Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 08:21, 23 February 2018 editCrystallizedcarbon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,334 edits →Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:44, 23 February 2018 edit undoCrystallizedcarbon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,334 edits →Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	In by {{u\|Edgarmm81}} that difference was ignored even though the article itself made it explicitly clear that it was referring only to cyberatacks and not to misinformation campaings: "han hecho hincapié en distinguir entre las campañas de manipulación de la información que puedan desarrollarse en redes sociales y los ciberataques". Even though the information is not relevant to the article as there was no claim of cyberattacks, it was used to refer to the alleged misinformation campaign (it was added at the end of that paragraph) as a "conspiracy theory" and claim that the Spanish National Criptology Center disregarded it. The term "conspiracy theory" was not used in the article, and the article clearly stated that it was not talking about misinformation, so I clarifying that there is a difference between misinformation and cyberattacks.		In by {{u\|Edgarmm81}} that difference was ignored even though the article itself made it explicitly clear that it was referring only to cyberatacks and not to misinformation campaings: "han hecho hincapié en distinguir entre las campañas de manipulación de la información que puedan desarrollarse en redes sociales y los ciberataques". Even though the information is not relevant to the article as there was no claim of cyberattacks, it was used to refer to the alleged misinformation campaign (it was added at the end of that paragraph) as a "conspiracy theory" and claim that the Spanish National Criptology Center disregarded it. The term "conspiracy theory" was not used in the article, and the article clearly stated that it was not talking about misinformation, so I clarifying that there is a difference between misinformation and cyberattacks.

	{{u\|Iñaki LL}} adding back the misleading information claiming that the edit summary was confusing and citing ] and ]. Since I did not see the relevance of neither of the two policies cited by Iñaki, I adding to the edit summary the fact that there was a misrepresentation of the source, that the term "conspiracy theory" was used, that there was ] and asking Iñaki to bring the issue to the talk page per ]. Instead he chose to with this edit summary: "Info per WP:VER, do stop WP:BATTLEGROUND, stick to consensus seeking". Iñaki did at least change "conspiracy theory" for "dismissed foreign intervention" but the information is still unrelated and that claim is out of context as it relates to hacking which was never in question. It is misleading and again in that context is a case of ]. I thought my edit summary was clear enough, I hope this is clearly explains ~~while~~ the edit should be removed and I expect for Iñaki to do so or to clearly explain his reasons why as I still don't understand how ] and ] apply here. --] (]) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)		{{u\|Iñaki LL}} adding back the misleading information claiming that the edit summary was confusing and citing ] and ]. Since I did not see the relevance of neither of the two policies cited by Iñaki, I adding to the edit summary the fact that there was a misrepresentation of the source, that the term "conspiracy theory" was used, that there was ] and asking Iñaki to bring the issue to the talk page per ]. Instead he chose to with this edit summary: "Info per WP:VER, do stop WP:BATTLEGROUND, stick to consensus seeking". Iñaki did at least change "conspiracy theory" for "dismissed foreign intervention" but the information is still unrelated and that claim is out of context as it relates to hacking which was never in question. It is misleading and again in that context is a case of ]. I thought my edit summary was clear enough, I hope this is clearly explains why the edit should be removed and I expect for Iñaki to do so or to clearly explain his reasons why as I still don't understand how ] and ] apply here. --] (]) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

	:Agree with {{u\|Crystallizedcarbon}}. --] 🐳 ♂ ] 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)		:Agree with {{u\|Crystallizedcarbon}}. --] 🐳 ♂ ] 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:44, 23 February 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.

PRESS COVERAGE

On 19 January 2018, Sky News released an unpublished "Behind the Scenes" coverage of Catalan referendum day in October 2017 and the extraordinary scenes of police violence that followed. Edgarmm81 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Edgarmm81 for your information. You do not need to know all the rules of WP now since you are new, but as of now please add always the signature at the end of your talk page interventions. WP has its protocols and that is one of them. For the rest of statements and references you add, try to be as relevant to the section as possible, so that no one considers them unsuitably located in the section or paragraph, given the (needless) litigation going on in this article. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing

Cyberattack refers to various means of malicious acts that either steals, alters, or destroys a specified target by hacking into a susceptible computer systems. Misinformation on the other hand is false or incorrect information that is spread intentionally or unintentionally (i.e. without realizing it is untrue).

