Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Neutrality of sources

Though Canadian, I have been following developments closely in both Spanish- and Catalan-language media. I would like to warn everybody that many reports in the press are extremely biased, depending on the position of the newspaper, to such an extent that almost everything needs to be double-checked in different sources. Even on straightforward factual matters, Madrid dailies like El País, ABC, El Mundo, etc., can't be trusted on their own, to say nothing of Catalan nationalist sources. Generally, the non-separatist Barcelona press, especially La Vanguardia and El Periódico, has steered a middle course and seems most reliable.

For example, the article currently contains this passage, citing Madrid-based ABC and El Confidencial: On the other hand, a councilwoman of the Republican Left of Catalonia (ECR, for its acronym in Spanish) accused the police of pushing her down the stairs, breaking all the fingers of her hand one by one and sexual abuse during a polling station evacuation. However, the scene was recorded and the images show that the woman threw herself to the ground when the agents asked her to leave. She has just an inflammation in one finger.[139][140]

Reading this, one gets the impression that she fabricated the whole thing. But the truth is much more nuanced than that. It turns out that she was wrong initially about the extent of her injuries, and once she visited the hospital she found out that her hand injuries were less serious than broken fingers. But read the description in La Vanguardia of the same video: Su relato dio la vuelta al mundo por la dureza de sus palabras y el desgarrador vídeo donde la zarandeaban, la tiraban al suelo y la arrastraban escaleras abajo.[...] Los vídeos muestran como el agente se ensaña con su mano izquierda, aunque finalmente donde sufrió la inflamación fue en la derecha, seguramente fruto de la caída. [Her story was heard around the world both because of the harshness of her words and because of the heartrending video in which she was shaken, thrown to the ground and dragged down stairs.[...] The videos show the officer tormenting her left hand, though in the end the inflammation was in her right hand, undoubtedly as a result of the fall.]

[1]

Although I don't want to go into too much detail here, another example is the reporting of statements by foreign governments, UN officials, and international election observers. What I have found is that, even when reporting on the very same statements, Catalan nationalist media and the Madrid press emphasize the facts that favour their own side and downplay or ignore the rest, to such an extent that the intention of the statements can be seriously distorted to readers. Both sides are equally guilty of this.

To give a final example of what I'm talking about, the journalists' union ("Consejo de informativos") at the Spanish state broadcaster, TVE, called on the entire leadership of their news division to resign over the network's coverage of the referendum, writing that TVE "did everything in its power to disseminate a partial and biased view of events." [2] Unsurprisingly, the statement was prominently reported on in the Barcelona press (both separatist and unionist), but featured much less prominently, if at all, in the web portals of the main Madrid newspapers.

To put things succinctly: Spanish media have taken sides in what is becoming something of an information war, and even reporting of factual material has become biased and unreliable. Checking sources on different sides is essential in order for this article to remain neutral.24.50.161.64 (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this analysis and the links. I suspected as much. Munci (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples of bias of la Vanguardia articles towards the independence side. I can provide examples if needed. In the case that you mention, the problem is that in the original article published by la vanguardia: “Me han roto los dedos uno en uno y me han tocado las tetas mientras se reían”, The article claimed that the police broke all the finger in her hand one by one and that another agent was touching her breasts while others watched and laughed. The articles you mention were in response to this claims. She did not fabricate the injurie, but it seems that she used her injurie to make false claims of torture.

From reading the complete article from el confidencial it is very unlikelly that a reader could interpret that she fabricated the whole thing as the article does include in bold that she was dragged a few steps and that she had a "capsulitis" in her hand that caused her fingers to be stiff so she could not move them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that the Wikipedia article appears to imply that she fabricated the story. At 0:12-0:16 of the video in the article you linked to, it is clear that the police officer is doing something to her hand. And there is no evidence that she is lying about any part of her account, just that the extent of her injuries is less than she thought. La Vanguardia is simply reporting what she says, and everything is attributed to her and to the video.

Remember that La Vanguardia has just issued an editorial warning against independence. So it is clearly not pro-independence. However, it differs from the Madrid press in that it calls a spade a spade, when it refers to this as one example of the violence of the police on that day. That statement may appear to be biased to an observer from Madrid because the press there systematically minimizes the extent of the violence, but this is in fact what almost all foreign journalists present in Barcelona thought of the police action, and in my view it is perfectly objective. Anyway, you should realize that there's a problem in your definition of bias if the local newspapers in Barcelona most sympathetic to unionism are carrying reports you consider biased. It's much more difficult for them to hide the truth from their readers because the readers saw what happened that day with their own eyes.

This source from El Confidencial [3], which was used as a source for the Wikipedia article, is clearly not neutral.

Finally, I'd like to point out that parts of the public in Spain are apparently well aware of the sharply differing viewpoints of the Barcelona and Madrid press. National television crews have been verbally attacked in Barcelona, and today a reporter from Catalan-language TV3, reputed to be a pro-sovereigntist outlet, was spat on in Madrid. 24.50.161.64 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's as simple as watching the video of one of her own statements to the media, in ABC reference. Incidents begins in the second 40 and there is a subtitle with the translation from Catalan to Spanish: "Me han cogido los dedos de las manos y expresamente me los estaban rompiendo. They have taken my fingers and expressly they were breaking them"

And curiously, the hand we can see that they are holding (not breaking fingers one by one) in the images of the event is the right one but the one that has bandaged on the statement is the left hand.

Her statements imply a cruelty that is clearly not seen in the images. And she also confused the hand. The reader can draw their own conclusions.--BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're referring me to that video. Look at the video in the article from La Vanguardia. It shows more of the interaction. [4] It seems that an officer is doing something to her right hand. At the same time, it looks like an officer is also holding her left hand, but it isn't as easily visible to the camera. This is the video where she's also dragged down the stairs: [5] Interestingly, a police officer tries to prevent all of this being caught on film. 24.50.161.64 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Little can we advance if you refuse to accept the videos of the incidents, where we can see what really happened. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. I do accept the videos. La Vanguardia's account is centred on the videos and the victim's statements. On the other hand, I also see that not everything that happened can be seen in them.24.50.161.64 (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We have to seek neutrality. It is our mission. Not all of manifestants were "pacific" (and nor all the diffused images corresponding to the 1-O). The agents have been expressly attacked, as this video certifies: [6] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course we have to seek neutrality. In this video, I see many policemen hitting civilians with batons and then one civilian (whose respiration was blocked by a policeman's hand) punching a policeman. What do you see in it? Munci (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The same video is posted in El Confidencial and in La Vanguardia. The hand that can be seen that the agent pulls is the right one and the injurie is on the left one. There is no evidence anywhere in the video that her fingers were broken one by one as there is no evidence either that while her clothes were lifted up an agent touched her breasts while others looked on and smiled.

I do agree with you that this source [7] should not be used. But it is not from El Confidencial. it is from el confidencial digital. They are not related. I have replaced it for the one from El Confidencial.

Please look again at the video and please confirm if you see there any evidence that the fingers of her left hand been broken one by one, or if you see the agents touching her breasts while her clothes are up or even if they are laughing. The description from El Confidencial does seem less biased.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct 24.50.161.64, I would suggest to rely on international media for the controversial parts of the article. --Auledas (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no greater neutrality than images. There is no reason to rely on international media.

Few times we have the opportunity to have sources as clear as in this case, that there are videos of the incident in which everything is collected.

In addition, there is a video in which we can clearly see how just when she leaved, moves both hands perfectly and grabs a fence with total normality: [8]

This same woman participated in violent attacks to the Civil Guard a few weeks ago in Barcelona and spread images in the social networks seated on a Civil Guard destroyed car: [9] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Cherry picking a few videos or personal experiences is not neutral. There are thousands of videos and images from thousands of protesters and the way to obtain a coherent explanation of the facts is not by commenting a few of those images/experiences. The most neutral point of view is achieved by relying on neutral journalists who can explain the whole situation. --Auledas (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a "simple personal experience". She is a is a Republican Left of Catalonia councillor and participated in violent disturbances on September 20, who then falsely accused the police of "horrific" violence and sexual abuse, and whose accusations provoked the accusations to the Spanish police by the mayor of Barcelona. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that Ada Colau didn't accuse the Spanish Police only because of her message "Speaking in RAC1, Colau commented that one of these sexual assaults occurred in Barceloneta, although it would also have to add the case of the young woman who was in a school in Pau Claris" (http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171002/431742168473/ada-colau-denuncia-agresiones-sexuales-policia-1-o.html). And if she participated in a demonstration on 20 September 2017 I don't see how that affected the injuries received on 1 October. And it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a personal experience and not a global report of what happened that day.--Auledas (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was the only one or not, Ada Colau has been based on it for her accusations. Her previous actions put into context her subsequent actions. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the latest example. The international press (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) are leading their coverage of Catalonia with the fact that the Spanish government is apologizing for the police action on Oct. 1. At present, this information is nowhere to be found on the front pages of the websites for El País or ABC.24.50.161.64 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read this ABC article or this one from El Mundo. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The ABC story, as far as I can tell, is not on the front page of the website. The fact that the Spanish government has apologized is in the subtitle, but not in the headline as it is in the international press. The El Mundo story is some way down the page. El País still has nothing on this on its front page. 24.50.161.64 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)URGENT: Wikipedia is including opinions, non-specifications and matters not yet proved. Wikipedia is getting so biased that is looking like a tabloid! Please, be more objective!!!

In your 5th paragraph, we can read, for example:

"On the day of the poll, the passivity (CATALAN POLICE PASSIVITY IS A UNIONIST ARGUMENT USED AS AN ALIBI FOR THE SPANISH POLICE BRUTALITY) of the Mossos d'Esquadra (the autonomous police force of Catalonia) prevented the closure of the polling stations (MOSSOS D'ESQUADRA CLOSED 90 POLL STATIONS! BESIDES, A COUPLE OF MOSSOS D'ESQUADRA WERE LOOKING OUT MANY FACILITIES IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY INCIDENT. THE WHOLE BODY OF MOSSOS D'ESQUADRA FOR ALL DUTIES AND ALL THE TERRITORY IS MADE OF 16,783 OFFICERS AND THERE WERE 2,315 POLL STATIONS! PLEASE, BE MORE OBJECTIVE!), following which the National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil intervened;[31][32] 893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil (ONLY 9 AGENTS ACCORDING TO CATALAN PUBLIC HOSPITALS REPORT) were reported to have been injured.[33][32][34] The Mossos d'Esquadra are being investigated for disobedience, for not having complied with the orders of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia to prevent the referendum (THAT'S JUST AN INVESTIGATION, BUT NOT GUILTY. AND THE SPANISH POLICE, WHICH ALLEGEDLY FOLLOWED THOSE INSTRUCTIONS AND PREVENTED THE REFERENDUM, HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT! SO PLESE, BE MORE OBJECTIVE).[35] Josep Lluís Trapero Álvarez, the Mossos d'Esquadra Major, is being investigated for sedition by the Spanish National Court (THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE DOES NOT REQUEST PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES FOR TRAPERO).[36] The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al, urged the Spanish government to probe all acts of violence that took place to prevent the referendum, through impartial and independent investigations."

http://www.diarimes.com/noticies/actualitat/catalunya/2017/10/01/els_mossos_informen_que_han_tancat_col_legis_electorals_arreu_catalunya_25491_3029.html</ref>

Edgarmm81 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Spanish unionist OKdiario lacks of rigurosity, like almost all of the Spanish press.

For example, they assured that Catalan government already had a new coin, with the Catalan's president face.

