Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:03, 25 April 2018 editBallenaBlanca (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,901 edits →Revert of authoritative document: I agree entirely with Crystallizedcarbon.← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:42, 25 April 2018 edit undoIñaki LL (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,820 edits →Edits by Edgarmm81 Next edit →
Line 254:		Line 254:
	:On your last diff, to take a focus, please stop adding noise to the discussion, , call it whatever you want, he was not a boy that acted as a translator like you point above, so please stop adding petty objections to do catch-all removals, it is all too obvious. '''Keep it constructive and add/correct the nuance, that is appreciated''', and not this bulldozing game. Thanks ] (]) 21:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)		:On your last diff, to take a focus, please stop adding noise to the discussion, , call it whatever you want, he was not a boy that acted as a translator like you point above, so please stop adding petty objections to do catch-all removals, it is all too obvious. '''Keep it constructive and add/correct the nuance, that is appreciated''', and not this bulldozing game. Thanks ] (]) 21:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
	::Do you bother to check any of the information I write? He himself claims he was a "visitor", not an "observer". He is just a postgraduate student and he himself claimed that his role was to serve as the English/Catalan interpreter for the English Scots for YES delegation. He admits to be in favor of independence for Catalonia and posts many tweets in line with that. Did you even read what he posted: (). Please stop trying to create artificial conflicts here. --] (]) 07:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)		::Do you bother to check any of the information I write? He himself claims he was a "visitor", not an "observer". He is just a postgraduate student and he himself claimed that his role was to serve as the English/Catalan interpreter for the English Scots for YES delegation. He admits to be in favor of independence for Catalonia and posts many tweets in line with that. Did you even read what he posted: (). Please stop trying to create artificial conflicts here. --] (]) 07:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
			:::"He was there to observe, that is clear, call it whatever you want", my claim above. It is not an edit I did, but he says "we, observers and visitors". HOwever, that is not the question, that is a matter of nuance you could have solved yourself. The question I raised is the '''confrontational (and ensuing litigative) style in the edits''', did you check out the links I provided in the section above at all? ] (]) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:42, 25 April 2018

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

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.

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 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)

But just part of what one person said in a press conference is not the whole picture. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have then another primary source about what the international observers said? I can't consider neither El País neither Cadena SER (both owned by the same company, which sided openly against the Catalan independence) as neutral sources. --Aljullu (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed a major, systemic issue, I have voiced my criticism of that before. We are talking about Catalonia, and its nation/region-specific media have actually no voice, except for La Vanguardia and El Periódico, publishing for all Spain if I am right.

Off topic
Matters are even worse for the Basque case, since no Spain-wide press outlet (actually, corporate media) has a base there, all the 'reliable' news (per WP policies) are initially based in Madrid (or Barcelona).

I fully agree with you, Aljullu, in this respect. These media are almost invariably unionist and/or Spanish nationalist, El País has actually fired one of its journalists for calling the Spanish Govt's position 'arrogant'. I have really a tough time explaining to people why WP is free knowledge... It is certainly genuine diversity and knowledge at stake. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, Iñaki LL, stay on topic WP:TALK#USE. Misplaced Pages is not a forum WP:FORUM, "is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing" or "Opinion pieces" WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, El Pais and Cadena Ser are both perfectly valid as sources. Please review our guidelines on reliable sources, and if you still have any doubts, you can post them at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As far as bias is concerned you should keep in mind that the two sources you mention have received large sums from the pro independence regional government just as the referendum was taking place (see here and here). That does not mean that they can not be used, In my opinion neither one is neutral, with some news having more of a bias than others specially in what they choose to focus on and on the editorials, still all four are reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:02, 23 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)

We reached consensus here by just removing the word "donor".

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)

It should be clear that Trapero stated that the Mossos were not warned with enough time since he was directly accused of the alleged inactivity. Can you propose an alternative wording? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think that section must be rewritten from scratch, it just takes the narrative from the Spanish media/police without considering any other version like the one given by Jordi's, the demonstrators or the Catalan police. It should also explain the illegal attempt to enter inside the CUP headquarters performed by the Spanish police, which is necessary to understand what happened that day. I think a good summary from 20-D can be found here: But will rewrite it some day if I have more time. What is clear is that the way it's currently written only represents the Spanish narrative. --Aljullu (talk) 19:38, 19 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)

If there has been a previous discussion on a controversial content consensus should be found before changing the status quo, still making a bold change in good faith is OK, but if the previous version is restored WP:BRD recommends that consensus is reached through discussion before making the changes again (you changed it with this edit for the second time and after I restored it Iñaki reverted again). I am not questioning that your edit was done in good faith, but in my opinion, the text that you removed was not talking about why Turull said that, "This was reported" makes reference to the secondary source that mentioned only the 770.000 "votes" and that the "reporting" did not explain the other relevant circumstances that directly affect that claim. Many other sources like El Confidencial for example did report it, so there needs to be a clear link between the two sentences in the article. To avoid any posible misinterpretation, I think my proposed wording addresses both concerns: "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." It reflects what the sources say without getting into too much detail. The alternative would be to include that according to some sources it is an embellished result ("cifra maquillada") or that his calculations were questioned and explain the reasons those sources cited adding the references to source them. If you want you can make the edit yourself or if there aren't any further concerns I will make it myself this afternoon. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The text I removed was right after Turull's sentence. Given that it started with "this was reported...", a reader will logically think "this" refers to the latest sentence, not two sentences before. From my point of view, the way it's currently written is correct and only exposes facts, I still don't understand which sentence in particular you consider controversial. But If you don't like the wording, what about this one? --Aljullu (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Catalan government estimated that polling stations representing up to 770,000 potential voters—14.5% of all registered voters—were closed down by police in raids, with any votes cast in those stations either seized, lost or inaccessible and therefore not counted. Even though, earlier in the day a universal census was introduced, so any Catalan elector going out to vote could do so in any one of the still functioning polling stations, Catalan government spokesman Jordi Turull argued that turnout would have been higher were it not for Spanish police suppression. Catalan government officials argued that calculation by experts showed that without police pressure and closures, turnout could have reached up to 55%.

Notorious examples that voted in a different poling station than the one they were assigned to include President Puigdemont himself—who voted in Cornella del Terri instead of Sant Julià de Ramis where he was registered to vote, foiling a police operation to track him down along the way—or Parliament of Catalonia Speaker Carme Forcadell.

BTW, some lines above I replied some of your messages "inline". Could you take a look at them? --Aljullu (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations but the solution above looks good to me. It may better be finetuned for English as follows (2nd excerpt): "However, earlier in the day a universal census was introduced, so any Catalan elector going out to vote could do so in any of the still operating polling stations. Catalan government spokesman Jordi Turull argued that turnout would have been higher were it not for the Spanish police's suppression. Catalan government officials argued that estimations by experts showed that without police pressure and closures, turnout could have reached up to 55%."

Notorious examples of people voting in a polling station other than that initially assigned include President Puigdemont himself—who voted in Cornella del Terri instead of Sant Julià de Ramis, where he was registered to vote, after foiling a police operation to track him down along the way—or Parliament of Catalonia Speaker Carme Forcadell." Iñaki LL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aljullu I agree it clearly refers to the previous sentence, but it talks about what was reported, not what Turull considered. The changes you made eliminate the previous status quo, yes it presents sourced information, but by not including other source information the picture is incomplete and in my opinion leads to misinterpretation. The problem with the alternative wording you propose is that if we give more information, then all details should be included to maintain WP:NPOV. If "votes cast in those stations" is added then it should also be explained that most of those schools just did not open (no votes eliminated there) and that all closes took place early in the morning; by 12 police action ended and even the few that voted could have gone to different schools, if the 55% turnout is mention then the arguments used against that figure should also be included. I believe that would be excessive and unnecessary detail, that is why I proposed the wording above: "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.". Is there a problem with it? or should we work on an extended version to cover all viewpoints to maintain NPOV? if the second is the case the status quo version should be restored while we decide on the new wording. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me amend one thing you said: "even the few that voted could have gone to different schools", that's not true AFAIK, everybody who had already voted and got their vote confiscated, could not vote anywhere else. Also, in almost all if not all polling stations people gathered early in the morning to vote, so I wouldn't assume the votes at mid-day were "a few" considering most people voted as early as possible. In addition to that, the 55% figure I think not only refers to the closed polling station but also the "fear-factor" of going to vote after seeing the police charges. That's why I think Iñaki LL and my proposals are better, but would accept adding a line explaining police action occurred in the morning. --Aljullu (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the polls closed were done by the Mossos, and those were in places where there was no resistance at all and before they opened so no votes there. In the case of the police the videos and images show people focused on preventing the police from accessing the ballot boxes, not people voting while they were doing so, so again the impact should be minimal, Still, after the police action ended Turull reminded people that they could vote anywhere, due to the universal census adopted that same day, and extended the closing time. Additionally because the electronic census was down there are many documented cases of people voting multiple times so even any person who had their vote confiscated could have voted again elsewhere. There are also documented cases of people voting without any control in the middle of the street and also of people who where not part Catalan that did not have any trouble to vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the polls closed were done by the Mossos, and those were in places where there was no resistance at all and before they opened so no votes there.

Any international source of that?

In the case of the police the videos and images show people focused on preventing the police from accessing the ballot boxes, not people voting while they were doing so, so again the impact should be minimal

What videos have you seen? There was violence all over the polling stations, doesn't matter if you were voting or doing passive resistance. "Impact should be minimal" is clearly your subjective point of view.

Still, after the police action ended Turull reminded people that they could vote anywhere, due to the universal census adopted that same day

Right, but as I have said, once you have voted, you couldn't vote again even if your vote was confiscated.

extended the closing time

Source?

Additionally because the electronic census was down there are many documented cases of people voting multiple times so even any person who had their vote confiscated could have voted again elsewhere.

The only documented cases are Societat Civil Catalana and La Sexta, which I wouldn't say are the most neutral sources we can find, here. El País, which is a clearly a pro-union newspaper, stated they tried to vote twice and they couldn't, for example.

There are also documented cases of people voting without any control in the middle of the street and also of people who where not part Catalan that did not have any trouble to vote.

Again you seem to be very misinformed about what happened that day and have only read one point of view. In some schools they had fake ballot boxes in case Spanish police tried to confiscate them, so they could keep the legit ones safe.--Aljullu (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert of authoritative document

Crystallizedcarbon please stop reverting automatically whatever statement is different from Spanish official versions. Misplaced Pages is about encouraging people to edit, share and contribute knowledge, no matter how inconvenient the information may be. The statement added by Edgarmm81 does not state "X is Y", but "X says Y is Z", and that is accurate; the institution cited is relevant enough to have it mentioned, so please stop merely reactive edits, it just alters the regular editing process. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: There are many reasons to remove this edit you reverted: "UK Parliament 'fake news' committee publishes US expert report showing claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false and, in fact, a massive 15,000 strong botnet spread anti-#Catalan narratives"

First is that the statement that "claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false" is original research on a primary source as what the document criticized are the alleged methods used but does not make that claim.
Second the phrase "UK Parliament 'fake news' committee publishes" is misleading, as this is not an official report. The committee is still ongoing and has opened a site where document submission is open. (see here) it lists all those contributions on that page. Since it is not subject to editorial control, so it would not qualify as a reliable source.
Third the term US expert is also misleading. McGrath is just a young hacker and an activist that has developed some software tools for gathering data.

Please evaluate if your declared strong bias in this subject may be clouding your judgement. Most contributions for the WP:SPA Edgarmm81 have been inappropriate. I think that restoring them without checking first if they do indeed violate our policy is not helpful. I agree that a large number of my edits are reactive. I invest a lot of time fighting vandalism and I also try to review all edits of articles in my watchlist. In my opinion, with controversial articles like this one, the content that is added should respect the WP:NPOV and there should be extra care to make sure our policies are respected. I don't think that alters the regular editing process as you put it, I think it helps to keep the standard of the project high.

Some secondary sources that received founding from the separatist regional government (see here), or the suspected parties like RT and others have used the report as a source so the text added back by an IP and Aljullu addresses the first two concerns as it does not include original research and it is sourced by a WP:RS. It was clearly done in good faith, I have removed it however because it is still misleading as it refers to the software tools "Transparency Toolkit" as a "non-profit organization" when the source is nothing more than a self publication submitted by a hacker/activist to an committee that allows public submissions. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV even though it has been covered by secondary sources it may be newsworthy, but it's not yet encyclopedic. We should wait until the final conclusions of the committee or to any official reports before adding the information to the article. Once the committee publishes their conclusions if they happen to mention it in any oficial report I will be more than happy to add it myself to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon, please, stop manipulating and stating falsehoods:

1) M C McGrath is graduated from Boston University, did research at MIT Media Lab, participated in Google Summer of Code and BUILDS. He is also a Thiel Fellow (selection for the fellowship is through a competitive annual process, with about 20–25 fellows selected annually. It has a selection rate below 1%.). Other Thiel Fellows are the youngest person to produce nuclear fusion, a physicist currently working to mobilize radiography or the co-creator of Ethereum... So, are you serious trying to invalidate him? Dont you think you are a bit arrogant trying to discredit the sources of a British Parliament commission?

And the report is quite clear, though it is against the Spanish official version: 1. Failure to accurately use digital analytics tools 2. Dubious research methodology 3. One-sided analysis that ignores botnets disseminating anti-Catalan independence messages 4. Exaggeration of the influence of bots and trolls 5. Careless analysis of data from questionable sources

2)Do not try to fool them with the financial aids of the newspapers, as those financial aids stem from the use of minority languages and is clearly stated by law: "In Catalonia, the competitive disadvantage of the media in Catalan is the reason that is used to consider the aid to these Catalan-language media relevant. Among the characteristics that a publication must meet to be subsidized by the Generalitat is that it must be "100% edited in Catalan or Aranese, or have editions in these languages, regardless of whether they can include translation to others"

3) The media that published that biased article regarding those inaccurate (or false) financial aids, https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain), has a flaw history against Catalonia, the catalanism and the Catalan language throughout the History.

4) Besides, it is usual to find flaw journalism in "El Mundo":

a. https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain) titled: "The 'procés' was born to cover the corruption of the 'case 3%', according to a note by the Mossos", when it should read "unformatted note without letterhead" elaborated not by the Catalan police, but by Villarejo (Head of Policia Nacional). b. https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain) is very criticed by the publication of false and unsigned news in relation to the case of Pujol's corruption, as can be seen in the documentary "Las Cloacas de Interior." That documentary allowed the creation of a commission of investigation in the Congress that proved the existence of a conspiracy against the Catalan independentism and the creation of a secret unit within the Policia Nacional, which mission was to generate harmful news regarding the Catalan pro-independence leaders c. The radio station France Inter has charged against the way Catalonia is treated by the newspapers El País and https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain). In a chronicle of the analyst Anthony Bellanger, from the censorship to the exhibition Arco, the station reviews the deterioration of Spanish journalism. "Catalonia makes Spain go crazy, there is not much to say, for all those who know Spain well and who are used to reading their press, now it has almost become a torment to go through the pages of https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain), a conservative newspaper, and also by the venerable https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Pa%C3%ADs", he says. d. The Romanian press accused https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain) of inventing an interview with Puigdemont's in-laws . e. Quotations such as "The governments of CiU and the tripartite have carried out a persistent campaign of indoctrination of society" or "nationalism has tried everything to brainwash the population".

So any article of https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Mundo_(Spain) or https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Pa%C3%ADs should be removed for the objectivity and neutrality of Misplaced Pages.

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/User:I%C3%B1aki_LL You are right, it says "translator". Sorry for that.

6) Well, in fact, Scots English for Yes is not a political party in itself, just an association, and has nothing to do with Catalonia and the report is quite neutral. Besides, there were just a few international members... If you remove any source for a minimal ideology, you will have to remove the whole political Misplaced Pages... But, OK, I will accept if you finally remove it. — Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC) (UTC).

@Edgarmm81: What falsehoods do you claim I stated?

To answer your comments, I will refer to them by their number

1) I am not discrediting the source. I am just pointing out that submission of documents is open to anybody through the web page (As you can see in the link in my previous comment). Contents published by sites that allow open submissions without editorial control are not reliable sources. It remains to be seen if the committee will validate or include those conclusions, in any case, the five things you cited are mentioned by McGrath. He criticizes other submitted documents, but it does not directly state that "claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false" or that "in fact, a massive 15,000 strong botnet spread anti-#Catalan narratives". Making that claim based on this text: "This @marilena_madrid tweet was retweeted over 15,000 times, but 'liked' only 99 times. Researchers working on Twitter bot detection have discovered that bots often have low likes-to-tweets ratios, often below" is also original research.

2) That was passed by the independentist autonomous government in a region where Catalan is no longer a minority language (quite the opposite). Regardless, independentist parties voted to only subsidize those Catalan newspapers that promoted the referendum (even if in Catalan): El Parlamento catalán aprueba que sólo se subvencione a medios privados que hagan campaña del 1-O, El Parlamento catalán niega subvenciones a los medios que no publiciten la consulta.

3) and 4) El mundo is clearly a reliable source, I could find many examples of flawed publications or criticism against other media. if you have doubts you can make a case at the reliable sources noticeboard.

5) Agreed.

6) Whether it is an association or political party does not make much difference, its main objective is the independence of Scotland, and is one of the few groups that recognizes the independence of Catalonia (as posted in their own site). According to one of its members (the translator): "Whilst all of us were personally sympathetic to the cause for independence in Catalonia, the official position of our organisation was to remain neutral". In any case the other reason for removal is that they do not speak for the "observers" as a whole. Still, I do thank you for accepting my arguments in this and the previous point. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: it doesn't make any sense that you want to remove the Transparency Toolkit quote until "until the final conclusions of the committee or to any official reports" but are ok in keeping the articles from El País. You seem to constantly be removing one point of view from the article while keeping the other one. Also, you are constantly claiming every Catalan media is biased but consider Spanish media to be neutral, which is plainly wrong, because Spanish media like El País also received public money (indeed, those are objective subsidies to promote the Catalan language based on the number of articles published and the number of visits, so inevitably all media which publishes in Catalan --as I said, including El País-- will receive these subsidies). You can support or be against those subsidies, but that's not a reason to discredit that media because they are given based on objective data, not based on the ideology of the newspaper (the prove is that La Vanguardia, El Periódico, El País, El Punt Avui and Ara, which all of them have different ideologies, received them). --Aljullu (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: I think it makes perfect sense. El Pais is a reliable source Transparency Toolkit is a software tool. As I said before, I think it is clear that both El País and La Vanguardia have some Bias in this issue, but still both are WP:RS. However you should keep in mind that as far as Catalan subsidies is much harder to defend objectivity when the independentist parties voted to only subsidize those Catalan newspapers that promoted the referendum: El Parlamento catalán aprueba que sólo se subvencione a medios privados que hagan campaña del 1-O, El Parlamento catalán niega subvenciones a los medios que no publiciten la consulta, Cataluña riega medios afines con 7 millones y mantiene una radiotelevisión pública de oro.

The document submitted by McGrath is a self publication, one of 55 (or one of 89 including other submissions). Just a piece of the puzzle. That is why we should wait. If it is included in an official report by the committee then of course it will be relevant, if not it is not. I will answer the other questions in the afternoon. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: right, that was my point, both El País and La Vanguardia are biased towards Spanish unity, and you seem ok about that bias, but are constantly blocking any information coming from a newspaper which is not biased towards Spanish unity. That's what several users are complaining in this talk page, you seem to have decided that only sources openly supporting Spanish unity are allowed. By the way, if you want I could post dozens of articles aboute the relation between El País and the current Spanish government , , .

About the second part of your message, I think you understood it wrong, the Catalan Parliament approved that media blocking Catalan government advertisement would not be able to receive subsidies. That can be applied to the referendum advertisement but also to an LGBT-equality campaign, for example. A newspaper can still have their editorial line for/against the referendum and for/against gay marriage, but they will not be able to selectively block some government advertising if they want to keep getting subsidies. But anyway, that's quite irrelevant because all Spanish media that is sold in Catalonia gets advertising from the Catalan government, so applying your way of thinking, El País shouldn't be allowed as a source either because it gets subsidies and advertising from the Catalan government. --Aljullu (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely with User:Aljullu.ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits go really fast so I should apologize if I missed something new on the above comments. It would always be more helpful to proceed (with everyone, but strictly with Crystallizedcarbon due to the reactive nature of his edits and the circumstances of this article) with diffs, "this source says X but it is problematic because Y and Z" or "the source does not state X". It is certainly fine with me to remove statements if informations provided are not accurate. I did not add the statements debated in this section, so I think it is up to Aljullu or Edgarmm81 or whomever added it to make their point and dispute Crystallizedcarbon if his claim is true (he is perhaps right in some points, e.g. WP:NOTNEWS).

However, hiding behind procedural objections to automatically remove all informations that call into question a POV, which you, Crystallizedcarbon, have shown repeatedly, and then add a wall in the discussion page does not belong in the normal editing process and it may violate the very spirit of Misplaced Pages.

Irrespective of the edits talked about above, this for one is a catch-all removal of reliable sources. It included a scribd document uploaded by Público among other reliable sources, still you attempted to remove all of it indiscriminately. This case is also revealing, [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017&diff=823545351&oldid=823537670 still it was removed without compromise (except for an attempt to make the news meaningless and devoid of content).

Furthermore bringing El Mundo as a reliable source is almost a joke, a clear-cut partysan nationalist media outlet (especially when dealing with all national issues in Spain), no matter how much it may be still considered a reliable source in the WP, as disclosed in the lack of journalistic ethics in the 11M, for one, and its slogan based articles and headlines, far from down-to-earth and sober information.

The conclusion is this article looks absolutely hermetic, it appears to be de facto intervened. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also please everyone WP:INDENT the thread to better follow the discussion. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: Are you serious? La Vanguardia is unquestionably aligned with Catalanism, and it is clearly biased against the central government. They are historically aligned with CiU and defend a moderate nationalism they seem to draw the line only at the unilateral declaration of independence: , , . I am also surprised that you interpret "The Catalan Parliament approves that only private media that campaigns for the 1-O will be subsidized" or "The Catalan Parliament denies subsidies to the media that does not advertise the referendum" to mean any thing different than what it clearly states, regardless of whether it can also affect other campaigns promoted by the generalitat. Here are more claims of questionable use of the funds La Generalitat deja a Catalunya Diari sin ayudas por no apoyar claramente el procés. You continue to mistake my words, I did not say that those sources could not be used, I said they do have a bias, and you also claim that I have "decided that only sources openly supporting Spanish unity are allowed" That is completely false, (, etc...) Arguments are based on policy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: My reactive edits as you call them are to try to protect a neutral point of view. Edits to controversial articles from users with strong bias as yourself (as declared with a userbox on your userpage related directly to this article) or from single purpose accounts should be checked and if controversial, consensus should be reached before changes are introduced. For the two cases you mention: In the first, the problem is the bias, it uses a previous investigation on alleged use of the police for covering political corruption of PP and a previous 9-N consultation. and writes it as if it applied to the 1-O. The investigation took place in 2016. The second edit there was no removal it just changes original research by the actual quote to let the reader interpret by him/herself those words. If you look at the different versions of the article, you will see that it is not at all "hermetic or intervened" as you claim. There have been many changes and many compromises have been reached. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, listen, Crystallizedcarbon, I am not buying your ad hominem approach. I may be more honest than you, not more biased. However, it is good you are not hiding your sympathies with the flag in your userpage, which is clearly not a neutral symbol in this issue, but a bone of contention. "I am neutral and you are not" is all too familiar a tune in Spain, and is also a claim addressed in the EN Misplaced Pages. If you have sth against that account or it is acting irregularly, I suggest you file a report, it is quite obvious that s/he is new and ackward, and has only edited in this article.

In the first edit it is a removal of sourced and reliable information relevant directly and indirectly to the topic. If something is not totally right, or could be modulated, do it, do not remove all the statements and its reliable sources. Do not engage in edits like that, other editors may take it as confrontational, or worse, straight WP:battleground.

There is no such "OR" in the second edit, it sticks to what the news convey. The alternative, copying literally an excerpt of the article, did not make any sense. The citation of Dastis is not put in the Guardian article as an aesthetic anecdote. Still you showed a complete inability to integrate the news, and removed it altogether.

No, clearly this article looks and feels inaccessible and hermetic, with a compulsive and automatic revert by some editors. Please keep it cooperative. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with saying what country you are from? You are from Spain as well are you not? Is there anything wrong with displaying the flag of your country? How does that relate to this article? for your information I added the userbox {{ User from Spain|4}} back in 2014 shortly after creating this account (see here) and it is not related in any way to this article. The crossed ballot box with the message "This user opposes the politics of Mariano Rajoy" leaves no room for interpretation. Still, I am not saying that you can't contribute, but since you have such a strong bias, you should make sure that your contributions are neutral, and since that has not been the case in the past, I invest more time in reviewing your edits. Frankly I would prefer you would ensure our policies are met by yourself instead of automatically reverting many of my edits as this is becoming very tiring. Adding information that includes half truths and misrepresents sources to convey a misleading message is not constructive, if I had more time I could have salvaged some information like the first phrase, in that particular instance I did not have that time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Crystallizedcarbon. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Edits by Edgarmm81

I have removed another two edits by the WP:SPA Edgarmm81 as they where both misleading and biased.

In this edit A report by a political party that defends the independence of Scotland and declared to be in favor of the independence of Catalonia was used as primary source to claim that it was the conclusion of the "observers" when they are just one political party sympathetic with the cause of the independentist regional government that invited them as observers. Their conclusions represent those of only that particular group and not of all the observers.

This edit I removed is also missleading. Puchowski is not a member of the "observers". He is just a student that acted as an English/Catalan translator for the same political party cited above. He himself said he was a "visitor" not an "observer". He also wrote "Whilst all of us were personally sympathetic to the cause for independence in Catalonia, ..." (see here)--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

On your last diff, to take a focus, please stop adding noise to the discussion, he was there to observe, that is clear, call it whatever you want, he was not a boy that acted as a translator like you point above, so please stop adding petty objections to do catch-all removals, it is all too obvious. Keep it constructive and add/correct the nuance, that is appreciated, and not this bulldozing game. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you bother to check any of the information I write? He himself claims he was a "visitor", not an "observer". He is just a postgraduate student and he himself claimed that his role was to serve as the English/Catalan interpreter for the English Scots for YES delegation. He admits to be in favor of independence for Catalonia and posts many tweets in line with that. Did you even read what he posted: (see here). Please stop trying to create artificial conflicts here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"He was there to observe, that is clear, call it whatever you want", my claim above. It is not an edit I did, but he says "we, observers and visitors". HOwever, that is not the question, that is a matter of nuance you could have solved yourself. The question I raised is the confrontational (and ensuing litigative) style in the edits, did you check out the links I provided in the section above at all? Iñaki LL (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories: