This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
@BallenaBlanca: you made a revert of my edits without giving much explanation. I will give a couple of reasons to explain why I think my modifications improve the article:
They order the events in chronological order.
In your edit, it's not clear when was the voter shot. Reading your text I would assume he was shot when he threw a fence against the police, but that's not what sources and footage show, he was shot later when he had nothing in his hands and when he was 10-15 meters away from the police officer.
By the way, given that we are having this discussion here, I would also remove "harassing, insulting" from the sentence. I doubt a person insulting a police officer is relevant for Wikipedia (and harassing is such a broader term...). I left those words in my edit because I recognize that's very subjective, but I really think they should be removed per WP:BALASP.
--Aljullu (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Aljullu Thanks for your input, probably you are right in at least part of your observations. Tomorrow I will look at it calmly and I will explain why I reverted, what is the important content that you deleted. Do not worry, we will reach an agreement. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, @Aljullu: I have not forgotten this, other issues are keeping me busy. I'll try to take time tomorrow. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The context of how there is contradictory information between the statements of the four witnesses and the man injured and the facts that are seen in the footage was also lost.
After reading it again, IMO the chronological order is clear. You say that "Reading your text I would assume he was shot when he threw a fence against the police, but that's not what sources and footage show" but my text says "among them the man who was subsequently injured in the eye". First I thought that the term "subsequently" was misused and seemed to indicate closer proximity to the facts, but I see that not, in the same way that the page says above that the injured man "subsequently sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police" referring to a very later event, not occurred at the same time of the impact of the rubber ball.
I am going to erase "insulting" but it IMO is valid to leave harassing, in the same way that the article cites police violence 26 times.
Right, I removed it to make the text easier to read (and because it didn't add any information). But feel free to add that again.
“among them the man who was subsequently injured in the eye”
I doubt that's relevant, since both events happened in different places and at a different time, but again, I have nothing against adding that to the text.
“and how finding themselves cornered by the crowd, the agents shooted rubber balls to make their way and be able to get out of there.”
Some police officers might have started shooting when they were cornered, but that's not the case when they shot the victim, footage shows there were almost as many police officers as voters at that moment. But again, I don't have anything against adding that information too if you think it's relevant.
So, if don't say the opposite, I will rewrite that part ordering the events in chronological order and adding your points. --Aljullu (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Given that nobody expressed any objection in the last month and a half, I proceeded implementing these changes and adding more info and references to that paragraph. --Aljullu (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
User Arjayay eliminated a sentence in which I stated that until now there is no evidence that the images of people voting more than once at this referendum are manipulated, without providing any proof that indicates the opposite. Unless he provides a reason for that I will redo the edition.
@2a02:908:c61:6860:a17d:34d5:bf3a:2b20: Wikipedia does not work this way. Precisely, the issue with your sentence is that it is what you stated, providing no source to back it up, so what you did was just to add original research into the article. Information must come from verifiable reliable sources. Also, please note that you must not engage in edit warring, so unless you can cite reliable sources to back up your claims, I would highly discourage you from undoing Arjayay's edition. Impru20talk 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I have to provide sources showing that there is no evidence of the images are not edited or manipulated? That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I found several articles talking about some manipulated images allegedly about the day of the referendum, and none of them is one of the videos or images that show people voting twice, I guess that will do it. The fact that there is no evidence of that is informative, since as it is explained now it looks like it has been proved that what those images show is not possible, therefore they must be edited. But they aren't. And that fact says a lot about the nature of the referendum, therefore it's important to tell it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C61:6860:10FE:E6A3:4F3F:A3FC (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You would have to show sources showing that image manipulation was an issue. By adding a sentence claiming that "Until now, there is no evidence that the images of people voting twice are manipulated", you are taking for granted that there is some manipulation issue, one which is not brought up nor sourced in the text elsewhere. You would need to prove that 1) there is controversy on the reliability of images of people voting twice; 2) that such controversy relates to the information which is sourced here; and 3) that these images were indeed not manipulated. Typically, here in Wikipedia we presume that what reliable sources state is true, so we would already assume that the images of people voting twice were not manipulated unless there are other sources which state that these were. Your claim has little sense here. Impru20talk 14:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)