Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edit Warring

Some serious ongoing issues with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV when trying to improve the Introduction section to this page (March 2017) .

I am worried about the overall quality of this introduction and unable to consistently improve it owing to the enormous volume of cross editing and reverts emanating from that source. Hopefully a senior editor will have a look at it soon. Wikimucker (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I link this to my answer at Wikimucker talk page here.

This user has keeping editing the article without any care to accuracy or care, introducing WP:POV comments to the lead section on the independence process; using the lead section to introduce personal comments instead of engaging in proper discussion in a talk page (which I did on his, yet he still keeps such an edit warring and even deleted the discussion on his talk), complaining on issues which are clearly sourced and showing a obvious bias on the issue (speaking of the "Catalan State" (which does not exist, as Catalonia is an autonomous community in Spain and not an independent state; or speaking on the non-existent "vital" need to clarify "who pays the wages" (as he told me in his talk page) of the Prosecutor starting the inquiry on the Catalonia government (which is not even the topic at hand or one shown by sources; and even if it was "vital", Catalonia doesn't have its own judiciary so this is obviously NOT in doubt)). See here and here).

Wikimucker keeps adding that the Prosecutor Office of Catalonia (translated from "Fiscalía Superior de Catalunya") is directly dependant on the Spanish Government or the Spanish State, which is wrong. It's obviously part of the Spanish State, but within a hierarchy, and there's NO OTHER STATE here because Catalonia is JUST an autonomous community as of March 2017. So, instead of making wild accusations (which curiously come as a result of Wikimucker's own blatant mistakes), I'd thank Wikimucker to actually stop showing a biased behaviour in here. Impru20 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This user's removal of the discussions at his talk without responding (or doing so very briefly) clearly shows his nigh to zero will to enter discussion despite my attempts at it. I linked it at the beginning of this comment, but you can check it here too.

I'd also like to point out that something similar happened yesterday at Next Basque parliamentary election, when this user mistook this article with the Basque parliamentary election, 2016 one and kept engaging in edit warring despite my pleas that he was editing the wrong place. And, just as today, he removed my comments on his talk page. So this is quite common from him, it seems. Impru20 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

May I propose that user Wikimucker engages in discussion on the issues at hand instead of keeping edit warring by adding information already covered in other articles? There's NO sense in adding the exact same information covered in Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. A link to that article is already provided in the background section. This article should be left to cover the background of 2014 to the present day, since the background previous to 2014 should be left for that article as it is now, because we don't usually repeat the same background for several articles when it's not needed. Impru20 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Statute of Autonomy 2006 is a key background link as it is the current legal status of Catalonia and its government. The background to the 2014 article itself could be improved of course Wikimucker (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimucker I've tried to enter into discussion with you again, but you (again) deleted the whole text in your talk without even caring to answer. I'd have to assume that, definitely, you don't have any will or intention to enter talks. Stop edit warring. Impru20 (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not come onto Wikipedia today just to start reverting other editors work wholesale. I never EVER do. Please accept that this article must read correctly in Good Stylistic English and in a way that is widely understandable to English speakers who are used to different constitutional systems in their own countries. A Spanish 'Community' is analagous to a US or Australian State for example. 2 Governments are mentioned in the introduction so which one is doing what is a vital clarification to avoid confusion.

And do accept that all of my work on this piece is entirely in Good Faith and solely intended to make a complex localised political issue more widely understandable across the english speaking world. Were I able to finish a sentence, never mind a paragraph, before it is linguistically mangled or reverted wholesale you might have seen a coherent end product yesterday. As you seem to insist on the last word in any talk Wiki page you visit then have a short one for yourself. Wikimucker (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

First, I do not come to Wikipedia either to keep reverting your non-sense edits and for you to remove my attempts to enter discussion with you and to accuse me of breaking I-don't-know-how-many-Wikipedia-rules without-any-proof as you did earlier (without considering it could be yourself the one breaking those). Some of your edits are entirely random or have no sense, and instead of entering discussion you kept deleting my attempts at it from your talk. I've tried to enter into a discussion with you ever since your blatant errors at Next Basque parliamentary election, and you have consistently removed my approaches from your talk without even answering (you only did so once before deleting, and even then it looked like it was a nuisance for you to talk instead of keeping edit warring as you did). You don't acknowledge that some of your edits may be wrong and keep engaging in edit warring despite my pleas to discuss the issue first. As you'll see, I've not reverted some of your other contributions to this article, so you can't argue it's WP:OWN here because I've no issue at you adding whatever information you like as this is not mine. But you need to accept that, while some of your contributions are controversial-free, some others aren't. And the fact that other users revert you on those doesn't mean WP:OWN; specially given you have no issue in showing an open and clear disregard for others' opinions.

The matter of our clashes has not been "Good Stylistic English" issues, or not most of them. Our first major engagement was with the "preparations" issue. Despite the source and myself telling you that the subject of the sentence was meant to be the preparations for the election and not the election, you kept changing it to mean the election, which forced me to reword the whole sentence a dozen times before you stopped reverting me. I think this is the only clash that could truly be considered as a matter of "style". But then you complained on who the Prosecutor Office "employers" were and showed a clear lack of knowledge on the issue when talking about the "Catalan State". There's NO Catalan State because Catalonia is an autonomous region within Spain. Spain is the ONLY State here. And despite me noting you on this, you keep reverting and confusing the Public Prosecutor Office of Catalonia with the State Prosecutor Office (which are different bodies). I tried various rewordings and you kept reverting and introducing personal comments within the article itself. I finally thought the issue was solved this morning with the new rewording, but then you kept edit warring over the Background section by adding content already covered in either the linked articles or the available templates. Obviously, background before 2014 should be left for the Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014 or others to cover, and this article should focuse on the specific background for the current proposed Catalan independence referendum. I don't know what meaning does it have to explain the Catalan Statute of Autonomy here, or the Catalan municipal referendums held throughout 2009 to 2011. You may mention them if you wish, but create a whole separate sub-section for those when they are already covered in the 2014 referendum article?

