Talk:2017–2018 Spanish constitutional crisis

What do you guys think about explaining the constitutional issue and presenting the arguments in favour or against? Bit weird you are detailing everything that happens in the conflict but not what the conflict is about. --85.148.123.77 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Presenting the arguments would allow for too much subjectivity as people could make legitimate claims that our presentation of their reasoning was flawed/inaccurate. Subjects like this can be touchy as there's very real implications for both sides and the readers or editors may feel very strongly towards a certain side. If we were to elaborate on arguments for Catalan nationalism, it would be better to put them on the Catalan nationalism article. As Wikipedia articles are collegian and encyclopedic, we should refrain from presenting it as news, as a blog, or anything else that extends beyond what is known to be objective. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that objectivity is served by the absence of any detail of what the Spanish Constitution says about the integrity of the country and autonomy, or that the referendum is seen in context if the Constitutional referendum's result in Catalonia is not mentioned. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you to the change the title of ther article "2017 Spanish constitutional crisis" to "2017 Catalonian Coup d'État" because according to Wikipedia, a coup d'état is "an illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus". This is exactly what is happening in Catalonia, where a part of the state (The Generalitat of Catalunya) is illegally assuming power which constitutionally corresponds to the legitimate Government of Spain. The Spanish Constitutional Court has declared the "referendum" as illegal.

International "support"

Not exactly sure why the US and Serbia should be listed as "supporters" - all that has happened is some officials have made comments. Support usually means military of financial support to on group or another.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Small note of grammar: WP front page refernce to this says "amidst" which is not a word

"Amid" is a word and "midst" is a word, but not "amidst".

Thats all.

You sure? Impru20 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, am sure.

So you say "amidst" is not a word, really? And that it is not, in reality, just a variant for "amid"? Impru20 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of 2008–present Spanish financial crisis?

Is the Catalan independence referendum really part of the 2008–present Spanish financial crisis, as the infobox suggests? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki The 2008–present Spanish financial crisis article even has a sub-section referring to the "separatist movements" in Catalonia as a direct effect from the financial crisis. So yeah, it's pretty much part of it. Impru20 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really, it is about Spain refusing to let the Catalonians hold a referendum to determine their own fate. Unlike the UK who let Scotland decide theirs, the Spanish government tried to stop a peaceful vote by force and sent in riot police who acted like General Franco did previously. However the voting on the referendum to a large extent went ahead and of the votes cast an overwhelming majority favoured independence. U

Image

About this edit by Impru20, the image was uploaded by Discasto who is a license reviewer. There are no license problems. The author of the picture is Robert Bonet, a photographer of eldiario.es. See also this explanation.

I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your work on the page. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

Impru20 you're doing a very good job with the page, but I do not agree with this reversion.

IMO there is no reason not to mention the violent demonstrations against the Civil Guard of hundreds of thousands of people, led by pro-independence activists, prior to the October 1 referendum. They are relevant and the content I added is a very brief summary. I will restore it. If you want, you can improve the wording, but do not delete the facts.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There was simply no violence against Spanish police on September 20th. Furthermore, the pro-independence activists you refer to actually asked the demonstrators to leave. Victorjjp (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Those are mentioned twice in the article: both when the 20 September events are mentioned, and then when the "Jordis" detainments are covered. This article is not about the 20 September events. Such facts are already summarized enough for readers to quickly understand the scope of it within the context of the constitutional crisis, and the Operation Anubis article (which is the place for those events to be covered in detail) is already linked and referenced. It's absurd to try to expand on this topic in this article, since there's already another article fully covering this topic. As per WP:BRD, it is your revert the one which is not justified, so I'm reverting it until discussion is over. Impru20 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying makes no sense. It is a section that summarizes most of the facts already present in the page of Operation Anubis. Following your logic, we would have to eliminate the whole section Judicial and police action.

The facts need to be completed for WP:NPOV. I repeat, how is not going to be relevant the violence of pro-independentists, prior to the events of October 1? Reading the section it seems that the protests were peaceful, when it is not true that all were peaceful.

You are not applying well WP:BRD, remember WP:ROWN. Feel free to improve wording, but keep the facts. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:ROWN does not override WP:BRD. If content is disputed, it should be discussed, not keeping adding it and engaging in edit warring. The section summarizes all relevant facts. There's no lack of WP:NPOV, because the data you kept adding was irrelevant for the context of the constitutional crisis. Those are minor details that are fit for a through explanation in the Operation Anubis article, but are just absurdingly unneeded here. Let's see:

• The Civil Guard arrested several Catalan government officials. This was the most relevant and shocking event of the day, together with the protests. That they were also searching for voting material? Sure, but this is already mentioned in the precedent sentence for an operation the previous day much larger in that scope.
• That 40,000 protesters surrounded the Catalan economy department preventing the Civil Guard from exiting and vandalized several vehicles? Well, all of this is already mentioned in the section below, when the Jordis' detainment is covered (and I should remind you, it was you who added it, so I don't think you can argue such data is not there already).

As said, this article is about the Spanish constitutional crisis, and just as important as NPOV is WP:WEIGHT. Is a more detailed explanation of the 20 September events so badly needed here, despite them already having their own article, for a better understanding of the 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis? To the point of repeating essentially the same info twice throughout the article? I don't think so. Impru20 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Could this solve this controversy? [1] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: I am not edit warring, I have not made three reverts. ;-) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You directly violated WP:BRD despite I warning you about it. Specifically when it notes that one should Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. That's edit warring. ;) And no, reverting the revert and sending me to the talk page just because you believe you're in the universal possession of the right facts. Once discussion is started, it's nice it is allowed to end before you keep adding the controversial content (that's how BRD works). Impru20 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is that the info you added today was already added by you the other day in the "Referendum and subsequent events" section. Your "solution" just involves changing a sentence from place (which means you acnowledge such an information was being mentioned twice in the article), which is not the point of controversy. You keep adding the same info in two different places, and then you come arguing that this info is lacking and it is NPOV. As much as I can see, this could be in fact a violation of WP:UNDUE. I see a little more detailed info on the 20 September events relevant for providing context to the Jordis' detainment, but then, it's just absurd for the same exact info to be added to a previous section of the article which already links to another article providing exactly the same information. I don't see how not providing readers with the same info thrice is a NPOV breach. Instead, I see many reasons for this to constitute a BALANCE and UNDUE breaching. Impru20 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems you have not read my previous message on 17:41, 21 October 2017. I trimmed duplicated info. Please, check it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you just reworded the sentence and pretended to say you removed the "duplicated info". Duplicated info is not dependant on the wording, but on the information you convey. You're covering the same exact events twice through the article, with them already being covered in a separate article specifically intended for such an event. Also, I see the vehicle vandalizing mentioning much more usefull next to the Jordis' detainment covering, because it provides context. The other way around, it just seems like adding information just for the sake of repeating the same event through the article over and over again. Impru20 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sad to see the tone of this conversation. My only intention was to cooperate with you calmly. As proof of goodwill, I will ignore the fact that you have violated WP:3RR with this reversion.

Let's see other users opinions. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to refute your claim that this was a NPOV issue and why such an info should not be repeated, and yet you re-added the disputed content even before I was able to reply to you here. Then you said the revert was "not justified" despite me justifying it fully (with you not addressing it and even taunting me about the 3RR). If you wanted to "cooperate", your behaviour here would have been very different. You have been recently engaged in edit warring in topic-related 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Operation Anubis, using similar tactics there which, together with other users' intervention, resulted in the latter receiving a page protection and even in a ANI being suggested. If you feel I should be somehow addressed because of the 3RR (which I acknowledge I'm not happy with, but was forced to by your action), then by all means do something about it, but don't taunt or game me about it here because that doesn't make any good towards contributing to this page or even to this discussion.

I sincerely think you would do much more good discussing on content, so I suggest you to do so if you have something useful to provide about content. I don't think I can explain my position better than I already did, but I still haven't seen why was your content so badly needed or why the absence of it in that specific section (because the same content was already added by you to another one the other day, and kept) does breach NPOV. Impru20 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page. (In addition, talking about what happened on other pages out of context and without explaining the details is biased.)

I am listening to you. When I realized what you were saying about the duplicated content, I trimmed it.

I believe the events have to figure in the events to put everything in context. And yes, in this case it is a matter of WP:NPOV, when only one side of the coin is shown. What happened in the days 20 and 21 (the violent demonstrations which hampered the work of the Civil Guard, encouraged by pro-independence leaders) is having very important repercussions. It should not be mentioned just in passing when discussing the arrests.

Remember that not everyone reads all sections. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Same applies to you. Take quick check to the discussion and you'll see who has tried to comment on content (in addition, taunting another user about the 3RR out of context and without considering own behaviour is biased). But well, enough of it. Let's set aside this little skirmish (sort of) and focuse on content from now on, both of us, so as to keep this civilized and constructive. Agree?

When I spoke about duplicated content, I did not mean one or two sentences had similar content, but rather, that the same events were commented twice within the article, with a third reference to it provided by the redirect to Operation Anubis.

But in this case you seem to be misinterpreting what the "Judicial and police action" section is about. That is intended to cover the lead-up to the referendum, not to provide a fully-detailed coverage of what transpired on 20 September. Rajoy's own point of view is added on the Spanish government's actions on these days, so I can't see how "only one side of the coin is shown". The specific details about 20 September (vandalising of Civil Guard vehicles and the protest outside the economy department) do provide context for the Operation Anubis event, but not for the whole 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis or for the lead-up to the referendum. 20-S was only one out of several Spanish government and police actions, as well as one out of several Catalan protest actions, in the lead-up to the referendum. Such information does, however, provide context on the arrest of Sànchez and Cuixart, so it's better placed there. Your NPOV claim, thus, does not sustain itself, as 1) the events are indeed mentioned where they are needed, and 2) the section where you added these does indeed cover both points of view, both from the Generalitat and the Spanish government sides, and even from Podemos (which is in the middle or sort of...).

Indeed, not everyone may read all sections. Yet that doesn't mean we should repeat the same info over and over again. We are not in a situation where such an information is lacking, but rather, in one where such info is overabundant. As a result, it must be distributed so that both balance and proper weight are preserved. Impru20 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed the vandalising of cars is already mentioned in the same section. Specifically, in this sentence: Spanish prosecutors formally accused some protesters in Barcelona of sedition, after several Civil Guard patrol cars had been vandalised on Wednesday night. However, this does look appropiate as it hints at another action from one of the sides among the many happening within those days, instead of being randomly put there.

In any case, as a compromise, I've also added a mention to the 20 September events and the connection with the imprisonment of Sànchez and Cuixart in the lead section. Impru20 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanations. With your recent edits, especially this one, IMO this issue is solved. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion in Spain

The quality of this section seems to significantly differ from the rest of the article. About half of the references are dubious, as they are from minor (and highly biased) newspapers. Pretty much all the references are in Spanish instead of English. Moreover, the lack of a similar section giving the point of view of Catalan people makes the value of this section unclear, at the very least. Victorjjp (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I would even say most of its contents do not belong to this article (but rather, to either Catalan independence or Catalan independence referendum, 2017). I vote for leaving it out unless someone works this out in a much better way. Impru20 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Sanctions

A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Argentina & Uruguay

Hi! i found this information [2], [3], [4], [5] all have in spanish, 7:15, 28 October 2017 (Colombian time)

Argentina is already included at Catalan Republic (2017), but it looks like Uruguay should also be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Side of Mossos changed already ?

It reads in infobox that the Catalan police Mossos has changed sides 28.10 to Spanish side. There is no hint on international news that this has yet happened in real life or de facto. Decisions of Spain might not be followed in real life. Tuohirulla puhu 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The Mossos commanders, Pere Soler and Josep Lluís Trapero, willingly accepted their sacking and were replaced by officers appointed by the Spanish government. That looks like hint enough. Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the Generalitat has to change sides also. --Togiad (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Generalitat authorities such as the President, Vice President and regional Ministers have as of yet to acknowledge their sacking, so that would not be accurate. Impru20 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And the Val D'aran?

It looks like the Vall d'aran is also affected by such a crisis:

the law of Catalnuia assumes that Parlament of Catalunya recognize the right of the aranès people to decide of their own future (a Llei d’Aran estableix que “el Parlament de Catalunya reconeix el dret del poble aranès a decidir el seu futur”). Read https://cat.elpais.com/cat/2017/10/30/catalunya/1509392179_434490.html