Talk:Operation Anubis

Name?

Operation Anubis = Catalonia Crisis? This seems to be two very different things. One is the name of a police operation, the other the whole political situation. I've rewritten the first two sentences to make this clear. Allt the best.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Status

Considering that the polls have closed and the preliminary results published, I do not think that it would be accurate to characterize Anubis as "ongoing". However, I'm at a loss to say how it would be best be characterized. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 01:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The police operation is still ongoing amid the civil unrest, I wonder if that is still part of 'operation 'anubis' Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

According to Ada Colau, the mayor of Barcelona, there were multiple credible reports of sexual assault by Spanish police officers against voters. One woman who was filmed having her fingers bent backwards and broken one by one by a police officer, says he also fondled her breasts, although that part appears not to have been caught on camera. [1] 24.50.161.64 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Injured

There are no conflicting figures on injured. Its retarded to show conflicting claims. There were 893 who were attended in situ for various reasons (including anxiety attacks) and out of those 400 and something had to visit hospital or an abulatorio. Let's keep things real guys. Article looks silly, its Europe with official figures available not the Syrian Civil War.Gaditano23 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody beliefs the claim that morre than 400 police officers where injured. It's fake news from the Spanish government. They changed their version from 43 to more than 400 when they saw the international impact of what they did. --Gerhidt (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rubber bullets

This edit added a content not supported by the source (bold text): "In Barcelona's Eixample district, Spanish National Police in Barcelona during the referendum using rubber bullets, which have been illegal in Catalonia since 2014."

Rubber bullets are not "illegal or banned in Catalonia". They are only forbidden for use by the Mossos d'Esquadra (replaced by foam bullets). Other security corps can use them. See: https://www.diagonalperiodico.net/libertades/22740-sevan-pelotas-goma-llegan-balas-foam.html

In addition, rubber bullets were only used in one incident: “Officers have used batons and - in one incident in Barcelona - rubber bullets to remove people from polling stations across the region, with separate footage showing police seizing ballot boxes and smashing their way in to polling centres.” I adjusted with this ref, already present. [2] [3] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Content restored

I restored this content. It is necessary to understand and put into context the content that follows it. Perhaps we can summarize it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Very clear violation of WP:UNDUE and the sources behind it are WP:BIASED. This content is about an unnamed woman with no relation to the referendum or to the operation. She is neither a Catalan nor Spanish official. For more information on why statements such as that - even when sourced - do not belong here, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. For what reason would Wikipedia need an entire paragraph dedicated to attacking her reputation stemming from a hyperbolic expression of injury other than pushing a narrative? Please read WP:PLUG's section on scandal-mongering. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we neutrally summarize significant aspects of relevant topics, and based on its guidelines this doesn't warrant a mention on the article, much less a lengthy paragraph. The version you tried adding on 11th October (ID 804957774) also has multiple clear violations of WP:EDITORIALIZING with its use of negative transitional phrases. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but if you would like, you can put this on WikiNews instead; these projects have different standards and the added content evidently disregards Wikipedia's guidelines and per the described policies is unacceptable here. Perhaps the clearest example is Wikipedia's guideline on opinion pieces found at WP:NOTOPINION which stresses the importance of neutrality, especially on current and controversial events like this, regardless of how passionately one may want to express their point of view. The content you would like to add does not have an WP:IMPARTIAL tone by any means, and it is on subjects as controversial as this that we must give only due weight. I feel that it would be beneficial to read WP:WFE; it is an essay rather than a policy, but it has relevance here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Content from Catalan independence referendum, 2017

Crystallizedcarbon, Calthinus I made some initial adjustments on Operation Anubis#1 October section, from the content approved on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Request for Comment (User:Calthinus/Violence and injuries rewrite), but we must continue reviewing. You can probably help. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 04:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this is a misunderstanding of the RfC process. Please note that adding a reply to the request for comments does not approve it for the article. The approval of such things comes when the request has been formally closed and a consensus has been met. As of now, the RfC remains open for active discussion and the consensus has not been determined. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Questioning the whole entry

Does the scope of the so-called "operation Anubis" extent further than the events of 20-22 September 2017 (enforcement of the rulings of the Court of Instruction #13 of Barcelona and notable consequences, that is: the mob demonstration in front of the bulding against the GC and a succint mention to the role and ulterior indiction of high-profile individuals of the Mossos, Òmnium Cultural and ANC)? If not (which is my current understanding) this article is just convoluted WP:SYNTH (starting with the first line of the entry) and relevant content should be added to 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. I mean, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis is the place where 1) the rulings of the Court of Instruction #13 and the mob demonstration around the GC, 2) the calling of a referendum and the passing of the "Lei de Transitorietat" in September 6-7 by the Catalan Parliament, 3) the raids in presses by the GC searching for ballots 4) the rulings of the Constitutional Court, 5) the rulings of the Higher Justice Court of Catalonia about the 1-0, 6) the massive deployement in Catalonia of anti-riot units by the Ministry of the Interior, 6) the police charges at the 1-0, et al.., makes sense instead of a mix of some of them in a strange entry under the name of "Operation Anubis", which to my humble understanding only covers 1) (despite the "source" (a translation of a mere "twitter post" apparently stating otherwise).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right Asqueladd. The operation was limited to the actions of the Civil Guard to comply with the orders of the trial court number 13 of Barcelona [4] [5] So we must keep information about 20 September, although probably we can also mantain 21 September.

I moved the rest to a draft, to move from there the reliable content where you indicate. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: @BallenaBlanca:. By 22 September I mean when Josep Lluís Salvadó was released from detention.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to ensuring that statements say directly what their sources said rather than producing synthesized amalgamations, it is not inaccurate to list 1 October. The Guarda Civil was enforcing orders on 1 October, and there's far more sources than twitter posts to reliably describe that. Understandably, much information could be replicated on the articles regarding the referendum and the subsequent constitutional crisis, but it would not be accurate to limit this article to 20 September and dismissive wording such as "so called" is not in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on words to watch. The current format referring to it as a police operation lasting before and during the referendum is correct. The article's wording said "by the government of Spain" and the citation used specifically said "The Spanish Interior Ministry." That is not an example of synthesis. SYNTH is not an advocacy tool and it can only be invoked when there is a real example of synthesis. SYNTH is when an editor adds a conclusion citing multiple sources not explicitly stated by any one of the sources. The first line of this article had direct support from the first line of the cited article. That is not synthesis. To label this article's existence as an example of "convoluted synthesis" is not only not neutral, but objectively incorrect. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: At the 1-O, the deployed (by the Ministry if the Interior) units of GC and CNP were indeed enforcing orders coming from the High Court of Justice of Catalonia on behalf of the sentence of the Constitutional Court. Not the so-called Operation Anubis because that operation was "instructed" by the Court number 13 of Barcelona (and took place on 20-S/21-S, with releases from detention on 21-S/22-S) as result of a criminal lawsuit presented by Vox (as particular). The first line is SYNTH because the Operation Anubis did not happen at the 1-O, nor it relates to the Government of Spain, nor the lodged police officers in the "Piolín" were part of it, even if a tweet states otherwise.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

PD: Regarding the "words to watch", that's fine for the article mainspace, but I will editorialize my own comments in talk pages as I wish, if you don't mind.

The Spanish Interior Ministry is directly related to the government of Spain. That is exactly what the sources said, which is exactly what the article said. That is not an example of SYNTH, and if you continue to insist that it is I highly encourage you to read WP:SYNTH again. The changes in the last day massively violate our rules on neutrality as I've noticed that virtually every instance of information unsupportive of the Spanish government has been removed leaving only instances of how the Catalan demonstrators "destroyed" property. This disregard for policy is unacceptable on Wikipedia. The significant reduction of the article to only including 20 September and eliminating all statements that appear to "support" Catalan activists or appear to "condemn" the operation is a rather obvious example of WP:ADVOCACY and if this persists we may need to take this to the Arbitration Committee. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard. Making a point here is becoming excruciatingly tedious. The point going over your head (again and again and again and...) is that the Operation Anubis took place on 20-S/21-S and the Ministry of the Interior was not significantly involved in the direction of such (judicial) operation. Currently the only source linking the name "operation anubis" to the Piolin boat and (presumably) further policial developments (1.O et al) is a translation of a "mock tweet". I won't comment on your nasty violation of WP:AGF.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again, synthesis is when the article's content is an amalgamation from sources without the content actually being said by any of the sources. That includes the reference to the Spanish Government on 1 October, and that is the specific instance that you marked as synthesis. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Asqueladd, you are right. Taking into account your comments and this other of BrendonTheWizard, I have rewritten the first few lines and limited the page to 20-22 September. The rest of the information (in the draft) can be incorporated to 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. I hope you agree. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: While I think infobox templates are not the way to go for this kind of context, I've pulled some changes in order to improve accuracy.[6]--Asqueladd (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I think "substantially damaged" is somewhat weasel. I will correct myself.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I do not know if it is correct or not to keep an infobox in this page. If you consider, I have no problem removing it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I think there is still much work to do. I would structure the sections of the article as it follows: 1 (Background) 2 (main section about the operation proper and the demonstration), 3 (the aftermath, split in turn into 3a: progressive release of the 14 detainees; and 3b: the "criminal investigation" on Josep Lluís Trapero, the 'Jordis' and Teresa Laplana because of their role regarding the 20-S event. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Asqueladd, I agree.

BrendonTheWizard it seems that you are not taking into account our explanations and opinions, the sources and our desire to cooperate to locate the information in the right pages: here the one that corresponds here and the rest, once reviewed, where appropiate. I agree to request a mediation. (By the way, I do not understand why you interleave the messages instead of putting them to the bottom. You are making the conversation more difficult.) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If I am not adequately taking into account what you are saying I request further elaboration so I may correct my actions, but to my understanding this subsection regards what is believed to by a violation of WP:SYNTH when there does not seem to be one. As for your curiosity behind why I am not putting all messages at the bottom, I put them at the bottom of the reply chains, not at the bottom of the talk section itself. That is a longstanding standard on talk pages as it shows which messages you are replying to based on indentation. New replies at the bottom would restart the indentation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on dates

Controversy: the dates covered by the Operation Anubis. Asqueladd and I, based on sources like this one, understand that it is the operation of September 20 and that, at most, we could include until September 22. See the conversation above. Users implicated: user:Asqueladd, user:BrendonTheWizard and myself. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that according to sources, Operation Anubis occurred strictly on 20 September and not on 1 October. From what I've found, sources say the opposite. For example, here is an article from the non-governmental UNPO explicitly stating and by name that Operation Anubis occurred on 1 October. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well with all my respect, that page is wrong, that is a foreign organization and seems to be not well informed. A small sample of sources that reflect that the operation Anubis was the police operation of the 20 of September: [7] [8] [9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] See also the Spanish version --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)