Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum

Alleged irregularities

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. Impru20^talk 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. Impru20^talk 14:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

1) there is controversy on the reliability of the images, since the same wikipedia page claims that "Other media reported that it was not possible to vote twice". 2)The controversy relates to the information which is sourced here: it's about the validity of the voting system used that day. 3) these images were indeed not manipulated, since no one has been able to prove the opposite and they are not among the manipulated images shown in this website specialized in debunking fake news about politics, for example: https://maldita.es/maldito-bulo/cataluna-objetivo-de-los-bulos-en-el-2017-del-referendum-a-las-elecciones/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C61:6860:7533:DF48:411E:C68B (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

He has a point, the existence of a system that "did not validate the second attempt" when voting doesn't prove that that system worked always, especially in an unofficial referendum. And the images of people voting more than once are there, they were reported in several media. I edit the text to include both facts.Guraat (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

But there's literally no proof for that, we still don't know what source do we have to ensure that "several people voted various times" Politonno (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If our only sources are only photos, then we shouldn't be that sure of anything Politonno (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

POV

The article is too detailed, especially about the effects of the clashes, trying to sway the readers toward the independence POV aka narrative Zezen (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the last sentence of 2020-2021 part?

it says that things may change from September 2021 onwards and it's 2023 2A02:2149:8659:A400:2836:744F:AE4E:62F6 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)