They are not related. The last paragraph of the Press coverage and social media section of the article talked exclusively about the alleged misinformation actions originating from Russian media outlets and social network bots. There was no mention in the text about cyberattacks.

In this edit by Edgarmm81 that difference was ignored even though the article itself made it explicitly clear that it was referring only to cyberatacks and not to misinformation campaings: "han hecho hincapié en distinguir entre las campañas de manipulación de la información que puedan desarrollarse en redes sociales y los ciberataques". Even though the information is not relevant to the article as there was no claim of cyberattacks, it was used to refer to the alleged misinformation campaign (it was added at the end of that paragraph) as a "conspiracy theory" and claim that the Spanish National Criptology Center disregarded it. The term "conspiracy theory" was not used in the article, and the article clearly stated that it was not talking about misinformation, so I removed the edit clarifying that there is a difference between misinformation and cyberattacks.

Iñaki LL undid my edit adding back the misleading information claiming that the edit summary was confusing and citing WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VER. Since I did not see the relevance of neither of the two policies cited by Iñaki, I restored the article for the second time adding to the edit summary the fact that there was a misrepresentation of the source, that the term "conspiracy theory" was used, that there was original research and asking Iñaki to bring the issue to the talk page per WP:BRD. Instead he chose to revert once again with this edit summary: "Info per WP:VER, do stop WP:BATTLEGROUND, stick to consensus seeking". Iñaki did at least change "conspiracy theory" for "dismissed foreign intervention" but the information is still unrelated and that claim is out of context as it relates to hacking which was never in question. It is misleading and again in that context is a case of WP:OR. I thought my edit summary was clear enough, I hope this is clearly explains why the edit should be removed and I expect for Iñaki to do so or to clearly explain his reasons why as I still don't understand how WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VER apply here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Crystallizedcarbon. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon Listen, you seem to be misunderstanding what WP is about, the information is sourced and accurate, no doubt. You have a history of content blanking, etc. Now coming back to the content, this is how my compromise attempt stands: "On 21 Nov 2017, the Spanish National Criptology Center (CCN), subsidiary of the Spanish Intelligence (CNI), dismissed foreign intervention by stating they "did not find any Russian Government nor any other state cyberattack during the Catalan affair"; this is the source, one that anyone can check.

Extending artificially discussions not only is unconstructive, but straight WP:TEND. By the way, thanks for not pinging me, I will come back. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Crystallizedcarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/User:BallenaBlanca The Spanish delegation (an "El País" journalist amongst them) who accused Russia of interference in the Catalan Referendum failing to prove any of their accusations in a hearing in front of a UK Parliament Comission. So we can find both: False accusations regarding Russia interference along with no cyberattacks (as Spanish National Criptology Center stated). On the other hand, Rusia terminated its financial aid to "El País" in 2016. Personally, it seems a blatant blackmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Edgarmm81, please do add indentation. You should understand that WP has its protocoles, and that they are as important as the content you add. That means that raw information may not be valid, Youtube is not a valid source in WP. If you can arrange the rest of information in the right place and according to source, that should be good, otherwise anyone may come and call into question your edits. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki, please stop your personal attacks. The userserbox with the ballot box in you userpage referring to this referendum and to Mariano Rajoy together with you history of edits here indicates your strong conflict of interest in this article. Please keep your comments centered on the content and I will do the same.

Information may be sourced and accurate, That does not mean that it may also be not relevant for the article or the section, and that as it happens here be misleading and false if placed in the wrong context as it is now.

Please tell if you think that any part of this text is making reference to cyberattacks or if you think that it is talking about misinformation:

The Spanish newspaper El País argued that "the network of fake-news producers that Russia has employed to weaken the United States and the European Union is now operating at full speed on Catalonia", involving a network of Russian media outlets and social network bots which, according to the argument, aimed to influence local and global discussion of events. Later investigations by Medium-DFRL found support for some but not all of the arguments made by Spanish outlets. It is argued that the goal wasn't specifically to support Catalan independence but to "foment divisions to gradually undermine Europe’s democracy and institutions" and at discrediting Spanish legal and political authorities, while Russian authorities have denied that Russian actors had any involvement.

¿Do you disagree that the article used as a source clearly stated that they were referring only to cyberattacks and explicitelly mentioned that it was not talking about possible misinformation campaigns?

