Jump to content

Talk:Tabarnia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Glad this page was created

I have thought of creating it before but decided not to due to reduced sources. Now it has become global trending topic on Twitter, has made it to national news and most politicans have felt the need to comment on it there is no reason not to have an article: The Tabarnia movement is a reality. There is a lot that can be included here included rationale, demographics, the charnego issue and elections etc. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


I have to strongly disagree with the fact of stating that it is a satirical political project it is as serious as it can be, and it would be a reality if the indenpendentist process does not stop. We want to remain Spanish and all this separatist movement is making us unhappier and poorer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.158.13 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure the picture is correct

Some municipalities which have constitutionalist majorities are shown as having pro-independence majority. The picture seems taken from pro-independence twitter propaganda so should be taken with caution. Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? --Panotxa (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Panotxa L'Arboc, Banyeres del Penedes, Cubelles, Cunit, Bellvei etc. among others.Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As Darth vader 92 is a catalan wiki user, I'll point him your concerns, and note it in commons. Thanks --Panotxa (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments placed, and while the map is not changed, better remove it. --Panotxa (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, tanks. I'll check and correct it. It's not taken from tweeter,I just forgot some Garraf municipalities. Greetings.--Darth vader 92 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Done! I think it's all right now, can you check it? Thank you Sonrisas1.--Darth vader 92 (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Darth vader 92 Thanks! Can you send me the link? Or put it up yourself.Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I just updated a new version of the file.--Darth vader 92 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tabarnia does not exist

This term has been coined by the people behind www.bcnisnotcat.es website. Yesterday it became a trending topic in tweeter. That's all about it. Filiprino (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Freddy Hill (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)I beg to differ. Tabarnia may not exist as a geographical entity - yet. But it clearly exists as a concept. Many concepts deserve an entry in Wikipedia. The question is, is the concept of Tabarnia pervasive enough/important enough/trendy enough to deserve an entry? I'd say, the jury is out, but it's very possible that Tabarnia may be remembered in history as the idea, the concept that will have turned the tide of Catalan secessionism. Or altenatively, the last stand of Catalan constitutionalism. In either case, it may become of historical importance. I vote to keep it for a while.

Catalan countries do not exist either but they have a pretty extensive article on Wikipedia. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletions

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (it is indeed becoming a very important subject in Spain as time passes by. Interest by very many people is clearly shown by 115155 votes in support of Tabarnia registered at Change.org at 0149 CET, 0049 UTC on Thursday, 28 December, 2017) --87.218.61.98 (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (your reason here) --

Freddy Hill (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Tabarnia may not exist as a geographical entity - yet. But it clearly exists as a concept. Many concepts deserve an entry in Wikipedia. The question is, is the concept of Tabarnia pervasive enough/important enough/trendy enough to deserve an entry? I'd say, the jury is out, but it's very possible that Tabarnia may be remembered in history as the idea, the concept that will have turned the tide of Catalan secessionism. Or altenatively, the last stand of Catalan constitutionalism. In either case, it may become of historical importance, either in the mainline of future history or as a footnote. I vote to keep it for a while.

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... the notion of Tabarnia and the Tabarnia campaign is currently receiving international (mainstream) mediacoverage (for instance [5] (German), [6]/[7] (German), [8] (Austrian), [9] (Euronews/English), [10] (Austrian)). One can certainly argue that current international reporting might not be enough (yet) to provide notability, but it certainly seems enough to require a regular AfD rather than a speedy deletion. -Kmhkmh (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC) ,

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... I certainly did not "invent" this, nor did the original article's creator in the Spanish Wikipedia. It is a concept that dates back to at least 2012 and has been covered by multiple reliable sources, commented on by major politicians, and reached international press. The fact that it is a fictional topic does not mean it's not notable or unworthy of an inclusion in Wikipedia (see similar articles such as North Gyeonggi Province), and it certainly does not mean it passes the criteria for speedy deletion. --WPancake (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (your reason here) --88.6.222.189 (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested DeletionSome die-hard catalonian separatits claim this to be no more than an internet trolling .

It is not the case

The Tabarnia movement is very real.Not only has been WORLD-Trending topic , it is also a very ongoing political movement . The freedom of tabarnia from the Rural Catalonia is aknowledged in the Spanish Constitution, stating very clear the protocol to create /partitionate a new autonomous region.

A serious movement ( signature petition ongoing ) , flags, anthems, etc.. to create a new autonomous region in Spain . This by all means deserves its own wikipedia page.

I suggest to leave the page as it is , while the ongoing debate continues.

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (your reason here) --Tcguy999 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a made up story or an invented issue. Tabarnia began as a parody against Catalan separatists and has gained increasing popularity. It is a real thing and stories about it have been all over the main Spanish newspapers in the last few days since the recent Catalan regional elections.

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because i) the term has become very widely used recently (the last few days, being one of the main hashtags in Twitter, and with international press coverage following) but it was created some years ago (2015); ii) as said, it has become a live issue, and it's therefore likely that people will search Wikipedia to know more about the subject; iii) given that the page has been created during the time this has become a topical agenda, it is really unlikely that the article has been written by the inventer/coiner of the term or someome they know personally; iv) the fact that the term was initially coined to be used in a humorous sense doens't diminish its encyclopedical value, as doesn't either for the Flying Spaghetti Monster --Diotime (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because it hasn't been "invented" by a bored Wikipedia user. It is a real topic. It is all over the news in Spain. It is a very real conversation topic. It shouldn' be deleted just because it offends separatists or because it started as irony. Things about Tabarnia are happening now, they are real news, not just on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.110.3 (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (the idea of a new Autonomous Community that beleives in and stays in Spain while leaving Catalonia is the only pacific way found so far by very many peaceful people that wants to avoid a civil war in northeastern Spain, probably planned and instigated by those politicians who do not follow the rules they were elected for and, on the contrary, pretend to do simply what they feel like now and then as if they were the owners of that spanish land) --87.218.61.98 (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (Support for Tabarnia reached as many as 130155 votes (and counting) at 1101 CET, 1001 UTC, on Thursday, December 28, 2017, as reflected at the polling page in The world's platform for change, Change.org

Moreover, the matter is of such importance in Spain that I think perhaps more than one million votes will be reached in support of Tabarnia.) --87.218.61.98 (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested Deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... Obviously it is notable it is on Washington Post, New York Times, the front page of every single newspaper in Spain and is global trending topic. It is also a becoming a major movement in the anti-independence grass-roots movement in Catalonia. --Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a total breakdown of votes in elections for Tabarnia?

I can't find a source for it, although it easy possible to calculate based on election results. The results for Barcelones is 40.7% support independence, 48.0% are clearly against and 11.2% other options without clear stance on issue. It would be good if we could get the results for each Comarca of Tabarnia in a table. Only way I can do it for now is by aggregating results by municipality.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonrisas1 You can look at https://resultats.parlament2017.cat/09AU/DAU09000CR.htm?lang=es

In last general elections (June 2016), in Barcelona province , 28,82% support independence options (ERC+CDC): https://resultados.elpais.com/elecciones/2016/generales/congreso/09/08.html

In Tarragona province , 33,39% support independence options: https://resultados.elpais.com/elecciones/2016/generales/congreso/09/43.html

The small radical party for independence CUP, did not participate. Aprox. 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.168.126 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok the total for Tabarnia region as a whole according to source given is 1,562,821 votes for unionist parties (48.29%) and 1,355,406 votes for separatist parties (41.88%) and another 317,945 votes (9.82%) for parties without a clear position on the matter such as En Comu Podem.
The total turnout for Tabarnia (minimum definition of 10 whole comarques) was 3,236,163. That is a significant majority of the total turnout for Catalonia which is 4,371,991.Sonrisas1 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Satirical?

Please give arguments here. It is not a satirical movement although it has been used on twitter to make fun of Catalan nationalists. It exists since 2015 and is very much a serious movement, likely to grow in the coming months.Sonrisas1 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources, including Spanish public broadcaster, call it satirical. It's neither a proposal nor a movement. No political party has expressed support and even Catalonia unionist parties call it a "joke". And no, it doesn't exist since 2015. It was created long before, because we can find satirical posts about it in Spanish forum Forocohes since 2013 (here and here), where they call it a "troll idea". Other Wikipedia editions are considering removing the article, due to is lack of relevancy. --Beethoven (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
OF COURSE NOT, Tabernia has been seen as a satirical project by a part of the population and the media, including PP that is against the separation of Catalonia, but it is a political project and the media (even RAE) have recognised this

https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/12/29/actualidad/1514549719_409900.html http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171228/rae-propone-tabarnes-como-gentilicio-tabarnia-6521206 https://blogs.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/tribuna/2017-12-28/tabarnia-real-globalizacion-megaciudades-cataluna-independencia_1498815/

Thank you Beethoven. It is a grassroots movement which has caught many politicians off-guard, and initially many thought it was a joke since they had not even heard of it. It is rapidly gaining traction and as you know is gaining mass support within Tabarnia proper. Demonstrations for Tabarnia are scheduled for January in Barcelona. I know it is a source of extreme anguish for Catalan nationalists but I would request we keep a cool head. It won't go away by attempting to discredit it on English language wikipedia. One thing I agree with you, the concept has been widely used satirically to poke fun at catalan nationalists. But that does not mean the movement itself is satirical. Its proponents have made it clear it is not. Sonrisas1 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it definitely isn't a grassroots movement. And no, it definitely isn't gaining "mass support within Tabarnia proper". As I explained you before, there are 0 political parties supporting it and no serious organization has showed support for it. As a satirical joke, it became really popular in Twitter last days, but that's it. If one day it becomes a real movement (something unlikely as for now), then this Wikipedia article will be consequently updated. The proponents of this satire ("Barcelona is not Catalonia" organization) are the first ones to take it as a satire/joke. Here you have one article from their website, for instance: In Barcelona we don't speak Catalan, we speak Barcelonian language. Another one of its publications here. --Beethoven (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You contradict yourself: You say 1) there are zero political parties supporting it and 2) it is not a grassroots movement. The fact that no organization is supporting it and it is spreading like wildfire is the very definition of a grassroots movement.Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously not "spreading like wildfire". You don't have any reference to support this absurd claim. Remember this is Wikipedia. Regarding the satirical Tabarnia, I suggest you read the interview to its spokesman (Jaume Vives)[1]. The objective is not a real proposal to create an Autonomous Community, but a satirical proposal created to campaign against Catalonia independence. The real objective is to campaign for Catalonia to remain in Spain--Beethoven (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jaume Vives, portavoz oficial de Tabarnia: "Está empezando a conseguir su objetivo: que los propios independentistas se desmonten sus argumentos"" (in Spanish). Antena 3. 28 December 2017.

Blanking/Vandalism

As expected Catalan independence activists have started vandalizing blanking the article. I note it has been protected from their attacks in the Spanish language version already. Perhaps it should be protected here as well until they pop a couple of valiums?Sonrisas1 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Why it has to be protected? Tabarnia is a fictional creation by a part of radical unionist spaniards in a massive campaign started on some forums, and specially Twitter, just AFTER the results of catalan elections on December 21st 2017 (4 or 5 days ago) won by independentist catalan movement parties. The name seems to be in use in an extreme little scale by some ultra unionists, 1 or perhaps 2 years ago, never as a real idea to create a recognized region, and much less, to be based on any historic region (as it was appointed on the article, just hours before).
There are too many news explaining how this idea is satyrical by the creators of it, but if you insist this is now (just from 4 days ago or less) a real political movement petition, without any real support of any real parties or organizations yet, and if you try to use the extention of English wikipedia in social life to gain some favors or credibility, you have to explain the truth about it, and of course, be more polite (I'm referring to your last phrase). I'm pretty sure ultra spanish nationalists can transform an initial satyrical idea to a "Leitmotif" by its own, with of course, disastrous turn out (like as usual) if they have the opportunity (specially for themselves), but all has to be explained. At least, make a references to Catabàrnia, another imaginary region trying to secede from Tabarnia in any municipality where catalan independentist won last Sunday (before even the creation of imaginary Tabarnia), created just hours later of the other. It will be more complete.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DR_5Kb3WAAA41_B.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSCmE9RX0AAGs50.jpg
PS:If you are an editor of Wikipedia, of any other country than Spain, and you are reading this, you can thank all of that "interesting" stuff to M. Rajoy, Prime Minister of Spain. That **** never existed without his authentic disastrous administration, and his absolute inabilities to manage a country without even not breaking it up. And 3 more years remain! (presumably). Edvard (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There's lots of different versions being thrown around here. The version I reverted to sounds very not-WP:NPOV, whereas the other version of the lede by Stuka93 says something completely different. What we should achieve here, ideally, is a lead section which represents, in due weight, all opinions of reliable sources. This is a contentious matter, clearly. I have applied for full protection. Ping Sergio Ramos 93 to join in with the discussion as well. Thank you. !dave 10:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    Fine, alright, it's been reverted by WPancake. Still, I would invite the involved parties to discuss what should or should not be in the lede, and refrain from calling content vandalism unless it really is 'I like poop'. !dave 11:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi !dave, first of all, thank you for revert and demand a protection.
I will try to explain what is happening with this "Tabarnia" thing. Of course, from my point of view, but, I'm very quite sure many catalans will agree in many parts.
Actually, in Spain, specially in Catalonia, there is an authentic constitutional problem of BIG consequences. Just a week ago, an election to elect the catalan parliament was celebrated. Before this, a referendum of independence "illegalized" by spanish government, brutal police charges versus civil unarmed people, and weeks later, a declaration of independence declared in the Parliament of Catalonia, happened.
Ok, simply, the government of Catalonia, who has a democratic mandate from the past elections of 2015, in septembre 27, and the referendum, was jailed or has to go to exile in Belgium, to avoid the jail.
In that situation, spanish government forced a regional election (without any power to do that, but ok, no technicalities here). This was saw as an opportunitty to win the catalan regional government by unionists forces. Unfortunately for them, they lost. Independentists won again, with ALL of the problems they had, to made a "normal" campaign.
So, this is a brief summary of what happened, until, in a very explosive way, the "Tabernian issue" appeared. I think it was in Sunday? perhaps Monday? Tuesday? (Can't remember now) of this week, twitter was exploding with "tabernian secessionism". OK, there is NO region called Tabernia, never existed. Tabernia i a neologism mixing the words of a cities of Tarragona, Barcelona, and, yep, Narnia. Created years ago, in a famous internet forum called ForoCohes. They have an article in spanish Wikipedia, if you understand spanish.
Forocoches is the most important internet forum in Spain, and very very controversial in its own. As I posted, exists a thFread, form years ago, explaining what is "Tabernia", explicitly talking for the case Catalonia secede from Spain (catalans secessionist movement was already very strong that days).
Tabernia has evolved during lasts months (went independentist movement is really strong, in spite of authentic persecutions to every person the can persecute in any way, in a very surrealist way, the last YEARS (example: this man, a local politician, was judged to only say, literally, a popular phrase like "to break eggs", and was judged in the capital of Spain, Madrid, like a terrorist! "https://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/123573/video/fiscal/insisteix/violencia/trencar/ous/interrogatori/joan/com, but many many many more, things like that) in a real idea to break Catalonia using, specially, the important percentage of population in metropolitan area of Barcelona who has roots in other parts of Spain.
It exists a great part of population who migrated from other regions of Spain in the Franco dictatorship. Years, searching a better life in more economic evolved regions. A important part of them go to Catalonia. Part (just a PART) of this immigration, now, are heavy pro-Spain, and also, part of their descendants. Spanish social networks are full of messages of hate to catalan language, and independentist, or even catalans, from them. Even the unionists parties, can launch a hate speeches without any problems. No persecution from spanish judiciary system.
https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/politica/albiol-si-alguien-ha-comprado-urnas-o-las-devuelve-se-va-a-comer/10002-3339607
It's a real scandal, so much uncovered by international media, beyond days like the past October 1st brutal aggressions.
Media of Spain are VERY biased to defend this points of view, and when this thing of Tabarnia appeared on twitter, they dedicate many many hours like this article explains https://www.elnacional.cat/enblau/es/television/espejo-publico-tabarnia-antena3_224877_102.html
This, is happening NOW, nowadays, this week.
Tabarnia is nothing more of what Spain hides: it exist a real part of its population with very undemocratic behaviors, product of 40 years of Francoism, and 40 more years of NOT CONDEMN EXPLICITLY the FRANCOISM. In fact, the GIANT tomb of the dictator, constructed with republican slaves, are continuosly mantained by public money, even today!: El Valle de los Caidos, search fot it. The only mention of this situation, exalts the behaviour of ultra spanish antionalists, but in the reality never was a real retribution for the victims of the dictatorship.
Tabarnia, is, exactly, ANOTHER EXAMPLE of what happened in October the 1st of 2017 when the world surprised to see Spain beating a young people an older ones,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqDYQQ9tIZo
just for expressing his opinion in a PACIFIC vote, LEGAL OR NOT, doesn't matter. The civil population all over the world surprised, but more surprising was the fact, many spaniard celebrated that. I repeat, CE-LE-BRA-TED. in fact, they celebrated the fact even before happened, celebrating the departing of civil guards and police to Catalonia (to beat people).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA1Sw-szU6w
Tabarnia is just another aggression of spanish undemocratic right fascism, based on castelianist ultra nationalist: nothing in Spain can be really Spanish, if it is not in castilian language (called spanish for political reasons centuries ago), or castilain, and of course, not catalans. Catalanophobia is real in Spain, and it has been many centuries ago. But never so strong like in last decades. Tabarnia pretends to broke apart Catalonia, because, after election, unionists see they CANNOT win in all Catalonia. The only option they have, instead of accept the defeat, is broke the "enemy", and of course, try to sell this invention with any absurd argument (Like they are the county of Barcelona? WTF? the county of Barcelona evolved to actual Catalonia centuries ago). Wikipedia has a special place in this invention, and specially tne ENGLISH wikipedia, for its importance on a global society: every one searches things in Wikipedia to be "fast informed".
This is a very fast summary, ii s much much more. You can search in Twitter to see what I try to tell. It's important to watch out very much with this article, I will recommend very strongly a very very cautious politic edition of it. In fact, I reccomend, obviosly to erase it, but I know this is my opinion. My opinions has to serve to put on guard everyone in english wikipedia to activate all the alarms in catalan topics, not only this. They are a real movements to create acolonial catalonia, or in spite of this, just to broke apart. Please, ask to catalan editors, even if they do not thing like me.
Tabarnia, i'm very very sure about this, is a project to do in Catalonia what happened in Bosnia with Republika Srpska (1991–95) in the way the public international opinion let them do, if they can. It is a bully situation, with many international media not informing very much.
Oh, and I can tell you. they will try to hack my account. In fact, they tried.
Thanks for your attention. And I wish Wikipedia will put a severe control on that article, but, who knows what connections some people have to try to prevent this. (¿?) We'll continue to discuss the matter, all that we can, but it is important for Wikipedia to ask many people living in Catalonia who edit articles in Wikipedia, to have a general and plural idea of what is happening, because things like "Tabarnia" pretend to use Wikipedia as a form of "legitimize" "their way" in front of the world. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sergio Ramos 93: your version was perhaps the most controversial, and has been reverted to something more fact-like for the time being. However, it is clear that there is some credible controversy that should not be whitewashed, and also that other users are welcome to join this talk page and involve themselves with this discussion, to allow for (as I said) a lede that summarises the subject in due weight. I think I have seen about four versions of the lede for this article submitted by various users, and the article was only created two days ago.
Nobody, including you, should be using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and I must remind all that the holy grail of this due weight is how reliable sources report on this matter. Nevertheless, it's not just me and you, so I await for the opinions of other editors, such as WPancake and Stuka93. !dave 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
My name is not dave, well why did you invite this crazy guy to join the discussion?! Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I apologise then. !dave 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness... XD
1 Tabarnia is NOT a historic region or based on a historical region of any kind. No, IT IS NOT BASED on County of Barcelona.
2 Tabarnia has appeared, from nowhere this F···· week, in spanish media, after a "trending topic storm" on twitter. Just days after a catalan election won by independentists.
3 My version of the article included more citations, all of them true, including THE ORIGIN of the idea, in a spanish forum, 5 years ago.
4 The article contains things like "The rise of this movement creates tension among the Catalan separatist movement because of argumental contradiction and geostrategic risk."
This is a fucking stupid opinion, probably from the creators of the Tabarnia idea. Plus: "Geostrategic risk?" WTF? What "Geostrategic Risk"?
So, this article has to be VERY CONTROLLED, ok? SO VERY FUCKING CONTROLLED.
Better? Thank you.
Sorry for the use of the "fucking" word.
And I have to apologise to you, sir !dave. The only person who has to apologise here is me, to you, nobody else. Sorry. The topic of Catalonia, indeed, is very important for some. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPA

These SPA have contributed writing the unencyclopaedic sections "Political Claims" and "Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism" of this article. These sections have no references/citations other than those of the same satirical platform behind "Tabarnia" (www.bcnisnotcat.es). --Beethoven (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beethoven: I applied for full protection at WP:RFPP, but haven't got a reply back 6 and a half hours later. Might worth going to WP:ANI, Admin eyes needed or whatever. !dave 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Beethoven Can you please relax? Trying to get people banned from wikipedia because you don't like an article is not a correct approach. I suggest you tone down your crazed political activism on Wikipedia.Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Impressive. You have balls "my friend". I refered precisely to this type of things when I said before: "And I wish Wikipedia will put a severe control on that article, but, who knows what connections some people have to try to prevent this.(¿?)" Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • On the Spanish Wikipedia is happening the same. I solicited a quick deletion due to not verificability of the information available. But that box was quickly reverted by some user without allowing a Wikipedia administrator to review it. The comical part of it comes because there where many accounts voting against deleting, and a quick deletion does not require voting. WP:SPA and astroturfing very much defines what is happening here. Afterwards I tried correcting the article saying that all points to a single source (www.bcnisnotcat.es) and that there is no social movement at all. The edits where quickly reverted by other users too (some are from the list above at the beginning of this section), without even trying to discuss the article. I will add that this article is better written in Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia. If it is satirical then I do not understand why there is a section called "Political Claims", "Movement", "Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism", or any other section with so much detail instead of providing external links. That is clearly not satirical. ElNacional.cat reports that what the webpage www.bcnisnotcat.es claims is not true in respect to social support. This article belongs to an astroturfing campaign. www.bcnisnotcat.es is anonymous, has no contacts nor registration number. They do not even list their members (director, manager, etc.). There is a suspect named "Daniel de la Fuente" which is in charge of a site called "ElMagacín.com". That site does an interview to the supposed head of the organization, Carla Arrufat. She is not listed on bcnisnotcat.es. All these websites have in common the ads from the sunglasses company called Deraway. Reportedly, this is all related, including fake accounts on Facebook. This article has to be either deleted or reduced to a single paragraph telling that this was a trending topic on Twitter and has a webpage claiming this and that without anything backing it up. Filiprino (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Section of "See Also""

There are some incorrections in the comparations. I will list them:

1) Community of Madrid was created by a political reasons: government wanted to have a Community for the capital, remembering things like Ille-de-France, Washington DC or Distroto federal of some countries. This, used a HISTORICAL pronvince of Madrid as a base, much more older. This is not the case of Tabarnia, IN ANY CASE.

2) La Rioja was the historical Province of Logroño. The creation of a Community just for it was very "curious". In fact, never well explained. But equally, is not the same of what the people who defends Tabarnia demand, Logroño was a province before. And in fact, it is.

3) The region of Murcia received a Community by their own, after the decision to include Albacete in Castilla-la Mancha Community, but in fact IT WAS A PROVINCE BY THEIR OWN, from much before. So it is also NOT the same example. The 3 examples are in fact, bad examples to this section, all were provinces before, provinces exist today, and in the same form they existed centuries ago. Tabarnia do not pretend to be a province, but an Autonomous Community, a much greater level of autonomy

The example of Quebec, must to be pointed, accepts the fact that Quebec can secede from Canada, like people supporting Tabarnia repetedly remember (when they accept the case as a type of analogy), a right actual spanish state doesn't recognize to Catalonia. So, the comparation is incorrect. Spain recognizes in fact, in some way, the word nation, in the actual Statute of autonommy of Catalonia. It was not especifically cuted out of this, in the reform of Tribunal Constitucional demanded by Partido Popular, one of the parties who doesn't want the independence in Catalonia. http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/lo6-2006.html#i

And it recognizes this nation, in the word "nationality" in the actual Spanish Constitution. Catalonia is formed by 4 provinces, officially recognized. And of course, not divided, like demand the invented project of Tabarnia. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


I don't know about La Rioja/Logroño, but Albacete was integrated in Castilla-La Mancha as the province decided it preferred to join CLM than to join Murcia (before it was a part of the Murcia Region (with no political power), but never of the Murcian Community, that was created later, with just one province, Murcia. Madrid also wanted to join CLM, and was traditionally part of the Toledo Kingdom (later called Castilla la Nueva), but the other provinces decided to keep it out of the new community, even if Guadalajara and Toledo were more inclined to let it in, and Guadalajara even thought of joining Madrid instead of CLM because of its stronger links.

Anyways, the only Community in Spain that has been split has been Andalusia, as Ceuta and Melilla became Autonomous Cities on their own right.

81.103.194.145 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Section Movement

Citation: "The movement has a legal basis in the Canadian Clarity Act, according to which regions opposed to Quebecois separatism are to remain within Canada in case of a secession, as well as Articles 143 and 144 of the Spanish Constitution, which allows the formation of autonomous communities."

This is a fail, and a poor comprension of law.

"the movement", as they say (perhaps francoist implications in the definition? Movimiento Nacional) can not be, can never be "legally based" on a legislation of another country. So if it is true, it is simple an error of base. The only similar real thing similar to this is on the topic of severe human rights vulnerations, by the Universal jurisdiction in penal law: when a international court can't intervene, a national jurisdiction can intervene, to supply it. Not the case.Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You do realize you are literally rambling nonsense, right? It is not even a coherent argument one can respond to or oppose. Its a childish "I hate all of this, make it go away." rant. Sonrisas1 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Spain is not part of Canada, ill-bred.Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
In fact, it makes sense. A Spanish movement may be “inspired by” a Canadian law, but not have a “legal basis” in that law. Sabbut (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Thanks. The difference is really important. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. --Beethoven (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Major errors in the article re Canadian Act of Clarity and International Law

    The articles reads: 'The movement has a legal basis in the Canadian Clarity Act, according to which regions opposed to Quebecois separatism are to remain within Canada in case of a secession....'.
   This is completely wrong.  The Canadian Clarity Act says nothing of the sort, making no reference to boundaries at all.  as anyone can read for themselves here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-31.8.pdf.  This will only take a few minutes; the Act only has two pages of text in The English language version.
     The reason that the Act makes no reference to boundaries is that the Canadian government had, some years earlier, sought advice from a panel of international law experts regarding this very question and was advised that international law would support the territorial integrity of Quebec in the event of secession. (You can read more here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec.
       This article is 'Protected to prevent vandalism', so I cannot edit.  Whoever has control should either correct this error or tell me how to do so and I will.  In the case of such a contentious matter, it is imperative for the credibility of Wikipedia that the article be factually correct.   Nakashchit (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nakashchit It is not completely wrong, it is partly wrong. The law says that the referendum will be the basis for negotiations on territorial borders etc. and rights of minorities. So it is implied in the Clarity law. A referendum would be the beginning of a long process whereby the territorial integrity in Quebec is in no way guaranteed. Needs some rewording.Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nakashchit Not to mention that it was the Quebec government which commissioned that report (i.e. to support its position), not the Canadian government - and it is unlikely to have had any impact on the drafting of the law. Evidently, Quebec has no more right to territorial integrity than Canada does and changes to its borders would be made prior to independence not after. The Canadian government made it clear that Quebec's borders would not be the same in case of a hypothetical independence, and the way for this change of borders was opened in the Clarity law. Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sonrisa, firstly, I thank you for your prompt response. I hope that my comments will receive the same attention from your friends (as I assume that they are) who control the corresponding French language article. Secondly. I apologise for my error in referring to the international experts' report on borders, which I conflated with the Supreme Court report to Minister. You are quite right to draw attention to this error. I am afraid that I conflated this report with the Supreme Court Report to Minister Dion, which forms the basis for the drafting of the Clarity Act, which does indeed mention potential changes to borders resulting reference to borders in the context of negotiations arising from a clear expression of the people's will, which it is understood impose upon the Canadian Government the duty to negotiate independence whilst at the same time protecting the rights of minorities. The Supreme Court did not reject the earlier report to the Quebec government of the expert panel, but effectively qualified it with reference to the proctection of the rights of minorities. Quite rightly, it follows that, even though the presumption may be against any border changes, they may be necessary to exercise this duty towards minorities. If you report this in its entirety I shall be satisfied as to the appropriate balance of this paragraph of the article. Yours faithfully, Nakashchit (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nakashchit You are welcome. And no, I have no relationship nor contact with any creators or editors of this article on this wikipedia or projects in other languages.Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sonrisa, In response to your second reply, you should not underestimate the maturity and civility of both sides of this debate in Canada since its inception fifty years ago. It goes without saying that the views of both the Panel of Experts and those of the Quebec government were carefully considered by the Canadian government in drafting the Act, in order to ensure that the government discharged its responsibility to all of its citizens, including those who wished to separate. Canadians expect no less. At a press conference in English in 1968, an American reporter asked then-leader of the Parti Qubecois, René Lévesque, whether a vote for separation would mean civil war. Mr Lévesque was visibly taken aback and then scoffed: 'Of course not. English Canadians are civilised people.' Fifty years later, the Canadian justice system has yet to use the police against separatists or to incarcerate a single separatist politician. The result has been that the steam has finally more or less gone out of the issue. There is much else in the article that requires more balance. For example, it simply will not do to allege historical revisionism without any detail whatever. You can quite easily make the (correct) point that the proposed division of Spain raises the issue of the divisibility of Catalonia without tendentious reference to historical revisionism at all. Let it suffice to say that there are different views of history. One cannot interpret medieval history in terms of anachronistic modern concepts of 'state' and 'nation'; it is not a matter of historical revisionism as much as historical fantasy. If the exposition can be made without entering this minefield then you should do so. If you edit accordingly, you should introduce the arguments for and against division of Catalonia. For consistency, should not Barcelona proper, the metropolis of the Catalan people for over 1,000 years, which largely supports independence, remain in Catalonia? If western Quebec were to be partitioned, should not too parts of eastern and northern Ontario, together with northern New Brunswick? What about the Franja Oriental of Aragon? Where does it stop? The Panel of Experts was right to emphasise the principle of historical continuity and succession in international law. The Canadian Supreme Court did right to shift the emphasis towards the duty of the Canadian government to protect the human rights of all of its citizens. I believe that most thinking Canadians accept that. If you tell that story, you will add light to, and possibly remove some of the heat from, the debate. Que vaya con dios. Tiene un cargo importante. Nakashchit (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nakashchit True. Then again, Quebec never declared independence on the basis of a low-turn out kangaroo referendum held against the Quebec law and Canadian law. I'm pretty sure that if they had, its leaders would have been incarcerated. You have to understand that, under the Spanish constitution, it is perfectly legal to establish new regions if there is a strong popular will to do so within them. Spanish regions don't have a "natural right to territorial integrity", only internationally recognized nation states do. Many regions in Spain have been divided in recent history. Madrid for example was separated from Castile and this has led to opposition from Castilian nationalists. Cantabria also separated from Castile because there was a strong desire by its population to do so. Tabarnia is no different, particularly if it is to avoid the social, political and economic risks linked to independence movements. Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Eliminate adjectives like "satirical" and bring some other real issues

Tabarnia is a real political project so qualifying adjectives like "satirical" do not belong in the description, whether one agrees or disagrees with the project. Certainly the pro-independent Catalonia would like to frame this as a joke but it is NOT a joke: around half of the population wishes to remain as part of Spain and the majority of that population is concentrated within the metro area of Barcelona and surrounding "comarcas" or counties, roughly the area outlined in the Tabarnia project. Similarly, it is not a joke the linguistic discrimination suffered by Spanish-speaking population within Catalonia that can not use it in any official business (government and official documents, healthcare, etc). Moreover, the Spanish-speaking population within Catalonia does not have the right to choose educating their children in their native tongue, which is a violation not only of the Spanish constitution (which establishes as co-official the use of Spanish and the autonomous community language) but also of the United Nation's rights of children: to be educated in their mother tongue. Finally, it is not a joke the use of insults and hurtful words like "charnegos" or "xarnegos" (a word with similar connotations than the "n" word in the US) to refer to the Spanish speaking minorities within Catalonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfernandezcastro (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And you can see now, how this message put much credibility to that edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabarnia&oldid=817591632
Tabarnia, as that edit explains, is a project of ultra right castilianist spaniards living in Catalonia (and also other parts of Spain) to create a excluding ethnicist region in Catalonia, based in no historic region at all, lying about that, but using Wikipedia to win credibility, and pretending to create social tensions if it is needed. The inclusion in this discusion of the word "charnegos" or "xarnegos", in a very unjustified manner, seems to seek this. For clarifying purposes I think is a very good idea to explain the meaning of that word: "Xarnego" is an old word to describe someone result of the union of one parent catalan and another from outside of Catalonia. The origen of this word seems to be in the massive inmigration of french people (specially from the south of France) to Catalonia in XVI- XVII centuries. The word has been used specially in the 60's or 70's as a pejorative way (specially in that years, perhaps also the 80's) to refer to the massive immigration from the rest of Spain in the Franco's fascist dictadorship years. Nowadays this word has changed in some way their meaning and is even used with proud by catalans who want to show their non-catalans roots, without rejecting their "Catalanity" (their good feelings about Catalonia).
Examples:
"Proud to be Xarnegos" (in catalan)
Xarnego's Proud! (in catalan)
It has to be cleared some people (specially older ultra nationalists catalan people) uses with the old meaning even today, but that use is seeing as very repulsive by the majority of modern catalan society. Also has to be said last years far right spanish nationalists movements in Catalonia promoted the original use to create new tensions.
Pejorative words to refer to catalans with NO recent migration roots are also used, like "Polacos", or specially last years "catalufos", but this is enough to explain the idea.
Tabarnia new idea/project seems to clearly seek the way and the results of Republika Srpska derived directly from the self-proclaimed Republika Srpska (1991–95) during Yugoslav wars, in Bosnia, and it seems to use Wikipedia to promote it: Trying to create a new political entity using ethnic caracteristics majorities. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2017

Tabarnia is a real political project so qualifying adjectives like "satirical" do not belong in the description, whether one agrees or disagrees with the project. Certainly the pro-independent Catalonia would like to frame this as a joke but it is NOT a joke: around half of the population wishes to remain as part of Spain and the majority of that population is concentrated within the metro area of Barcelona and surrounding "comarcas" or counties, roughly the area outlined in the Tabarnia project. Similarly, it is not a joke the linguistic discrimination suffered by Spanish-speaking population within Catalonia that can not use it in any official business (government and official documents, healthcare, etc). Moreover, the Spanish-speaking population within Catalonia does not have the right to choose educating their children in their native tongue, which is a violation not only of the Spanish constitution (which establishes as co-official the use of Spanish and the autonomous community language) but also of the United Nation's rights of children: to be educated in their mother tongue. Finally, it is not a joke the use of insults and hurtful words like "charnegos" or "xarnegos" (a word with similar connotations than the "n" word in the US) to refer to the Spanish speaking minorities within Catalonia. Jfernandezcastro (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the project is not satirical. There is an organization promoting this autonomous community quite seriously. However, numerous media initially interpreted it as satirical, since it was widely used to make fun of nationalists by seeing how they responded to their own arguments. Perhaps more sources are required to demonstrate that it is a serious grassroots movement. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, refrain from throwing political propaganda User:Jfernandezcastro, and similar others single-purpose accounts that have been vandalizing this article non-stop for the last days. Regarding the satirical "Tabarnia", you have more information here. It's a satirical proposition (not real at all) created by a small Spanish nationalist organization campaigning against Catalonia independence. The satire itself is to pretend it's a "real political project", despite the real objective being to push for Catalonia to remain in Spain. A quick visit through the organization humorous website makes it clear enough; for instance this article, suggesting in Barcelona people don't speak Catalan but a different language named "Barcelonian". Right now "Tabarnia" is nothing more than a meme that became a Twitter's trending topic some days ago, but nothing more than that. And nothing else tells us this will change in the future. Notice all political parties against Catalonia independence, when asked a few days ago about the Tabarnia meme, called it a "funny joke". Nobody referred to Tabarnia as a "real project". Finally User:Sonrisas1, when you say "Perhaps more sources are required to demonstrate that it is a serious grassroots movement", let me tell you that no, you don't need "more" sources. What you really first need is at least 1 source, because you haven't provided yet any single source that proves Tabarnia is a "grassroots movement". And let me tell you, as for now, you won't find a single one. Real examples of grassroots organizations are, for example, Assemblea Nacional Catalana (more info here). Just in case you didn't know the meaning of "grassroots movement". Nice day to you all! --Beethoven (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Beethoven Now that is the most hilarious comment of the week. ANC a grassroots movement???? After having received millions of euros in MY taxes from the Catalan government for years? Its like calling the Pasdaran a "grassroots" movement. It is one of the main subsidized instruments of controlling society with public money by nationalist parties. Tabarnia, on the other hand, is the EXACT DEFINITION of a grassroots movement since it developed without the support of any government or political party or funding. The exact opposite of the ANC Omnium neo-fascist QUANGOs. Stop your trolling here, Beethoven. We all know you just want to destroy this article for your extremist political views. Sonrisas1 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought catalans were russians, not nazis or islamists! (rolling my eyes).
The Government notes the intervention in Catalonia of 'hackers' from Russia and Venezuela (in spanish)
Russian pranksters convince Spain's defence minister that Catalonia's president is a secret Kremlin spy codenamed 'Cipollino'
And your taxes are payed to Spanish Central Government.
Try to demostrate this accusations to ANC, specially the fascists accusations, after 6 years without a single incident in 6 massive demostrations on streets (the most massives in Europe), every National Day of Catalonia.
This is for you a fascist organization? Where is the violence or hate-messages? The ultra militarist messages and behaviours? Nowhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNtgcvojWPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmxMnLz738o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPghq4lqrq8
You can say what you want about Tabarnia, but... NO secessionist movilization is created in just 4 days and can be defined as "grassroots" even if they win the simpathy of part of the population, by promoting it everywhere, like TV shows, in one week.
And THIS is a real FASCIST movement: Falange demostration in Madrid, 2017, to remember the day of the death of Franco. And Spain don't persecute that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLo66bEPzsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKwlmDmcAS4
Every day more foreign people knows the actual political poor situation in Spain: has clearly connection with what happened 80 years ago, in Spanish Civil War. This time there will be no Hitler or Mussolini to help a fascist Spain like in the 30's, or catalans to try to defend your poor democracy. You clearly don't deserve them. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You were right !dave. It seems there's neither goodwill nor cooperation here. Single-purpose accounts like User:Jfernandezcastro are not even trying to discuss. He keeps spamming political propaganda on the discussion page that has nothing to do with the article, without even bothering to answer to the real discussions taking place here to improve the article. Same with User:Sonrisas1, that keeps spreading political/ideological propaganda that is totally unrelated with the article. User:Scolaire, since you already had to deal with him in other Catalonia-related articles, probably you can also help here if that's OK with you. WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Regarding User:Sergio Ramos 93, don't even try to engage in a political propaganda war with User:Sonrisas1, because that's probably what he exactly wants. We all know that ANC is not "neo-fascist" and that most of his propaganda rants don't make much sense. So there's no need to reply him, just ignore him and focus on the discussion related with this article. Finally, I also believe User:Only should take a look at this. Because I'm afraid once the page protection expires, SPA will come back to vandalize the article. --Beethoven (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Beethoven, I have already told Sonrisas that I don't think it's appropriate to try and drag me into stupid POV wars on pages that I have no involvement in. It's even more inappropriate coming from you, who has never interacted with me before. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 Not done: There is no consensus for this request to be carried out at this time, discussion should continue amongst the participants that are not blocked, and if/when consensus emerges, a fresh request should be made. I'm also noting that the requesting user has been blocked. Nick (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2017

More than 200,000 signatures in change.org requesting the creation of a new Autonomous Community that included mainly the metropolitan area of Barcelona and surrounding counties where the majority of the population support to remain within Spain are enough evidence that Tabarnia is a real political project proposal supported by a grass roots social movement. Please, check the change.org website for Tabarnia. Moreover, Spain is a constitutional democracy since 1977/78. Jfernandezcastro (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: There is clearly not consensus for this request at this time. The requesting account has also been blocked. Nick (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism

Quote:

"Tabarnia is a fictional territorial proposal that does not correspond to any present political or administrative unit. However, following a similar logic of Historical Revisionism that Catalan separatists use"

This is an infamy for Wikipedia project, but at very least, needs a "citation needed" label URGENTLY, and from a very very very GOOD AND OBJECTIVE SOURCE.

This article is full of gratuitous catalanophobia. And the most repulsive is: THE EDITOR WHO WROTE THAT, ACCEPTS TABARNIA IS USING A REVISIONISM ARGUMENTS, with a supposed excuse based on "others do the same". RE-PUL-SI-VE!!! Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2017

Tabarnia is a political project within Catalonia advocating to create a new autonomous community that would decide to remain part of Spain in case of a hypothetical Catalonian independence. This would be a new Spanish autonomous community encompassing the current Catalan comarques of Tarragonés, Baix Camp, Baix Penedès, Alt Penedès, Garraf, Baix Llobregat, Barcelonès, Vallès Oriental, Vallès Occidental and Maresme. 83.39.220.219 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Bias.

Some Spanish nationalist (because yeah, there are nationalists everywhere, and, those who accuse people of any nationality of being nationalists are usually nationalist themselves which think that only the other side can be nationalists) posted the Spanish version of the article in the comments section of a digital Catalan newspaper in Facebook. Not happy with Spanish Wikipedia having the disguisting attitude of translating Catalan and Basque names to Spanish (but they do not translate Düsseldorf, for example) in all their articles, they now resort to a massive trolling campaign regarding Catalonia.

Regarding the use of the word "xarnego", its meaning was used pejoratively when there was the massive emigration wave to Catalonia from the rest of Spain, which the Spanish government pretended to manipulate and turn into "settlers" which will hispanize Catalonia. Well, that went wrong, because most of this people wanted to integrate here and become Catalans. And most of them ended up doing it. That is a fact that Spanish nationalists such as the one who wrote the article (entry) can't stand because their project of cultural genocide and assimilation F-A-I-L-E-D. The fear to the newcomers was understandable, and it dissapeared as long as they did integrate in our society. I descend from them.

However, in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, a quite big minority did not integrate (like 30% of that emigration in thar area) and to this day they live in Catalonia hating everything related with it, whether it is language, culture, or the same land where they live. In the 70's the neighbourhoods where they lived were considered the most dangerous in the whole city.

Now that neighbourhoods are not dangerous anymore due to the improving of living conditions, but discussing with some of them I have been told that "You are not Catalan" "You can not be in favour of independence because you do not have Catalan surnames"

They have an insane obsession with blood. By them, not by any Catalan independentist or nationalist.

Also, this people are now showing their hypocrisy criticizing our "obsession" with language and identity. Well. At least we do not tell anyone that he or she can not be one of us because they do not have Catalan blood.

They also seem to have an obsession against rural people.

Besides, they do not have their own language, culture, or conscience UNLIKE the Occitan speaking valley of Val d'Aran, which in case of independence has been granted self determination by the Catalan government.

Regarding the point of "reductio ad absurdum", I can counter attac that. If cultures and languages having their own countries is so bad, why do we do not return back to the age of empires? Let's restablish the Roman Empire! Let's restablish the Rashidun Caliphate! Let's restablish the British Empire!

Also, that "you can not be independent because you never were before" theory does not have any sense. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and more had never been independent before 1918 so according to Sonrisas or jfernandez they should not be independent today or what?

It is perfectly legitimal to be against independence, but do not spread hate. And do not even dare to call us xenophobes or obsessed with identity because Falange and philo-nazi parties are still legal in Spain. Also, some news outlets take the idea seriously and some of them satirically.They both seem unable to look at the results of last elections.Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I see.

Insults on Twitter against Pro-Spain Catalans in period surrounding 2017 Catalan regional elections

Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You see what? I explained very well the history of word "xarnego" here, and is pretty much used by spanish nationalists to create ethnic and social tensions when actually, many people uses as a proud word and practically no one uses as an insult in the last 25 (perhaps more) years.
-> Feixista (not "feixita" like you wrote) describes a fascist person. You have problems with using that word? With touching the francoism problem Spain have?
And about the use of "Colón" word... What are you trying to indicate us?
Use google trend, and put Tabarnia and Catalunya on it.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=tabarnia,Catalunya
Tell us what it shows: Tabarnia is a creation supported by heavy propaganda on the spanish media AFTER December 21st catalan elections won by independentists, without any historical use before.

Recent source proving it is NOT satirical

Spokesman of Tabarnia movement "If the independence process continues, we will have an referendum for Tabarnia in October 2019. Please remove "satirical" from lead. http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2017/12/31/5a47d93e468aeb56238b4587.html

Pro-independence editors here are so petrified of this movement they want to misconstrue it as something it is not and make it go away.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 December 2017

Small edit: in the third paragraph it would be relevant to make the following subsitution:

Change "Catalan regional election of the 21st December 2017, which provoked renewed interest" to "Catalan regional election of the 21st December 2017, which provoked renewed interest after the popular vote yielded 47.5% in favour of parties containing independence in their platforms, and 52.5% in favour of parties opposing Catalan independence in some form.


This is important in order to understand the context in which this movement appeared. 2.137.35.37 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

NO. It will be a very biased edit: Unionists parties had a 43,5% of total votes, not 52,5% like you said. There is a 7,46% of votes to non-positioned candidacy: Catalunya en Comú–Podem. The media outside Spain ("curiously") uses to be much more clear than spanish non-catalan media in this topic: This coalition has a no clear position about this political conflict, so its voters cannot be added to any of two blocks.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/21/europe/catalonia-election-results-independence-spain-intl/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34372548
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/21/catalonia-election-set-to-give-victory-to-pro-independence-parties

Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Sergio Ramos 93 The majority of En Comu voters are against independence and the party expelled two members for supporting the independence declaration. So no, it is pretty much contrary to independence. It does have an ambivalent discourse and is against the PP government, but that is a separate matter. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

NO, that's obviously false (like almost all the things you affirm), you have always try to manipulate the reality. The clear demostration of my appointment is the continuosly petitions this group has been made along the last 2 or 3 years demanding a Referendum about the issue. And NO official position showed during all this years by the direction.
Or are you just trying to say they lied to the people and have a secret unionist agenda? In that case, please, informs us.
Just a few news in catalan and spanish about the referendum petitions of this coalition. There are LOTS of them. JUST LOTS.
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2016/10/07/catalunya/1475840343_535165.html
https://www.ara.cat/politica/Pregunta-En_Comu_Podem-referendum-independencia-Catalunya-Podem-Pablo_Iglesias-Xavier_Domenech_0_1482451829.html
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/3130095/0/ada-colau-cataluna-necesita-referendum-sin-dejar-fuera-catalanes/
https://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/98804/xavier/domenech/aposta/referendum/vinculant/sense/reforma/constitucional
https://www.elnacional.cat/es/politica/comuns-incluir-referendum-independentismo_213732_102.html
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/06/09/catalunya/1497007716_180882.html
Beware with unionists are trying to do with this article. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)



Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 January 2018

Change

Tabarnia is a satirical[1][2][3] political project ...

to [The current wording insults and belittles those who now genuinely support Tabarnia]

Tabarnia was initially initiated as a satirical[1][2][3] political project Wedwardes (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

General issues with this article

This is a very lame, poorly reasoned, grossly one-sided, heavily editorialized, and most often imperiously mendacious article that is further marred by a poor command of English grammar, by hasty overlaps (both in the form of redundancies and contradictions) and quite frankly, with no raison d'être other than to serve as an informal forum for users of one side (the unionist side) to dump their poorly thought drivel, their inferiority complex and their searing hatred of the other side.

Plus, at times it seems as though it has practically become a one-man project curated by a single user--one who has a history of blocks and ad-hominem, is infatuated to near-Freudian levels with the word "charnego" and has no qualms about labeling an entire landmass (2 million+) of voters as racists and xenophobes based solely on their vote in an election.

The subject matter may have been equal parts satire and astroturfing in its inception, but paradoxically the only thing that's come out of it is the coinage of a new word[1], tabarnitzar...

I suggest we place this article in the same category, albeit bloodless in this case thankfully, as this. Obviously this doesn't need to be done because I say so, but the weight of events these next weeks and months will probably point this way. I bona nit i tapa't. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. CodeInconnu I suggest you relax a bit and cease the personal attacks as other wikipedians have requested you to do. I was not involved in creating this article, although it is now on my watch list since it is subject to highly emotional attacks from a couple of POV warriors.Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm very relaxed, it is you who engages in edit warring, courts permanent block like a moth flies around a light bulb and bandies around epithets such as "bonkers", "crazed", "silly", "POV warriors", "supremacist", "charnego", openly calls 2 million peaceful voters racist and fascist (which, I insist, is potentially libelous) and tries to paint a delirious upside-down picture of Catalonia where Catalan speakers are some sort of covert Nazis and Spanish speakers are poor victims of discrimination, when in fact all acts of xenophobic violence in Catalonia that I know of have been carried out in the latter language.
I'm not saying there aren't any sound arguments in favor of the political option you so ardently defend here, in fact I have no intention to argue against said option because this is not a discussion forum. I'm just saying you're not the right person to bring balance to this or any other article while abiding by encyclopaediac standards. Your history precedes you. This is a very volatile topic and it needs intellectually sounder, better informed and more civil users. CodeInconnu (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@CodeInconnu: User has been blocked indefinitely under a CheckUser block. !dave 19:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

An innocent question

Is it OK to mention the fact that these two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMrT-luw-Sw are among the most ardent supporters of Tabarnia?

The earlier versions of this article gave lists of people pro and against Brexit, e.g. James Dyson in favor, most economists and university professors against, etc.

Would it be very cheeky of me to suggest we do the same here?

Just asking! A tipo fijo! CodeInconnu (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Interest in the topic is fading: Google Trends. Filiprino (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Interest in Catalan independence is also fading. https://trends.google.es/trends/explore?q=Catalan%20independence Let's quick delete that article too. :-D 180.94.83.10 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If we use the same international standard you've used [11] User:Filiprino's conclusion seems to be correct. Also, the Catalan independence movement has been around for a bit longer, I hope that's easy to understand. CodeInconnu (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I have not talked about quick deleting anything. In respect of Tabarnia, it is a trending topic on Twitter promoted by no one. Catalan independence has historical roots and political parties backing it up. Historical and linguistics facts support Catalan independence ideas. The idea or concept surrounding Tabarnia is not supported by any historical fact, nor political party or any official organization. On the other hand, Google trends shows a score above zero interest level previous to catalan elections. The same can not be said about Tabarnia. I hope it is easy to understand. This is not democracy. This is science. Filiprino (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't know why they struggle so much with the evidence. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Cause they do NOT need to have a valid argument, they just need one. Even a clearly false or invented one is valid for them, they don't care: They think the world is just like Spain, a place full of fraud to avoid confronting the real problems of their lives, or past times (ex: "Franco wasn't so bad").
For these reasons Wikipedia is important for them, specially the english Wikipedia. Look the article in japanese for exemple: no one with any idea of what is this invention will be notified about what he/she is reading is a very biased article. This is an important issue, and the fact they doesn't talk of that anymore, doesn't want to say they will not use it when they will need it. This topic has to be followed, and not putted down in any way, very carefully. Sergio Ramos 93 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Tabarnia's main promoter

https://www.racocatala.cat/forums/fil/215718/lautoproclamat-portaveu-tabarnia-paio-zona-alta-bcn-jaume-vives

Shouldn't this be explained in the article? CodeInconnu (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV and possible deletion

Enough of this crap. Time to talk about the (lack of) neutrality of this article, I think we've been lenient enough with the whole dog and pony show.

This "Tabarnia" thing is a botched astroturfing operation initiated by a mixed bag of xenophobes[2], former Francoists[3], covert fascists and petty idle upper-class hedonists and promoted by an Opus Dei nutcase[4] who should have secured professional help long ago. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes we are aware of your political views. Tabarnia is not a satirical project. It is a political movement and a serious one advocating the creation of an autonomous community if the independence process in Catalonia continues. This is according to their own spokesman. It is attested by the most recent credible sources. I suggest you keep your political phobias separate from your editing in wikipedia. Please stop this destructive editing.103.42.1.174 (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources that ip user has provided both link to El Mundo. I think that several reliable sources should agree until the lead can be changed according to IP user's wishes. lovkal (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Listen Mr IP: "This is according to their own spokesman." According to their own foundational principles, the KKK defined itself as "philanthropic". According to my own spokesman, i.e. myself, I'm the most handsome man in the world. lovkal is correct; you need more reliable sources. Even sockpuppets understand this. Not looking at anyone in particular. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with CodeInconnu. I have rescued these articles from the discussion in spanish Wikipedia:
* The source is the blog www.bcnisnotcat.es. It is anonymous.
* Inés Arrimadas's tweet.
* Inés Arrimada's tweet.
* Correlation of Inés Arrimada's tweets with Google Trends.
* C's politicians helped diffusing Tabarnia on social networks.
* The multiple calls of demonstration for the 20th of january have not been done.
Digital publications and even the printed version of "El País" in Spain have written about this topic due to a single tweet from Inés Arrimadas linking to that blog. Inés tweet is what started the trending topic. It received some propaganda from other members of C's too. But the political party itself has not made any stance on having relationships with the writers of www.bcnisnotcat.es blog. Also, there is no confirmation in the blog in respect to which is their spokesman or president. Anyway it would be futile because they do not publish any verificable information (association, organization registrartion number, members, etc.). Again, I agree with CodeInconnu. This is an astroturfing campaign. This article discussion is endless because nobody is verfying where does this come from. Which makes me think about their motivation to discuss this article. They might belong to the promoters of this astroturfing campaign. Filiprino (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]

Astroturfing

This is a text I have recovered from the spanish Wikipedia. They are reverting it continuosly from the Talk page due to violating their NOFORO policy. If they don't allow to discuss sources then I don't know how the development of the article is supposed to go. Text (please note the sources are spanish): The following information makes me think we are in front of an astroturfing campaign:

  • A definition of astroturfing: A characteristic of astroturfing is to give the appearance of being natural to an artificial phenomena. Some concrete actions made with these purposes are buying online commentators on forums and blogs, massive creation of false accounts in social networks, the invention or distortion of news in blogs and information media (journalism astroturfing), edit Wikipedia in a tendentious way, creation of false NGO, buying testimonials fabricated by professional actors, falsification of web trafic and search engine optimization and creation of flogs (fake blogs), among others.

The previous links show an astroturfing campaign whose starting shot were the tweets from Inés Arrimadas and other Cs politicians. On top of that Inés Arrimadas seems to gather information from the future because her first tweet was published at 5:35 AM while "El Periódico" published the article linked by Inés at 13:23 PM. Inés linked it near 8 hours before. "Libertad Digital" published their article at 13:41 PM. These two are the first newspapers to publish something related with Tabarnia during these christmas astroturfing campaign. Additionally, "El Periódico" and other digital media have limited themselves to replicate the information available in the blog www.bcnisnotcat.es. That is anonymous and non verificable information. But gives the appearance of being natural and true. Filiprino (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can see here [12] and in other sources, Ines Arrimadas herself labeled Tabarnia as an "ocurrencia" (a made up idea or a witticism) she stated that it serves as a mirror to show the contradictions of the independentists. It is a joke, but it has gathered more than 200.000 signatures at change.org. [13]. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Arrimadas published a tweet before it was published in "El Periódico" and "Libertad Digital". If that does not has the smell of an astroturfing campaign then "May God come down and see it" (Que Dios baje y lo vea). Filiprino (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Filiprino, what you're saying is very pertinent. I would add that the real issue here is the mounting evidence that Cs itself is an astroturfing operation, as per former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray who bluntly states that the whole neo-Lerrouxist movement was manufactured by the German BND at the EU's and Ms Merkel's behest. [14] I don't feel I can start adding this to the Cs article lest I wish to start a futile edit war, but I think it's worth saying in this talk page. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
What Cs is or it is not does not belong to the core problem of this article. The core problem of this article is that it comes from a non verificable source. Bcnisnotcat does not provide information in order to assess if what the secondary sources say (newspapers) is true or not. What has happened is that the newspapers wrote articles based in the blog bcnisnotcat, but bcnisnotcat does not publish what are their members or businesses contributing their cause. The do not reflect many of the information written by those newspapers. That is a substantial difference compared to other platforms like Xnet or Acción Cívica. The article is written as if Bcnisnotcat is a true, real citizen platform with support from many entities and parties. Filiprino (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on the information published by reliable sources. According to those sources, it is a satirical parody that has gathered a significant amount of coverage and support (277,292 signatures at change.org: www.change.org/p/grupo-parlamentario-popular-en-el-congreso-tabarnia-la-nueva-comunidad-aut%C3%B3noma). This is sourced and I don´t see any reasonable arguments to think is false. Having in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources is what makes it relevant for our encyclopedia. And since the article does not violate what wikipedia is not there is no argument for its deletion. Weather we think that the reliable sources are right or wrong is not relevant. Please read WP:OR. Also our opinion on Tabarnia itself is not relevant and should not be discussed here as per WP:NOTFORUM:
"...bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article...".
--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
First: change.org means nothing and what you have linked is not taken as a parody. Second: reliable sources also say Tabarnia is a serious thing. Their information is based on an anonymous blog to say so they use Bcnisnotcat.es primary source. That is what I have said. And because the source of the secondary sources is not verificable (WP:V), the secondary sources are not verificable. To attest secondary sources verificability primary sources are needed. The WP:PSTS policy says this explicitly: use common sense. Other policies you might find interesting are WP:NOT, WP:SYN and WP:RSBREAKING. Stop throwing wikipedia policies to other user's faces. This discussion is about improving the article because currently its state is bad. The source quality is low, and as such the article is low quality. Third: TVE and Antena3 promote the farce of Tabarnia as if it was real, We found the creators of Tabarnia: "Si los 'indepes' siguen con la matraca, tendremos referéndum tabarnés". Satirical parody? Political project? True? False? Fake? What you seem to do is political positioning instead of Wikipedia improving (political agenda). Fake news, astroturfing is what we are talking about. The coverage is not real. Their information is based on an anonymous blog. And they started publishing about Tabarnia after Cs politicians published their tweets. Inés Arrimadas linked to "El Periódico" article before it was published. "El Periódico" and "Libertad Digital" were the two first newspapers to write about Tabarnia. International press replicated them. That's not independent information nor independent sources. This is what should appear on Wikipedia. A real political or citizen platform would operate like Xnet or Acción Cívica. And this is not an opinion, it is a fact. We are not discussing here the topic of Tabarnia but the sources of the article. Common sense. Stop using newspapers for this topic because they are not reliable nor verificable. There is no judge to wait sentence for. There is no investigation to wait results. There is nothing verificable in this article. No one stands behind it. Fourth: if it is a parody then the contents of this Wikipedia page should go to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Filiprino (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Filiprino: I am sorry, but I can't follow your arguments. It seems to me that you still don't understand our policies. What WP:PSTS says is that secondary sources should be used whenever possible not that we should second-guess them. I don't understand why you quoted back to me the other two policies (WP:NOT, WP:SYN) I cited in my comment and finally WP:RSBREAKING does not seem to apply, as more than a month has passed and new sources are still being added. You have been blocked already three times on eswiki over this same article for edit warring and for violating WP:NOTFORUM. Various admins there have asked you to ponder over your actions. We do not need to second guess secondary sources from reliable publications. We can use them with due weight to maintain NPOV. I beleive that the article meets all requirements for inclusion, if you feel otherwise you should clearly explain the reason referring to the relevant policies to justify your arguments. Conspiracy theories or any other original research about alleged Astroturfing etc. is not a valid argument for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Do you have any other argument beyond ad-hominems? Because that is what you are saying "I have been blocked" so what does that mean? Nothing! WP:RSBREAKING fully applies because the new sources do not bring new information to the table. They say exactly the same since the first week starting on 26th of december after Inés Arrimadas and Albert Rivera's tweets linking news from the future, that is: what is Tabarnia and who they are not. We still don't know who they are. We are not second-guessing secondary sources. We are using primary sources! Quote from "Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism" section:

However, following a similar logic of Historical Revisionism that Catalan separatists use, Tabarnians find a precedent of territorial political and administrative unit at a certain point in history that justifies their existence: The County of Barcelona, during the Middle Ages, had a similar territory to the one proposed by Tabarnians, today.

That paragraph from the article is using as a source the anonymous blog www.bcnisnotcat.es. And the rest of the section "Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism", which is full of lies, does not cite any source. That's propaganda. Continuing with more issues, the article is using both secondary and primary sources indistinctly. There is no practical difference in sources. As I said, an anonymous blog has been used in the Wikipedia article. But the newspapers also have explicitly used and continue to use the same anonymous blog as primary source and the platform continues to be anonymous and of an unknown nature. Some sources still say it is satirical some other sources say it is not. Satirical parody? Political project? True? False? Fake? What you seem to do is political positioning instead of Wikipedia improving (political agenda): users against this article are violating Wikipedia policies. But the talk page is full of discussions of the same nature. WP:NOT and WP:SYN are quoted because you are combining multiple sources to give the article the appearance of being real. You use source A and source B to conclude C, but C from "Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism" (stated before) and "Controversy" sections is not stated anywhere or from a reliable source. From "Controversy" section:

The territorial area that Tabarnia would comprise includes geostrategic assets and industrial areas that are fundamental for a viable independent Catalonia such as the Port of Barcelona and Barcelona–El Prat Airport. Most of these fall inside the Barcelona metropolitan area where a majority favor remaining part of Spain[citation needed]

More propagnda. And again, if you really believe Tabarnia is a satirical parody, then the whole contents of this article have to be removed and written on Encyclopedia Dramatica. This article page should be devoted to Barcelona Is Not Catalonia, in the same vein as Xnet article. But guess what, nobody is interested in the platform. They are only interested in this farce. Maybe because all is a farce and Tabarnia is the funniest or more controversial part of the farce. But that is second-guessing, I guess. Filiprino (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, I don't know what's so hard to understand about this. I'll give you an example which hopefully won't be too challenging for you. Densa is a parody of Mensa (it only admits the stupidest 2% instead of the smartest 2% if the population) and so it says in its website. Its "foundational principles", everything involving it is tongue-in-cheek and it wouldn't make any sense for the wiki article to appear to validate them or confer them with a patina of seriousness by saying that (and I'm postulating/inventing now) famous journalists or even famous politicians (say, charismatic or media-savvy politicians in the orbit of a Jerry Brown or an Al Franken) have endorsed it. Regardless of whether or not the endorsement is published in a serious newspaper or platform. The endorsement would still be tongue-in-cheek, the politicians would still be tongue-in-cheek about Densa, any change.org initiative would be tongue-in-cheek and anyone who vouched for this would be doing so tongue-in-cheek because that's what it is, a parody. The whole way this Tabarnia page is written smacks of desperation to validate what is at best a joke, and at worst a calculated strategy thinly veiled as a joke, and there's no rationale for the way this article is written. At all. Anyone who wouldn't be accepted in Densa can understand this. Good luck on that. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:PSTS says:

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.

.
The Wikipedia page about Tabarnia is not using secondary nor tertiary sources. It is using primary sources. There you got the policy extract. Newspapers have not made any elaborated review or analysis. They have just copy-pasted an anonymous primary source. That is not second-guessing. Filiprino (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
-EDIT CONFLICT!- @Filiprino: I am not proposing anything, what I am trying to explain to you is why what you propose does not make sense to me. Since you did not mentioned again, I hope that we established that deleting the article based on a claim that the secondary sources are in this article are not valid is moot. As far as WP:RSBREAKING the argument that coverage a month latter by reliable sources like the New York Times "does not bring new information to the table" as you said, actually proves that this is not a case of just a breaking news report. It cites not one, but various primary sources and a month seems like a reasonable amount of time. For your reference, there has also been in-depth coverage by the BBC, The Guardian, The Sunday Times etc and all make clear that Tabarnia was born as a parody but one that has received a lot of popular support as well as criticism by the separatists and others like Pablo Iglesias. That does not mean it should be deleted or moved to Encyclopedia Dramatica. If I mentioned that you have been blocked three times for your edits on the Spanish version of this article is just as a response of you accusing me of misquoting policy or just now of having a political agenda, you should try to follow the advice that the admins that blocked you on eswiki gave you. I on the other hand do not have any political agenda. I did not write this article or the paragraph on the "geostrategic assets" all I have done is add some references were needed and added some opposing views to the controversy section. I do agree with you about that paragraph, and since the information has been unsourced for a while and I was not able to find any RS to back it up I have removed it.
@CodeInconnu: Yes, it is clear that it is a parody. One that has gotten a lot of support and coverage as well as reactions in both directions from various notable people. What is your point? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: that it belongs to the realm of parodies. It is to the Catalan independence movement roughly what Densa is to Mensa. So if the wiki article for Mensa (and its multiple ramifications) is so much larger than the article for Densa, so should be the case for this. The article for Tabarnia is too long, lends too much space (easily misconstrued as credibility) to endorsements that have been later admitted to be either reluctant or tentative or jestful (read: Arrimadas) and appears to take the subject matter seriously. CodeInconnu (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Filiprino: In answer to your recent comment in edit conflict, yes they are secondary sources and yes they are valid. Please feel free to ask other experience users, get advice at the Teahouse or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@CodeInconnu: The amount of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources seems to justify the length of the article. I just edited the first sentence of the introduction to make it more clear that it is a fictional territory. But it also seems clear that it has received enough popular support to cause political repercussions if they were to make good on their claims after a hypothetical declaration of independence of Catalonia from Spain. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope, they are not secondary sources. They are reporting as if they were primary source. They are replicating the text from www.bcnisnotcat.es and messages from Twitter. The parody interpretation is invented by the newspapers. There is no primary source or evidence stating it is a parody. Read the sources again and read the policy WP:PSTS again. WP:RSBREAKING is being violated. The information from the NYT, BBC, The Guardian, The Sunday Times etc is primary source due to the same reason as the first breaking news: www.bcnisnotcat.es as primary source without further analysis and inventing themselves the interpretation of it being a parody. They simply copy-pasted the same notice some days later without adding valuable information, because there is no primary source stating what they say, nothing to review or analyze remains (WP:PSTS). You know, they are international media. News take longer to arrive. They have more important things than to write about a farce. Having multiple newspapers reporting the same thing does not make it more valid or real. On top of that you only remove a paragraph when the whole section should be removed. If I remove it then you will revert my edit because you will consider it is vandalism. You have to understand you are not the master of Wikipedia and that you keep misquoting policies. You are a bad librarian from eswiki with a very biased point of view (WP:NPOV). Sections "Demonym", "Political Claims", "Hypothetical Territory and Historical Revisionism" and "Controversy" are out of the scope of this article (remember, it is a parody). Those sections belong to an Encyclopedia Dramatica article (a parody, a satirical article). Filiprino (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, this is getting silly. Crystallizedcarbon, this "received enough popular support to cause political repercussions if they were to make good on their claims after a hypothetical declaration of independence of Catalonia from Spain" is false. Sorry to break your bubble, but the concept of Tabarnia is becoming so obsolete that not even José García Domínguez (who seemed to be infatuated with the concept) mentions it anymore on Twitter. It has been disowned by the very people who championed it, and Mr Jaume Vives and his motley crew of PxC and "Hazte Oír" sympathizers is yesterday's news. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Filiprino: Since you insist on your personal attacks you should seek advice elsewhere. You did not listen to what other admins at eswiki told you and you clearly don't respect my advice, so I will not invest any more of my time trying to convince you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@CodeInconnu: No bubble. It is irrelevant what you or me think, but just for your information, I am against the concept of breaking up Catalonia. What is notable is the fact that they have gotten over 275 000 signatures. (more than the CUP at the last regional elections). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: strange arithmetic. 275K signatures in any ad-hoc social engineering (crowdfunding, astroturfing, etc), especially if you cannot prove that it has been sponsored or sanctioned by public enterprises, is not worth more than a similar number of votes in a democratic election with proper vote recount, subject to all the controls we would expect in the latter. CodeInconnu (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you. Signatures on change.org are not comparable to votes on an election. I did not mean to imply that they had the same relevance as a established political party. They do not. I used the comparison just to put the number of signatures into perspective. Signatures are not votes, but they seem to be a substantial sign of support that various reliable sources thought to be relevant. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
OK so do we converge that we're not really dealing with a political phenomenon that has been validated by popular vote then, or popular *anything* inasmuch as signing a petition is something that even a border collie could do? CodeInconnu (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
We converge on the fact that they are not a political party and that it has not received any votes. But it is also a fact that the movement has received the support of a substantial number of people. It remains to be seen into what (if any) it will evolve. So far they have held seminars and have schedueled a march in Barcelona on 25 February. It will be interesting to see how many people participate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Get your facts right. You were the one who made the personal attacks using ad-hominem fallacies. Eswiki is irrelevant here. You are not the first librarian who I encounter abusing his power. Here you cannot do so. Change.org signatures are not a valid source for supporting nothing more than people acknowledging they know about the existence of a concept, idea or whatever you want called Tabarnia. By stating that those signatures can be compared with CUP votes you are politically positioning yourself. Be careful with WP:NPOV. And I remark again: WP:RSBREAKING, WP:PSTS are being violated. The sources in use are primary and some of the primary sources (www.bcnisnotcat.es) are not valid due to them not being verificable (WP:V). The other primary sources (newspapers) are used in a way that the article is violating WP:NPOV due to the political and history sections. Not adequate for a supposed satirical topic. Filiprino (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Fictional region

