Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum

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. 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) 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)

Are we assuming the referendum will happen?

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

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

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

Date format

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

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

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

the question of the referendum in the three languages is apparently not identical (!?)

The main article contains the following phrases:

"The question of the referendum is "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?"." "Ballot paper that the Catalan government intends to use in the referendum, in Catalan, Castilian Spanish and Aranese Occitan, the three official languages of Catalonia."

Looking at the ballot paper and knowing several Roman languages, it seems to me that the question in the three languages is itself not identical (as in the third version), or at least has different connotations (as in the first two versions). More specifically, my own translations would be the following (emphasis added for clarity):

"Do you want Catalonia to STAY an independent state in the form of a republic?". (Catalan, "sigui" resembling the word "seguir" to stay/to follow) "Do you want Catalonia to BE an independent state in the form of a republic?". (Castilian Spanish, "sea" as in the subjuntivo form of ser/to be) "Do you want Catalonia to BECOME an independent state in the form of a republic?". (Aranese Occitan, "vengue" as in "venir"/come or become)

2A02:908:5C8:63C0:7173:DD4F:CCA5:DF4F (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It takes a simple google search to answer your own question by yourself. https://www.verbs.cat/es/conjugacion/37-ser.html You should work on your romance (not roman) languages.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's a reference showing different meanings in each of the languages this looks like original research. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No source is going to talk about translation errors, but it's also wrong to assume that languages use the same verbs with the same meanings. And as pointed out, "sigui" is a form of the verb "to be". --92.75.208.20 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So, aside from possibly being OR due to it not being referenced, the claim that no source is going to talk on this means this is not notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, then. Impru20 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 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? [[1]][[2]][[3]]. 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 [[4]], some more discussion [[5]] and some more [[6]]. 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)

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)

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.

Confiscated ballots

Catalan government claim 770,000 votes were in boxes confiscated by police, mentioned by The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/01/catalan-independence-referendum-spain-catalonia-vote-live). Culloty82 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As a prodindependentist that was there must say this is false to be fair. I heard in real time the official account. What they said, with a bit of ambiguous language, is that >400 ballot boxes were substracted, which potentially represented a census of 770k people. But we have to be fair and admit that we need to substract from these 770 all the people that would not have voted anyways, would have voted blank/null, or ended up voting in other schools. We need to account, if I understood it correctly, the app allowed to vote twice with a digital registry, so they probably cleared the registry after each los ballot box and these votes were accounted in other schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Estimates of the number of confiscated ballots ought to be included in the results section. 24.50.161.64 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way to put "seized votes" in the infobox? --Auledas (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a "notes" field, which currently has "Provisional results" and a source. In theory "seized votes" could be added. I'm not sure if it ought to be, though. Scolaire (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be more relevant to say the illegal referendum was forbidden and that the (illegal) result is not representative. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That´s quite reductionist. It was a legal referendum by the catalan law (binding indeed !!), which in turn was being turned down by the constitutional spanish court in express time. Expressing opinion is also a fundamental right by the UN. But I am agree the result cannot be considered representative because of the whole spoiled thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is incomplete because there is no information about 1. missing ballots, 2. Conditions under which the referendum was held. I hope someone with authorisation fixes it. Izitpajn (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Izitpajn I've done some stuff to handle this, with a lot of sources. There must be some way to integrate the fact that ~14.5% of the votes were estimated lost (admittedly according to the Catalonian government) into the box without breaking the template.--Yalens (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

Republic

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

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

Anti-independentists

Did anti-independentists boycott the referendum? The turnout suggests it was so. Шурбур (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Most political forces in favor of the Spanish Constitution called not to participate in the referendum, as it was suspended and deemed illegal by the Constitutional Court. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely without a hair of a doubt. Check the results for the non independent parties in the last elections (2015), youll se that at least 700k people did not vote in this referendum in order to abvoid the legitimation of any potential result (especially considering it was binding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless we find a reliable source that says this (and not through WP:SYNTH of course) we shouldn't try to interpret the turnout solely off of one factor. It is also worth noting that the amount of stolen ballots, which while estimated could represent a number as high as 770,000, cannot be confirmed one way or another and thus cannot be added into the turnout rate. If there were upwards of nearly another million votes factored in, the turnout rate could surpass the needed threshold to reach a true majority. Other factors that would result in a low turnout include the Spanish state's opposition to the referendum, which came in many forms, whether through police raids or through reminding people that no matter what the central government will not recognize it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right, but it is so difficult to rationalize/dcoument common sense, since I lived the situation I am proindependence and I know very well the half of barcelona that I know and that are not independentist not a single one went to vote as everyone acknowledges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @BrendonTheWizard: In response to your request, here are some reliable sources that clearly state various calls to not participate in the referendum deemed illegal by Spanish law: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]...

There are many more. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have found RS sources for this. As previously said, we shouldn't phrase mentions of this in the article in such a way that would lead readers to believe that this is the sole reason for a lower turnout. We can mention using these sources that there were calls to not vote as you have found, but mentions of factors that influenced this turnout should not be without stating other known factors as said in the previous reply. This would give readers a more thorough understanding of the complications.

We could fairly mention the following without giving undue weight to any of them:

* There were calls to not participate in the referendum as the referendum was deemed illegal under Spanish law; those opposed to the referendum or to Catalan independence may have not participated as a result of this.

* Spain's Operation Anubis used the Guarda Civil to raid polling stations and stop people from voting, in the process preventing a maximum of 770,000 from voting.

* The Spanish government would not recognize the result regardless of a "yes" result or a "no" result as they have deemed the referendum unconstitutional, reducing the incentive for voters from either side.

It would also be reasonable for editors to deem this speculation and oppose the inclusion of this, but I would support a section elaborating on the turnout so long as it uses reliable sources for several factors as to not make it seem that there was only one or two contributing factors. If we do add this, it would need to be worded better than I have presented it on this talk page, words such as "may have" shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia because they are weasel words and a better wording would eliminate them.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @BrendonTheWizard: The sources were in answer to the first question. I do agree with you that all three statements are relevant. I would however not add figures to any of them, and if they are added the number would need to have attribution. For the third point I would probably add that it may have been less of a factor for the yes voters as the organizers said that they would carry out the result regardless. It may also be worth mentioning the documented cases of alleged multiple voting, towns with more votes than their registered population or the video of a person that slipped and the ballot box seemed to be pre-stuffed with ballots (see here). This last part is not 100% conclusive as it is not proven if they were going to take them out once in the polling station but since there was no electoral commission there is no way of knowing. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:03, 5 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)

Number of injured

About this edit: (890 civilians and 39 agents received medical treatment (scrapes and bruises are not injuries...))

Of course scrapes and bruises are injuries. Let's see the medical definition: An injury is damage to your body. It is a general term that refers to harm caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and more. (...) Wounds are injuries that break the skin or other body tissues. They include cuts, scrapes, scratches, and punctured skin. (...) Other common types of injuries include Animal bites Bruises (...)

In adition, the references do not specify the type of injuries of civilians, we do not know how many of them have just scrapes and bruises or other types of injuries. We can not, therefore, separate numbers but give the total numbers. Our duty is to adjust to the references.

Also, an injured person is an injured, whether medical care is immediate or not.

I adjusted once and I will adjust again to fit the references.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Well, finally on 2 October, only four of all that injured people were hospitalised. ([12], [13]) Could this fact be useful for your discussion? Asturkian (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Asturkian. Of course is useful. It reaffirms my argumentation. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This is considered WP:OR and is against Wikipedia's policy to include in the article. Wikipedia must reflect what reliable sources state, not your personal opinions or analysis. 2601:644:1:B7CB:75C2:683E:B7D3:6409 (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Content not explicitly stated by any of the sources

I agree with this, it is evident that is necessary to include for NPOV, but the edit had several irregularities. I have not been able to find where the sources specifically support the added text.

I have made these adjustments, per WP:OR, WP:SYN ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") and WP:CITEKILL.

Please feel free to readd the previous text ("The Spanish government under the guide of Mariano Rajoy has come under international scrutiny over its use of force on civilians to prevent the referendum") if you find verifiable references that specifically support it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Other political parties, groups and sub-national goverments • SCOTLAND: Nicola Sturgeon backs Catalan referendum calls http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41350999

Press coverage

Like in the "falsehood and photomontages" epigraph, Spanish unionist media sprang to life the idea that kids were going to be used as a "human shields" during the Referendum: http://www.larazon.es/espana/puigdemont-usara-ninos-como-escudos-humanos-en-los-colegios-KA16344916 https://okdiario.com/espana/cataluna/2017/10/01/utilizacion-ninos-referendum-primero-escudos-humanos-luego-votantes-1374571 http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2017-09-19/los-separatistas-usaran-viejos-invalidos-y-ninos-de-pecho-como-escudos-humanos-1276606097/ http://www.eltitular.es/adoctrinando-los-ninos-escudos-humanos-referendum-1-octubre/

Reference 6: It is flaw, partial and biased: • An electronic database system was used. Spanish police could hack it for a couple of hours, but it existed http://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/politica/20171001/govern-cens-electoral-universal-6323219) • International observers: “We saw numerous and repeated violations of civil and human rights” http://www.catalannews.com/politics/item/international-observers-we-saw-numerous-and-repeated-violations-of-civil-and-human-rights).

It is ironic that the Spanish institutions actively boycotted the referendum and the said it did not have guarantees.

Delict of civil disobedience

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

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

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

Democratic spirit

I think the artilcle should mention that despite of isolated cases, the resistance was done in the peacefulest manner, applauding policeman that did not want to push too hard (especially regional one), and considering the streets were full of independentists and outnumbered in 1:10 the constitutionalists according to the results (and due to the call for non-voting from the unionist parties) there were memorable scenes of democratic fairness like: http://www.ara.cat/politica/Marcel-Ezquerra_0_1880212090.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)The Catalan Referendum has been the most important "legality vs legitimacy" case in the European recent History.

Please, note that:

• Spanish Constitution accepts the Self-determination right by abiding by the UN Charter's norms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its art. 10.2, the Spanish Constitution states "The principles relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognised by the Constitution shall be interpreted in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain" However, the conservative party Partido Popular, which is ruling Spain, keeps a passive attitude and says self-determination to be out of the law. • There is no real separation of powers in Spain. The 12 Constitutional Court members are appointed as follows: 4 members by the Spanish Parliament with a 3/5 majority (unionist hold over 70% of the Parliament); 4 members by the Senate with a 3/5 majority (Unonists hold 80% of the Senate); 2 by the Government (Partido Popular, unionist), and just 2 by the judge's body. • 32 Catalan laws crossed, canceled or in 'standby' by the Constitutional Court in 2016 • Nationalist parties leave the Senate in protest for the renewal of the Constitutional • The Constitutional Court chairman says the Constitutional Court cannot sort out the "Catalan issue" and calls for political dialogue • The Constitutional Court broke the constitutional pact by disavowing the pact between parliaments and ignoring the referendum (Javier Perez Royo, Spanish Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Seville). • Unionist parties hold the 71.4% of the Spanish Parliament ((134+84+32)/350) but only 38,5% of the Catalan Parliament ((11+25+16)/135). Minority unionist parties in Catalonia used their power in Madrid to veto the referendum. • Rajoy keeps responding it is "impossible" to negotiate a referendum • International personalities signed the "Let Catalans Vote" manifesto, including 3 Nobel Peace Prizes. For instance: Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Dario Fo, Rigoberta Menchú, Ahmed Galai, Mirta Baravalle, Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Yoko Ono or Viggo Mortensen • Switzerland, Estonia, Ireland and The House of Lords(through the "All-Party Parliamentary Group on Catalonia") requested a political solution: and • After 6 year-in-a-row rallies in Catalonia, with over 1 million people (20% population) claiming for the independence in each one, the Spanish government keeps refusing to take any action to sort out the situation. • Over 76% of Catalans support a referendum • The referendum holds the support of 712 of 948 municipalities of Catalonia. • Mr Puigdemont, Junqueras and Ms Colau 's letter to Mr Rajoy and the King Felipe VI requesting a legal solution for the referendum • Barcelona mayor Ada Colau send a letter to 700 mayors to protect the Catalans rights • Spain’s attempt to block Catalonia’s referendum is a violation of our basic rights • Catalan leader calls for mediation with Spain over independence after the Referendum • According to the art. 56 of the Spanish Constitution: "The King is the Head of State, symbol of its unity and permanence, arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of institutions", but the King Felipe VI did not act as he should have. Catalan president accused Spanish king of being government mouthpiece • European values, civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of information and freedom of assembly are being violated by Spain’s central government, which has sent the police to search newspapers, printing companies and private mail services; ban political meetings; seize referendum material; and threaten to imprison democratically elected politicians • Spain must guarantee respect for fundamental rights in its response to the Catalan referendum

Falsehoods

Why is this section necessary? If some claims are false, why repeat them? It's pretty common for numerous different stories, claims, exaggerations, etc. to be told during a tumultuous event. It seems like the main purpose of this section is to try to discredit the protesters on the basis of a few questionable claims, which violates WP:DUE/WP:NPOV. 2601:644:1:B7CB:75C2:683E:B7D3:6409 (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Since there's clearly a dispute here, I'm tagging the section. --Yalens (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

They are documented facts, correctly referenced. Not only is it not a lack of neutrality, but quite the contrary. Wikipedia has to reflect the facts, the reader will come to their own conclusions. The personal interpretations you make about the purpose of the section are just your point of view. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:UNDUE and part of the issue mentioned by many others that this page is written with a tone at many parts that is vastly pro-Spanish government. I would add that there are other sections that are vastly pro-Catalan independence which come ultimately come together to leave a very POV page that also has a POV identity complex.--Yalens (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This section is repeatedly being removed violating Wikipedia policies, by newly registered users or ip's who have only globally edited once or twice. Remember that WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". And also, we must apply WP:NPOVHOW.

The sources are perfectly reliable. In particular, this of Le Monde provides very clear evidence for part of the content and events not yet included in the section.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. I disagree with attempts to entirely delete it from the page, especially as the proliferation of interesting stuff on social media regarding the controversy by bots is now discussed by the media (see Russia interference section). But on the other hand this cannot take up this much space and does not deserve its own section unless we have WP:RS saying that the impact of these things is enough to put it on par with the relevance of other sections.--Yalens (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not apply in this case, Weather the use of force by the police while carrying out the court order of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia was excessive or not is a key issue. Both sides of the story must be presented. That falsehoods were used to support the claim of excessive use of force is a very relevant issue and its notability is established by the many reliable sources that have sourced it. It should not be removed, as we should not remove the information about the person injured in the eye by a rubber ball or the use of batons by the police etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

With little more discussion here, conflictual editing on this section has continued: BrendonTheWizard [[14]] and Munci [[15]] have tried to remove the section while BallenaBlanca and Crystallizedcarbon [[16]] [[17]] have reverted. I think we should discuss more here, rather than revert each other. (sorry for absence) My own view is that, yes, WP:UNDUE still applies (although I prefer the shrinkage of the section and it being subsumed into another, rather than complete removal), as although CrystallizedCarbon makes a reasoned point that falsehoods were used to support the claim of excessive use of force, I would personally much prefer to see outside sources (preferably English speaking ones, the Spanish/Catalan media have been uhh emotional lately, sorry) rather than Wikipedia making this point. Indeed, as far as I could tell, the video that really drew peoples attention (at least my colleagues who talked about it) was the viral one of the Spanish police attacking Catalan firefighters, not any of the ones the section discusses, so the above claim about it being notable because the falsehoods were what buttressed those claims might be not undisputable.--Yalens (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) EDIT : my bad, I pinged you all to nothing as the section was subsumed by Impru -- thanks for that. I had meant to post this earlier but actually entered it much later.--Yalens (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that this is WP:UNDUE. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

--> IT SHOULD SAY: Only 9 police agents were attended in Catalan public hospitals (https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/10/04/catalunya/1507116174_996319.html)

Spanish unionist media sprang to life the idea that kids were going to be used as a "human shields" during the Referendum: http://www.larazon.es/espana/puigdemont-usara-ninos-como-escudos-humanos-en-los-colegios-KA16344916 https://okdiario.com/espana/cataluna/2017/10/01/utilizacion-ninos-referendum-primero-escudos-humanos-luego-votantes-1374571 http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2017-09-19/los-separatistas-usaran-viejos-invalidos-y-ninos-de-pecho-como-escudos-humanos-1276606097/ http://www.eltitular.es/adoctrinando-los-ninos-escudos-humanos-referendum-1-octubre/

False reference, please remove

This sentence: "With the aim of magnifying the intervention of the police, the independentists spread through the social networks images of civilians injured in other events of five years ago and at least there was two reports of injuries that resulted to be false." is followed by a reference that doesn't corroborate it. 1. The reference mentions one case where a woman first claimed her "fingers were broken one by one", while in fact she was "just" thrown on the floor and dragged down the stairs (as clearly seen in the video) 2. In the reference there is no mention whatsoever of the "images of civilians injured in other events of five years ago" This is not only a Point of View issue, it is a direct forgery. (edit: Wow! That was quick!) Izitpajn (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the reference supports the text. It may be a problem of understanding Spanish.

1. Otro de los heridos es el hombre de unos 70 años que sufrió un paro cardiorrespiratorio cuando la Policía desalojó un colegio electoral en el barrio de La Mariola, en Lérida. Sin embargo, fuentes policiales confirmaron a ABC que esta persona no formaba parte del grupo de personas que protestaban por la ocupación de los centros y que fue la propia Policía quien atendió al anciano al poco de sufrir el infarto.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Disagree with the above: the 70 year old man is receiving a CPR and, although the Spanish police is helping, the crowd is calling them "Asesinos" ("killers"). At the end of the video, another charge is started in the area.

1. Montajes y mentiras. Tal como denuncia hoy también ABC, el secesionismo difundió el domingo imágenes de heridos en otros eventos de hace cinco años para magnificar la actuación policial del 1-O. (1-0 = Catalan independence referendum, 2017) Sucedió con la fotografía de un chico joven que exhibía una brecha en la cabeza, con la sangre corriéndole por el pelo largo moreno. La imagen del herido, que fue difundida por militantes independentistas en plena jornada, no tuvo nada que ver con el proceso independentista. El chico, de 13 años, fue golpeado precisamente por los Mossos d’Esquadra –la policía autonómica que ayer se abstuvo de impedir la votación ilegal– el 14 de noviembre de 2012, en la huelga general convocada en Cataluña. El entonces consejero de Interior, Felipe Puig, calificó de «fortuito» el incidente del chico, que necesitó cuatro puntos de sutura. La imagen era de Tarragona.

But I realize that in fact, point 1 could correspond more with an error, while the woman made false statements.

I also recognize that this sentence: With the aim of magnifying the intervention of the police, although it is supported by reference, is not encyclopedic, we must use more neutral language.

There are more references about the images that were broadcast but did not correspond with the 1-0 or even montages, as for example this [18]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm, even catalan media acknoledges it: http://www.ara.cat/politica/Policia-escales-avall-coces-marta-torrecillas_0_1879612220.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)It is unbelievable, I have seen more fakes pictures on the Wikipedia than on my mobile phone!

Remove "results by county" map in leading section

Now it is three days after the referendum and the map is still blank. I think the map can be temporarily removed until reliable data comes out. Esiymbro (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. No county-by-county results have been made available. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"repression and brutalization"

This sub-heading is clearly POV, as well as being bad English ("brutalization" refers to becoming brutal). If this refers to the actions of the Spanish riot police (and other authorities) then lets say that. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"repression" and "brutalization" (this actually is an acceptable use of the word) are flagrant POV language-- better just not to use adjectives like that. This page is besot by flagrant POV pushing by both sides, it's pretty frustrating. I've removed it--Yalens (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lost votes -- what sources say

Impru has repeatedly deleted info about the lost votes, claiming that the estimate represented electors and not actual votes. While I find this plausible, it is not what the sources are saying. I made this very clear and was transparent, by making inlines in the references (which Impru deleted without explanation [[19]] -- and nowhere in the edit summary was a justification for the deletion of the inline quotes which disputed what they were saying ). Here is what the sources say:

The Guardian:

"Officials said 770,000 votes were lost due to disruption which resulted in polling stations being raided by Spanish police."

The Independent:

"...total voting figures remain incomplete and provisional because a much larger number, an estimated 770,000,, are either inaccessible or lost after some polling stations were closed and ballot boxes were seized by police."

At Wikipedia we are obligated to state what sources say -- not what we think happened -- and absolutely not to claim in edit summaries, as Impru did, that sources are saying one thing and not another, when there were clearly inlines that show the contrary [[20]].

There is also another issue here -- Turull claims that because of the police action, turnout was driven down -- obviously the Catalan government isn't neutral here, but this is a plausible claim and must be reported (in an NPOV way of course). Impru simply wipes this from the page with the limp edit summary of "Fixing misleading statement on this in the lead + removing duplicate sources". Look, I'm not some pro-separatist edit warrior -- actually the reason I came to the page just now was to add stuff about the allegations of Russian interference, an issue which is certainly not favorable to the separatists which does not have adequate coverage yet and which I have been gathering sources on -- but while I am willing to assume good faith here at least for now, I find this sort of behavior to be incredibly unconstructive and the opposite of good editing practice. --Yalens (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Catalan government source is very clear on this: "770,000 votes not cast due to polling stations being closed off". When sources say "they were lost", they mean that up to that number of votes did not even had the chance of being cast (this is, electors who could cast a vote. Sources in Spain and Catalonia (provided in the article as well) are much clearer on this. English ones just cover this in a single sentence at most). However, you try to imply that when sources say those votes were lost, they mean that 770,000 votes were actually cast and then lost, which is false (and also, impossible to determine). Then, you also failed to say anything about the "universal census" allowing people to vote even if their polling station was closed (and it's not a minor thing, given that, for example, Puigdemont himself had to resort to voting in another polling place due to his own being raided). Impru20 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding some local sources that provide a much more in-depth coverage of the "770,000 votes" issue. Also note than when speaking of voters", sources may be also referring to "registered voters" (which means the same as "elector" in Spanish/Catalan context where all voters within the national territory are automatically registered, rather than having to apply for voting as happens in the US, the UK or some other countries): [21], [22], [23], [24] (this one is VERY explicit on it, even with charts), [25]. Impru20 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I said that because that is what the sources I had said (the Guardian literally says lost, you can look in the quote right below), while I didn't know about the "universal census" affair -- I would have added it had I known and had time. While certainly that may be a factor, not everyone has the luxury of hopping to a different voting station and the reported turnout of 42% was much lower than the intended turnout in polls which was 50-70%, with both the largest and most recent poll indicating intention to vote at 62%, 20% higher. It is fine to state the universal census affair, but this cannot justify simply erasing Turull's statement, especially when that's hidden in your edit summary.

Thanks for the sources. I will incorporate these to the article if I get a moment and adjust it accordingly. But this does not warrant removal -- the material still warrants mention. And none of this justifies your removal (without stating in the edit summary) of Turull's statement about the effect of the police driving down turnout. --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

PS that isn't exactly the definition of "electors" in the American context, far from it. Interestingly, while I dislike using Spanish/Catalan sources if not necessary (both sides' media sounds really emotional right now), the last one [[26]] goes more in depth about Turull's argument in a way that is not represented on the page.:

Els encarregats de donar els resultats des del Centre Internacional de Premsa, el vicepresident, Oriol Junqueras; el conseller de la Presidència, Jordi Turull, i el conseller d'Exteriors, Raül Romeva, han remarcat contínuament que, tot i que els 2.248.000 vots no suposen 'per se' el 50% del cens, els càlculs dels experts apunten que sense pressió policial i tancament de col·legis s'hauria pogut arribar al 55% de participació. -- Google Translate: "Those in charge of giving the results from the International Press Center, Vice President, Oriol Junqueras; The counselor of the Presidency, Jordi Turull, and the foreign minister, Raül Romeva, have remarked continuously that, although the 2,248,000 votes do not suppose "per se" the 50% of the census, the calculations of the experts suggest that Without police pressure and closing of schools it could have reached 55% participation." (bold mine)

Obviously this needs to be readded.-Yalens (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC) PPS Impru20 sorry that I may have bit unpleasant at points here, bit grumpy. --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yalens I think the text is fair enough right now. Agree on your claim about "electors" (in Spain they're called electores, so that would be its translation. I actually think we were meaning the same thing all along; "potential voters" seems a pretty decent compromise). Impru20 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"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

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.]

[27]

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." [28] 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 [29], 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. [30] 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: [31] 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: [32] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:59, 5 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 [33] 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)

Demonstrarions

Hi again. About the demonstrations that are mentioned in this article and in the Operation Anubis one, looking to the articles it seems there were only demonstrarions against the police, but I think we must not ignore the demonstrations there were supporting the CNP and the GC in several cities of Spain (Madrid and Barcelona indeed) when they left their headquarters for going to Catalonia (La Vanguardia, Murcia, El Mundo about Castellón, Santander) and also on 30 September "for the unity of Spain" (Diario Levante, El Confidencial about Madrid, with 10,000 people, SER, talking about Barcelona, Alicante).

An actual neutral POV must show the movements in both parts and in this one, it is currently only showing the demonstrarions for the referendum. Asturkian (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Mention should also be made of these facts per WP:NPOV, supported by the sources you provide. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Albanian & Luxembourgish position

Following the press conference and the journalists’ enquiry as regards the current events in Spain and the parallelism between Catalonia and Kosovo, Albanian and Luxembourgish Foreign Ministers Bushati and Asselborn voiced that any comparison to Crimea and Catalonia is ungrounded. "The decision of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo has closed any further discussion from the standpoint of international law" - Minister Bushati pointed out. On his part, Minister Asselborn underscored that "In Kosovo, there was a war, while in Catalonia there is no war and this is the main difference between these two cases."

http://www.punetejashtme.gov.al/en/press-office/news/bushati-receives-his-luxembourg-s-counterpart-asselborn-in-tirana-2018-may-be-a-very-good-year-for-albania-to-open-negotiations1507031481 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.53.113 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Economic reactions

FYI, I have added economic reactions about the move of Banco Sabadell and others in the reactions article. I'd like you to help me improving it, thanks. Asturkian (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"Subsequently the European Commission confirmed its illegality."

Since when was the EU an authority on Spanish law? The EU can state that they agree it is illegal, but they cannot "confirm" it as the only people who can confirm what is illegal or illegal in a matter of Spanish law are the Spanish. I suppose "subsequently the EU stated that they also regard the referendum as illegal" might be more accurate. FOARP (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

1-0

Why call it that? Needs explanation. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

1–O means "1 October." Don't know in English but in Spanish is very common to refer to important dates as this: 11-M, 23-F, 11-S… Asturkian (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. I read that as 1-0, score at a soccer match. You should put "also known as 1-O (for October 1) in Spanish and Catalan media" in the intro. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)