Jump to content

Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

About the irregularities

I would like to post here an edit I will do in the following days in case somebody has any objections. I think the article tries to present the referendum had "many irregularities" while this is something that has not been proved and was only denounced by Spanish organizations and media. Here are the changes I propose:

  • Replace everywhere "many irregularities" with "some alleged irregularities". I couldn't find any international media using the expression "many irregularities" so it should be removed from the article per WP:POV.
  • The source denouncing every irregularity must be added to the article. It looks like reports from irregularities basically come from Societat Civil Catalana (a pro-union organization), the Spanish media and the Spanish government. Unfortunately, we can't consider them as a unique source of truth considering they are part of the conflict and not neutral players in this issue.
  • The "Irregularities" section first paragraph is specially bad written and only has sources from Spanish pro-union media:
    • "Opaque ballot boxes were used". This sentence should be removed, the ballot boxes were not opaque and even if they were, many countries vote with opaque ballot boxes and that's not considered an irregularity.
    • "unsealed ballot boxes could have been transported containing ballots inside". It should explain if that's something different than in regular elections. Are ballots and ballot boxes transported separately? If nobody can add a reference for that, I think we should remove this sentence too, because it's not clear if that's an irregularity or not.
    • "there were ballot boxes placed in the street" in this case, we should explain some polling stations created "fake ballot boxes" to be replaced in case the Civil Guard came to confiscate them. There is a user explaining that on Twitter [1] and some reliable sources.
    • "There was no electoral board nor counting system" it should explain there was no electoral board because Spanish justice fined them with 6000-12000€ per day. What does that mean there was no counting system? I couldn't find any explanation in the reference.
    • "A blog was activated to vote online that allowed to vote without contrasting the identity in a census and as many times as desired." I would just completely remove that sentence, there is no prove that blog was related to the referendum organizers at all.

--Aljullu (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Aljullu, Thanks for bringing up the subject before introducing changes. I think you did not do much research, since the very same international observers that were invited (and paid by) the Generalitat did state that the referendum was not valid. Here one of many links: https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/independent-observers-no-referendum-took-place-in-catalonia/ There was not a single recognition statement issued by any international body. I do concur that it would be good to look for as many sources as posible. But if a source is Spanish, it does not mean that is pro-union. If you think you can improve stylistically these paragraphs please go ahead. But the fact that there were countless irregularities that invalidated this vote is simply undeniable. Whether these irregularities were caused by the police or not is irrelevant to the fact mentioned before. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Arcillaroja.
Aljullu, I am strongly opposed to the changes you are proposing. The content is supported by the sources, it has already been discussed, and the sources are verifiable. You are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:NPOVS.
And it's amazing that you are also proposing content backed with a Twitter message (!?).
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Arcillaroja: thank you for the link, I agree it might be good to have the opinion of that international observer quoted by El País which EURACTIV talks about in the article. But I don't see how that relates to my original message. My concern was not about the international observers quotation (that's a topic for another day), but the single lines I quoted on my message. I couldn't find anywhere in your article any relation with those lines (irregularities, voting twice, etc.). Please, could you quote which part of the article you were referring?
@BallenaBlanca: could you please send me to the discussion? I could only find [2] which is just a couple of messages long. I would also please ask you to review every suggested change one by one and give reasons or references that support them. If effectively the only ones denouncing irregularities is Spanish media and the Spanish government while no international media does, I think it's important to specify that in the content of the article.
Btw, I linked Twitter here just so I didn't have to do all the explanation again. But as I said, there are several sources that explain some polling stations prepared fake ballot boxes in case the Spanish police came ([3], [4], the book Operació urnes...). --Aljullu (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It has been talked in several threads, it is not grouped into one. You have to look patiently in all the archived conversations, it has been very long.
It seems reasonable to add what you are mentioning about polling stations prepared fake ballot boxes in case the Spanish police came, if there are verifiable sources that sustain it.
"there were ballot boxes placed in the street" in this case, we should explain some polling stations created "fake ballot boxes" to be replaced in case the Civil Guard came to confiscate them." But remember WP:NOR, you can not use this ("fake ballot boxes" to be replaced) to justify the other content ("there were ballot boxes placed in the street"), unless explicitly stated at the source: WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Aljullu. I Agree, the link I provided only states that international standards where not met but it does not summarize the reasons or what are those standards. I read "Catalan officials instead relied on privately printed ballots, and changed the voting rules an hour before polls were scheduled to open, to allow voters to cast a ballot at any poll station, without using an envelope and whether registered there or not" [1] I know there where many other problems regarding the rules stated by the Vienna Convention. I think that these topics have been extensively dicusssed here before so I don't think it's necessary to repeat them here. I should say as a side note, regarding the ballot boxes, that ballot boxes are always transparent and sealed in normal Spanish elections. These boxes were not, hence the very use of these boxes constitutes an irregularity in itself for the normal voting process in Spain. We could say of course, that it had to be so because of police interference, ect... But they are still irregular facts. Arcillaroja (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
There are multiple secondary reliable sources that reported irregularities from multiple primary sources (not just Societat Civil Catalana). That they are from Spain does not mean they are not reliable according to WP:RS, many of those sources are cited elsewhere in the discussion. It is not at all necessary, but some international sources also mention them, just not in the same level of detail: CNN, Washington Post, Time... This afternoon I will try to answer the individual concerns raised by Aljullu. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
All the issues raised are referenced by reliable sources and represent what they claim without any original research. I agree with BallenaBlanca about the proposed addition of the alleged fake ballot boxes. If it is covered by reliable sources what that source claims can be included but there should not be any original research.I see no problem with the proposal to repeat that the electoral board quit because of the fines. About the blog, the sources state clearly it was to allow people to vote and list it as an irregularity.
The information in "There was no electoral board nor counting system" is source and correct, but to address Aljullu's concern I propose the following wording: "There was no electoral board as it disolved itself on 22 September to avoid being fined by the Constitutional Court and the counting system was blocked by the Guardia civil following orders from the Catalan High Court Justice" and add this additional reference. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. I agree with the new wording for the electoral board irregularity. It looks like the page is protected and I can't edit anymore, let's see if @Airplaneman: can take a look. I would like, however, to discuss the other points. For example, replacing "many irregularities" by "some alleged irregularities" seems a good first step to reach consensus, given that no international media is using the expression "many irregularities".
@Crystallizedcarbon: the links you provided don't seem to be related with the lines I was proposing to change. To make it clear: I don't want to remove all mentions of irregularities, there are important groups who denounced irregularities and I agree it's important that appears in the article, but it must be clear who denounced them. That's a relevant information.
I was proposing to remove the irregularity about "the opaque ballot boxes", but if you want to keep it, I think we have to add this information:
- some other media considered them translucent instead of opaque [5]
- the reason why different ballot boxes were used
- other European countries vote in opaque ballot boxes
I was also proposing to remove the irregularity about the "blog to vote" because only El País and El Confidencial are talking about it and they recognize the Catalan government said they had no relation with the blog. Anybody can create a WordPress blog and pretend to be the White House, if they want, but if that can't be proved I think is not relevant for a Wikipedia page. But in case you want to keep it, at least we should add the version of the Catalan government.--Aljullu (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As the protecting administrator, I won't be involving myself in discussing what version of the content is correct on this page. Airplaneman ✈ 03:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: Once again, as has already been said, it is not a reason that there are no international sources to remove content.
I still see no reason to modify "many irregularities".
Let's see an example of arbitrariness: in the case of irregularities, you need international sources but not to support other content, such as this reference [6] you are proposing of the translucent ballot boxes from TV3 (Catalonia) (something that, by the way, I have not been able to find in any international source). This is worrying per WP:NPOV.
About the opaque ballot boxes, if you want to talk about these two points that you are proposing "the reason why different ballot boxes were used" and "other European countries vote in opaque ballot boxes" you have to find sources that expressly say so in the context of the Catalan referendum, otherwise you would be violating WP:NOR WP:SYNTH again. I take this opportunity to ask you to please read these policies carefully. In addition, that other countries commit irregularities does not mean that in the Catalan referendum these same irregularities have not been committed.
About the blog to vote, there is no reason to delete the information. The appropriate thing is to add the explanation of the Generalitat saying that it was not the promoter of the blog, supported by the reference "TheConfidential01102017". --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 06:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Airplaneman: right, I was pinging you because there is a sentence which already has consensus and can be added to the article:
There was no electoral board as it disolved itself on 22 September to avoid being fined by the Constitutional Court and the counting system was blocked by the Guardia civil following orders from the Catalan High Court Justice (proposed by Crystallizedcarbon)
@BallenaBlanca: I think "many irregularities" must be removed per WP:NPV. "Many" is subjective and not backed up by any international source.
About adding information about why the ballot boxes were different than usual, here there are a some references explaining it: [7] [8] [9] [10] I can update the text once the page is no longer protected.
About the ballot boxes being opaque or translucent. It was not my point to replace opaque with translucent in the text, but to make it clear that depending on the media, they consider the ballot boxes being one thing or the other. Reuters describes them as translucent [11], same for several Spanish [12] [13] [14] [15] and Catalan media [16] [17] [18]. As I understand, if most media except El País agree on them being translucent, we should add that in the context of the article, if needed explaining El País describes them as opaque.
About the blog, leaving the sentence while adding a reference to Catalan government response seems good to me.
About voting twice, given that different Spanish media disagrees if that was possible or not and no international media backs this theory, per WP:NPOVS I think the source reporting those alleged irregularities must be specified and we must add the version of media that said that was not possible. --Aljullu (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the points were consensus was already reached, please, review them. In the discussion above there are still some open topics which I will proceed to edit in the following days if no objection is presented. --Aljullu (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/world/europe/catalonia-independence-referendum.html

Catalan Supremacism

I have found this [19] from a user banned due to sockpuppetry. It might have some relevant links strangled in between all the unionist propaganda, like this one: LAS APORTACIONES DE LA INMIGRACIÓN AL PROCESO DE METROPOLIZACIÓN EL CASO DE BARCELONA. Just saying. Filiprino (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted, though the version is still accessible. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

About the sentence "inaction of part of the autonomous police force"

The current version of the article states that:

On the day of the referendum, the inaction of part of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra, allowed many polling stations to open.

Per WP:NPOV that sentence must be removed or rephrased because it presents an opinion as a fact. There is plenty of data and references that show that Mossos closed more polling stations than Guardia Civil and Policia Nacional combined [20] [21] [22] and that Mossos allege they were obeying the orders [23] [24].

@Crystallizedcarbon: you have reverted my edits on that sentence a couple of times. Could you give your point of view on that and explain why you disagree with my changes? --Aljullu (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aljullu I restored the sourced information that you removed twice. As I explained to you before, It's better to reach consensus before making changes to controversial topics and If you do decide to do a bold edit that removes sourced content do not remove again if reverted and discuss instead per WP:BRD.
Both sources (and many others) clearly state the obvious fact. If Mossos would have closed them many schools would not have opened. I agree that Mossos closed more polling stations that Guardia Civil or the National Police. They where in charge of closing all of them before they opened, still only a minimal percentage was closed. Once they were allowed to open the police only option to carry their orders to get to the ballot boxes or close the polling stations was to get past the people blocking their way. Violence caused the government to call off police around noon. Police unions issued statements saying that they felt betrayed by inactivity of the Mossos. Inaction passivity and even cooperation was documented through videos and testimonies. The major of the Mossos is been accused by judge Carmen Lamela as the responsible party for that inaction. According to WP:DUE majority views should have more weight and minority may in some cases not be included, in any case the lead already mentions in the next paragraph that "Mossos d'Esquadra, deny those accusations and allege they obeyed the orders but applying the principle of proportionallity, which is required by Spanish law in all police operations" so I see no reason to remove that sourced and relevant content. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon:
Both sources (and many others) clearly state the obvious fact.
The problem here is that there are several sources saying exactly the opposite. So both points of view must be shown.
If Mossos would have closed them many schools would not have opened.
Several sources stated it was impossible for the Mossos to close all polling stations (around 2.700 all over Catalonia). Even the jugde considered that possibility. [25] [26] So it's not correct (or at least, it's controversial) to say that many polling stations could open just because of an alleged inaction from the Mossos.
They where in charge of closing all of them before they opened, still only a minimal percentage was closed.
The Court didn't let the police to close the polling stations before Sunday 6.00 am. [27] [28]
According to WP:DUE majority views should have more weight and minority may in some cases not be included
The problem is that in this case, you consider the majority of views to be just the Spanish police, the Spanish judiciary system and the Spanish government, which are clearly not neutral about this because they are one of the involved parts. Given that there is objective data (Mossos closed more polling stations than Spanish police) and several reliable media state there was no 'inaction' from the Mossos, there is no reason to justify taking only the Spanish State POV as the single source of truth.
in any case the lead already mentions in the next paragraph that
Exactly, that's the reason why I think that sentence must be removed. We have one specific paragraph giving both points of view, so there is no point on adding a single sentence in another paragraph stating one of the points of view as the single source of truth. --Aljullu (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Aljullu:There is an overwhelming number of reliable sources that state that inaction, some even include videos, There is also a video of Mossos loading ballot boxes into a white van together with other citizens that were cheering them and both clapped. (see here) or others in which they make no visible attempt to seize the ballots and are given flowers and/or are cheered by the crowd.
Reactions have come not only from the unions representing National policemen or the ones from Guardia civil, also from 8 judges and even from a "considerable group" within the Mossos themselves (see here).
The wording does include the word "part" as some Mossos did close some schools. The information is sourced and relevant to that paragraph and it introduces the police actions. If you notice, the use of force introduced in that paragraph is also used multiple times. The term "police violence" is used 10 times in the article, even though sources also reported Violence against police and Guardia Civil (example: [29], see videos).
Again, I do not see the reason to change the current version. Notice that I did not object to the part of your edit where you added the version of the other side, but you should not remove sourced and relevant information that gives context to the paragraph. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I have read your arguments and I support the position of Crystallizedcarbon. Whatever the reasons, there was inaction of part of the the Mossos d'Esquadra and there is no doubt about that. I think we have the two versions represented and sourced per WP: NPOV. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon:
There is an overwhelming number of reliable sources that state that inaction
There is the same amount or even more reliable sources saying the opposite.
There is also a video of Mossos loading ballot boxes into a white van together with other citizens that were cheering them and both clapped.
Even if a single Mosso did it, the sentence I'm referring is still wrong because it's not clear all of them did. Indeed, there are many more images showing Mossos confiscating ballot boxes than the opposite. At the same time, people cheering means nothing, there were public calls to cheer Mossos even when they confiscated ballot boxes (you can see it here). Btw, let's all remember WP:FORUM.
Reactions have come not only from the unions representing National policemen or the ones from Guardia civil, also from 8 judges and even from a "considerable group" within the Mossos themselves
Spanish police and judges represent the same side in this topic, they represent the Spanish POV. And the "considerable group" you are refering to, from what I can see in the article, are police officers who want to leave the Catalan police and join the Spanish force, right? They can't be considered neutral. And anyway, they seem to be a clear minority.
Again, I do not see the reason to change the current version. Notice that I did not object to the part of your edit where you added the version of the other side, but you should not remove sourced and relevant information that gives context to the paragraph.
Exactly, I don't want to remove the POV of the Spanish police, but we must make sure both of them are given the same treatment given that reliable sources and data prove there was no inaction from Mossos (they closed hundreds of polling stations).
@BallenaBlanca:
Whatever the reasons, there was inaction of part of the the Mossos d'Esquadra and there is no doubt about that.
Data, reliable sources and Mossos and saying the opposite.
I think we have the two versions represented and sourced per WP: NPOV.
In the last paragraph of the intro, you are right. What we are discussing here is this specific sentence: On the day of the referendum, the inaction of part of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra, allowed many polling stations to open. which takes one of the two POV and presents it as the truth. Per WP:NPOV that's wrong. --Aljullu (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your first claim. Also with your second claim "the sentence I'm referring is still wrong because it's not clear all of them did" as the sentence that you want to remove clearly refers to "the inaction of part of the autonomous police"
Can't agree with the third claim either, as it is not just various police unions and a judge from the Audiencia Nacional of Spain but also others from the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (same court looking into claims of police violence)
Finally the POV from the defense of the leaders responsible for the closing of those schools is also in the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits with inaccuracies and irregularities: rubber "bullets" and others

This edit of 17 June 2018 by Aljullu [30] replaced "rubber balls" with "rubber bullets", term that was present from 25 October 2017 [31]. I adjusted again [32] and my edit was undone [33].

Rubber bullet is a broader term, which includes different models, including less lesive such as the rubber balls Rubber_bullet#Riot_control_use, which is what was used in the Catalan Referendum [34], so it is the most adjusted term. In fact, the riot police in Spain do not use rubber "bullets" but rubber "balls" [35] In the image, "Cartuchos propulsores y pelotas de goma" ("Propellant cartridges and rubber balls.") Specifically, two types: green (less harmful) and black (more harmful) [36]

In this image [37] and in this video (second 53) [38] from the 1 October, we see a green ball and a propellant cartridge.

Here is a more detailed explanation that what we see in the previous images are the ball and the propellant cartridge [39]. See image and foot with this explanation “Para lanzar las pelotas de goma las escopetas se cargan con cartuchos de impulsión, que únicamente contienen pólvora. En algunos modelos de escopeta se puede regular la potencia.” ("To throw the rubber balls the shotguns are loaded with propellant cartridges, which only contain gunpowder. In some models of shotgun you can regulate the power. ")

It is true that one reference says "bullet" [40], but the other one says "pelotazos" [41], referring to "pelota" (ball). The reference that says "bullet" is new, was added by Aljullu ten days ago, on June 10 [42] and for what has been explained before, it is evidently less precise.

The injured himself declares: "Quiero ser el último herido por pelota de goma en el Estado español" ("I want to be the last injured by rubber ball in the Spanish State")

I'm going to adjust it again and add this new reference [43]

