Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon

Crystallizedcarbon reverted my edits with thousands of additions and many references. Before starting an edit war, let's discuss them here.

I will try to explain every edit I did one by one and why:

• Removed: "and observed irregularities in the constitution of the electoral syndicate". That was an unreferenced sentence with not a lot of meaning for itself: what irregularities? only in the constitution or in the electoral syndicate itself?
• Added: I added a reference to the speech of the international observers and quoted some of their sentences. Can't understand how that is controversial at all considering it's a primary source. In addition, a primary source should take precedence over secondary sources like articles from El País or La Sexta.
• Added: "by the Spanish Constitutional Court". Don't see what is controversial about that, either.
• Removed: "being also illegal according to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia which requires a two third majority, 90 seats, in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status". Unfortunately, I can't see that in any of the references attached to that sentence.
• Rephrased: "Due to the many irregularities in the administration of the vote..." Those irregularities were only reported by Spanish media, so I think it's better to rephrase it with "Some Spanish media denounced irregularities in the administration of the vote...". Also I don't think it make sense to explain that before the question of the referendum, the results and the participation.
• Added: "The Catalan government opened a bidding process to buy them but no offers were presented. The ballot boxes were finally bought by...". Any explanation about why was that removed? It's referenced and adds some info which didn't appear in the article before.
• Removed: "something which is out of the question in this case". Well, that's clearly an opinion so I think it should be removed.
• Removed: "Without an undisputed access to the electoral roll, the results may be deemed unreliable." Again, unreferenced sentence which looks more like an opinion than a fact.
• Replaced: "high-ranking persons, administrative staff, and company CEOs" → "high-ranking officials, administrative staff, and company CEOs". I think it's more precise. But might be wrong in this case. Maybe a native English speaker could help here.
• Added: "The Mossos d'Esquadra stated they weren't warned with enough time..." I think it's important to have both versions of what happened September 20th.
• Added: "Footage from that night..." Again, the article was only giving a single point of view on the issue. Adding a reference with the footage I think is good. Also, considering the United Nations and Amnesty International have published communicates regarding that demonstration, I think it's important to quote them in the article.
• Added: "after being fined with 12.000€ daily if they continued". It explains why the electoral board was dissolved. Again, I think it's an important information and I referenced it.
• Added reference to these sentences: "According to the Catalan government, the following people were entitled to vote in the referendum" and "The question of the referendum was asked "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?"." The reference seems legit so I don't see why it should be removed.
• Removed link: Catalan Republic (2017), it redirects to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia, which is also in the "See also" section. I don't see the point on having them duplicated.

In addition to all of that, there were some grammatical mistakes fixes and some contents reordered to make it easier to read.

--Aljullu (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: thank you for bringing it here. This page covers a controversial issue. There were extensive discussions and hard to reach consensus were made. Some parts of your edits changed those. I will review and try to answer one by one to each of your proposed changes and hopefully other editors will join in as well:

• Removed: "and observed irregularities in the constitution of the electoral syndicate". That was an unreferenced sentence with not a lot of meaning for itself: what irregularities? only in the constitution or in the electoral syndicate itself?

Since it is unsource I agree with you that it should not go in the lead so I have removed it, If other editors can add a reference and clarify can feel free to revert.

Will continue...--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added: I added a reference to the speech of the international observers and quoted some of their sentences. Can't understand how that is controversial at all considering it's a primary source. In addition, a primary source should take precedence over secondary sources like articles from El País or La Sexta.:

I have to dissagree. According to WP:Secondary:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I don't see a need to change the sources nor the wording as this is the lead and it also cites the use of force by the National police and Civil Guard. Probably not in the lead, but I think it is more relevant to include that the international observers where allegedly paid 119.700 euros by the organizers of the referendum after a budget of 200.000 was approved by the Generalitat. (sources: [1], [2]) --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I do think the wording must be changed. The sentence states: "Due to the many irregularities in the administration of the vote (with people being able to vote more than once in some places [...] international observers [...] declared [...]" But I don't hear any of those words coming from their mouth: http://www.ccma.cat/tv3/alacarta/1-o-la-roda-de-premsa-integra-dels-observadors-internacionals/1-o-la-roda-de-premsa-integra-dels-observadors-internacionals/video/5692458/ Indeed, they say almost the opposite: "The process was prepared fairly and in agreement with the existing legislation of the Kingdom of Spain" (around minute 6:00) and, as my previous edit made clear, gives much more importance to "the violence of the Spanish police against voters", "the electronic sabotage" and the "removal of ballot boxes by Spanish police forces" as the reason why the referendum didn't have all guarantees.