The main definition of term Tabarnia refers to a proposed fictional region that is comprised of the sum of Barcelona Tarragona and others. The creators admit that the historical justification for its borders is made up mirroring historical separatist arguments similarly flawed. I believe there is a clear consensus that this is not a real region as multiple reliable sources do mention. Removing this from the beginning of the lead seems biased to me and could mislead the readers. "fictional region" was removed repeatedly by 180.94.83.10. Beethoven and myself have restored and I asked the IP to stop removing it without first reaching a consensus. The response was another revert. I will not revert it again to avoid been drawn into an edit war. I would appreciate to get input justifying or against removing the term "fictional region" at the beginning of the lead and that its extent is considerably different than the historic county of Barcelona. Diff of edit made by 180.94.83.10.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The stable version was definitely more neutral. It seems by 180.94.83.10 constant edits that he's trying to impose his personal point of view, without discussing the changes on the discussion page, ignoring the references and not respecting consensus. Who knows if in the future Tabarnia evolves into a political project. But that's not the case right now, as all the references indicate. That's why there are 0 political parties that consider it a "political project; when in fact they all have referred to Tabarnia as a joke, satire, etc. I wonder:
  • How can anyone watching the speech by the self-called "President of the Government of Tabarnia" believe that this is a real political project? Is he an elected president? Albert Boadella is a playwright...
  • Or 2 days ago in Madrid, when they appointed Tomás Guasch as "Minister of Sports". His declarations: "I want Gerard Piqué to play in "Tabarnia FC"...
Tabarnia is just a joke. Not a serious political project. --Beethoven (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be something in between. Started as a joke to deliver a message against independence but it seems to be evolving into a movement with its main declared objective been to help stop the separation of Catalonia from Spain. I do agree that it is clearly not a "serious" political project. It is not a political party and it uses satire to carry their message. They themselves stated in their "official" newspaper that Tabarnia is indeed fictional and that there is no plan to make it a real region if Catalonia does not break up from Spain. In their own words: "Fictional Tabarnia is now officially a movement" (self-published at Tabarnia Today on 28 January 2018). Whether it will evolve into something more or die down remains to be seen. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Without entering the discussion about "historical separatist arguments similarly flawed", Tabarnia is considered fictional. The territory is not based in any social or historical logic. And their argument based on electoral results is also flawed. This is not encyclopedic. Filiprino (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

According to various reliable sources, the territory is fictional, and the movement is real. The article clearly meets our general notability guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have not talked about whether the movement is real or not. And do not write about "our policy" because wikipedia is not yours. Filiprino (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Policy is decided and can be changed by the community so yes, I do believe it is our policy (yours too), if you don't agree with any of them you can propose changes and if they are accepted by the community those changes will become policy.
When trying to reach a consensus, the arguments to improve articles should be based on our policy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino's recent edits

They are clearly unacceptable political activism bordering vandalism. Editors should take this to Admins, I think a topic ban is warranted.79.159.80.28 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not going into an edit war: I see some other editors have interacted with this editor Filiprino. Warrior , Shellwood, User:Asqueladd your thoughts on Filiprino's edits in this article and (much worse) on Societat Civil Catalana? Are these edits acceptable? Is it correct to characterize these as far right organizations? I suggest ensuring the stable consensus version is kept. These articles are often subject to attack during times of political tension in Spain. 79.159.80.28 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the article again removing this edit mentioned above by 79.159.80.28. Adding "with support of right-wing platform Societat Civil Catalana, far-right association Somatemps[9][10][11][12] and linked with political parties from the far-right like PxC.[13][14]" to the lead, is clearly biased this is not just original research, but a clear misinterpretation of the cited sources. None of the sources explicitly say say that the cited movements support Tabarnia. One source did say that Societat Civil Catalana would support one of the protests planned by the Tabarnian movement that was changed to a different date. Going from that to direct support of the movement is WP:OR. There is no mention of direct support from the rest of the organizations it makes no sense to include it in the lead, even if it was sourced it would not be relevant or appropriate for the lead, as it would have to be inclusive to be neutral. It is also clearly biased to label them as right wing or far-right. Labeling Societat Civil Catalana as right-wing is a hoax, as the organization defines itself as independent from any political party see here and the sources you added clearly state that among its board of directors there are members of different political parties, some from the right and some from the Socialists' Party of Catalonia, which can't be labeled as right-wing". Please do not restore the content again until you can reach a consensus here on a wording that is indeed backed by reliable sources, relevant to the lead and written with a neutral point of view. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Stop doing personal attacks and misinterpreting information. Societat Civil Catalana has supported Tabarnia. Supporting a call demonstration means to give support to Tabarnia, to share the same ideas. The call demonstration moving to another day does not change the fact of supporting Tabarnia and their demonstrations. There is no WP:OR. There is support of other organizations because they were invited and they had a leading role. They even did the "ofrenda" to Rafael Casanovas, as is the case of Vox (Spanish Political Party) and PxC. If that is not collaboration then you are lying and ignoring the information. Societat Civil Catalana is right wing. Just look at what they do, not who are they or in what political party are some of their members. Please stop doing biased edits and biased comments. I have restored the article to the previous state. And please read the sources because it is clear you did not. Filiprino (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I had commented only on the problems with the contents of your edit I made no direct mention of you. Please let me know where you saw a personal attack in my previous comment. Supporting a particular call to a demonstration by an organization or participating in it means that they support that particular event. It is not automatically equivalent to the wider claim of supporting the organization itself. Assuming so is original research. Lying is saying the oposite of what one thinks. Accusing another editor of lying is a clear example of what a personal attack is. Claiming that Societat Civil Catalana is right-wing just by following your advice of "Just look at what they do" even though the organization defines itself as independent and even though the sources you cited clearly state that their government body includes members from different political parties including some from the Socialists' Party of Catalonia is at the very least a clear case of original research. I did read all sources and there is no justification for including such biased content on the lead. An organization that participates in an event organized by another does not define it.
Since you accused me of lying and claim that removing your edit was biased, and since you insist in ignoring WP:BRD I am forced to point out that I am not the only editor that thinks that this and other contribution you have made on this topic are biased. You have been blocked 6 times and expelled from the eswiki project for your edits on the Spanish version of this article. The admin that did the final block stated that your edits and personal attacks are motivated by a political agenda (see here) that seems to imply a bias on your part and you should probably take it into consideration in your edits here.
Same as others above I don't want to be dragged into an edit war, so I must ask you again to please remove the edit yourself. If you choose not to do so, my only option to try to protect the article will be to bring the issue to the appropriate noticeboard and let other editors there decide. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Keeping the support for the the demonstration by Societat Civil Catalana as you added in your last edit in the movement section would be perfectly fine if you remove the unsourced claim about it been right-wing. About the invitation of other organization you need to find a reliable source as a publication from a political party is not. The information from your original edit to the lead still needs to be removed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I won't remove a comma from the article because you are clearly biased against any kind of edit. It is laughable because the article has a notification stating that the article neutrality is disputed. Saying you lie might be also a personal attack but is justified in light of how you treat anybody who writes information you do not like. Eswiki is not related to Enwiki. Throwing accusations is violating WP:NOFORUM and WP:PA. Also it is laughable you mention that this account is single purpose when I have edited many other articles during the past years. You continue to throw ad hominem fallacies. Talking about the neutrality disputed article of Tabarnia, an organization supporting an event of other organization means supporting that organization and its ideas, because the demonstration is an expression of the ideas of the caller. Also, this is the article of Tabarnia, not Societat Civil Catalana, which has plenty of sources demonstrating right and far-right behaviour of SCC executive members. Additionally, I do not understand why the PxC link saying they were invited to the demonstration is not valid but the claim by SCC of them not being right or left is valid. Get your facts right. PxC not only said that but also published photographies with Jaume Vives as a companion and friend. Your negacionism is absurd. And for your information, I have had disputes with administrators of Enwiki over the GNU/Linux article and an English Wikipedia admin abused his power. But a different English Wikipedia admin found it was not justified what the first Wikipedia editor did. What I am trying to convey is that Wikipedia admins are not any source of justice more than any other discussion between users. Threatening me with scaling to a Wikipedia admin is against WP:CONDUCT. Maybe what you really want is a dispute resolution. Filiprino (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I did miss your Linux edits when I looked at your contributions, I apologize and I have removed the WP:SPA claim from my comment. The article needs to include information referenced by reliable sources. if it is not and specially if it is controversial it should not be included. The amount of coverage with due weight by reliable sources respecting WP:NPOV is what determines what information should be included. I am not advocating labeling SCC as left or right, I am saying that it should be removed, because there are no reliable sources stating that the organization as a whole is right-wing, the sources do state that SCC within its rulling body has militants and politicians form the socialist party. Following your reasoning, in one of the sources you provided it mentioned how the ex secretary general for the communist party Francisco Frutos attended the meeting organized by SCC and spoke publicly to strongly criticize the separatists, accusing them of "identity racism" (see here). Does that mean that we should add that he supports SCC? NO. Is then SCC a far-left organization? No. Such conclusions can not be drawn from the sources, that or claiming that they are right wing based on similar arguments is misrepresenting the sources. I did not threat to scale to Wikipedia admins I said I would "bring the issue to the appropriate noticeboard and let other editors there decide", in my view there is a clear misinterpretation of our policy here, the most obvious one to me is regarding WP:OR so following WP:SEEKHELP I have posted a request for other editors to get involved at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Described_by_association_and_probable_original_research. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
José Domingo from SCC was previously on a communist party thing. The truth is that he was never left-wing as was never Joseph Stallin. Having a member in the ruling body from the PSC means nothing. We know PSC/PSOE has "tránsfugas", people sympathizing with right-wing people and political parties, as can be found here. An example is Joaquim Coll from the link provided, which left SCC in 2016. He was one of the promoters of SCC inside PSC. Coll criticized this opinion article from Joan B. Culla by insulting him, ignoring the fact of the inconstitutional flags waving free in the streets of Barcelona and the presence of the SCC founder Javier Barraycoa, also a founder and president of Somatemps. Culla answered accordingly, noting that Coll's arguments where non-existent. Continuing with the off-topic of SCC, most members are from Somatemps, Citizens or PP, and sympathizers. PCE desauthorized Paco Frutos. Filiprino (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, read again Wikipedia:No original research. Specially the part that states
This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
You should also review WP:SYNTH within that page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, read again WP:NOFORUM. Filiprino (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Which part and why? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Whichever you want, because when your arguments are non-existent then you start throwing in Wikipedia policies. Filiprino (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Four users included myself have removed your edits to restore the page to its status quo before your controversial edits. As I said before, the information added is biased and WP:OR. Do not change it again without consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I restored Filiprino's edits. Reverting without discussion is not something that Wikipedia encourages. None of.those users has given a single reason for removing important information which is well sourced, including investigation done by Jordi Borras. Saying it is biased is not a valid reason. Inventing Wikipedia policy infringements is not good neither. Please, respect all new information. Remember that this article has problems with neutrality. Consensus argument is thus flawed. You attitude does not help. Instead of reverting and removing other user's additions you could acommodate the new information and rewrite the article to better describe and depict the topic of Tabarnia. Be constructive, not destructive. 213.143.49.72 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tabarnia/Archive_1&oldid=854288556"