I will also adjust other irregularities from this same edit of 10 June [44] in which the new reference and this content were added: “but several witnesses said the opposite and assured police officers were shooting directly against demonstrators' heads”. This reference [45] does not mention "heads" . It says "un periodista que estaba trabajando en el momento de los hechos ha asegurado que vio a un agente apuntar 'de forma directa y recta'". It also does not support “but several witnesses said the opposite”, referring to "rubber bullets were only used against demonstrators in one of those incidents in the Barcelona's Eixample district". --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we getting crazy? This is not smoothing editing. The sources cannot be more clear. All this stuff above adds just nothing, it is noise. Your final edit does not reflect the content of the news, it has actually removed information. This is what LaSexta says "El Ministerio de Interior afirma que los únicos pelotazos que disparó la Policía en Cataluña fue en el barrio del Eixample. Pero uno le dio a un hombre en el ojo. Ingresó grave en el hospital y ha sido operado." Everybody of us saw it on the Internet and TV. So please let Wikipedia flow. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the actual footage everybody saw it on TV and Internet at the moment of the shot. This cannot be used as a source in the WP? Right. But remember the spirit of the WP! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I have moved this edit of Iñaki LL to talk here (What the sources say, plus "rubber ball" does not exist in English, they are a type of rubber bullet, clarified between brackets)
On the number of witness, the title says one thing but if we read the news, only one witness, the journalist, is named. Are there more sources that explain this more accurately? Meanwhile, we have to adjust to the actual content of the source.
Can you also clarify why do you say that "rubber ball" does not exist in English? "the use of rubber balls", "A rubber ball police fired at protesters", "A guy received a rubber ball impact on the eye" ...
In addition, the information about the injured in the eye is duplicated, it is already detailed below: [46] "Of those injured, most were minor, but four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests, the other for unrelated causes.[217] The man injured by a rubber ball lost his vision in one eye and subsequently sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police.[220]". And we have a picture and a video. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
A rubber ball is a type of rubber bullet, period. This is the image research in google for "rubber ball". It does not show in one of the main dictionaries on the the Internet. But that is more of a spin-off discussion.
It seems you are doing personal research. La Sexta's source is clear, and unless the piece of news is obvious to everybody's eyes, there is no improvement in adding "a journalist said" instead of adding the whole news. That looks as choosing a wording that blurs the information target. I will look into these edits deeper later though, no time now. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding rubber balls, what happens is that you are doing a wrong search, too general. Look instead if you get better keywords, for example these ones: [47] Anyway, if the rubber balls are a type of rubber bullet, then it is clear that it is more accurate to call it rubber ball, which is what was actually used. Remember, for example, this source I have provided above, which is from Amnesty International [48].
I do not understand the rest of your message.
What is the La Sexta's source which you are referring to?
Please clarify where the "personal research" is in my edits and why.
I am looking for more references and I only find these, which also say one witness:
  • [49] and [50] Un testigo declara que un policía apuntó directamente a un joven para disparar una pelota de goma. El periodista que grabó la imágen relata al juez que el agente lanzó el proyectil de forma "recta y directa" y no al suelo.
  • [51] Según las mismas fuentes, un periodista del semanario La Directa que ha declarado este martes como testigo ha asegurado que vio un agente de la policía nacional cargar la escopeta y disparar la pelota de goma en dirección a Roger Español, apuntando y con una trayectoria directa.
But please, if you find others that mention more witnesses, add them freely and correct the number.
Why do you think it's wrong to say "a journalist"? What's wrong with that? Would you consider more appropriate to write something like this: "a journalist who declared as a witness", for example? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Does this wording seem better to you? [52] "One witness, the journalist who recorded the images, testified that... " ? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Listen, this looks like a circus, needless and artificial litigation. What I did was search in google "rubber ball" and that is what you get, a child item. I added "rubber bullet (ball)" in the text to find a compromise, still you reverted. Please read this and this carefully.
You were the one who double checked LaSexta source to change the statement (see here my edit with La Sexta source, so you should know better. I quoted above what the source says, you understand Spanish, so there you are. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Actual footage of the shot. La Sexta quote, as pointed, above. Source El Diario = "Testigos aseguran ante el juez que un policía apuntó "de forma directa" al herido por bala de goma el 1-O" and [https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/herido-identificar-escopetero-Policia-disparo_0_707979273.html, hit by a police bullet/ball. The sources cannot be more clear about the source of the shot. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You latest self-reverted edit (no change really). Iñaki LL (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No, no, your (wide and unspecific) search on Google does not even yield only results from "a child item". Why do not you check each image of the results? If you had done it, you would see that (in addition to other non-child uses), there are rubber balls for shotguns, as for example the second black ball from your search: "Bolt Action Rifle Rubber Ball Grip"
About the El Diario source, are you saying that you want to put several witnesses, because the title says witnesses and that you are going to ignore what the source actually says when you enter to read it? Amazing ... (that's why I could not understand your message).
El Diario source says that several witnesses corroborate the version of the man injured and that one, a journalist, assures that the police fired straight at the demonstrators. One, not several, as other sources also support [53], [54], [55].
But please, look for more sources, and we will add them, of course there is no problem, but we can not use a poorly adjusted title when the content does not support it. Let's see (title in bold):
Regarding your edit using La Sexta source [56], I had explained it to you here [57], before your message, and because of this I did not understand that you were asking the same again (you probably had not read it).
I repeat again: you added duplicated content already present (for months), scroll the page and you will see below your new text, in the same section, the detailed information about the injured in the eye, even more extensive than what you added, because it is also mentioned that he lost the vision of the eye and he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police, with a picture and the footage of the incident. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
A couple of things here:
1) I changed rubber balls with rubber bullets because that's much more common in English and how most international media is describing it ([58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]). I know in Spanish the word rubber balls (pelotas de goma) is more common, but I think that's not the case in English (maybe some native speaker can help us here) and most sources seem to confirm that.
2) I'm not pretty sure to understand what's the problem with the sentence but several witnesses said the opposite and assured police officers were shooting directly against demonstrators' heads. There are several references saying that witnesses say the police shot against the face/head of demonstrators: [65] [66] --Aljullu (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This reference [67] you are proposing says that the officer who injured a man in the eye at the Ramon Llull school shot too close and pointed at his head, but does not say that several witnesses assure this (there is no mention of any witness) nor there were several officers. And this is a fact that is being judged and the statements of the witness that appear in the other sources do not mention "the head", it is not a proven fact, but says he shot straight. That the officer pointed "to the head" may seem obvious, but it depends on the position of the injured when he received the impact: was he standing or crouching? That is why it is being judged.
The other one [68] does not mention several witnesses either, in fact, there is no mention of any witness. It says he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police, which is already on the page.
Regarding rubber bullets, the proposal by Iñaki LL seems a good solution: "ball" clarified between brackets "rubber bullet (ball)" and I have edited it [69].
"but several witnesses said the opposite" in the context implies that the rubber balls were used in more places and not only in the Eixample district. The injured was at the Ramon Llul school [70], which is in the Eixample district "Escuela Ramón Llul, en pleno barrio de L' Eixample". --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, this source does say that he pointed to the face [71] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I added "The man injured by a rubber ball lost his vision in one eye and subsequently sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police, adducing that one of them pointed the shotgun directly to his face" and the ref you proposed [72]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Your re-edits are not helpful, you keep reverting other editors all the time to your own version. Please read the links I added above. It is a reshape or your own first version with different words all the time, nothing new really. Please do not re-do anything and/or keep adding new wording with the same meaning that only obscures what sources are saying and the basic fact. See the footage again here, please let WP flow.
A policeman in the charging line in full riot-gear shot a rubber bullet (ball) straight to a crowd hitting one in the face, and there are not a few but numerous witnesses to it. (Also, they were using the rubber bullets that are banned by law in Catalonia) We are all seeing that (and LaSexta source puts it straight), so please do stick first and foremost to common sense, that is what WP is about. I hope you understand now, and all this continuous obstruction to normal editing stops. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, another inaccurate statement you added (just one I chose random): "adducing that one of them pointed the shotgun directly to his face.<ref name='"ElPeriodico14112017" /><ref name='"ElPeriodico14112017"'>{{cite news |title=El herido en el ojo por bala de goma el 1-O pide al juez que identifique '''al agente de la Policía que le disparó''' |url=https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/herido-identificar-escopetero-Policia-disparo_0_707979273.html |date=14 November 2017}}</ref> This was added by you, User:BallenaBlanca, here. It does not say "pointed the shotgun [...] to his face", it says "shot [...] to his face", so the edit you decided to make while we were discussing may be held as a no-improvement at best, a misrepresentation of sources at worst. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, please, try to be polite and calm down. It seems you are continually judging my edits in bad faith. You're not even valuing when I give you the reason. Remember WP: AGF.

You said: It does not say "pointed the shotgun [...] to his face", it says "shot [...] to his face", I will continue assuming your good faith, so I will think that the fact that you have not translated here everything that the news says has been only due to an involuntary error or forgetfulness. The source says verbatim: [73] '"apuntó recto y disparó" directamente a la cara' ("pointed straight and shot" directly to the face"). Yes, I added "adducing that one of them pointed the shotgun directly to his face", wich is not wrong nor misrepresents the source. Is there really much difference? It is implicit that he pointed at the moment of the shot. But please, add it yourself, add "and shoot" after "pointed the shotgun", I am afraid that you will not like how I do it either.

I will also assume your good faith when you said that you "randomly" found another error, but it took you 24 minutes to find it.

Please, provide the source or sources that say there were several witnesses. But do not limit yourself to an ambiguous title, provide the specific / detailed information within the news.

By the way, you are wrong or at least, you are giving wrong information: rubber balls are not "prohibited in Catalonia". It is not allowed to be used by the Mossos d'Esquadra [74], but they can be used by the Spanish National Police, in Catalonia and in the rest of Spain [75]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am trying hard to assume your good faith, believe me. Your edits are not helpful (you may wish to take my advise), so please refrain from adding objections to anything that moves. If you cannot pinpoint your objections to something in a few, pair of straightforward sentences with its own diffs, something is not working. I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations sorry, it wastes my time and that of other editors.
I will not bother reading your comment on the prohibition of rubber balls, but I do believe you beforehand, it just sounds reasonable. So my inaccuracy (just a comment though). Let us avoid needless litigation.
On "witnesses", it is in the sources we are citing time and again, so sorry I do not have more time.
24 minutes? 24 minutes what?
A reasonable title in a reliable source is good enough, more so when you have the footage confirming it right next to it. I am adding the footage in this discussion time and again. Do you call it into question? Yes? If you do, please say it, if not, please give it a rest and move on. We all see there is a policeman shooting at someone in the crowd straight in the face, no?
As I have seen, you have integrated my compromise wording on rubber bullet (ball); that I see as auspicious. Thanks for that Iñaki LL (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
O, on your comment above (" I will think that the fact that you have not translated here everything that the news says has been only due to an involuntary error or forgetfulness. The source says verbatim: [76] '"apuntó recto y disparó" directamente a la cara' ("pointed straight and shot" directly to the face").), what I just did was rely on your previous quotation: "news |title=El herido en el ojo por bala de goma el 1-O pide al juez que identifique al agente de la Policía que le disparó |url=https://www.eldiario.es (...)". Iñaki LL (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Iñaki LL Thank you for having already seen that I have integrated your compromise wording on rubber bullet (ball) and for thanking me. It is a step forward. :-)
I really regret that you do not have time, this is clearly an obstacle. It is necessary to invest the necessary time in reading, in order to understand the explanations, analyze the sources in detail, reach the correct conclusions and realize exactly what the edits of other users consisted of, so as not to misinterpret them. When it takes time, it takes time, we can not change it.
A veteran and neutral editor can not be defending that an inaccurate title, which is later contradicted by the content of the news, can be used. I am convinced that it is only a temporary obfuscation. But let's leave this aside, because I have found another reference that can help us move forward.
It is true that there is a footage, but that does not mean that there are "many witnesses". The people who watch the video are not "witnesses". The video in any case will be evidence for the trial. We have to be rigorous with the contents of the sources, as you yourself know very well per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. All the sources speak of one witness, who has testified in the trial and who assures that the shot was horizontal, at a short distance and direct towards people. That witness is the person who recorded the video. Now I have found a reference that talks about the images of the footage, that we can add [77]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 04:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you agree with this edit and new wording, using the ref mentioned above?:
[78] One witness, the journalist who recorded the images, testified he saw that a police officer pointed and shot his shotgun horizontally, directly against demonstrators and at close range, in the moments before the man was injured in the eye, which can be seen in the footage.<ref name='"Ara24042018"'>{{cite news |title=Un testimoni assegura que el noi que va perdre un ull l'1-O va rebre el tret directe i a poca distància |url=https://www.ara.cat/societat/testimoni-roger-espanol-ull-1-O-tret-directe_0_2002599874.html |work=[[Ara (newspaper)|Ara]] |date=24 April 2018}}</ref> --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 04:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Iñaki LL, with this new edits from today [79] you repeated information already present, causing confusion in the information. There was only one injured by a rubber ball and with what you wrote, it seems that there were two. Notice:
You added: "A man was hit in the eye by a rubber ball during a police charge, severely injuring him." But the immediately preceding sentence already says: "four people were hospitalized by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests ..." [80]
I adjusted it [81]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I adjusted the number of witnesses, according to the sources already present [82]. There were 5 in total: one journalist who declared on how the shot was and four who declared there was no unrest at the moment the shot took place:
  • "Ara24042018" un testimoni que va presenciar i gravar en vídeo el moment que Roger Español va rebre l'impacte de la pilota de goma (...) Aquest dimarts també han declarat davant del magistrat d'instrucció número 7 de Barcelona quatre testimonis més, que han explicat que la Policia hauria disparat en un moment que no s'estava produint cap aldarull
  • "ElPeriodico24042018" "El juez que investiga la actuación policial en los centros de votación durante el referéndum ha interrogado a cinco testigos. El más claro, según la acusación, ha sido un periodista del semanario La Directa que grabó cómo el policía nacional disparaba una pelota de goma. (...) Otros testigos han explicado que en el momento de la carga policial no se estaba produciendo ningún disturbio"
  • "ElDiario24042018" "Además del informador de La Directa, han comparecido ante el juez dos profesionales del sector audiovisual que ese día hacían vídeos, una vecina y un observador de la plataforma 'Som Defensores'" --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
My edit was very correct. For cohesion, please touch the text minimally. In the process you have removed verified information I added, which is very unhelpful (I restored it). That has nothing to do with cohesion. Plus following my edit dwelling on the incident, you immediately added a reactive edit saying there had been riots before, which is not related to the incident, and discredited the victim with a extremely dodgy source, like Ok Diario, which is not a serious media outlet, has a very clear, pro-governmental stance in national matters, and has issued tampered information to the public (Podemos, and especially Catalonia).
This talk section is extremely long. It did not need to. Do not touch everything that others contribute, it disrupts the normal editing process, and adds confusion. Should I see the next time you re-arrange and remove a piece of information in the process I will use my roll-back rights, do not doubt it. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Iñaki LL: Please use the necessary time and you will avoid continuing having problems of misinterpretation. I did not delete information nor any reference, so this edit [83] of you duplicated this source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catalonia-protests-referendum-police-latest-man-shot-eye-rubber-bullet-a7979271.html. I trimmed it [84]
Remember that I have been looking for sources to support the information about the witnesses, following the talked here. You added data about four witnesses statements on the events leading up to the shoots. Therefore, to balance, we have to give the two versions by WP:NPOV. The sources added by me include footages from the previous moments to the moments of the shots, with explicit explanations and the statements of the lawyer, recognizing that the injured person appears in the footage harassing the police. As you claimed yourself in this discussion, the footages are a very valuable sources. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
On NPOV, (etc.) no, you are not understanding, facts are not POV, they are what they are. This is no battleground. I take it to your talk page. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved to talk

Aljullu Can you please explain this edit of yours (El País and Nació Digital say they couldn't vote twice, added reference to RAC1 too)?

Why did you remove this text "in some cases, the registration of the votes was done on paper, then incorporated into the electronic system", which is supported by the reference "ElPais03112017"?: [85] "Este medio también presenció casos en los que, para intentar aligerar las colas, se llevaba un registro en papel de los votantes y después se introducían en el sistema electrónico. (This medium also witnessed cases in which, to try to lighten the queues, a paper record of the voters was did and then entered into the electronic system.)"

Please, provide the specific extract of the news that supports this text that you have re-added again ["all votes were validated"

Also, please, explain this edit, why "OkDiario is not a reliable source" --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for bringing it here! Since you broke WP:CYCLE I will undo you revert until a consensus is found.
If you read the paragraph again you will see it's detailing different versions from different sources, given that reliable sources seem to disagree here: some media detailed it was possible to vote twice while some other reported it was not.
Due in part to the deactivation and repeated blocking by the police of the computer programs used to implement universal census and result reporting, some alleged irregularities were reported by Spanish media during the celebration of the referendum. Among them, people recorded voting more than once, votes made by non-Catalan people not included in the census or an image of a child casting a vote in the ballot box. [Other media reported it was not possible to vote twice and all votes were validated.]
The references are quite clear:
Nació Digital: Ha comprovat en primera persona com el sistema operatiu de les meses del referèndum no permet votar dues vegades..
El País: Otra de las irregularidades denunciadas durante la jornada fue la posibilidad de votar varias veces. Un periodista de este diario encargado de hacerlo no logró su propósito..
RAC1: Ha intentat votar dos cops en una mesa electoral, al col·legi de la Concepció, a l’Eixample de Barcelona. No li han deixat.
--Aljullu (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
That does not mean "'all' votes were validated". The sources had to say it expressly, but they do not say it. Those journalists speak of their own experience in a specific place and moment, you can not extend it to "all" votes per WP: NOR. Remember that I have asked you to extract the specific text of the news where they say that "'all' votes were validated".
You have not explained why you have removed this: "in some cases, the registration of the votes was done on paper, then incorporated into the electronic system", which is supported by the reference "ElPais03112017" [86]
Neither have you explained why "OkDiario is not a reliable source". --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
There must be some order in the text, if we have to expose two versions of what happened (one saying it was possible to vote twice and one that it was not possible) it means first we must explain one version and later the other. I don't mind the order, but the text must make sense, you can't counterpose two versions but explain the same in both of them.
I'm completely ok with you adding the sentence According to El País, in some cases, the registration of the votes was done on paper, then incorporated into the electronic system but please, add it in the part of the paragraph that expresses doubts about the system (which already takes 5/6 of the entire text).
About the sentence of validating the votes I assumed it from "prova de la solidesa del sistema operatiu del referèndum" (Nació Digital) but you are right it might not be accurate enough. Feel free to remove it if you wish, but please, keep the part "Other media reported it was not possible to vote twice". --Aljullu (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Aljullu: Thank you very much for your kind and precise response, tomorrow I will look at it.
By the way, you still have not responded why "OkDiario is not a reliable source". Please, provide a detailed explanation. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

October 3 General Strike

The general strike proposal was originally put forward by the anarcho-syndicalist CGT and CNT along with some smaller anarchist groups - not the CCOO who endorsed it just recently, as did the UGT. It was also originally proposed with a neutral view towards independence and primarily as a response to the repression of the Spanish government.

sign your posts with four tildas - ok?104.169.41.8 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Catalan_independence_referendum/Archive_9&oldid=998615624"