If there are no claims of cyberatacks in the paragraph there is no sense adding a sentence that denies them. The fact that it is verifiable and comes from a reliable source is irrelevant, as not all verifiable content on the subject should be included in the article. Here you are using a true and verifiable statement that is not relevant to the preceding text and you are adding it out of context which implies a different message (in the first version that the misinformation campaign was a "conspiracy theory dismissed by CNI" and in your last version that it "dismissed foreign intervention" without clarifying it is talking about something else)

Even if the statement was added outside the paragraph on misinformation, there have been no serious claims of any cyberattacks by Russia or any other states so it would make absolutely no sense to add a section about cyberattacks in the article.

If you have any valid argument to keep the statement please share it, if not, I ask you one last time to please remove the content yourself, It is verifiable, but it has no encyclopedic relevance, and the way it was added to the article make it clearly misleading. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 08:21, 23 February 2018 editCrystallizedcarbon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,334 edits →Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:44, 23 February 2018 edit undoCrystallizedcarbon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,334 edits →Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	In by {{u\|Edgarmm81}} that difference was ignored even though the article itself made it explicitly clear that it was referring only to cyberatacks and not to misinformation campaings: "han hecho hincapié en distinguir entre las campañas de manipulación de la información que puedan desarrollarse en redes sociales y los ciberataques". Even though the information is not relevant to the article as there was no claim of cyberattacks, it was used to refer to the alleged misinformation campaign (it was added at the end of that paragraph) as a "conspiracy theory" and claim that the Spanish National Criptology Center disregarded it. The term "conspiracy theory" was not used in the article, and the article clearly stated that it was not talking about misinformation, so I clarifying that there is a difference between misinformation and cyberattacks.		In by {{u\|Edgarmm81}} that difference was ignored even though the article itself made it explicitly clear that it was referring only to cyberatacks and not to misinformation campaings: "han hecho hincapié en distinguir entre las campañas de manipulación de la información que puedan desarrollarse en redes sociales y los ciberataques". Even though the information is not relevant to the article as there was no claim of cyberattacks, it was used to refer to the alleged misinformation campaign (it was added at the end of that paragraph) as a "conspiracy theory" and claim that the Spanish National Criptology Center disregarded it. The term "conspiracy theory" was not used in the article, and the article clearly stated that it was not talking about misinformation, so I clarifying that there is a difference between misinformation and cyberattacks.

	{{u\|Iñaki LL}} adding back the misleading information claiming that the edit summary was confusing and citing ] and ]. Since I did not see the relevance of neither of the two policies cited by Iñaki, I adding to the edit summary the fact that there was a misrepresentation of the source, that the term "conspiracy theory" was used, that there was ] and asking Iñaki to bring the issue to the talk page per ]. Instead he chose to with this edit summary: "Info per WP:VER, do stop WP:BATTLEGROUND, stick to consensus seeking". Iñaki did at least change "conspiracy theory" for "dismissed foreign intervention" but the information is still unrelated and that claim is out of context as it relates to hacking which was never in question. It is misleading and again in that context is a case of ]. I thought my edit summary was clear enough, I hope this is clearly explains ~~while~~ the edit should be removed and I expect for Iñaki to do so or to clearly explain his reasons why as I still don't understand how ] and ] apply here. --] (]) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)		{{u\|Iñaki LL}} adding back the misleading information claiming that the edit summary was confusing and citing ] and ]. Since I did not see the relevance of neither of the two policies cited by Iñaki, I adding to the edit summary the fact that there was a misrepresentation of the source, that the term "conspiracy theory" was used, that there was ] and asking Iñaki to bring the issue to the talk page per ]. Instead he chose to with this edit summary: "Info per WP:VER, do stop WP:BATTLEGROUND, stick to consensus seeking". Iñaki did at least change "conspiracy theory" for "dismissed foreign intervention" but the information is still unrelated and that claim is out of context as it relates to hacking which was never in question. It is misleading and again in that context is a case of ]. I thought my edit summary was clear enough, I hope this is clearly explains why the edit should be removed and I expect for Iñaki to do so or to clearly explain his reasons why as I still don't understand how ] and ] apply here. --] (]) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

	:Agree with {{u\|Crystallizedcarbon}}. --] 🐳 ♂ ] 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)		:Agree with {{u\|Crystallizedcarbon}}. --] 🐳 ♂ ] 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)