So, no, this is not a "Stylistic English" issue, but one of a clear confusion of Spanish judiciary bodies and state structure (Catalonia is NOT a State, as you pointed out in the edit summaries yesterday), which leads to biased information being in place. Given that this is such a delicate matter (the one on Catalan independence) neutrality should be preserved as much as possible, with avoidance of WP:NPOV comments such as those derived from thoughts such as "it's vital to know who pays the wages" (just like if we had to cast doubts on the judiciary's actions based on who pays their wages. That's not provided by sources, so we must limit to what sources say).

Anything else, I don't have any issue to discuss any issue with you if you actually don't keep deleting my own comments at your talk. But I'll rather see that than an endless and pointless edit warring. Just have the will to do it. Impru20 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalan independence referendum, 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716165026/http://www.icps.cat/archivos/sondeigs/SC2011NacEspCatala.pdf to http://www.icps.cat/archivos/sondeigs/SC2011NacEspCatala.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I don't see any discussion here about it, and I removed it. The article is fine. There was one comment about "unconstitutionality" that added no value so I struck it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Current event template necessary?

Is the current event template needed on this page? My understanding is that it's for an event that is currently ongoing. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC) >

Might be a good idea now. - Toothswung (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Split?

Article is approaching 100k, per WP:Article size there should be a split for readability.Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't think that's necessary. I wouldn't be against splitting the actual vote and the regional unrest though. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is already split like this, Operation Anubis is a separate article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Its 102k and still more reaction will follow.
How about splittin the responses and perhaps shortly the post-result reactions?Lihaas (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I split the post-result reactions (and expct more).Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are enough sub-pages already; I oppose creating any additional sub-pages until this one reaches 200k. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Polish statement

Poland fully respects the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of the Kingdom of Spain... http://www.mfa.gov.pl/en/news/mfa_statement_on_developments_in_catalonia;jsessionid=F1C5BF255F9D91EE7C9EFB5D1D1F67E2.cmsap1p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ja (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's one for Reactions to the Catalan independence referendum, 2017. --Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Seizure of .cat domains

I read a news item from the EFF ([1]) that noted the Spanish government had raided the domain registry for the .cat TLD and seized domain names pertaining to the referendum. Perhaps this information could be incorporated into the article. 2600:1700:E190:2D20:81F7:E810:7257:BC44 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is reliable coverage of it for you to cite, it could be added to the article. Other articles that information like this would be relevant on include: 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Operation Anubis. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Other piece of information considers that the Spanish government did not do that, but that a tribunal espagnol did it (Read http://datanews.levif.be/ict/actualite/un-tribunal-espagnol-censure-des-sites-web-catalans/article-normal-728159.html). It might be the same issue as they also say: «Des descentes ont été réalisées aussi chez Internet Society et dans la filiale espagnole de l'Electronic Frontier Foundation». — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 'attacks' vs. 'raids'

If you were watching the videos all day, you will have seen the Spanish forces trampling over non-violent voters sitting or standing with hands up. "Attacks" is a perfectly acceptable description of this, and in fact the Wiktionary description of "raid" includes "attack": "An attack or invasion for the purpose of making arrests, seizing property, or plundering" - Francis Tyers · 18:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not particularly care about whether they are called attacks or raids but whatever they are called we should have a reliable (and ideally neutral) source confirming the term.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian has "attacks": https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/01/catalan-independence-referendum-spain-catalonia-vote-live

• "Catalan referendum: hundreds injured as police attack protesters – video "
• "Videos show police hitting people in the crowd with batons while voters hold up their hands, police dragging voters from polling stations by their hair and Spanish police attacking Catalan firefighters."

- Francis Tyers · 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Attacks and brutality (compared with the Franco regime) reported by the Catalan News, see article with video: SPECIAL EDITION: 1-Oct-17 TV News: 'Hundreds injured amidst police violence against referendum voters' --OnWikiNo (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not call Catalan News a neutral source (though the Guardian certainly is).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, the pictures do not lie. We can clearly see the abuse of power. --OnWikiNo (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional reports: Today the ghost of fascism stalked Catalonia. But it did not count on the response (The Canary) --OnWikiNo (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we can not see the abuse of power from the pictures. We need to have it reported by a neutral reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. "Attack" is very unlikely to be NPOV in this context. We are not talking about military action here. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Since when does "attack" imply "military action"? Keyakakushi46 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Raid a fair word to use by its definition, and "attack for the purpose of making arrests, seizing property, or plundering" does include attack. I support using words that lack any POV-charged definition, but when the very definition is precisely what objectively happened I have no issue with it. Attack is also accurate in this context: "An attempt to cause damage, injury to, or death of opponent or enemy." Firing rubber bullets was - by definition - an attack. Both "raid" and "attack" are definitively accurate. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of the comments.. and after to saw the videos, the term "attack" can be arguable, but Attack it's what all we had to see.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The correct term is raids. Talking about attacks by a national police force which is much less violent than the Catalan regional police is just preposterous. There are plenty of videos of demonstrators physically assaulting police as well. http://www.periodistadigital.com/politica/sucesos/2017/10/01/el-golpista-que-deja-ko-de-un-sillazo-a-un-guardia-civil-al-grito-de-visca-catalunya.shtml Gaditano23 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Raid is actually a more negative term than attack as it can associated with plundering and raping people. Seizure would be more appropriate if you seeking to utilize words that would offend the Spanish government less. ~ Prince of Catalonia.

I am pro-independence catalan and I don't think attack is fair. I would suggest excessive and unbalanced use of the force. Those people were not there to attack anyone, but to accomplish the (their) law. However it is fair to admit during this procedure they freely and unjustifiedly attacked in some cases individuals not even blocking them, but the whole thing should not be named attack (in the strict sense). Anyway, I´m starting to see Gaditano being present in all these articles with the sole intention to chase independentism. It´s a ¨blatant lie that regional police is more violent than national one (indeed they are facing a court sentence because of theirr passivity, some were even crying and hugging people as we all applauded them considering them our brothers, uncles, as they live here...)and it´s also a blatant lie that theres plenty of videos of people assaulting the police. Just show me 2 more. The seat one over a man with bulletproof chest waiting to have an excuse for attack is obvioulsy overreacted in order to have an argument to counterattack) but we can´t prove it so I accept it. Just to more. Physical strike. Come on, just see the source you presented, it´s not serious or unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As Prince of Catalonia, I must insist that we follow proper Anglo-Saxon decor with the use of our words. The word attack is a valid description for the events that have transpired. Look of the meaning of the word. What does attack mean? Do you know what it means? Some of you are thinking of vandalize, brutalize or murder as the meaning of that word, are you not? But is that really the definition of the word attack? The best way to look at the word is how it is utilized as a military order. Say you were my soldier and I told you to attack someone, would that mean bash them with the blunt side of your firearm or shoot the target with the firearm? This means we should utilize context with the verbs we utilize especially when their meaning isn't 100% identifiable or concise. ~ Prince of Catalonia

European Council on Foreign Relations View should be incorporated

See below:

http://www.ecfr.eu/amp-article/commentary_spanish_democracy_faces_its_biggest_challenge_in_decades_7233

The unconstitutional and illegal ‘referendum’ on Catalan independence scheduled for Sunday 1 October is a grave threat to Spanish democracy and social cohesion.

The unilateral political process thus far has contravened every applicable legal framework – from the parliamentary rules of Catalonia’s own Statute of Autonomy to the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. Legislation setting out the vote was forced through the Catalan parliament by the pro-independence bloc, which has a majority of seats at the Catalan Parliament despite not winning a majority of the popular vote at the last election. In doing so, they violated the rights of opposition parties - who will not take part in the referendum - and there is no recognized census, no Electoral Board, no “no” campaign, and no impartial body such as the OSCE or the CoE to oversee the process.

Most obviously, the referendum violates the 1978 Spanish Constitution, which proclaims that sovereignty lies with the Spanish people as a whole, while recognizing the right to significant autonomy of its constituent nationalities and regions and solidarity amongst them. This principle was recently upheld by the Spanish Constitutional Court, which called for the referendum to be suspended. The decision by the Catalan government to press ahead nonetheless thus deprives over 45 million Spaniards of their democratic right to decide on the future of their own country.

This is therefore not a proper referendum but a plebiscite of a decision imposed on the rest of the democratic body in Catalonia and Spain as a whole. It is a gross breach of democratic guarantees. The draft plans for an independent Catalan Republic, moreover, which are already on the table, do not meet the thresholds of the Council of Europe for pluralistic democracies, separation of powers, rule of law and equal rights.

The Catalan government has not tabled any proposal for constitutional reform nor presented its proposals within the established institutions of Spain, a democracy and de facto a federal state. No democracy could accept such a unilateral upending of its constitutional system. And nor should Europe accept the unilateral breakaway of one of its member states’ regions on this basis.

European integration was designed precisely to overcome the divisiveness and trauma of nationalist, identity politics, which are at the heart of the matter in Catalonia. At a time when the union is already under serious strain, this crisis risks aggravating the spectre of European fragmentation, while also providing an opportunity for external forces, including actors linked to Russia, to destabilize democracy.

It is also dividing Catalonia and polarizing all of Spain, putting in jeopardy its democratic stability and economic recovery. While most Catalans want some form of referendum and many want independence (around 40%, according to most polls), there are many others who would see it as a tragedy to suddenly become foreigners in their own country. They want to remain both Spanish and EU citizens. Spain and Catalonia are deeply intertwined, conforming a diverse country.

We therefore urge the Catalan government to halt their political course towards unilateral independence and de-escalate divisive rhetoric. We appeal for much-needed political dialogue between both the Spanish and Catalan government, which has been wanting in recent years, within the framework of our constitutional rules, institutions and principles. This political dialogue could also include negotiations towards constitutional reform and more home rule for Catalonia, to be put to a vote in both Catalonia and Spain as a whole.

The current crisis is a grave threat to Spanish democracy. But our leaders still have an opportunity to rise to the challenge and show the statesmanship needed to put the long-term interests of the Catalan and Spanish people first. Gaditano23 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that is WP:UNDUE. Despite its pompous name, this is neither an official EU council nor an official European council. Its views are hardly relevant here. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of Russian meddling

Several media outlets, including Voice of America here, are accusing Russia of interfering. Up until yesterday/today I can only find local and smaller media mentioning it though. Include or wait? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Voice of America is a US government-funded propaganda outlet. If you can find a WP:RS for these claims they might be worth adding. 2601:644:1:B7CB:75C2:683E:B7D3:6409 (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe unlike RT, Voice of America has fared well in WP:RS conversations. If you have issues with it, go to the appropriate board.--Yalens (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We tend to avoid using RT on articles because it is funded by a national government and is subject to conflict of interests. This applies to all state-funded media. We can't assert that American state-funded media is perfectly fine while Russian state-funded media is subject to governmental interests. We take issue with both for the same reasons. On issues devoid of opinions we may cite VoA or RT, such as stories about uncontroversial subjects such as weather, but this is an instance where it's best to not bring in Russo-American geopolitics where we unequivocally side in favor of one government and against another. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

America suffers from Hypercaptalism. That is why portion sizes in America are much more than they are in Europe, Canada or Australia. Any information that comes out of America must be supported and collaborated by information not from the United States that in turn holds an absolute zero financial relationship with said American source. ~ Prince of Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1600:36F:1CB5:D60E:F779:456F (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Monitoring social media, Russia Today do appear to have an agenda, though whether Catalans themselves are habital consumers of their Spanish service remains unproven. Culloty82 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So far the only other claims I can find stating that there is alleged Russian meddling came from Infowars claiming that Spain blamed Russia (a claim which I can't find anything supporting); there's clearly no objective facts that can be used to support such claims now and to include them now would violate numerous Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL for adding speculation before having information on it. RT covering a story is not evidence of active election meddling by Putin, if anything the meddling is being done by Spain itself by very literally trying to interfere. This just doesn't belong here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw a number of articles alleging that Julian Assange in favor of the Catalan separatists has interfered with the approval of Russia. Details forthcoming. --Yalens (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Assange was retweeting videos of the police expressing sympathy towards the referendum. And? Belgium and Scotland were more critical of the Spanish police than Russia was with its official response. Wikipedia is no place for conspiratorial gaslighting. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the sources below? [[2]][[3]][[4]]. The allegations are much more than Assange saying things, we have twitter bots systematically promoting fake news, allegations of a concerted media campaign... No I'm not gaslighting (ironic use), this is what WP:RS like Medium and Politico are reporting. --Yalens (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have, and the extent of what they said was that RT covered the story ad nauseum. Once again, RT covering a story is not evidence of active election meddling by Putin. Even had there been an answer to the obvious question of how does Russia benefit from this, nowhere is there evidence suggesting that the Russian government orchestrated the referendum or produced its outcome. The idea that this is a Russian plot to destroy western democracy holds no legitimacy. None of those articles answered the questions raised. Did Russia force the Spanish state to reject years of requests for legal democratic referendums, going back to before Puigdemont? Did the Kremlin make Spain respond violently to an illegal referendum rather than ignoring it? The sources you cite assert that Russia's motivation is to destabilize the European Union, a claim so thoroughly detached from reality as Catalonia repeatedly asserts that if it achieves independence it would quickly seek to join the European Union. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a summary [[5]], some more discussion [[6]] and some more [[7]]. The story seems to have originated with the Spanish outlet El Pais but Western outlets have looked further into it since then, and it's been noted elsewhere to that there were signs of links between some Catalan separatists and Russia in the Crimea controversy three years ago. --Yalens (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Russia has nothing to gain from this and unless Russians advised the Spanish government to crack down on the pro-referendum people, it is unlikely their involvement had any serious impact on these turns of events. The Government in Madrid is going to fall. Spain is a failed state thanks to their incompetent Galician Overlord of a Prime Minister as well as the political culture of Castilians that makes any union with any non-Castilians without the premise of fear or uncertainty absolutely dismal to the say the least. The people of Madrid did this to themselves. They should had been forthcoming with dialogue with Catalonians. They should had invested in actual federalism. In fact, they should outsourced Austrians and Germans and let them rebuild Spain after Franco's departure as a Germany/Austria in the Iberian Peninsula. Or they could had just asked the Belgians. Nevertheless, the people of Madrid did not consider how coercing ethnic minorities in Spain could lead to disastrous outcomes and they didn't respect the democratic spirit of the people, which they easily could have done and helped campaign for the stay vote during the referendum similar to how London did for the Scottish Referendum. What happens is what the people of the government in Madrid allowed to have happened. ~ Prince of Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1600:36F:1CB5:D60E:F779:456F (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Reactions section

I have reverted this edit by Impru20 (talk · contribs), for three reasons:

• before making big changes like this, IMHO it would be better to discuss it first;
• while it is true that reactions usually come after an election has taken place, there are examples of articles listing reactions that are coming in before and where they can be quite relevant, especially when the process itself is controversial (see e.g. Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017#International reactions);
• the argument that some entries in the reactions sections might be NPOV is IMHO not an argument against the section as a whole. Individual NPOV entries should be discussed individually. - Toothswung (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; the big change was the addition of such a content in the first place without discussion. Specially seeing how some of those initially leaned heavily toward pro-independence stances despite actual facts in sources being slightly different (and with reactions being hand-picked). That's why I say we wait until after 1 October. Right now, everyone is mostly saying this is an internal Spanish matter, and we can't just try to guess out what other countries/institutions reactions to the vote will be until after it happens. Some people just seem to be using that to throw unneutral statements. Impru20 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that parts of the content of the section had NPOV problems. I had thought about going over it myself, just didn't get around to doing it. That said, there are plenty of reactions already. Of course not to the vote (which may or may not happen), but to the preparation, but still I think they're quite relevant. I guess it would make sense to rewrite it and add better sources. - Toothswung (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Impru20 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes to improve the section. Feel free to add on them and improve it further. Toothswung (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Get rid of it or at least the majority of it. What possible relevance could the USA or Hungary or some MPs in Denmark have? The answer is none. MAYBE the EU position should go in background or something, since the EU is so integral to life over there, otherwise it's all nonsense garbage that ought be deleted. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not so easy. A significant portion of the debate in Catalonia and Spain revolves around who else does and doesn't support the referendum, so in the context of the actual discussion they are relevant. Those examples get cited up and down in local media. - Toothswung (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Typically what happens with these "reactions" sections is people fill them up with all sorts of statements and eventually they get split off into their own article. I think the bigger issue is just double-checking that the statements posted here are genuine - the one that is supposed to have come from Gerry Adams, for example, actually came from a Sinn Fein MP in Northern Ireland. FOARP (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Denmark is erroneously listed as not being a UN member state and the EU is listed twice. The order is also a mess in general. The section is important and has valuable information in it, but needs an overhaul; though moving it to a separate page and simply linking to it would work too. Bearsca (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that we've got a separate page for reactions, the less important responses (i.e., the sub-national ones) should be moved to the dedicated page FOARP (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope most people around the world know this independence movement and outcome was inevitable, even more inevitable than Kurdish independence. Does anyone know anything about Spain? What is Spain? Most of us will point to the current Constitutional Monarchy of Spain as Spain, but that is not Spain. Spain = the Iberian Peninsula, which is Spain+Portugal+Andorra. All Portuguese people know they are Spanish and they know the Constitution Monarchy of Spain is not Spain. To understand this, you have to look how Spain came to be. Originally, Spain was a Roman Province that became its own thing due to the invasion of the Visigoths. From the Visigoth came the title of "Emperor of Spain," which was a ceremonial title but indicated that Spain was a land of multiple Kingdoms like Castile, Portugal, Galicia, Leon, Aragon, Navarre or the Basque/Euskal Territories and Barcelona (which later became Catalonia with Barcelona as its Capital). So during the Middle-Ages, Spain was eventually unified via a Dynastic Union under the Hapsburgs as Philip II inherited Portugal. That is Spain as close to a unified country as possible. Before that time, there were three separate kingdoms or Greater Kingdoms that divided up Spain and two were under a under a unified crown for a considerable amount of that time, the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon. Catalonia was from the Crown of Aragon and even Spain was unified via a dynastic Union, these two separate entities (Castile and Aragon) had their own individual legislatures and existed as separate countries sharing the same head of state. Sort of like Canada and Australia both share the British Queen as their head of state. During the 19th century, the government pertaining to the Crown of Castile invaded Barcelona and obliterated the legislature to the Crown of Aragon, effectively occupying and annexing the Crown of Aragon into the Crown of Castile which then effectively refer to it self a single constitutional monarchy in Spain, even though Portugal seceded earlier in the 17th century. This later followed with the rise of Franco and the persecution of everyone who wasn't a Castilian Loyalist in all of Spain (minus Portugal). Then after Franco subsided, the people of "Spain" came together and forged a new government, which became today's constitutional monarchy. However, what a lot of people don't know is that premise for Catalans, Galicians, Andalusian, Valencians and Basque coming together with Castilians, Aragonese and Leonese to create this unity was the viewpoint of an economic uncertainty if each land would become independent as well as a prospect that this government would be an experiment to see if a unitary government was unsuitable for the Iberian country. This is similar to the premise of the Union of the United States, but different as the principles for American government are outlined in the Federalist Papers while for Spain it is just for mutual obligation out of uncertainty of how better conditions would be upon independence. After the Spanish economic disaster had happened a couple years ago, the government in Madrid has been doing everything it can to leech off the people of Barcelona. The People of Catalonia know this. Since, the union is no longer of economic interest of avoiding uncertainty for the people of Catalonia, it is therefore pointless to them to have this union continue as valid participants.

However, what I would insist for Catalonians is ask for some special confederation relations within the Republic of France, find a way to make France more like Germany and have Catalonia united as such. Technically, Catalonia was once part of the Empire of Charlemagne and even sought to be part of France not terribly long ago. If Catalonia did become part of a French Federation, then the Government in Madrid will have to deal with the Government in Paris which would effectively end what the Government in Madrid is trying to do to Catalonia at this very moment.

Nevertheless, the longer the delay is for the international community to react and do something about Spain, the more likely the deteriorating economic situation brought by this in Spain will lead to economic issues for the greater European Union. This is not a domestic situation, especially after Sardinia of Italy decided to intervene. ~ Prince of Catalonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1600:36F:1CB5:D60E:F779:456F (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PNV threats to Rajoy government

Impru20 (talk · contribs) has just reverted my edit on the threat of PNV to withdraw support to the 2018 Spanish budget, which is essentially a threat by the PNV to bring down Rajoy's government. He brings two arguments: (a) that this has nothing to do with the independence referendum, and (b) that the title is misleading because there are no tensions within the Spanish government, as EAJ-PNV is technically not in the government (but supporting the minority government of PP, which depends on it).

I can see the point in (b) and would rephrase it and put it in a different place to avoid nitpicking. But I strongly disagree with (a). PNV is a party which comes from a region with its own troubled history, which included referendum and devolution plans being rejected by the Spanish government (see e.g. Ibarretxe Plan). Now there is a lot of discussion on possible reactions of the Spanish government to the present independence referendum in Catalonia, and basically PNV, remembering its own situation as a Basque nationalist party, is trying to put a gun to Rajoy's head and tell him "watch your step in Catalonia". So the PNV threat has a lot to do with the Catalan independence referendum (and the emerging 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis). Consequently, I propose to put the paragraph back in, but in a different place and under a different headings (e.g. "Repercussions in Spain" or something) - Toothswung (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your entire pretension for adding this could possibly constitute WP:SYNTH. Specifically, your assumption that these are related because of some unknown (and most importantly, unsourced) PNV's nationalist motives for doing this based on a past situation in the Basque Country which neither actual or minimally related to the Catalan referendum issue. So far, the PNV has only made a rather ambiguous threat to withdraw support from the 2018 budget if the Spanish government "exceeds itself" or "acts forcefully" "in Catalonia", but without explicitly mentioning what this implies to the government's response to the referendum or even mentioning the referendum at all (it could very well be just the PNV taking positions ahead of the 2018 budget negotiations. Entirely unrelated to this). If this grows up evolving into a major issue that ends up having some relevance to the referendum (like if this would actually spill over into the referendum issue and force a major change in PP's policy towards the 1-O vote) that would be different, but it doesn't seem to be anything like that as of now. Impru20 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to turn this into yet another policy argument, then don't use weasel words. Either it constitutes or it does not constitute. If you use words like "could possibly", what you are actually saying is that you aren't sure, and then it's better not to make such claims.

There are commentaries in Spanish media that make a connection between movements towards independence in the Basque Country and in Catalonia and who comment on the PNV budget threat in exactly this light, such as in El Boletin. That commentary may not be particularly analytic, but nevertheless it means that you are not making a valid argument. A better argument on your behalf would be that the independence referendum situation is leading to a constitutional crisis is only unfolding, and that an encyclopaedia is not the place to collect all little parts of it before it actually unfolds - it is easier to identify the encyclopaedically relevant bits of it after the fact. So I will wait for two or three weeks, and then we will all be better able to qualify what is going on. - Toothswung (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is why we back up claims with sources and not with speculation: Lehendakari Urkullu (from the PNV, as well as Basque premier) has now spoken about the referendum making specific mention on it, to comment that "whatever takes place on 1 October, it does not have due guarantees of a referendum" ([8]). Of course, it also criticizes the PP government because of its way of acting in response to the 1-O, but this is very short of what was seemingly implied in your initial wording as well as in your own SYNTH connection of unrelated events (which I agree: I shouldn't have used "possibly", since it definitely is SYNTH). Impru20 (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And at the same time, his own EAJ-PNV votes together with the Catalan separatists to request the general prosecutor to a parliamentary Q&A session in the Spanish parliament, and it's being commented on in the media as "the threats of the PNV to the Rajoy government beginning to materialize". Here's a source for you so that you don't say that's SYNTH.

Maybe we can conclude that daily politics is full of contradictions, especially in a situation like this, when there are many positions, each of which can be backed up by reputable sources. This is difficult to solve just by pulling our favourite WP policies out of the hat. A more reasonable way would be to wait and see how things actually develop, and in the meantime engage in constructive dialogue. As you can see, I already proposed a way to go ahead. - Toothswung (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That source is an opinion article, not a news article (and still fails to mention the connection to the referendum itself). So, it's still SYNTH, at least in the way you wanted to portray it (and when I say it's SYNTH, it's not because I just choose one "favourite WP policy out the hat", but because your whole reasoning linking the two events as you did in previous comment in this talk is a connection you're pulling out of the hat yourself. The PNV has made an ambiguous threat to Rajoy AND at the same time it's pointing out that it does not consider that the planned referendum meets the due guarantees. These are facts. Making a connection to the PNV making such a threat because it supports separatism and/or the referendum based on the past Basque conflict and in the precedent of the Ibarretxe Plan is not legit unless there are sources backing it up (and, as of now, there are none; not even the one you provide). Impru20 (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That argument seems to me both a straw man and misplaced. In fact, I am not saying that the PNV is "making such a threat because it supports separatism and/or the referendum". I'm saying that the PNV is threatening Rajoy not to be too heavy-handed. This is what the article paragraph which you removed said. It's supported by sources, I've provided two, you can easily find more, and opinion pieces can be valid sources, too, if qualified accordingly. Now I have my own opinion why the PNV is making that threat, which is what I'm voicing here in the talk page (and it's not "the PNV supports separatism"). This opinion is what you're directing your policy argument against. However, WP policies don't serve to regulate editors' opinions, but the actual article text of the encyclopedia.

But what I really don't get is why you're continuing to flog that dead policy horse after I've made a compromise proposal, twice: it's OK, in a few weeks everybody will have positioned themselves and we will have a lot of commentary to draw our sources from. There is a certain irony and symmetry here. We are both contributing to article on the Catalan independence referendum. The referendum itself is in a political context where commentators have criticised Madrid that "a sterile debate about legitimacy and legal niceties will not resolve this" (FT, Sep 12) and where "the test [...] will be if Madrid drops the alibi that [...] judges are shields against a political problem elected politicians have a duty to resolve" (FT, Jul 18). Yet here we are, having an argument that is both legalistic and, precisely because of that and like many policy arguments, not accomplishing much. Can't you just let it go, now that I've told you, twice, that it's fine, we'll wait and see and in the meantime you don't need to prove anything? - Toothswung (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Toothswung That opinion of yours was in response to one of my arguments. You specifically said He brings two arguments: (a) that this has nothing to do with the independence referendum (...) so that's why I replied to that. If the only point of all of this was to highlight that the PNV is threatening Rajoy not to be too heavy-handed, then again, what has this to do with the referendum or with this specific article? The point of my reply was precisely aimed at questioning how was this connected to the referendum and your reply was that opinion. Yes, we could (and surely must) await to see how this evolves, but I had understood you proposed to re-add this with a different section heading (specifically, when you said I propose to put the paragraph back in, but in a different place and under a different headings (e.g. "Repercussions in Spain" or something)), and then you said you will wait a couple weeks. This is what I was replying to. Now, if you tell me that you had entirely changed your stance from that to just wait until events unfold and maybe rearrange this entirely, that'd be way different, but I was keeping replying to you thinking the "proposal" you meant was the one where you said "I propose". Impru20 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you say - Toothswung (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Impru, that source may be an opinion article but this one [9] is not. You've already left your imprint in this talk page. Why do I get the feeling that you and Gaditano23 are not here really to contribute to an encyclopedia? CodeInconnu (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu Excuse me but, if you take a look, you will see that this discussion took place mainly from 12 to 14 September, and the source you provide is dated at 15 September. Considerations on the source notwithstanding (it seems like it compiles different sources to end up saying both that these PNV's threats may lead to somewhere or may lead to nowhere, which is not like anything we didn't already know), I should remind you that ordinary people may have some difficulty in trying to look into the future for finding sources.

Now, if you're going to limit your activity to pursuing people you have recently came involved with through Wikipedia just to accuse them of "not contributing to an encyclopedia" for the sake of it, you should maybe know what a talk page is for before going on any further. Impru20 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhh... no I'm not going to limit my activity to that, you just happen to be rather ubiquitous in articles that I'm currently interested in, that's all--which may or may not have a simple explanation. For instance, I'm about to intervene in a number of articles, starting with one about zoology specifically Suidae and I won't do so assuming you'll be there, too. So no, zero fixation with you. No sé si se m'entén... CodeInconnu (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you have a fixation with me (something I did not suggest, btw), but you surely seem to have one with Gaditano23, with whom you've openly engaged in dubious behaviour before and whom you mentioned here despite him not even being a participant in this discussion.

Now, on your curious "you just happen to be rather ubiquitous in articles that I'm currently interested in" claim, I think we've only meet once before in one of such articles, and that was the talk page of the 2017 Catalonia attacks article. Our encounter in this one has been limited to you replying to me in this talk... despite me not having addressed or even mentioned you here before. So yeah, a curious claim at best. But worry not: my interest in zoology is nigh to zero, and I care little on what you intend to do, so it's highly unlikely you'll find me around there even by chance. Impru20 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Guardia Civil raids on printing shops?

A BBC News article makes the following passing reference without going into further detail: "In recent days Spain's Guardia Civil police have raided several Catalan printing shops suspected of preparing material for the referendum." Does anyone know what this is about and can any detail (sourced) be added to the article? What law are the printing shops supposed to be breaking? What are they printing? Private propaganda on one side or the other, official communications for the Catalan government, or ballot papers or what? Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It was widely reported in Spanish media, the allegation was mostly referred to as "election materials" (as in this article in El País or as "ballot papers" (as in this article in El Español) - Toothswung (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of information missing in this article overall, the printing shop thing is just anecdotal. I suggest it be translated from Spanish as a starting point. Gaditano23 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Anecdotical?? Man you did it again... It was the first move that starts building-up the situation. All of this happened thevery same week before and according to all sources and witnesses (though the coverage was done by the catalan tv) without a single court order:

- 2,5 milions ballots and 4 millions envelopes confiscated in Igualada 9,8 millones ballots in Bigues i Riells 45.000 closed certificates of notification on different offices of Unipost - raids on several places like catalan Telecom Center, with 14 arrested people due to the organization of the forthcoming refernedum,most of them high postiions of catalan executive: josue sallent, Josep Maria Jové... That very night a lot of people started manifesting on the police station where they were jailed - 1,5 milliones of referendumçs ropaganda papers confiscated http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/09/28/la-guardia-civil-requisa-100-urnas-y-2-5-millones-de-papeletas-en-igualada-barcelona_a_23226310/ I would not said that is anecdotical, once again you are biased. The whole thing was widely broadcasted on catalan national tv, but not in detail in the rest of the country, and it created first public reunions and built up the ambient — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we assuming the referendum will happen?

The Spanish government has declared it illegal and is arresting the people behind it and seizing ballot papers, poster etc. Is it really correct that we should declare in the info box and elsewhere that it will happen (i.e., "the campaign will last" etc.)? It seems the article needs editing to put all this into terms like "is planned for" (etc.) FOARP (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The Catalan government is still proceeding on the same basis as it has done in recent weeks and months, publishing a list of polling stations yesterday, so for now, the presumption remains that the referendum will be held. Culloty82 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent events in 20 September have effectively made it impossible for the referendum to be held in the way it was intended to by the Catalan government (even Cat. government officials acknowledged it). However, they intend to press ahead for it and have the vote anyway, even if the basic logistics for it are essentially broken and/or heavily compromised. Some other parties (i.e. Podemos and allies) have dubbed it as a "social mobilization" instead. Even pro-independence parties (such as ERC or the CUP) are trying to turn this into a vote/protest/whatever on Rajoy and the PP government instead of solely on independence. I think we may not know what will happen on 1 October (a referendum, social protests, a civil conflict or whatever) until the day comes, just that something will happen. But yeah, I think it is overly weird to still treat this as your average election process. Maybe "it was proposed" would fit best to refer to technical aspects of the vote that have now been suspended and/or hampered. Impru20 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Date format

The dates were all over the place, with some in US-style MM-DD-YYYY format and some in Spanish-style DD-MM-YYYY format. I've gone through and changed them into DD-MM-YYYY format, as this is a Spanish (or Catalan if you like) topic. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

While this helpful, the '9th of September' and '9th September' are not used on Wikipedia. Instead, '9 September' is the preferred style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Formats. mgSH 21:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes, as the '9th of September' and '9th September' styles are not acceptable date formats as per MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:BADDATE. Impru20 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

The Wikipedia home page today (3 October 2017) has a news item stating that

Amidst a constitutional crisis, an independence referendum takes place in Catalonia, Spain.

This brief text appears to breach the WP:NPOV requirement, as the official Spanish government position is that "no referendum has taken place".

- BobKilcoyne (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hundreds of reliable sources say it did take place. Are they all making it up? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, when it comes to what's going on in Catalonia, the most neutral person in this world is Mariano Rajoy. Mélencron (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been a "masquerade" (an illegal masquerade), to which the independentists have come to vote; it is estimated that people who oppose (and have not come to vote) represent the majority of the population. There has been a total vote count of 100.8%, with people who have voted two, three, four times ..., a person who voted electronically on behalf of "Michael Jackson", opaque ballot boxes, ballot boxes that arrived at polling stations already filled with ballot papers, ballots that were printed at the homes, ballots introduced without envelopes, votes without control (because the computer network was down), etc. So it can not be considered as a "referendum". And also, the European Commission has confirmed that the Catalan independence referendum was “not legal”.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place for soapboxing about whether or not the referendum was legal or legitimate, and the picture you painted raises as many POV concerns as what you argue against. Many ballots were illegitimate, and many ballots were seized or stolen. Many votes were electronically, but many websites were shutdown; with all of that being said, further discussion about varying viewpoints should cease when considering that this is not a forum. Whether one views it as an illegitimate referendum or an illegal referendum is not a factor when what is true is that it was a referendum. That is what cannot be subject to opinion, and that is what Wikipedia should display to remain neutral. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the legality of it is pertinent to its description as a referendum. It's clearly illegal under the framework of the Spanish constitution, but what with regard to, say, the 2014 Crimean status referendum – which is explicitly described as a "referendum" regardless of its legality? Mélencron (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, on the topic of neutrality, are we seriously questioning if it's a POV fork to mention that it happened? An illegal referendum is a referendum. No matter what one thinks about whether Catalonia should stay in Spain or become a sovereign state, no matter what people think of Rajoy, no matter what people think about the legality of the referendum or the legitimacy of the Catalan will, no matter what people think of how the police forces acted, the statement that the referendum happened is objective, not subjective. Rajoy's assertion that it simply didn't happen is objectively, literally, and indisputably wrong, regardless of whether one hates or loves him; to say otherwise would be based off of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:DONTLIKEIT rather encyclopedic and verified fact. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It obviously happened, else we would not have this discussion. Seems that a lot of pro-indipendence and pro-Rajoy people are clashing on this page. Right now, the lead seems very pro-Spanish government, since it directly attacks the Catalonian. I think a more neutral tone should be held.Eccekevin (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It´s easier than that, I was there and half barcelona was in the street from 8 am in a never-seen build-up mass moment. However, not a single extra independentist vote was accounted according to the refernedum results, compared to the results of the independence parties in the last elections in 2015, when things were not that extreme and still a lot of people were in grey positions or not urged to participate. We could even argue that the only independentist people that did not vote the other day were out of the country, fearful or disabled for any reason. Which indeed means that 50% of the electoral census is allegedly independentist, which in turn means thatin case the turnout were high, we would probably have a tie.

Don't take anything literal from any of both sides. They are all frankly cherry-picking and even lying. Both national TVs (catalan and spanish one) are seriously fighting for selling an opposed point of view. Spanish national TV, for instance, has had an internal ban from the internal broadcasting comitee where even non'catalan reporters dennounced the paritality http://www.lavanguardia.com/television/20171002/431739446450/tve-referendum-1o-catalunya-periodistas-criticas.html. Most spanish media has just focused on the law and even the hurt policeman, but minimizing the boradcasting of media of the police agressions or even ignoring them. Catalan tv is absolutely positioned in the other direction (though it does not represent us all in the whole country and its alone on the spanish national broaadcasting representation). Think that catalan ministry said they were 800 hurted people, which I find it unbelievebly high number, whereas spanish ministry said there were 400 policeman hurt which is even more unbelievable. I mean, you see the videos, all policeman that used force were all dressing as antiriot chest armors and had sticks as weapons)... and still the proportion is 1:2 on hurt people... Just use international independent media, please.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) 

NPOV

Right now, the lead is incredibly biased towards the Spanish government. I can say this as I am a foreign observer with no stake in the matter. But just reading it it feels like a newspaper opinion piece against the referendum, with the world 'illegal' coming up many times, and heave criticism of the Mossos, with no criticism of the Police or the government at all. I think it should be more neutral Eccekevin (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks God, I feel like that. I am proindependence but if you see my contributions in this page I TRY to be obejctive. An article about a political ideology should not be written by those that ban it, aside from facts and events (and criticisms if balanced with the other claims and suitable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I added some information. It is important to understand, as state before, that Wikipedia is neutral. A referendum happened, regardless of one's opinions. The matter of the legality is obviously important and has to be addressed in the article, but Wikipedia cannot pretend that this event simply did not happen as the Prime Minister has said. Wikipedia has to report the data and the facts, even if the referendum was illegal according to the government Eccekevin (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Republic

Something should be said about that republic tail in the question. Was it intended to affect the results of the referendum? Шурбур (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This is in order to avoid doubts about what kind of system would implictly bring the independence so people has more information, but it certainly appeals the non-independentist left-wing (and it seems it did). Macià did the same just before joining the second spanish republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Delict of civil disobedience

I changed "delict of civil disobedience" to "dereliction of duty", but was reverted. The cited source says "delito de desobediencia" (in Spanish). The most literal translation of this would be "delict of disobedience", but very few English speakers are going to understand what that means ("delict" is an obscure legal term in English). More understandable translations would be "breach of duty", "dereliction of duty", or simply "disobedience". I'm not trying to change the meaning of the wording here, just trying to make it understandable to our readers. Opinions? Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC

(criminal) act of disobedience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2017‎

IMO simply "disobedience" is okay. Thanks! Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 02:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)