Unfortunately, I don't think El País, La Sexta or Cadena Ser can be considered reliable sources here given that they are clearly in the "union side" so they are not impartial.

We should not draw our own conclusions from a press meeting per WP:OR. in that video the speaker also admits that at least his flight was paid by Diplocat but again that should not be used either unless it can be found in a reliable source.

El País, La Sexta and Cadena ser are all reliable sources per WP:RS and as far as bias similar to La Vanguardia on the opposite side of the issue. Others like Ara.cat or the SCC would be examples of clear bias as their stated objectives are independence for ARA and preventing it for SCC.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding it being a primary source, you're right, but the key point here is that the sentence is quoting what a person said. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

But just part of what one person said in a press conference is not the whole picture. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have then another primary source about what the international observers said? I can't consider neither El País neither Cadena SER (both owned by the same company, which sided openly against the Catalan independence) as neutral sources. --Aljullu (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed a major, systemic issue, I have voiced my criticism of that before. We are talking about Catalonia, and its nation/region-specific media have actually no voice, except for La Vanguardia and El Periódico, publishing for all Spain if I am right.

Off topic
Matters are even worse for the Basque case, since no Spain-wide press outlet (actually, corporate media) has a base there, all the 'reliable' news (per WP policies) are initially based in Madrid (or Barcelona).

I fully agree with you, Aljullu, in this respect. These media are almost invariably unionist and/or Spanish nationalist, El País has actually fired one of its journalists for calling the Spanish Govt's position 'arrogant'. I have really a tough time explaining to people why WP is free knowledge... It is certainly genuine diversity and knowledge at stake. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, Iñaki LL, stay on topic WP:TALK#USE. Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM, "is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing" or "Opinion pieces" WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, El Pais and Cadena Ser are both perfectly valid as sources. Please review our guidelines on reliable sources, and if you still have any doubts, you can post them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As far as bias is concerned you should keep in mind that the two sources you mention have received large sums from the pro independence regional government just as the referendum was taking place (see here and here). That does not mean that they can not be used, In my opinion neither one is neutral, with some news having more of a bias than others specially in what they choose to focus on and on the editorials, still all four are reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added: "by the Spanish Constitutional Court". Don't see what is controversial about that, either.

That the Constitutional Court was the court that suspended it was already mentioned in the paragraph above, so it is repetitive and the lead should be as brief whenever possible, but I agree with you that it is not controversial so If you still choose to make that particular edit I will not oppose it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Removed: "being also illegal according to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia which requires a two third majority, 90 seats, in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status". Unfortunately, I can't see that in any of the references attached to that sentence.

Again I have to disagree according to the reference included in sentence by The Economist: "Catalonia’s own autonomy statute, which Mr Puigdemont’s law would replace, can only be amended by a two-thirds majority of its parliament." or by The Daily Star: "But the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy requires a two-third majority in the parliament for any change to Catalonia's status." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Rephrased: "Due to the many irregularities in the administration of the vote..." Those irregularities were only reported by Spanish media, so I think it's better to rephrase it with "Some Spanish media denounced irregularities in the administration of the vote...". Also I don't think it make sense to explain that before the question of the referendum, the results and the participation.

Added a reference about the voting irregularities by CNN (US). I think it's relevant and after the reference there is no need to rephrase. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That said, this edit is not very helpful, and oozes partysanism. Verified information is being removed, which should only be done with very good justification. Using primary sources may be such one, but there are sources added that are perfectly reliable sources per EN WP standards. They should remain there.

Discussions may be taken into considerations of course, but claiming generically 'consensus' to do catch-all reverts without links or diffs sounds rather like putting off editors and/or even system gaming, which goes against the general outlook of encouraging editing, giving the impression of hermetism. Crystallizedcarbon, please be specific in your claims, your edit looks reactive and not the fruit of specific considerations. However, your explanations above look congruent, although I have not gone through them in detail.

Sorry Iñaki, I did not see your edit before. The problem is that the edit was to big, the idea was to restore it first to the stable version and then add the contents that were not controversial. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not get to follow all the changes, I think it is up to Aljullu to consider if your edit was helpful altogether and/or is interfering with accurate and relevant information.Iñaki LL (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Citing a media outlet as RTVE, a conspicuously biased, governmental TV station, as denounced by a number of its professionals and unions, and other associations, is also disquieting. By the way, El Mundo is not receiving governmental money either? (Rewarded with helfty governmental and institutional publicity, besides other concepts?) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think both of them are reliable sources for that information. El Mundo has published many articles about alleged corruption of the ruling party, so I have to disagree. and having various denouncing voices like in RTVE makes it more reliable in my opinion than other more clearly biased sources that have also been used. but if you don't like those a quick search will reveal that there are many others. for example The Turkey Telegraph or El Periódico de Aragón. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that one. The article of CNN only says a man (Aleix) said there were irregularities. But at no moment CNN states there were. Also, I can't find any international article speaking about "many irregularities", what does "many" means and why is Wikipedia adding that quantifier while no international media did? I still think that sentence must be rewritten. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added: "The Catalan government opened a bidding process to buy them but no offers were presented. The ballot boxes were finally bought by...". Any explanation about why was that removed? It's referenced and adds some info which didn't appear in the article before.

The beginning of the sentence is OK. the problem is what was after the by... "...by an individual donor whose identity remains unknown" According to other sources it is not clear if it is a donor or if compensation has or will be made ([3], [4]) Ara.cat is an independentist source and so is the primary source (the book) cited by 20minutos.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ara.cat is independentist as El País, La Sexta or El Mundo are unionist. All Spanish media took sides on this issue, so it doesn't make any sense that unionist sources are accepted but independentists are not. I rephrased the sentence with "Some media reported..." which I think it makes it valid. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We reached consensus here by just removing the word "donor".

• Removed: "something which is out of the question in this case". Well, that's clearly an opinion so I think it should be removed.

I fully agree. It is an opinion and even if it may likely be true it is original research so I have removed it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Removed: "Without an undisputed access to the electoral roll, the results may be deemed unreliable." Again, unreferenced sentence which looks more like an opinion than a fact.

The cited source from La Vanguardia states: "La disponibilidad de un censo de electores es uno de los requisitos indispensables." Both statements seem equivalent, it could be rewritten, but I don't think it should be eliminated. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Replaced: "high-ranking persons, administrative staff, and company CEOs" → "high-ranking officials, administrative staff, and company CEOs". I think it's more precise. But might be wrong in this case. Maybe a native English speaker could help here.

changed to "14 senior officials" which is what the source explicitly mentions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I will continue answering tomorrow. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added: "The Mossos d'Esquadra stated they weren't warned with enough time..." I think it's important to have both versions of what happened September 20th.

Partially restored with proper attribution, the claim was made by Trapero, so I moved it to the next paragraph where his involvement is mentioned. Also did not restore the part about a posible police charge as it was not mentioned in either of the two sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Again I disagree with the wording here. The current text consider the Guardia Civil version to be the truth while the Mossos d'Esquadra version is relegated to the legal process paragraph. That's plainly wrong. There are two versions of what happened in that demonstration, so both of them must be in the paragraph explaining the facts. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It should be clear that Trapero stated that the Mossos were not warned with enough time since he was directly accused of the alleged inactivity. Can you propose an alternative wording? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think that section must be rewritten from scratch, it just takes the narrative from the Spanish media/police without considering any other version like the one given by Jordi's, the demonstrators or the Catalan police. It should also explain the illegal attempt to enter inside the CUP headquarters performed by the Spanish police, which is necessary to understand what happened that day. I think a good summary from 20-D can be found here: [5] But will rewrite it some day if I have more time. What is clear is that the way it's currently written only represents the Spanish narrative. --Aljullu (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added: "Footage from that night..." Again, the article was only giving a single point of view on the issue. Adding a reference with the footage I think is good. Also, considering the United Nations and Amnesty International have published communicates regarding that demonstration, I think it's important to quote them in the article.

I have changed the wording to give attribution to the video and added it back to the article, also included claim by A.I. The same claim can not be made by the UN as the source does not specify either Jordi and there is no resolution calling for immediate release. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added: "after being fined with 12.000€ daily if they continued". It explains why the electoral board was dissolved. Again, I think it's an important information and I referenced it.

I agree, so I have restored it including that the fee would range from 6 000€ to 12 000€ and citing The Guardian instead of ARA. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added reference to these sentences: "According to the Catalan government, the following people were entitled to vote in the referendum" and "The question of the referendum was asked "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?"." The reference seems legit so I don't see why it should be removed.

I agree and I have restored it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Removed link: Catalan Republic (2017), it redirects to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia, which is also in the "See also" section. I don't see the point on having them duplicated.

Done as well as some grammar fixes.

I have finished the review, again thank you for bringing it here. In articles that treat controversial topics my advice would be not to make mayor rewrites at once as almost always there are previous discussions or consensus that affect some of the changes and it is harder to review them that way. But in any case many of your changes have been positive and I think the article has been improved. If you want we can further discuss any of the previous points. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I replied to some of the points and will try to make my edits shorter in the future. --Aljullu (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I see @Crystallizedcarbon: and @Iñaki LL: have reverted (and un-reverted) an edit I did. I would like to explain it here.