References

Here is an article on the BBC website about how one-sided the Madrid press and the Catalan nationalist press have both become: [10] "Such contrasting interpretations of what is happening in Catalonia reflect the deeply divisive nature of Spain's territorial crisis and the media has been a key factor in fuelling the polarisation. Newspapers, radio and television have been mobilised on both sides."24.50.161.64 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is so evident... that a catalan like me has to spend time switching channels (both national TVs) to understand what happens in every incident. I think catalan TV brings nationa view/sentiment to an unseen extent, but is still much more truthful in voicing facts and events (for instance today in the biggest unionist celebration in barcelona ever, they did a 24h following, giving voice to a lot of people in the street, whereas in the referendum, no national TV did that, and only expressed pro-unionist voices and facts, like the policeman injuried). The other day a reporter from a public spanish tv was caught live telling people on the street to place the spanish flag in a more visible way and waving it for the shot. http://bluper.elespanol.com/noticias/pillado-reportero-telemadrid-pidiendo-ensenar-bandera-espana

or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/09/11/un-camara-de-tve-aparta-a-empujones-a-una-manifestante-en-pleno-directo_a_23203953/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Checking sources on different sides is essential in order for this article to remain neutral. Ahh, you must be new here! In a perfect world, this would be how Wikipedia works, but the reality on the ground is much different. In the normal course of editing Wikipedia articles, editors choose carefully the sources that fit their personal systemic bias, and minimize at all costs the impact of any sources that do not toe their party line. This is perfectly legitimate behavior according to Wikipedia policy. And it enables editors to enforce a twisted brand of "neutrality" where they can say: "Look! All my sources agree and are in harmony! I am neutral and following the sources!" Outlying or contradictory sources are assailed as not sufficiently reliable or some other technicality found in WP:IRS. So it's all well and good that you are interested in maintaining a higher standard of "neutrality" but I am sorry to say that it will not be realized in the foreseeable future. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 72.201.104.140. see WP:BIASED.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 9 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)

On Wikipedia, Voice of America has survived better on WP:RS board discussions. If one country happens to have more reliable media than another yes that may create an advantage on Wikipedia or whatever, but our goal is WP:RS reporting, not ensuring national parity.--Yalens (talk) 00:47, 6 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? [[11]][[12]][[13]]. 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)

You're not arguing against what the sources are actually saying. Did they say there was some grand plot by Russia? No. Did they say Russia "forced" Spain to reject requests for referendums, or use force? Of course not. Did they say Russia has some plot to make Catalonia independence? No-- in fact the opposite:

“It's not that Russia necessarily wants the independence of Catalonia. What it’s principally seeking is to foment divisions to gradually undermine Europe’s democracy and institutions,” said Brett Schaffer, an analyst of the Alliance to Safeguard Democracy, a project supported by the German Marshall Fund, which monitors pro-Kremlin information networks.

Now the one thing they did say that you argued against was that Russia seeks to undermine Europe's democracy and institutions. But your complaints are WP:SOAPy personal opinions. Neither yours nor mine matters-- what matters is that these are wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources saying this. P.S. in case you think this is about American politics, you should be aware that Russia has been accused in meddling in France and Germany, and also in Poland and Ukraine before the US election. --Yalens (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The answer to "Did they say there was some grand plot by Russia?" is yes, actually. to weaken the United States and the European Union RT & Sputnik were the furthest extent of objectivity, putting the level of meddling perpetuated by the Russian state-funded media on the same level as how American state-funded media reported on the story. I'm not really sure what you meant by that last part about American politics. You're absolutely right that this isn't the first time that Russia was accused of meddling, and if these accusations extend to full confirmations it wouldn't be the first time either, but they're accusations. In instances that have been confirmed, including as you mentioned the interference in the US, we can state clearly that it is simply an interference and not a mere accusation of interference. This is another instance of undue weight to a sub-topic of the article. The most we can say is that the state funded media that reported with a clear bias which could have influenced the vote, but that holds true with other states that have state-funded media outlets. Al Jazeera seems to have a pro-independence bias based on how they covered it, but none of us are seriously considering "Accusations of Qatari Interference" are we? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We would be absolutely considering "accusations of Qatari Interference" if wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources were saying so, and extensive criticism of Al-Jazeera's Arabic service coverage can be found on the articles of some events in the Arab Spring on Wikipedia (at least they were there last I checked, I was involved in some of those articles years back). What we have now is analysts like B Schaffer and Medium's digital forensics lab backing these claims that Russian actors interfered, with goals to undermine European cohesion and spread distrust in its democratic institutions, and one claiming that Spain specifically was targeted. Neither my views nor yours matter, except with regards to what the page should say to be an informative and reliable encyclopedia. Anyhow I've added a bit about this to the press coverage section. I hope its agreeable. --Yalens (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a summary [[14]], some more discussion [[15]] and some more [[16]]. 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. My intention right now is not to have a --yes I agree, wp:undue-- whole subsection on it, I only added a few sentences. Unless and until media starts reporting more on it, that's how it should stay. --Yalens (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Yalens. Its inclusion is justified, but a whole subsection would be undue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:45, 9 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)

"Violence and Injuries"

"On the day of the poll, the Mossos d'Esquadra failed to execute the direct order issued by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia to close the voting centers before they opened and to confiscate voting materials."

This is actually a point of contention between the Spanish police and the Mossos d'Esquadra. It is undisputed that the Mossos closed hundreds of polling stations on election day, where they encountered no resistance. However, they were under strict orders from their chain of command not to use force in doing so, because to do so would be disproportionate to the objective sought. (I think the Mossos' view is this: Arguably, though the poll may well be illegal, preventing votes from being counted does not justify the use of force against groups of civilians, and nothing in the judicial order implied that the objective was sufficiently important to warrant the use of such force.) Thus the Mossos claim that they complied with the judge's orders to the extent reasonably possible. It is possible that at some point there will be prosecutions of the Mossos leadership by the Spanish authorities for dereliction of duty on October 1, but it is important to understand that this passage is not neutral as currently written. 24.50.161.64 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The sentence as written is accurate. They failed to execute the order given by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. It is obvious that they failed in closing the voting centers and in confiscating the voting material.

The failure in the execution of the order is objective regardless of the analysis of the reasons that motivated that failure. and even though it has no impact on the reliability of the statement, I would like for you to also consider this facts:

• Seven separate judges from different cities in Catalonia (Barcelona, El Vendrell, La Seu d'Urgell, Lleida, Cerdanyola del Vallés, Santa Coloma de Gramanet and El Prat de Llobregat) have opened proceedings for disobedience against the Mossos (see here)
• There are multiple videos that show Mossos not only not stoping, but actually cooperating with the organization of the referendum (see video where Mossos are carring ballot boxes on their official car and carrying them inside the voting center)
• Mossos is Sant Joan de Vilatorrada tried to prevent the police from accessing a voting center and had to be pushed aside (see article that sources tha incident, and others)
• Catalan judges and prosecutors have lost their faith in the Mossos after the incident (see here)

The failure in the results is clear, and the intent of the Mossos led by Trapero, that was appointed by the separatists is, at the very least, questionable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Mossos closed hundreds of polling stations. That is undisputed. And if you think that failure is only measured by the result that the polling stations remained open, then the Civil Guard and National Police must also have failed. For if they had used live ammunition, they probably would have managed to close all the polling stations, thereby fully complying with the judge's orders. Yet most polling stations were left open. In the present situation, I don't think that the fact that the Mossos are being investigated means that they are objectively guilty of what you say.24.50.161.64 (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This entire section appears biased to minimize the violence. It reads largely as though it's mainly trying to rebut what is commonly reported in the media. I think it would be useful to include general statements by international media that characterize the overall scale and the severity of the violence. For example, international media were struck by the fact that these were peaceful, passive protesters, including people of all ages. In contrast to riot police action at the G8 and so forth, these were really ordinary people being attacked. It is important to report things this way, because this is what has had such an impact on public opinion, through the videos especially. Also, statements from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations would be useful.24.50.161.64 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes the Mossos failed and I agree with you that so did the police and the Guardia Civil. I think the reasons of their failures are different, but that is not relevant. Here you can read the direct testimony of a Mosso that reports that they were ordered not to act "La Policía pidió ayuda y nos ordenaron no acudir". Some Mossos declared to be ashamed of their superiors 'Mossos' indignados quieren pasarse a Policía o Guardia Civil: "Están avergonzados"

Even though we are getting off the point here, It is clear that the police used force and some of the scenes in the videos seem excessive. What is not clear is that they all were peaceful passive protesters as you said. There is usually more than one side to a story. You seem to have missed information about this incident or the 431 agents that were injured (see Interior asegura que 431 policías y guardias civiles resultaron heridos en el dispositivo del 1-O) bruised, clawed, kicked and some even bitten. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

§"the Mossos d'Esquadra failed to execute the direct order issued by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia". FALSE. It has not been proved! Not even started the investigation. On the other hand, the Spanish police brutality has been condemned ref: http://www.elnacional.cat/en/news/european-parliament-unanimously-rejects-police-repression-in-catalonia_198528_102.html

I suggest you read more sources. This article by Bloomberg may be helpful: EU Defends Spain’s Right to Use ‘Proportionate’ Force. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No minimum turnout required?

Is there no minimum turnout required? Do I read the referendum law correct on this? Is the only relevant part art. 4.4 : "If the counting of votes validly made gives a result of more affirmative than negative votes, it shall mean the independence of Catalonia."

This is very relevant because those who want Catalonia to remain in Spain, are faced with the dilemma of voting 'no' or stay home. If they turn out and vote 'no', the number of 'no' votes will be higher and 'no' will have more chance to win, but if 'yes' wins nonetheless, they will have given the referendum more legitimacy by boosting the turnout. If they however stay home because they don't want to take part in a referendum illegal by Spanish legal standards, the 'yes' vote will have more chance to win because turnout is not relevant according to the Catalan law.----Bancki (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're reading that right. It's been noticed and commented on in the media, e.g. in The Guardian (last sentence). - Toothswung (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

From a legal point of view, the answer to your question is that the referendum is illicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Minimum Turnout should be a red flag for any respected democracy, but when the Central Government in Spain decided to everything in its power to prevent a vote form taken place, it sort of puts legitimacy in counting the vote regardless of the shortage of votes as it is an official act of harming the democratic spirit of the Spanish people.Davilem (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)I cannot see the grounds to support such sort of legitimacy, no legitimacy (even sort of) can be assigned to this so called referendum. See the Code of Good practices from Venice Commission To have legitimacy, it should be first of all legal, and this one was not; not to talk about the irregularities (multiple voting, change of rules one hour earlier to introduce universal census, voting without envelops or in the street, etc. The use of the force to comply with judicial order to close the polling stations has no relation with whatsoever legitimacyDavilem (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Look, the people who run the government in Madrid are almost as stupid as the people who run the government in D.C. (Washington, D.C. of the United States). The United Kingdom did it correctly when encountering this problem. Let them (the ethnic minority seeking independence) Davilem (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Who says that Catalans are an ethnic minority? Based on what?Davilem (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) have their stupid vote and use enough resources to insure the vote turns out negative, thereby ruining the chance for independence. The Government in Madrid has such low confidence in itself, which is nailing the final nail in the coffin that it has to bully and do everything in its power to prevent a referendum from taking place instead of upsetting it by a major turnout of people against the premise of the ballot. If Spain becomes no more, well they deserve it with this stunt and anyone arguing otherwise has no idea how the law actually functions in Spain. This is not the UK, even though it should certain act more like the UK than it currently does. ~ Prince of Catalonia

Please, this is not a forum to chat on Catalan or Spanish politics. Stay focused on the task of creating an encyclopedia. Impru20 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Results by veguerias

Hi. I added to the results section the results the Govern showed by vegueria. I thought it would be interesting to show the only results by territorial division the Govern published.

In other way, I see very few things about "the pro-Unity side". I mean, interesting things that would be shown like the support to the Police and the Guardia Civil when they departed from several provinces or the demonstrationa on September 30 in all Spain for the unity of the country. I don't know if I did not read well or if they were really omitted. Asturkian (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Results by vegueria and municipality can be found at [17]. There are some strange results because voters could vote outside their own municipality:----Bancki (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

comarca	municipality	registered	turnout	valid	"yes"
Alt Camp	El Pont d'Armentera	393	967	958	899
Pla de l'Estany	Palol de Revardit	354	1.002	999	982
Noguera	Os de Balaguer	783	1.463	1.457	1.382
Vallès Occidental	Polinyà	5.910	10.247	10.215	9.717
Vallès Occidental	Palau-solità i Plegamans	10.891	15.491	15.459	10.869

--(corrected)----Bancki (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Neglect to include Franco-Catalan electorate in referenda

From the wikipedia articles and media coverage thus far in 2017, it seems that there is a glaring lack of inclusion of the "Franco"-Catalan People, I mean Catalan community in territorial France, and their Right to be included in the historical movement, declarations, articles, etc. Perhaps wikipedia needs to expand info on this segment of society, while consolidating the several-dozen articles associated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.40.121 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The referendum didn't concern them (also "Franco-Catalan" might not be best, may I suggest "Gallo-Catalan"). Nor did it concern the population of Valencia or the Balearics who have internal divisions on whether they see themselves as "Catalan", nor the population of Eastern border areas of Aragon which speaks Catalan. This page is not the place to discuss any of these. See also Catalan people, Catalan nationalism, etc. --Calthinus (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If by Franco Catalan you mean the french national who live in Catalonia, they should have the right to vote in a referendum, as long as this referendum is done in accordance with the rule of law, which give, by treaties, European citizens the right to vote.

If by Franco Catalan you mean the french who live in south east France, the word Catalan is not accurate as there would be no definitive agreed definition of which part of France should be considered as Catalan. Also, I am not sure of how Spaniards would understand the word Franco in topics where fraquist Spain might be considered. Anyway, as stated by Calthinus, so far, the event this wikipedia article deals with is limited to the administrative autonomous region of Catalunya, which might be wider or narrower than the place were people speak Catalan.

Anyway, I confirm Calthinus, statement that this page is not the place to discuss any of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Supposed illegality of "approved law"

I see four problems with the following sentence: "The approved law is illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy which require a two-thirds majority in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status."

1. The expression "the approved law" is ambiguous.
2. The source article pre-dates the event, stating that "the law of the independence referendum will be approved [...] with a simple majority" (my translation). It does not contain any information regarding how parliament actually voted.
3. The source does not say any law is illegal because of a failure to respect a two-third majority. The article merely states that a) the reform of the Autonomy Status requires two-thirds of the parliament; b) the referendum law "will be approved" by a simple majority. A legal argument would still be required to conclude that the "law is illegal". In particular, and not being an expert, I wonder if the referendum law can even be identified as a reform of the statutes (notice that a break-up is not a reform).
4. The same source also states earlier that the law creates "an exceptional legal regime, in whose application it prevails over all norms that could be in conflict with it" (my translation).

As it is, this sentence does not convey any reliable information. It should either be removed or edited to address these concerns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk • contribs)

I pointed before to the problems posed by that sentence. Just another one, the whole article seems to be fraught with loose interpretations or WP:OR, instead of sticking to say what the source actually says, if not literally at least without jumping to a hotch-potch of combined ideas. I agree that a categorical adjective like 'illegal' needs a source stating so, else say just whtat the source says. Here it is problematic in that the source was published before the date, so it is not reporting on sth that took place. This could work: "The referendum law does not meet the requirement of two-thirds majority set out by the Catalan Statute of Autonomy for any change to Catalonia's status." Iñaki LL (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, the whole lede needs shortening instead of this profusion of data, which may find a better place thoroughout other article sections. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)