken the trouble to review and preserve part of the content (once again...). Explanations on the edit summaries.		::In spite of everything, I have taken the trouble to review and preserve part of the content (once again...). Explanations on the edit summaries.
	::Please, Edgarmm81, do not make us lose more time and apply the Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks. --] 🐳 ♂ ] 02:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)		::Please, Edgarmm81, do not make us lose more time and apply the Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks. --] 🐳 ♂ ] 02:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::I would appreciate a constructive editing by you, which does not come across as such now. First of all, be succint and clear in your ]. , check the source, plus we are talking about the 1 October referendum, Sunday.
			:::As for Twitter and Youtube, I am not aware of all the rules, but they link (apparently, I have not checked all) straight to the information described, so I find them unproblematic in origin . However, it holds true that it looks an awckward format per the rule WP:RS. I insist, you made a sweeping removal, which I should regard with a lot of attention, given the problems I have pointed other times in the history of this article. ] (]) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

	== REMOVE INACCURATE POINTS ==		== REMOVE INACCURATE POINTS ==

Revision as of 17:45, 14 January 2018

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.

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.

Mass removal of content

I had to revert this edit, a sweeping mass removal of sourced content, which comes across as irregular. Please bring your claims and concerns here. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This should have been here in the first place, and not in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A mass removal of sourced information in a highly polarized article does not look very constructive, which is concern enough. If you have doubts, act constructively and point out the exact problems. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

To start with, a mass addition of POV text to a highly contentions article does not good, and was predictably reverted. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, POV is being added continually, as stated in the tag at the top, so do point to exact problems in this excerpt, I am clueless. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

May be you should read WP:BRD--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I did. Still someone has mass removed sourced information. I should think there are problems w some sources, but not sure about it. You can enlighten me. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I hoped that with 1o years tenure and 9K edits you should know better if one can write "Spanish government started a mass propaganda campaign" unattributed. If you do not understand this, I suggest you take the case to a general board.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Although https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ymblanter and other Spanish unionist may feel uncomfortable, the accusation of "Spanish government started a mass propaganda campaign" is well-grounded. Let me show you some evidences: Edgarmm81 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post Edgarmm81. For all the sympathies I may have for your claims and information, Misplaced Pages has its own protocole and rules, please read this, for one. The Spanish govt may have started a campaign you pointed above, but if you do not add sources clearly pointing in that direction, someone may come and dispute it. Do use the relevant statements and references you added within the article's mainspace, in the right place, and present them in a balanced way. They are more likely to remain there. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/User:I%C3%B1aki_LL. I gathered those 25 points after thorough analysis and, also, I attached the references. However, if you need a newspaper saying that, I do not have it as it is a work of me.

Btw, I do not know where I should write now. Here? In the "edit"? Or in the "Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents"? I have added another point by editing in "Social media" and I have also written in the latter, in the heading "Edgarmm81"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am very amazed that a veteran Misplaced Pages editor may consider these edits as correct: referenced with Twitter messages, written as original research, etc.; and that refers to my edit as "mass removal of sourced content".

The edits by Edgarmm81 were at least violating WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH (and without going to assess their lack of interest in formatting the references). We have to be continually fixing their mistakes / biased edits. We are having a lot of patience, but It is logical that, after so many edits and so long warning this user, we choose to revert. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper nor a propaganda platform.

In spite of everything, I have taken the trouble to review and preserve part of the content (once again...). Explanations on the edit summaries.

Please, Edgarmm81, do not make us lose more time and apply the Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate a constructive editing by you, which does not come across as such now. First of all, be succint and clear in your edit summaries. This is not, check the source, plus we are talking about the 1 October referendum, Sunday.

As for Twitter and Youtube, I am not aware of all the rules, but they link (apparently, I have not checked all) straight to the information described, so I find them unproblematic in origin in the spirit of WP. However, it holds true that it looks an awckward format per the rule WP:RS. I insist, you made a sweeping removal, which I should regard with a lot of attention, given the problems I have pointed other times in the history of this article. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

REMOVE INACCURATE POINTS

Edgarmm81 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, proceed to remove the inaccurate points, as I have requested it several times and nobody did it.

1) With reference to the woman who had all the finger broken, one by one, Ms Marta Torrecillas, she took her accusation back on the following day. The concept "investigation" is false.

So, please, remove or re-write the following quotation:

"A Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) councillor accused the police deliberately breaking her fingers one by one and of sexual abuse during a polling station evacuation, but later investigation disproved these statements."

2) Regarding the introduction, the whole paragraph does not make sense:

"On the day of the referendum, the inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra, allowed polling stations to open. The National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil intervened and raided polling stations after they opened. 893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially. According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated. According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents. The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured."

a) In connection with "The inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra": that is simply false, but the Spanish Government spread that idea. In fact, it is believed Mossos d'Esquadra confiscated twice the amount of ballot boxes that the Spanish Policia Nacional did. . Besides, the Catalan police assured that Spanish police did not honour the coordination agreements and the Public Prosecutor commanded local police to confiscate ballot boxes, too.

b) "893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially. According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated. According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents. The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.". According to the only official report (the ones released by the Catalan Health Service), there were 1,066 civilian and 12 policemen wounded (not 431). Furthermore, the idea of 431 policemen wounded is completely flaw because:

• The amount (431) was artifically inflated overnight (from 39, but no extra incident was registered that night) • This amount has never been contrasted. • No clinical report released, except for the Catalan Health Service that indicates just 11 policemen wounded. • Although antiriot police is equipped with GoPro camera, no visual evidence has been released of that extreme violence • There are no amateur videos suggesting wounded antiriot policemen or fierce violence; on the other hand, the videos show peaceful voters • It is unlikely that a ratio 1 policemen wounded out of 2 civilian would not imply a police reinforcement or a modification of the strategy. • No further consequence, no Chief policemen resignation or fired as a result of that allegedly bad planning and/or execution. • Neither army nor extra police reinforcement deployed the following day.

Categories: