Talk:2017–2018 Spanish constitutional crisis

Article title discussion

What do you guys think about explaining the constitutional issue and presenting the arguments in favour or against? Bit weird you are detailing everything that happens in the conflict but not what the conflict is about. --85.148.123.77 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Presenting the arguments would allow for too much subjectivity as people could make legitimate claims that our presentation of their reasoning was flawed/inaccurate. Subjects like this can be touchy as there's very real implications for both sides and the readers or editors may feel very strongly towards a certain side. If we were to elaborate on arguments for Catalan nationalism, it would be better to put them on the Catalan nationalism article. As Wikipedia articles are collegian and encyclopedic, we should refrain from presenting it as news, as a blog, or anything else that extends beyond what is known to be objective. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that objectivity is served by the absence of any detail of what the Spanish Constitution says about the integrity of the country and autonomy, or that the referendum is seen in context if the Constitutional referendum's result in Catalonia is not mentioned. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you to the change the title of ther article "2017 Spanish constitutional crisis" to "2017 Catalonian Coup d'État" because according to Wikipedia, a coup d'état is "an illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus". This is exactly what is happening in Catalonia, where a part of the state (The Generalitat of Catalunya) is illegally assuming power which constitutionally corresponds to the legitimate Government of Spain. The Spanish Constitutional Court has declared the "referendum" as illegal.

A coup concerns, as you said, an entire state. The Catalonian government did not remove the Spanish government from power. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The poster did not say an "entire" state. A coup can be the forced replacement of even local government.104.169.28.113 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the page title is misleading and shoud be revised. Furthermore, It think it shoudn't even be under Constitutional Crisis, as the catalan referendum and subsequent declaration of independence does not match the definition for "Constitutional Crisis", nor resembles any single one of the examples given on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.142.51 (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

International "support"

Not exactly sure why the US and Serbia should be listed as "supporters" - all that has happened is some officials have made comments. Support usually means military of financial support to on group or another.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Small note of grammar: WP front page refernce to this says "amidst" which is not a word

"Amid" is a word and "midst" is a word, but not "amidst".

Thats all.

You sure? Impru20 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, am sure.

So you say "amidst" is not a word, really? And that it is not, in reality, just a variant for "amid"? Impru20 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of 2008–present Spanish financial crisis?

Is the Catalan independence referendum really part of the 2008–present Spanish financial crisis, as the infobox suggests? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki The 2008–present Spanish financial crisis article even has a sub-section referring to the "separatist movements" in Catalonia as a direct effect from the financial crisis. So yeah, it's pretty much part of it. Impru20 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really, it is about Spain refusing to let the Catalonians hold a referendum to determine their own fate. Unlike the UK who let Scotland decide theirs, the Spanish government tried to stop a peaceful vote by force and sent in riot police who acted like General Franco did previously. However the voting on the referendum to a large extent went ahead and of the votes cast an overwhelming majority favoured independence. U

Not according to the RS's listed in the article. 43% is less than half of the voting population.104.169.28.113 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Image

About this edit by Impru20, the image was uploaded by Discasto who is a license reviewer. There are no license problems. The author of the picture is Robert Bonet, a photographer of eldiario.es. See also this explanation.

I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your work on the page. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

Impru20 you're doing a very good job with the page, but I do not agree with this reversion.

IMO there is no reason not to mention the violent demonstrations against the Civil Guard of hundreds of thousands of people, led by pro-independence activists, prior to the October 1 referendum. They are relevant and the content I added is a very brief summary. I will restore it. If you want, you can improve the wording, but do not delete the facts.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There was simply no violence against Spanish police on September 20th. Furthermore, the pro-independence activists you refer to actually asked the demonstrators to leave. Victorjjp (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Those are mentioned twice in the article: both when the 20 September events are mentioned, and then when the "Jordis" detainments are covered. This article is not about the 20 September events. Such facts are already summarized enough for readers to quickly understand the scope of it within the context of the constitutional crisis, and the Operation Anubis article (which is the place for those events to be covered in detail) is already linked and referenced. It's absurd to try to expand on this topic in this article, since there's already another article fully covering this topic. As per WP:BRD, it is your revert the one which is not justified, so I'm reverting it until discussion is over. Impru20 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying makes no sense. It is a section that summarizes most of the facts already present in the page of Operation Anubis. Following your logic, we would have to eliminate the whole section Judicial and police action.

The facts need to be completed for WP:NPOV. I repeat, how is not going to be relevant the violence of pro-independentists, prior to the events of October 1? Reading the section it seems that the protests were peaceful, when it is not true that all were peaceful.

You are not applying well WP:BRD, remember WP:ROWN. Feel free to improve wording, but keep the facts. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:ROWN does not override WP:BRD. If content is disputed, it should be discussed, not keeping adding it and engaging in edit warring. The section summarizes all relevant facts. There's no lack of WP:NPOV, because the data you kept adding was irrelevant for the context of the constitutional crisis. Those are minor details that are fit for a through explanation in the Operation Anubis article, but are just absurdingly unneeded here. Let's see:

• The Civil Guard arrested several Catalan government officials. This was the most relevant and shocking event of the day, together with the protests. That they were also searching for voting material? Sure, but this is already mentioned in the precedent sentence for an operation the previous day much larger in that scope.
• That 40,000 protesters surrounded the Catalan economy department preventing the Civil Guard from exiting and vandalized several vehicles? Well, all of this is already mentioned in the section below, when the Jordis' detainment is covered (and I should remind you, it was you who added it, so I don't think you can argue such data is not there already).

As said, this article is about the Spanish constitutional crisis, and just as important as NPOV is WP:WEIGHT. Is a more detailed explanation of the 20 September events so badly needed here, despite them already having their own article, for a better understanding of the 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis? To the point of repeating essentially the same info twice throughout the article? I don't think so. Impru20 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Could this solve this controversy? [1] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: I am not edit warring, I have not made three reverts. ;-) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You directly violated WP:BRD despite I warning you about it. Specifically when it notes that one should Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. That's edit warring. ;) And no, reverting the revert and sending me to the talk page just because you believe you're in the universal possession of the right facts. Once discussion is started, it's nice it is allowed to end before you keep adding the controversial content (that's how BRD works). Impru20 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is that the info you added today was already added by you the other day in the "Referendum and subsequent events" section. Your "solution" just involves changing a sentence from place (which means you acnowledge such an information was being mentioned twice in the article), which is not the point of controversy. You keep adding the same info in two different places, and then you come arguing that this info is lacking and it is NPOV. As much as I can see, this could be in fact a violation of WP:UNDUE. I see a little more detailed info on the 20 September events relevant for providing context to the Jordis' detainment, but then, it's just absurd for the same exact info to be added to a previous section of the article which already links to another article providing exactly the same information. I don't see how not providing readers with the same info thrice is a NPOV breach. Instead, I see many reasons for this to constitute a BALANCE and UNDUE breaching. Impru20 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems you have not read my previous message on 17:41, 21 October 2017. I trimmed duplicated info. Please, check it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you just reworded the sentence and pretended to say you removed the "duplicated info". Duplicated info is not dependant on the wording, but on the information you convey. You're covering the same exact events twice through the article, with them already being covered in a separate article specifically intended for such an event. Also, I see the vehicle vandalizing mentioning much more usefull next to the Jordis' detainment covering, because it provides context. The other way around, it just seems like adding information just for the sake of repeating the same event through the article over and over again. Impru20 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sad to see the tone of this conversation. My only intention was to cooperate with you calmly. As proof of goodwill, I will ignore the fact that you have violated WP:3RR with this reversion.

Let's see other users opinions. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to refute your claim that this was a NPOV issue and why such an info should not be repeated, and yet you re-added the disputed content even before I was able to reply to you here. Then you said the revert was "not justified" despite me justifying it fully (with you not addressing it and even taunting me about the 3RR). If you wanted to "cooperate", your behaviour here would have been very different. You have been recently engaged in edit warring in topic-related 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Operation Anubis, using similar tactics there which, together with other users' intervention, resulted in the latter receiving a page protection and even in a ANI being suggested. If you feel I should be somehow addressed because of the 3RR (which I acknowledge I'm not happy with, but was forced to by your action), then by all means do something about it, but don't taunt or game me about it here because that doesn't make any good towards contributing to this page or even to this discussion.

I sincerely think you would do much more good discussing on content, so I suggest you to do so if you have something useful to provide about content. I don't think I can explain my position better than I already did, but I still haven't seen why was your content so badly needed or why the absence of it in that specific section (because the same content was already added by you to another one the other day, and kept) does breach NPOV. Impru20 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page. (In addition, talking about what happened on other pages out of context and without explaining the details is biased.)

I am listening to you. When I realized what you were saying about the duplicated content, I trimmed it.

I believe the events have to figure in the events to put everything in context. And yes, in this case it is a matter of WP:NPOV, when only one side of the coin is shown. What happened in the days 20 and 21 (the violent demonstrations which hampered the work of the Civil Guard, encouraged by pro-independence leaders) is having very important repercussions. It should not be mentioned just in passing when discussing the arrests.

Remember that not everyone reads all sections. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Same applies to you. Take quick check to the discussion and you'll see who has tried to comment on content (in addition, taunting another user about the 3RR out of context and without considering own behaviour is biased). But well, enough of it. Let's set aside this little skirmish (sort of) and focuse on content from now on, both of us, so as to keep this civilized and constructive. Agree?

When I spoke about duplicated content, I did not mean one or two sentences had similar content, but rather, that the same events were commented twice within the article, with a third reference to it provided by the redirect to Operation Anubis.

But in this case you seem to be misinterpreting what the "Judicial and police action" section is about. That is intended to cover the lead-up to the referendum, not to provide a fully-detailed coverage of what transpired on 20 September. Rajoy's own point of view is added on the Spanish government's actions on these days, so I can't see how "only one side of the coin is shown". The specific details about 20 September (vandalising of Civil Guard vehicles and the protest outside the economy department) do provide context for the Operation Anubis event, but not for the whole 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis or for the lead-up to the referendum. 20-S was only one out of several Spanish government and police actions, as well as one out of several Catalan protest actions, in the lead-up to the referendum. Such information does, however, provide context on the arrest of Sànchez and Cuixart, so it's better placed there. Your NPOV claim, thus, does not sustain itself, as 1) the events are indeed mentioned where they are needed, and 2) the section where you added these does indeed cover both points of view, both from the Generalitat and the Spanish government sides, and even from Podemos (which is in the middle or sort of...).

Indeed, not everyone may read all sections. Yet that doesn't mean we should repeat the same info over and over again. We are not in a situation where such an information is lacking, but rather, in one where such info is overabundant. As a result, it must be distributed so that both balance and proper weight are preserved. Impru20 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed the vandalising of cars is already mentioned in the same section. Specifically, in this sentence: Spanish prosecutors formally accused some protesters in Barcelona of sedition, after several Civil Guard patrol cars had been vandalised on Wednesday night. However, this does look appropiate as it hints at another action from one of the sides among the many happening within those days, instead of being randomly put there.

In any case, as a compromise, I've also added a mention to the 20 September events and the connection with the imprisonment of Sànchez and Cuixart in the lead section. Impru20 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanations. With your recent edits, especially this one, IMO this issue is solved. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion in Spain

The quality of this section seems to significantly differ from the rest of the article. About half of the references are dubious, as they are from minor (and highly biased) newspapers. Pretty much all the references are in Spanish instead of English. Moreover, the lack of a similar section giving the point of view of Catalan people makes the value of this section unclear, at the very least. Victorjjp (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I would even say most of its contents do not belong to this article (but rather, to either Catalan independence or Catalan independence referendum, 2017). I vote for leaving it out unless someone works this out in a much better way. Impru20 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Sanctions

A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Argentina & Uruguay

Hi! i found this information [2], [3], [4], [5] all have in spanish, 7:15, 28 October 2017 (Colombian time)

Argentina is already included at Catalan Republic (2017), but it looks like Uruguay should also be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Side of Mossos changed already ?

It reads in infobox that the Catalan police Mossos has changed sides 28.10 to Spanish side. There is no hint on international news that this has yet happened in real life or de facto. Decisions of Spain might not be followed in real life. Tuohirulla puhu 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The Mossos commanders, Pere Soler and Josep Lluís Trapero, willingly accepted their sacking and were replaced by officers appointed by the Spanish government. That looks like hint enough. Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the Generalitat has to change sides also. --Togiad (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Generalitat authorities such as the President, Vice President and regional Ministers have as of yet to acknowledge their sacking, so that would not be accurate. Impru20 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And the Val D'aran?

It looks like the Vall d'aran is also affected by such a crisis:

the law of Catalnuia assumes that Parlament of Catalunya recognize the right of the aranès people to decide of their own future (a Llei d’Aran estableix que “el Parlament de Catalunya reconeix el dret del poble aranès a decidir el seu futur”). Read https://cat.elpais.com/cat/2017/10/30/catalunya/1509392179_434490.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Map

@Impru20: Do you know about WP:BRD? When I revert your edit ([6]), you should not revert it back (as you did), but discuss it and try to reach consensus. WP:Edit warring is not an answer. Can you, please, explain why is it appropriate to illustrate "Spanish constitutional crisis" with a map of "Catalan Republic within Europe"? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Reach consensus to change my own edits? Or maybe you should explain why you reverted what is essentially a revertion/alteration of own edits? There is no explicit consensus for the current image and place, the only one being an implicit consensus of accepting the image and other edits I myself added and that I now change because the scope of the crisis has evolved to reach Belgium too. We adapt to circumstances and to sources. And there doesn't seem to be any protest against such a change except you yourself saying "ask for (explicit) consensus" over an issue which has not been subject to any debate, discussion or dispute to require so. Under such an argument, we would be essentially unable to edit Wikipedia, because we wouldn't be able to be bold without asking for explicit consensus all the time. As per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, if you have any reason so as to require for an explicit consensus to be reached for such a change to be approved, please provide it. Otherwise, asking for consensus just for the sake of asking for it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Impru20 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. You say that there doesn't seem to be any protest against such a change except you yourself saying "ask for (explicit) consensus". That's obviously not true. I didn't revert you just because there was no consensus. I clearly explained both here and in the edit summary the reason why I think it should be reverted, not just because of the lack of consensus, but because the article is about Spanish crisis. Also, your claim that you have implicit consensus is wrong. You made an edit, and you were reverted (by myself) on the same day. Where is that implicit consensus? See WP:EDITCONSENSUS: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This edit of yours was reverted, so there is obviously no implicit consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije, why not just give your reasons for why you don't like the map? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: The only reason you brought forward was that This article is about SPANISH constitutional crisis. Please, do not make such edits without consensus. I replied to you that, as Puigdemont fled to Brussels, the events are happening in Belgium too (and we have plenty of sources reporting on this), to which you said here that it should be discussed to reach consensus because it was a SPANISH event (so, we would say that the Korean War did not happen in the Sea of Japan because it was KOREAN? Or we should say that Euromaidan can't be said to have happened throughout Ukraine because Maidan Nezalezhnosti is a Kiev place only?). I see no connection between the crisis' origin and where does it actually happen or spillover, and so far, unless you want to actually dispute sources and argue that Puigdemont is in fact not in Brussels, I see little in the face of trying for artificially forcing a consensus over it. This, related to your reasoning on actual content.

Then, when I speak of "implicit" consensus I speak of my previous edits, and I was answering to your claim that Please, do not make such edits without consensus. The previous map and place were not there based on any consensus or discussion but under WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Then, you outrightly asking for "reaching consensus" based just on a nationality trait entirely unrelated to the event at hand was not reasonable at all given that these were based on EDITCONSENSUS only, which is what I've explained to you in my previous comment.

Nonetheless, I've courtesy reverted my last edit to allow you to further explain why you think it was wrong, should you wish for discussion to proceed on the issue. So far, however, I see little supporting an opposition to the change based on current arguments. Impru20 (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Belgium-argument verges on the spurious. The crisis (or whatever you wish to call it; in any event, the thing this article is about) is about Spain and its borders, its constitution, its identity, etc. It's happening in Spain and it's happening in Catalonia. Belgium, rather randomly, is where Puigdemont is right now, but Belgium is not part of the topic of this article. I don't really care that much about which map is chosen (both show Catalonia and Spain's borders) but I don't think Belgium, the location of one the protagonists' exile, fits in the equation here at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Puigdemont's lawyer is fighting for him to testify in Belgium rather than in Spain ([7] [8]). They've also said Puigdemont is unlikely to return home any time soon ([9] [10] [11]). Puigdemont's presence has also had an effect on Belgium's politics ([12]). So, aside from being "the location of one the protagonists' exile", the Belgian judiciary could get involved in the whole crisis at some point and the Belgian government has been already hit by the crisis. It look more than merely a "rather random" place. If Belgium becomes another scenario of the ongoing crisis, we should indeed report on it. Saying that it should not be mentioned just because "this is about Spanish borders" looks very off; this is surely not the only single event in Earth which has started in a specific place, then having spillovered to other places. It's clear some events of this crisis are taking place in Belgium. Impru20 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should indeed report on it, I just don't think the country of Belgium or the city of Brussels are a core part of this article's topic, even should events there intensify. It still remains about Catalonia and Spain. At least this article with this title does (in my opinion). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course. But the mention to Belgium in the infobox has never been intended to show them as a "core part" of this article's topic (dunno why it was understood like that), but just to report that events are also happening there. The topic remains obviously about Catalonia and Spain, and any event happening in Belgium should only be reported as long as those have a connection with the core topic of the article. Impru20 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, only now did I see that part of the dispute was about the infobox as well (Hey, the title of this section is "Map"!). Zero objections to mentioning Belgium there. I just didn't think 'Belgium' was a particularly good argument for a change of maps. (But I'm done now :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually had thought the issue was about Belgium because of the issue about the nationality and places, so I was misled too. I've now checked the discussion again I now see the actual dispute is about the map and not about the mention to Belgium, so I will restore this.

About the map, well, I care little which map to use, but I preferred the newer one because it shows a glance at Belgium too (since events are happening there), and because it hints at the international attention the crisis is having around the world. But I'm not so much concerned about this. Impru20 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• The map that was in the infobox before my revert (this one) is misleading. It shows "Location of the Catalan Republic within Europe". Consensus was reached at Talk:Catalonia and also at Talk:Catalan Republic (2017) that Catalan Republic as a state does not exist. That is why Catalonia article describes Catalonia as a Spanish autonomous community, and Catalan Republic (2017) article describes the Republic as "former state". Thus, putting a map of "Catalan Republic" here is misleading and gives undue weight to the secessionist view. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The caption just says "Catalonia" - it doesn't say it's Republic, or an autonomous region, or a state, or anything else? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Try to click the link I provided in my comment above. You'll see the article as it looked like before my revert. Yes, the caption was "Location of the Catalan Republic within Europe". Vanjagenije (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with the map, as it now stands, with the current caption. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: So, your issue was with the map or with the caption? Because if it's the latter, then the newer map (which shows current Catalonia's territory as an autonomous community) can be used but with the current (or a similar) caption not making reference to the "Catalan Republic". Instead you reverted everything (the map, the caption and the mention to Brussels) without specifying what was wrong with it, so I had assumed your issue was with all of three of these and/or with the Belgium thing. Impru20 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not only the caption. A map showing location of Catalonia within Europe is not appropriate here. This is "Spanish" constitutional crisis which is a crisis between Spain and Catalonia. So, showing Catalonia within Europe without Spain is misleading. It looked like this is a crisis in relations between Catalonia and Europe. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Civil organizations

Also Societat Civil Catalana is a party to the conflict, isn't it? 84.221.245.14 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a major actor. Impru20 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Foreign involvement

Why is the section on suspected foreign influence on social media being removed? Concerns on interference in politics from Russia and elsewhere have been live issues since before the last U.S. presidential election, in the Brexit referendum, and elsewhere. This is relevant, referenced, content. It is directly relevant to the topic and was presented in neutral manner. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Such a section did not only not establish any connection between these alleged events and the constitutional crisis, but also attempted to justify both Russia and Venezuela as active players in the crisis, positioning them alongside Catalan pro-independentists in the crisis, when this is just untrue. Indeed, the section only made reference to an analysis of the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs on supposed social media disruption against the Spanish government, allegedly from Russia and Venezuela, days before the referendum (and they did not even say that those countries' governments had an active role on it). So far, however, the entire section did not provide any connection to the actual constitutional crisis (if anything, its place would be either Catalan independence referendum, 2017 or Catalan declaration of independence). More so, if the addition of this information is sought as some sort of resemblance to what happened in the 2016 US election and the Brexit referendum, then Catalan independence referendum, 2017 would be the place for it, as those are all electoral processes. Impru20 (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All of which begs the question of why there are three separate short articles on what is essentially one issue. If you can't see a direct relationship between alleged interference in a referendum which lead to a UDI which lead to a constitutional crisis then perhaps there might be a PoV issue at play. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a PoV issue at play; of the one adding such an information in this article, trying to use an analysis from the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs not making any mention at all of this constitutional crisis to mix it with alleged "Bolivarian propaganda" and trying to portray Russia and Venezuela as active players in the crisis and as "international supporters" of Catalan independentists. So yeah, there was a very serious WP:NPOV issue, mixed with a serious WP:SYNTH and WP:OFFTOPIC ones in order to portray something not stated by the sources and not even directly related to the event at hand. Catalan independence referendum, 2017 covers the specific electoral process while this article covers the constitutional crisis. I dunno why Catalan declaration of independence was created, specially when Catalan Republic (2017) exists too. There've been some attempts by some users at trying to create an immense host of articles covering essentially the same topic (including, but not limited to, 2017 Barcelona anti-independence demonstrations, Yes Campaign, Operation Anubis, Law on the Referendum on Self-determination of Catalonia, Electoral Commission of Catalonia, etc). All of these could be very well merged into other articles. Impru20 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So - unsurprisingly - there are now multiple secondary sources talking about Russian interference in Catalan, including Telesur, The Express, and Spanish newspaper of record, El Pais. At least one quotes Spanish ministers. So I think we'll have to take those reliable sources over "this is just untrue." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me but... where do these say that the Russian and Venezuela governments have taken a side in this constitutional crisis and have offered international support to Catalonia (specially when they have not even officially recognized Catalan independence)? That's what was stated before and what was added to the infobox. You also fail to answer nearly anything of what I said (what has the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs analysis to do with the Catalan crisis or with the Russian and Venezuelan governments' stances, or with this article at all?). Also, the "Spanish newspaper of record" El País can't be considered as a reliable source when it comes to cover the Catalan issue. They've taken a side themselves and do not even care at being neutral at all. Impru20 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, nor do you. There was a paragraph on the issue of Russian and Ve- ah, why am I bothering. Your PoV is clearly going to compel you to block additions. Good luck with convincing the RS Noticeboard that El Pais isn't a reliable source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You could start off by explaining where is my POV altogether, yet how you can't see no POV at all in sentences that, for example, unambiguously state that Russia's RT and Sputnik would use Venezuelan social bots that would typically promote the Bolivarian government in Venezuela to attack the Spanish government.. That is stated by a source? Or is an entirely undeniable fact so as to present it as an unambiguous truth? Nor do I can see how "Bolivarian propaganda" constitutes a "central topic" to the Catalan crisis (no sources about such a "fact" being true, either). I can also see no answer whatsover as to why this is the proper article for this information instead of Catalan independence referendum, 2017. Because the presented info relates to events transpiring before or during the referendum with the alledged intention to affect its outcome. Impru20 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see why the information in the infobox wasn't probably the best edit, but the "International intervention" section was fine. I will place it back for now, but not the infobox.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, in case we are to add Russia into the infobox in the future, take a look at the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt where the United States is listed as:

• United States (alleged)

This could possibly be used in the future to make it more neutral while addressing allegations of interference.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose the addition of Russia and especially Venezuela to the infobox (at least for now and until more information is available), but agree that the "International intervention" section is indeed absolutely - it is central to the narrative, rather than "off topic" as has been suggested. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Conditional keep It is very obviously relevant but should only be included if people dont try to push their agenda by stating controversial things as facts.Kim song-chi (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree. If someone wishes to try to present this as an encyclopedic-worthy section, THEN do so, but then please try not to turn this into some sort of this-is-all-a-Russian-and-Bolivarian-masteplan-and-conspiration-to-destabilize-Europe reasoning to try to discredit the pro-independence side, because this is obviously not "central to the topic" (there has been no word of either Russian or Venezuelan interference in the whole Catalan independence issue for five years since it all started), and very unfortunate (specially when some people randomly dub as "POV" well-reasoned arguments against inclusion of this content). Work it out so that it makes sense to the topic and is not a nest of OR and NPOV statements or just remove it altogether. Impru20 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Also completely agree that this is very obviously relevant. I don't see anyone pushing an agenda. What has been included thus far are very allegations that have been published in multiple mainstream media reliable sources. Arguing that possible foreign interference in the area of Catalan independence (including, obviously, interference in the referendum) somehow doesn't relate to the Spanish constitutional crisis is not credible. Not seeing the relevance of this being the first time possible interference has come to light or why it would have been needed to have been reported on previously... there's no logic to that argument. Obviously we're not going to "just remove it altogether" because someone doesn't like it. It clearly satisfies notability and verifiability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't see "anyone pushing an agenda", but you did not have any issue in accusing others of POV-pushing (and this when the much-contested infobox additions were still in place and some people kept re-adding them for no reason... as well as the "Bolivarian propaganda" theme somehow being a central topic to the article too?) despite there being reasons to doubt this is the proper article for this information to be shown. The "alleged international intervention" seems to revolve on a particular event related to the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 and its consequences. Yet, somehow, some claim the proper article for this information is this one. Such content may satisfy notability and verifiability if properly worked out, but I still can't see how it is a "central topic" for this article or how it even satisfies WP:TOPIC here, yet it deserves no mention at all for Catalan independence referendum, 2017. It should probably be the other way around: the issue could be of mention here, but it should deserve an independent section in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 only, not here, as it seems a rather tangential topic to the constitutional crisis. Impru20 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, I didn't, as I wasn't involved in any edits on the infobox (all I've done there is say I don't think two countries should be included as yet), or any edits on "Bolivarian propaganda". I have seen someone try to remove all reference to the issue from this article, which is POV-pushing. You accepted above that it should remain. Others agree it should remain. So what are you arguing about? (That's a rhetorical question, no need for a wall-of-text response repeating the same points again). I've not been to the other article yet. By all means add it there too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this looks otherwise. You even dubbed as "relevant" the re-addition of such content without removing it altogether. Had you cared to read me (and the amount of text is not that large, as what I wrote is fairly similar in size to your own paragraphs ;) ), you would have understood that what I accepted is that this could satisfy notability and verifiability if properly worked out, but that this article was not the place for it as this does not satisfy WP:TOPIC. I never agreed that it should remain here as it is. Also, you say "others agree it should remain". Yeah, and others agree it should be removed too. You're free to dub a small paragraph as a "wall-of-text response" as well as not read it if you please, but don't manipulate my words, my friend. If you don't read or don't like what I say, it's your fault, not mine. :) Impru20 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks better. The opinions of most parties have been expressed. Thanks for talking this out.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the Spanish government has been very cautious not to directly accuse Russia of anything. The article seems to not make this clear enough.Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph two and the callout box in the relevant section seem pretty clear, no? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"though it would not confirm". Requires something stronger, on the lines of "though it has made clear it was not accusing (the Russian government)"Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that's not what the sources say - unless you have a source that does? The current wording in paragraph two and the quote "And I use the correct expression: from Russian territory. That's not to say necessarily that we have determined that it is the Russian government." is clear and sourced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Who voted how in Senate on triggering art. 155 ?

According to [13]: "The authorization has received 214 votes in favor of the PP, PSOE, Ciudadanos, UPN, Coalición Canaria and 47 negatives votes of Unidos Podemos, ERC, PDeCAT, PNV, EH Bildu, Compromís and Nueva Canarias."----Bancki (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "2017" from article name

There is currently no article named "Spanish constitutional crisis" as it simply redirects here. As this is an ongoing event and 2018 begins in only a few days, I propose we change the name back to Spanish constitutional crisis as 2017 has ended but the event has not. We can re-introduce a date once there are conclusive sources that this conflict has been resolved indefinitely, or perhaps "Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present)" if that name is in compliance with guidelines. Feel free to include other proposals; the only thing I can say with confidence is that this event is not limited to 2017 and we'll need to update the article's name to reflect that. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:NCEVENTS and WP:PRECISE. The fact that no other Wikipedia article exists under such a name is not relevant; constitutional crises are a kind of event which may reoccur and "Spanish constitutional crisis" would be neither stand-alone not unambiguous enough to easily identify the article's topical scope by itself (and arguably, other events throughout Spanish history could be identified as "constitutional crises"; i.e. numerous civil wars (such as the Carlist ones or the big one at 1936–39), coup d'etats (most notably, the 23-F one or Miguel Primo de Rivera's coup resulting in the suspension of the 1876 Constitution); the 1898 crisis; the crisis erupting from Alfonso XII's death in 1885 with a stillborn King; the 1917 crisis; and so on). Take the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis example on NCEVENTS: There are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis. Also, searching throughout Wikipedia, it looks like except for the Tuvaluan constitutional crisis (which seems like a rogue title anyway), articles for other constitutional crises throughout Wikipedia using the generic "constitutional crisis" denomination do show the year in the title (See Category:Constitutional crises). Impru20 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies if this sounds harsh, but you're only responding to a fraction of what I said. You are right, there are no other articles under such a name. The only problem is, that's not what I argued. I am proposing we remove "2017" from the title because this is an ongoing event not limited to the year 2017 and the date in the title has become obsolete. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard Then that would mean the title could be changed to something along the lines of "2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis" or something, but as you proposed removing the year from the title I replied by explaining why it should not. Having a different date is a whole different thing, but that was not your right-away proposal. Impru20 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Impru20 Note that I both explicitly supported and proposed the name Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present) - unless guidelines recommend that an ongoing event is revised to have its name be from the start date to the present (such as "2017-18" rather than "2017-present" or no year until the event has concluded), it would imply that during 2018 the event concludes which for now would go against WP:CRYSTAL. My original proposal was and still is, however, to remove the year until the event has concluded unless inclusion of the year of a current multi-year event is conventional. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is still to don't remove the year, and I've already explained it throughly so that should be it. On your alternative proposal, something along the lines of "2017–present" would also be okay, but I thought having the date in parentheses at the end was limited to military conflicts? The date should be in front according to WP:NCEVENTS IMHO, though I'm not exactly familiarized with the use of dates at the end. Impru20 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The name of the article should certainly use the year at the front once we can confidently declare that the event has ended. As this is an event that has not recurred, it's questionable if a standard format is applicable here: "If a time indicator is used in the title of an article on an event that doesn't recur at regular intervals (or didn't recur at all) there's no "standard format" for the representation of the time indicator, so there is for instance" but events that put the date at the end often use a comma. There seems to be a clear agreement that we should modify the date to indicate that it is not limited to 2017, but the way in which we modify it remains to be decided by consensus here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is this supposed "analysis by the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs"?

The article talks of "an analysis by the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs" and links to an elpais article, which in turn does *not* link to the actual analysis. It seems that "the analysis" is the elpais article itself, that is, not a peer-reviewed, academic publication (which the George Washington U. affiliation insinuates).

The article itself is laughable:

"To carry out the study, researchers used an advanced software program that makes use of Spanish technology to measure and analyze big data. Its author, Javier Lesaca, is a visiting scholar at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University."

"Researchers" here means this sole Javier. "advanced software program" sounds impressive but there is nothing to substantiate anything scientific/advanced about the analysis.

"One clear example is the fact that RT published a number of news stories about Catalonia, which were then shared via social networks, prompting a conversation with messages and replies"

How is it suspicious that a global news medium like RT published a number of stories about Catalonia in the run up to the 1st of October? And how is it suspicious that the articles were shared and prompted conversations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.46.172 (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This news article seems pretty solid - despite your objections - https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/11/11/inenglish/1510395422_468026.html - as far as the raw data of the analysis - not sure who would be interested in doing that, beyond some academic institution.50.111.48.95 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where to start. The whole part of the "Russian interference" is complete fake news, promoted by El País and especially by his then former managing editor, David Alandete, author of the article quoted. About the George Washington study, it is not so, as was pointed out the only author is Javier Lesaca, visiting researcher in the GW School but that is all the relationship between the study and the School. Nobody is here asking about the "raw data of the analysis" but a quote to the original study and not to a newspaper informing about it. The author of the so called study, Javier Lesaca is an Spanish, visiting researcher at the George Washington School, but whose mother university if the conservative and Spanish nationalist Universidad of Navarra. Zkvrev (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

um, Zkrev, my statement said academic institution - as in a Reliable Source - not a Wiki editor. You have not put forth anything that substantiates El Pais as being "fake news" - what is your basis for that? 104.169.41.8 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Law on referendum skipped legally-required steps?

This paragraph does not state clearly whether skipping legally-required steps is an opinion of the opposition or not. There is no source with the legal discussion either.

Catalan opposition parties accused JxSí and CUP of fast-tracking the law through parliament by altering the day's agenda to introduce the issue, violating their parliamentary rights by skipping legally-required steps for bills to go through before being put up to vote. Members from JxSí acknowledged it was not their preferred method, but justified it in that it was the only way to get the bill on the floor without being blocked and that it was not "any ordinary law".

Filiprino (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a sentence in that paragraph explaining that. In addition I added some references and moved some of the contents to the specific article of the law: Law on the Referendum on Self-determination of Catalonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljullu (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Now it is clear. Great. Thanks. Filiprino (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article to "Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present)"

As it is no longer 2018, the title is once again outdated (see the above section at Talk:2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis#Proposal to remove "2017" from article name). Now, of course, we could just extend it to 2017-19, but then if the crisis continues beyond this year, we'll have the exact same discussion come the end of this year and the beginning of next year regarding the title. A better way would be to adopt the suggestion by User:BrendonTheWizard above, to rename this article to Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present), until when the crisis ends. 216.125.251.26 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've doubts on whether the crisis as such is still ongoing. The article is meant to cover the constitutional crisis originating from a legal clash between the Parliament and Government of Catalonia and the Government of Spain. That resulted in direct rule being enforced until an election took place and until Quim Torra became President. True, the Catalan crisis as a whole is still ongoing, but it has been since 2012 and not all of that period has been of constitutional crisis. As the article only covers events until Torra's investiture, I would say to put 1 June 2018 as the end date for that specific constitutional crisis, as that's the date in which direct rule officially ended [14] (and it also happens to be the date in which Rajoy's government fell, though this is not directly related). Impru20^talk

If what you have mentioned is truly the case, then somebody has to update the Politics section in Portal:Current events as it still has this article listed as a "current event". (Same user as above but using a different public computer) 216.125.251.46 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that shouldn't be the case, most specially when the article has not received any major update since April/May 2018 at least. Done it. Impru20^talk 23:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I am obliged to respond. Of course if the Spanish constitutional crisis is ongoing (which could be demonstrated quickly if any content in the article relates to issues that have not been settled as of now, or if any news articles demonstrate a continued crisis), then - as is procedure - it's fine to change the "18" to "19" in the title, but - just as I supported last year - I would support using "-Present" in the title. The peak of the crisis was certainly the Catalan independence crisis of 2017, but I'm not yet able to comment on whether or not the crisis is ongoing (as I haven't done any research on the topic in a while). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The Catalan crisis as a political event at large is still ongoing, but it has been since 2012. The specific episode this article is meant to cover is the legal and constitutional crisis resulting from the events ensuing from the Parliament's passing of the referendum laws which were dubbed as anti-constitutional, as well as the referendum events and the attempt to declare independence, all of which resulted in direct rule being enforced and in a period of constant clashing between the Catalan government, on the one hand, and the Spanish Constitutional Court and Government, on the other. As per sources and the article's own scope, it seems obvious that specific episode is over as the new Catalan government has not violated any new law, nor has it openly clashed at the legal level with neither the Constitutional Court or the Spanish government, nor has it tried to enforce Catalan independence or call a new referendum. I've, however, some doubts on which specific date should be used to put an end to it. For now, I've been bold and used 1 June 2018 since that's the date in which direct rule ended, with Torra having been elected earlier on May after a particularly troubling government formation process. Impru20^talk 14:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)