The paragraph stated: "That was reported as not considering the [universal census]", but the reference from El Periódico that appears after that sentence says:

"Hay que subrayar que en el recuento del domingo no se computaron los votos de los colegios electorales clausurados por los Mossos, la Policía y la Guardia Civil: unas 770.000 sufragios (según el Govern) que hubiesen encaramado la participación hasta los tres millones (el 56% del censo). Pero también cabe recordar que todos esos ciudadanos cuyas papeletas fueron confiscadas tenían la posibilidad de participar en cualquier otro centro de votación, en virtud del censo universal decretado por la Generalitat apenas una hora antes de empezar a votar."

Which is a completely different thing. At no moment El Periódico is saying Jordi Turull neither the Catalan government were not considering that fact when making the report.

Also, Crystallizedcarbon, in the reversion summary you say there was an argument about that paragraph? Where can I find it? --Aljullu (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have observed, I reverted the minor edit, the one on the "donor" word, but I actually targeted the first revert done by Crystallizedcarbon (however, I cannot do it because it goes that it "has been reverted" by now, anyways...).

For what I can see, your contribution is completely correct if it sticks to the information provided by the source, so it cannot be altered unless another source(s) dispute it clearly. Other than that, this revert is just WP:OR, personal (original) research. However, don't get me wrong Crystallizedcarbon, if the source is blatantly wrong, there should be no objections on my part. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If that stays then it should be said that according to a source it was a donor according to another expects compensation (with its reference) and according to a third the compensation would be a rezoning (corruption) citing all three sources. That in my opinion would not make too much sense, it is easier to remove the word donor as other sources dispute it clearly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, my main objection is not about that edit, but the first revert. If the statement sticks to the source, it should remain there unless you have a source to support your claim or a clear-cut explanation we all can understand disputing the source added by Aljullu. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I explained here and on my first comment my problem was only with the word donor, so the current version is also fine with me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If by first revert you were referring the 770.000 registered voters and not the first revert to the purchase of the ballot boxes the explanation is bellow, as far as the references already in that sentence the first by the Generalitat clearly stated that the 770.000 were registered voters and not votes and the second one included a tweet with the same information and this phrase: "Turull ha criticado que los 440 colegios electorales que han sido precintados han afectado a un censo de unas 770.000 personas" again referring to registered voters and not cast votes. I agree that the number of registered voters are potential votes, but the distinction needs to be made, as not all people registered to vote do so (specially in this referendum because constitutionalist parties asked their voters not to participate as it was suspended by the Constitutional Court). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Aljullu:, @Iñaki LL: I thought the idea was to reach a consensus first before making the changes. As far as the previous discussions you can check: Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_2#Lost_votes_--_what_sources_say, Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_5#Confiscated_ballots and Talk:Catalonia#Who_changed_everything_to_the_Spanish_government_propaganda? (from a different article). Here is The tweet by the Generalitat The tweet is a primary source, but it is reproduced by many secondary sources and clearly states the 770.000 were "censat" registered voters. Here are some sources: El Mundo, El Confidencial The Guardian. If you still think we should change it we can discuss it, but we have to reach a consensus first. So please restore it back to the status quo until we can come up with a better wording, as your version does not reflect what the sources are saying. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As an alternative wording, if we all agree, I propose: "The Catalan government estimated that up to 770,000 registered voters from polling stations closed off during the police crackdown may not have been able to cast their vote,[1][27][28][29] although the "universal census" system introduced earlier in the day allowed electors to vote in any given polling station." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the first reference is broken and should be changed for http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/303541/ca/govern-trasllada-resultats-definitius-referendum-l1-doctubre-parlament-catalunya.do there it also mentions clearly that the 770.000 are registered voters ("censat"), not actual votes. If there are no objections and if no one does it first I will fix it this afternoon. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: I assume consensus must be found in the Talk page before editing when there is an ongoing discussion. About that paragraph, there was no discussion open. If you check my edits, the only sentence I removed is "This was reported as not considering the fact that, as a result of changes implemented by the Catalan government...". That sentence is not referenced anywhere, how did the Wikipedian know Turull was not considering that fact? That looks WP:OR and WP:POV to me. I carefully read the discussions you brought to the table, but none of them seems to talk about that sentence in particular. --Aljullu (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If there has been a previous discussion on a controversial content consensus should be found before changing the status quo, still making a bold change in good faith is OK, but if the previous version is restored WP:BRD recommends that consensus is reached through discussion before making the changes again (you changed it with this edit for the second time and after I restored it Iñaki reverted again). I am not questioning that your edit was done in good faith, but in my opinion, the text that you removed was not talking about why Turull said that, "This was reported" makes reference to the secondary source that mentioned only the 770.000 "votes" and that the "reporting" did not explain the other relevant circumstances that directly affect that claim. Many other sources like El Confidencial for example did report it, so there needs to be a clear link between the two sentences in the article. To avoid any posible misinterpretation, I think my proposed wording addresses both concerns: "The Catalan government estimated that up to 770,000 registered voters from polling stations closed off during the police crackdown may not have been able to cast their vote,[1][27][28][29] although the "universal census" system introduced earlier in the day allowed electors to vote in any given polling station." It reflects what the sources say without getting into too much detail. The alternative would be to include that according to some sources it is an embellished result ("cifra maquillada") or that his calculations were questioned and explain the reasons those sources cited adding the references to source them. If you want you can make the edit yourself or if there aren't any further concerns I will make it myself this afternoon. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The text I removed was right after Turull's sentence. Given that it started with "this was reported...", a reader will logically think "this" refers to the latest sentence, not two sentences before. From my point of view, the way it's currently written is correct and only exposes facts, I still don't understand which sentence in particular you consider controversial. But If you don't like the wording, what about this one? --Aljullu (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Catalan government estimated that polling stations representing up to 770,000 potential voters—14.5% of all registered voters—were closed down by police in raids, with any votes cast in those stations either seized, lost or inaccessible and therefore not counted. Even though, earlier in the day a universal census was introduced, so any Catalan elector going out to vote could do so in any one of the still functioning polling stations, Catalan government spokesman Jordi Turull argued that turnout would have been higher were it not for Spanish police suppression. Catalan government officials argued that calculation by experts showed that without police pressure and closures, turnout could have reached up to 55%.

Notorious examples that voted in a different poling station than the one they were assigned to include President Puigdemont himself—who voted in Cornella del Terri instead of Sant Julià de Ramis where he was registered to vote, foiling a police operation to track him down along the way[174][175]—or Parliament of Catalonia Speaker Carme Forcadell.

BTW, some lines above I replied some of your messages "inline". Could you take a look at them? --Aljullu (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations but the solution above looks good to me. It may better be finetuned for English as follows (2nd excerpt): "However, earlier in the day a universal census was introduced, so any Catalan elector going out to vote could do so in any of the still operating polling stations. Catalan government spokesman Jordi Turull argued that turnout would have been higher were it not for the Spanish police's suppression. Catalan government officials argued that estimations by experts showed that without police pressure and closures, turnout could have reached up to 55%."

Notorious examples of people voting in a polling station other than that initially assigned include President Puigdemont himself—who voted in Cornella del Terri instead of Sant Julià de Ramis, where he was registered to vote, after foiling a police operation to track him down along the way[174][175]—or Parliament of Catalonia Speaker Carme Forcadell." Iñaki LL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aljullu I agree it clearly refers to the previous sentence, but it talks about what was reported, not what Turull considered. The changes you made eliminate the previous status quo, yes it presents sourced information, but by not including other source information the picture is incomplete and in my opinion leads to misinterpretation. The problem with the alternative wording you propose is that if we give more information, then all details should be included to maintain WP:NPOV. If "votes cast in those stations" is added then it should also be explained that most of those schools just did not open (no votes eliminated there) and that all closes took place early in the morning; by 12 police action ended and even the few that voted could have gone to different schools, if the 55% turnout is mention then the arguments used against that figure should also be included. I believe that would be excessive and unnecessary detail, that is why I proposed the wording above: "The Catalan government estimated that up to 770,000 registered voters from polling stations closed off during the police crackdown may not have been able to cast their vote,[1][27][28][29] although the "universal census" system introduced earlier in the day allowed electors to vote in any given polling station.". Is there a problem with it? or should we work on an extended version to cover all viewpoints to maintain NPOV? if the second is the case the status quo version should be restored while we decide on the new wording. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me amend one thing you said: "even the few that voted could have gone to different schools", that's not true AFAIK, everybody who had already voted and got their vote confiscated, could not vote anywhere else. Also, in almost all if not all polling stations people gathered early in the morning to vote, so I wouldn't assume the votes at mid-day were "a few" considering most people voted as early as possible. In addition to that, the 55% figure I think not only refers to the closed polling station but also the "fear-factor" of going to vote after seeing the police charges. That's why I think Iñaki LL and my proposals are better, but would accept adding a line explaining police action occurred in the morning. --Aljullu (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the polls closed were done by the Mossos, and those were in places where there was no resistance at all and before they opened so no votes there. In the case of the police the videos and images show people focused on preventing the police from accessing the ballot boxes, not people voting while they were doing so, so again the impact should be minimal, Still, after the police action ended Turull reminded people that they could vote anywhere, due to the universal census adopted that same day, and extended the closing time. Additionally because the electronic census was down there are many documented cases of people voting multiple times so even any person who had their vote confiscated could have voted again elsewhere. There are also documented cases of people voting without any control in the middle of the street and also of people who where not part Catalan that did not have any trouble to vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the polls closed were done by the Mossos, and those were in places where there was no resistance at all and before they opened so no votes there. see here:

Any international source of that?

Why do you need for it to be international?, I don't think that fact has been contested. But here is one from Europa Press: Mossos han cerrado 160 centros y la policía 90, según supervisores that states that at least 153 schools did not even open, and here you can read it form a catalanist source biased against the central government:Los Mossos cerraron más colegios el 1-O que la Policía y la Guardia Civil. There are many more.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the police the videos and images show people focused on preventing the police from accessing the ballot boxes, not people voting while they were doing so, so again the impact should be minimal

What videos have you seen? There was violence all over the polling stations, doesn't matter if you were voting or doing passive resistance. "Impact should be minimal" is clearly your subjective point of view.

Please provide any such image or vídeo? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Still, after the police action ended Turull reminded people that they could vote anywhere, due to the universal census adopted that same day

Right, but as I have said, once you have voted, you couldn't vote again even if your vote was confiscated.

Some people showed it was possible to vote twice. It is also documented that the electronic census that in theory would prevent that possibility was down during a significant amounts of the time. and furthermore there are claims that votes from two centers closed according to the mossos were tallied in the total see here]

extended the closing time

Source?

Many, including the Generalitat. just make a quick search. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally because the electronic census was down there are many documented cases of people voting multiple times so even any person who had their vote confiscated could have voted again elsewhere.

The only documented cases are Societat Civil Catalana and La Sexta, which I wouldn't say are the most neutral sources we can find, here. El País, which is a clearly a pro-union newspaper, stated they tried to vote twice and they couldn't, for example.

Many more sources reported those and other videos here are some more (all very easy to find using Google): [6], [7], [8]... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are also documented cases of people voting without any control in the middle of the street and also of people who where not part Catalan that did not have any trouble to vote.

Again you seem to be very misinformed about what happened that day and have only read one point of view. In some schools they had fake ballot boxes in case Spanish police tried to confiscate them, so they could keep the legit ones safe.--Aljullu (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You really claim that all those people in the video voting where just casting fake votes in case the police tried to confiscate them? wow!. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: For clarity I have posted my answers right bellow your questions. No comments... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Edgarmm81

I have removed another two edits by the WP:SPA Edgarmm81 as they where both misleading and biased.

In this edit A report by a political party that defends the independence of Scotland and declared to be in favor of the independence of Catalonia was used as primary source to claim that it was the conclusion of the "observers" when they are just one political party sympathetic with the cause of the independentist regional government that invited them as observers. Their conclusions represent those of only that particular group and not of all the observers.

This edit I removed is also missleading. Puchowski is not a member of the "observers". He is just a student that acted as an English/Catalan translator for the same political party cited above. He himself said he was a "visitor" not an "observer". He also wrote "Whilst all of us were personally sympathetic to the cause for independence in Catalonia, ..." (see here)--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

On your last diff, to take a focus, please stop adding noise to the discussion, he was there to observe, that is clear, call it whatever you want, he was not a boy that acted as a translator like you point above, so please stop adding petty objections to do catch-all removals, it is all too obvious. Keep it constructive and add/correct the nuance, that is appreciated, and not this bulldozing game. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you bother to check any of the information I write? He himself claims he was a "visitor", not an "observer". He is just a postgraduate student and he himself claimed that his role was to serve as the English/Catalan interpreter for the English Scots for YES delegation. He admits to be in favor of independence for Catalonia and posts many tweets in line with that. Did you even read what he posted: (see here). Please stop trying to create artificial conflicts here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"He was there to observe, that is clear, call it whatever you want", my claim above. It is not an edit I did, but he says "we, observers and visitors". HOwever, that is not the question, that is a matter of nuance you could have solved yourself. The question I raised is the confrontational (and ensuing litigative) style in the edits, did you check out the links I provided in the section above at all? Iñaki LL (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

He was there to translate, he is a postgraduate student and a member of political group that publicly recognized Catalan independence. He himself has also claimed to be sympathetic to the cause. He may have watched, observed, take pictures and enjoy the trip besides translating (his real function), still he was not an official "observer" so adding his biased opinion as if he was one, is clearly misleading as everybody who was present (including a person from Madrid that observed how he was able to vote NO just by showing his ID) could also claim that they observed what happened. Would adding that an "observer" from Madrid documented that he was able to vote without been part of the census, adding a reference from a reliable source be valid to you? I think it is obvious that it would not be.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see the whole facebook comment, but it seems to be a matter of nuance as to the word "observer". Many people went to Catalonia as observers invited by the organizers of the referendum. Now what does that mean? It means that they invited and registered witnesses in, sometimes undertaking complementary tasks (in this case he seems to act as a translator) to monitor everything was done regularly, report on the voting day on the spot, and bear witnesses to whatever excesses the Spanish governement attempted to carry out against ballot stations. Some 'observers' were pro-independence, some were just pro-referendum to decide if Catalans want to continue in Spain or not. They are tied together by the idea of having the referendum held.

As for your last comment, I am at a loss. What do you mean? Probably I would not, but that is second conditional, I do not know. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, He went there as visitor to provide assistance as a translator to the observers from his pro independence political group . What i tried to convey with my last comment is that his opinion is as relevant as that of other hundreds of people whose opinions have been published, as relevant as the opinion from the guy from Madrid that was able to vote without being in the Census or the reporter from la Sexta that voted twice in different tables of the same voting center etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, the guy from La Sexta (which openly is a pro-union TV channel) who said he could vote twice without proving it appears several times in the article, but you reject the quote an official observer. @Crystallizedcarbon: can you please explain why you consider the opinion of an anonymous journalist working for a pro-union channel more important than an identified official observer? --Aljullu (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a guy, she is a reporter. I was not able to find her opinion or anything she said quoted anywhere in the article. The closest I could find is the article itself that includes the video footage (see here) being used as one of three sources for the duplicate votes. But again, I did not see her analysis, views or comments quoted anywhere in the article.

Even though she observed and documented the possibility to vote twice first hand I would not include in the article any analysis, comments or quotes she made. If I missed it please point out where it is so I can remove it.

By the way, as I said before, there is a difference between been "pro-independence" or "pro-union" like Ara.cat or SCC (stated as their objectives), in that case it is correct to use it as an adjetive. Other reliable sources like La Sexta, La Vanguardia, El periódico etc. may choose editorial lines that may be more or less aligned with one side or the other. In the case of la Sexta it has been accused of been pro-independentist by one side and unionist by the other. (see here the first and third video in Spanish). I also don't understand how the alleged bias invalidates the use of that particular reference that includes a video of a person voting twice. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's quite clear the video from La Sexta proves nothing. We can't see the face of the voter, we can't see if she is really giving the same ID to the people working on the voting station, she doesn't even give her full name (just the first name "Sandra"), which should make anybody suspicious. Specially considering La Sexta has been a TV channel that clearly sided in the Spanish union side. So please, don't say "la Sexta documented" when they documented nothing, just edited a video everybody could do in any elections and expect the viewers to trust them.

If your specific problem is that the observer was quoted while la Sexta video was described without quotes, what you should have done was rewriting one or the other, but not removing the one that goes against your point of view.

It's worrying that you are "patrolling" this Wikipedia article, constantly undoing edits from other editors even though several users have already alerted you that goes against WP rules, and at the same time all "reliable sources" you can list are newspapers and TV channels sided on the union side. La Sexta, La Vanguardia and El Periódico support the unity of Spain, same for El País, El Mundo or Cadena Ser. They are reliable, right, but they are biased so they can't be considered the single source of truth, specially when there are other reliable sources, Catalan and international ones, that show otherwise and you are constantly removing. --Aljullu (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, so I see the problem is no longer the "opinion of an anonymous journalist" now you are questioning a reliable source. Are you accusing them of making a fake video? Are you also accusing El Confidencial of posting fake pictures?. Did you also notice that a video of one person who was told he could not vote was used to claim "despite organizers' claims to the contrary" The source does not directly contradict those previous claims. It did not address those published videos and photos. The article presented a single voter rejectedas a proof of how solid the system was. In my opinion you chose a poor example to try to demonstrate the bias towards Spanish union that you claim the article has.

Please avoid making personal accusations. You just added some information using Ara.cat as a reference. Even though that is a truly biased source whose stated goal is independence, I will not remove your edit. The information you added is relevant to the article and there is no original research. It reinforces the independentist side as all your edits, that is fine. It's clearly constructive and improves the article. Even though Ara.cat is independentist it is used multiple times in the article as well as many other equally biased sources. However, I did not find a single reference at the same level of bias on the union side like SCC (whose stated objective is unity). I gave arguments based on policy for the things I removed. Claiming I did it solely on the sources is false and uncalled for, so once more I must disagree with your arguments. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying all Spanish and Catalan media are biased towards one side or another, so you can't take one of the sides as the "source of truth" while saying all sources from the other side are biased. I'm sorry if you take that as a personal accusation, but I'm not the first one to tell you the same in this talk page.

