Talk:Trial of Catalonia independence leaders

Neutrality

The reactions section is completely one-sided in favour of the defendants, this is not neutral. I'm adding an NPOV tag until this issue is fixed, we need reactions form both camps not from one alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This is only your opinion. All sides in a conflict are not always equally deserving of attention. If you believe some section to be biased, please feel free to improve it by including any verifiable sources stating opposing views rather than declaring it as biased only based on your opinion. 83.252.201.112 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced POV pushing

"and numerous other organisations" is not sourced in spite of the claim to the contrary by @Aljullu: as the sentence said "and numerous other organisations have expressed concerns over human rights violations during the altercations produced in October 2017.". Where's the source? This unsourced material is just piling on the POV pushing, and from someone who is clearly supporting one side in this controversial political issue. We need neutrality and for all claims which are challenged to be sourced. You can't just re-add material which is unsourced and falsely claimed it is sourced. it looks as if we are just POV `pushing the separatist viewpoint, and this is why we have a POV tag already, please desist from making the POV worse and try addressing the issue. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: thanks for bringing this here. You initial revert made several changes, so it was hard to know what you were referring to, my apologizes. I think that specific sentence is quite ambiguous and that might be the reason of our disagreement. altercations produced in October 2017 is that referring to the referendum or to the arrest of Catalan leaders? If it refers to the arrests, I think the section Reaction of this article lists enough organizations and the references don't need to be in the lead[1]. If it refers only to the day of the referendum, I think we should make the text clearer. --Aljullu (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aljullu: please do not add back disputed changes before addressing first the NPOV issue. Do not allow your political views to compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. It's bad enough you provide references only to cherry-pick the excerpts backing your side of the controversy, while ignoring everything else. I beg you to resolve disputes here first instead of engaging in childish edit war. Your last edit adds back "and numerous other organisations" in spite of @RichardWeiss: request for additional sources not being fulfilled. Also the reference you provide to remove the claim about the consideration of defendants as political prisoners does actually back the claim you are removing. It does literally state "AI has not qualified catalonian politicians in prison as prisoners of conscience". The semantic debate about "political prisoners vs. prisoners of conscience" you're trying to shoehorn in as the reason for your edit has no base whatsoever, as the text you deleted already made reference to "political prisoners or prisoners of conscience". And about the claim that international observers were paid for by the Generalitat, this is actually one of the embezzlement charges brought against the defendants, and numerous sources, much more reputable than the pro-independence newspaper you link as proof, provide the details of the operation (https://elpais.com/politica/2018/01/12/actualidad/1515775287_932525.html) which involved using The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS) as intermediary. I will not undo your changes without solving this dispute first, but please respect Wikipedia's article policies. FrankZumarra (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@FrankZumarra:

I beg you to resolve disputes here first instead of engaging in childish edit war.

Sure, we all try to do! I added the sentence back because another user edited the paragraph so it changed its meaning. I thought the discussion was moving forward as edits in the article. When RichardWeiss brought the discussion here, the sentence stated "concerns over human rights violations during the altercations produced in October 2017", which I defined as ambiguous in my previous comment. Another user, stepped in and modified it for "concerns over pre-trial detentions", that's what brought me to add the sentence back. I agree I might have been to fast modifying it, so I reverted my changes (and the changes of the other user) in that paragraph, to bring it back to the point when RichardWeiss opened the discussion here.

Also the reference you provide to remove the claim about the consideration of defendants as political prisoners does actually back the claim you are removing.

You are right, but as I explained in the edit summary, we shouldn't cherry-pick that AI doesn't define them as political prisoners while ignoring their footnote: "Ante la inexistencia de una definición aceptada del término “preso/a político/a” en el derecho internacional y a la luz de los numerosos posibles significados que puede tener en su empleo cotidiano, Amnistía Internacional, por norma general, trata de evitar su uso.". Adding "although do not refer to defendants as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience" to the article is misleading, AI is not saying they are not, but that they don't use that definition. In addition to that, the previous wording was ambiguous because the reader could think it was referring to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

this is actually one of the embezzlement charges brought against the defendants

Per WP:BLP this article shouldn't imply the defendants are guilty until facts are proven. The article you linked from El País says "El hecho de que las propias autoridades catalanas pagaran supuestamente un trabajo que debía ser independiente". --Aljullu (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aljullu: I cannot wrap my head around how you can twist such a clear statement as "Ante la posible comisión de un delito de orden público, Amnistía Internacional no les ha identificado como presos de conciencia*". The footnote just states the reason why AI prefers to use the term "prisoner of conscience" instead of "political prisoner". There are literally thousands of examples of AI press releases using the term "prisoner of conscience", like (https://www.es.amnesty.org/en-que-estamos/noticias/noticia/articulo/azerbaiyan-liberado-el-preso-de-conciencia-ilgar-mammadov-una-noticia-esperada-hace-mucho-tiempo/). Please check your facts. UN has also never qualified the defendants as "political prisoners" nor "prisoners of conscience", so the original sentence was 100% accurate. If it is relevant to provide the assessment of Human Rights organisations about the proceedings of the trial, you should at least attempt to provide all the facts, instead of intentionally hiding those which do not match your political views. I agree, though, that charges should not be confused with proven facts. But then again, I think this article does not need to repeat the same arguments as the main article for the 2017 Referendum already linked. Another article with a long list of edits and disputed neutrality. I would remove the conflictive paragraphs and try to limit the scope of this article to the actual charges brought against the defendants, which are going to be controversial enough. FrankZumarra (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@FrankZumarra: please, don't forget WP:GF. To add some context again to my edit, an anonymous user modified the article so it said "Amnesty International and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have expressed concerns over pre-trial detentions, although do not refer to defendants as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience.", my concern with that sentence was that 1) AI said they don't use the definition of 'political prisoners' in general, not only in this specific case, 2) the sentence was misleading because it has two subjects (AI and OHCHR) while the second clause only refers to one. I'm not against adding that information to the article but, the way it was written was plainly wrong IMO, that's why I removed it. For now, I added it again in the Reaction section, which I think is good enough. As a last comment, I'm not sure which paragraphs you consider the most "conflictive" ones but I would argue they would probably be the most important ones, and that's why they are conflictive! :) --Aljullu (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aljullu: I am assuming good faith; even though your political views are plain to see, I'm no one to judge. The issue here is clear: the neutrality of this article is disputed and removing editions which aim to provide a more neutral POV is not going to help. The conflictive statements I propose to delete are opinionated descriptions only tangentially related to the subject of the article -the trial- like the actions of the Spanish Police the day of the Referendum. FrankZumarra (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Add a column in the table

Who were these people in 2017? Their positions.82.177.40.11 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Aljullu (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No grounds for POV template

I do not think the POV tag in this article is justified by wikipedia's NPOV policy. All of the detailed events are both relevant and properly sourced. Any missing and potentially relevant differing views can be just added to the current information. Moreover, the POV tag is potentially misleading as it gives undue weight to any number of possible criticisms of an otherwise verifiable laundry-list of events without stating on which grounds they are criticized nor offering any contrasting facts or information. I believe this is grounds for removal of the template according to point 8 listed here [2], as it is impossible to empirically prove a positive. Kilgore T (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And the verdict was ... ?

The trial proceedings officially ended on 12 June 2019 and the verdict was made public on 14 October 2019.

– Any word on what the verdict was? – Sca (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: It's there in the Post-Trial Section — Will (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be in the lead. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It is now. Thanks for pointing it out. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Result of the referendum

It looks very odd to state "On 9 November 2014, a non-binding 2014 Catalan self-determination referendum was held." but not give the result of the referendum. It might make someone reading the article think it had been censored. Since that isn't the case, can we report the result as well please? --The Huhsz (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the referendum does not relate directly to the trial, there is a link to 2017 Catalan independence referendum where readers can see that the result of the referendum was 92% and not 80%, the result was not relevant in the trial but if we choose to add it to the background section, in order to respect WP:NPOV the information should be complete. It should be noted that support for independence in Catalonia is large but it is less that 50%. Most political parties in favor of the constitution asked Catalan citizens not to vote, as the referendum had been deemed ilegal by the courts (both the Constitutional and the High Court of Justice of Catalonia). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you are talking about the same referendum I am? The Huhsz (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I was not. Still, similar arguments do apply. The link is in the article, it was also deemed illegal so many people against independence did not participate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So that means we do not report the result? Nope, I'm still not seeing the logic of that. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That if it is included because it's deemed relevant, it should be done in a complete way to meet WP:NPOV. If the result is included it should be done along with the fact that it had been deemed ilegal and had been boycotted by those against independence that chose not to take part in an ilegal process instead of casting their no votes. That obviously is part of the result. I think it might be too long and a bit confusing to include all of that when the wikilink allows the interested readers to make their own opinion, but if you still think it's really needed here, we can work on a neutral wording to add it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The wikilink will certainly be useful; it's worth noting that the article it links to does not contain the word "boycott" at present. I certainly still think that if we're going to mention a vote, we should mention the outcome of the vote. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

for your reference, here is a quote from an English reliable source (Catalans vote in symbolic referendum on independence in defiance of Madrid) that used the term boycott: "Rafael Arenas of the Catalan Civil Society, a group opposed to the independence of Catalonia and who had called on Catalans to boycott the vote, cautioned against reading too much into the results. “It wasn’t a democratic process. Those carrying out the vote had a vested interest in the outcome,” he said. He also took aim at the turnout, which he said was much lower than it would have been in any election. “It shows there are a lot of Catalans who are not interested in independence,” he said." It is also notable that minors 16 or older were allowed to participate. Having said that, the important thing is not how we word it, but that if it is added it should be done in a complete manner ensuring NPOV. do you agree? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am very well aware of the controversy around this, and also of our policy WP:NPOV. I think it is essential to mention the outcome of the vote if we are going to mention the vote. Obviously there are people who didn't like the outcome of the vote; this happens more frequently than you might realise. Your proposed wording, please? --The Huhsz (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You are the one that proposed adding it. You must have misunderstood all that I said, whether people liked or disliked the outcome is irrelevant. What is relevant and puts that 80% in its proper context, is that most people that usually vote against pro-independence parties did not participate, that since it was illegal there was a boycott against participating from those opposing it and that to get a larger number of voters minors 16 and up were allowed to vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I added it, you removed it, and now you seem reluctant to propose a form of words that would please you. Your opinion of what is "relevant" and what is the "proper context" seems to be a very strongly held one, yet strangely difficult for you to express. Voting age may be an interesting read for you; Austria, Malta, Scotland, Argentina and Brazil all allow 16-year-olds to vote, as does Germany in some elections. I'd be interested in a source for your statement "most people that usually vote against pro-independence parties did not participate"; and, most of all, I'd like you to propose a form of words that you think would satisfy WP:NPOV. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is what I'm saying so hard to understand? my only strongly held opinion is that our policy should be followed. In this case NPOV, as including only the result without the relevant information to put it into context would be in my opinion, clearly misleading. I was just pointing out the elements needed to be taken into account that sources deemed relevant to do just that. I was not asking to include my comment that most people against independence did not vote. I am not sure if any source worded it in that way, since it is a complex issue, probably not. What multiple reliable sources did point out was the low level of participation, the boycott, making public that they would not vote and questions about the validity of the consultation by most political parties against independence and finally the suspension by the constitutional court. I made the comment about allowing minors 16 and older to vote because it related directly to one of the main points discussed which was participation. In regular elections that is not the case. The pro independence parties were using the number of voters from the last general election who voted for pro-independence parties as a target. allowing people 16 and older and resident foreigners to vote helped achieve that target and was noted by multiple reliable sources. Still, the percentage of participation was of roughly one third, much less than in other valid elections. And the total number of yes votes roughly corresponded with the support that pro independence parties get at regular elections with a proper census and democratic guarantees, where their percentage is close to, but does not reach 50%. An inclusive wording reflecting what the reliable sources said is not that easy and it may be too long for this particular article, that is why I personally thought it would be better to maintain the current version, but I don't oppose inclusion if you can come up with a wording that addresses the concerns I have pointed out or if you can argue why they are not relevant. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How's your proposal coming along? Or are you ok with me restoring what I added a week ago, which was accurate? --The Huhsz (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RAWDATA, being accurate and sourced is required but not sufficient for inclusion. In an encyclopedic article, data needs to be put into context respecting NPOV. I explained the points you would need to address to meet those requirements and asked for you to make a valid proposal. As I said before, I am not opposed to inclusion if done right, but I don't find it necessary as to do it right will diverge from the focus of the article. In my opinion, that is what wikilinks are for. That is why I should not be the one proposing the change. But as I said before, if you make a valid proposal that addresses the concerns I raised, I am confident that we will be able to reach a consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Status

What is the current status of the six people listed under "High Court of Justice of Catalonia" and the four under "Audiencia Nacional"? Dismissed? Trials not yet completed? Trials not yet begun? 216.255.165.198 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• • • Historical Context****

I suggest that the article should include a section describing the historical context for modern European separatist movements -- i.e. from Wilson's 14 points during WW 1 to the international recognition of the various SSR states of the former Soviet Union in 1991...forward. Some movements get recognized almost immediately -- others seem to be repressed/ignored. It seems odd -- as a reader -- to read that a separatist movement is illegal or unconstitutional...without reading how such a movement could go forward AND BE legal / constitutional. Example -- Scotland in the UK. Is a Catalonian independence movement even possible under the Spanish constitution -- or are they locked in forever? Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't we have to add something about Carles Puigdemont fleeing and residing in Belgium now?

And a link to his article. An assist: "On 30 October 2017 charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds were brought against Puigdemont and other members of the Puigdemont Government. Puigdemont, along with others, fled to Belgium and European Arrest Warrants (EAW) were issued against them. Travelling in Germany - he was arrested but then released by the German court, idem in Italy where he was released after spending a night in prison. Carles Puigdemont also has a seat as European Parliamentarian." SvenAERTS (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Pardons and update

Can anyone add what's happened since 2021? They have been pardoned, which I've just added to this and the 9 leaders' articles that didn't have that, but that was in 2021. Can someone with local knowledge add more information? MarkiPoli (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)