During the last days, I added sources from International Amnesty, OHCHR, El Mundo, EuropaPress, elDiario.es, Internet Society, APC, EFF, The Tor Project, Xnet, La Vanguardia, El Periódico, Diari de Tarragona, Ara, CCMA, VilaWeb and El Nacional, so less than half are Catalan, and from the Catalan ones, I would say only three can be considered close to the independence movement. So I don't understand what you are trying to imply about my edits.

You keep comparing Ara (third most read newspaper in Catalonia), with SCC, which is a political organization openly working for the unity of Spain which has links with far-right groups. From my point of view, that makes no-sense. First of all, because Ara is a reliable newspaper (as I said, the third most read in Catalonia, much more than El País, El Mundo or ABC which you consider reliable sources), but also because it published some editorials against the independence declaration during October [9], so it can't be considered "a media spreading independentism" when the editorial line of the newspaper is against the declaration of independence.--Aljullu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Muncipal

PLease use the talk page to gain a consensus User:Arcillaroja, User:BallenaBlancaApolloCarmb (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you did not read the edit summaries, especially this one [10].

I restored a content correctly referenced that I deleted here irregularly, instead of moving it from the specific section. It was present since this edit. I had pending to restore it, but in another section, following what was talked in the talk page, but I did not remember doing it until now.

Please, do not continue with the edit war. You have already violated the 3rr rule. I have warned you in your TP and this is my last warning. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BallenaBlanca, that info has not been in the article since November 2017, therefore it is not the original version. You need a consensus to include it.ApolloCarmb (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Last edit by BallenaBlanca

@BallenaBlanca: if there is an ongoing judicial process, you can't consider the version of the prosecutor as the truth and the version of the prosecuted as false. Even if there is a sentence saying so in the end, both versions must be explained with the same importance. Indeed the reference you added says "The public prosecution will investigated them for X, Y and Z" and you edited the article saying "They did X, Y and Z". I ask @Airplaneman: to revert the last edit of BallenaBlanca as soon as possible. --Aljullu (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're misinterpreting the source. Yes, "They did X, Y and Z", what is included in the edit are proven facts, as reflected in the reference.

The doubts are in determining how the aleged crime is framed and what prison sentence could correspond accordingly.

The reference reads as follows (page 5, 3º):

"Pues bien, en el presente supuesto, de la incipiente investigación efectuada hasta el momento, y sin prejuicio de lo que pueda resultar más adelante en el curso de otras diligencias aun por practicar, han podido comprobarse los siguientes hechos: " "Well, in the present case, the incipient investigation carried out so far, and without prejudice to what may result later in the course of other proceedings still to be practiced, have been able to verify the following facts: (and the detail of the occurred on days 20 and 21)

This tex added by the 80.31.225.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is original work WP:NOR: although this allegation does not appear in court documents, which state only that the vehicles were damaged

I used the reference that they added to adjust the page [11].

Then it is completed with more information, which does not imply that the above has not happened.

Anyway, when you ApolloCarmb reverted my edit (the same content here), you violated WP:NPOVHOW. So to fulfill this policy, if you want to clarify, agree, but do not eliminate correctly referenced content. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I will not be reverting any edits, as per WP:PREFER. I do not believe the current content dispute matches any of those mentioned there that would require a revert. Airplaneman ✈ 03:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: If you want to amend or improve ApolloCarmb's contribution, that's fine, but that's not what you did. You added more information based on primary non-reliable sources.

You are using a primary source (the prosecution document) as the only reliable source. But there are plenty of secondary sources which contradict that one (for example [12] [13] [14]). Per WP:PRIMARY I think you should revert your edit or improve it making it clear that information comes from a primary source of one of the involved parts. --Aljullu (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it's a primary source. ApolloCarmb? It was an ip who added it [15]. I agree that it can not be used. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter who added the reference. But all contents you added to the text seem to be based on that primary source and a secondary source that explicitly says "The public prosecution will investigate them for X, Y and Z", which you modified as "They did X, Y and Z". Given that you agree the sentences you added to the article are only based on a primary source that contradicts reliable secondary sources, I have to ask you to revert your edit or modify it making it clear the source of the information is one of the involved parts (the prosecutor office) and reliable sources say the opposite. --Aljullu (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Did [16] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 07:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Aljullu (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)