Talk:2014 Catalan self-determination referendum

Boycott?

There were two references to a boycott of the referendum but anti-independence voters. The citation was to a story behind a paywall. Can anyone provide open-access verification that this happened?

Following the two Constitutional Court rulings suspending the vote (in two different formats), the Unionists said the poll could not happen, so that their followers were to ignore its very existence (even if polling stations did open). The post-communists, (on the wall between unionism and independence) more favourable to a Federal-type solution for Catalonia, gave six reasons for not going to vote (without actually calling for obstructive measures):

https://www.racocatala.cat/noticia/34862/6-arguments-dicv-no-votar-9n http://cat.elpais.com/cat/2014/10/17/catalunya/1413576890_890534.html http://www.tv3.cat/videos/5297011/Camats-Hi-ha-dhaver-eleccions-anticipades-immediatament

In the event, voting patterns (in terms of turnout) were clearly different in places where Unionist strongholds (basically, with high % of population of non-Catalan family origins) http://www.participa2014.cat/DEFINITIUS%20%20NIVELL%20MUNICIPI.xlsx

Thus participation was ( population statistics from https://www.idescat.cat/emex/?id=080734 )

A = Unionist stronghold B = Other places

A = Cornellà: 15675 votes / total pop. (2017) 86610 vs. B = Vic: 16834 votes / total pop. total pop. (2017) 43964

A = Gavà: 10445 votes / total pop. (2017) 46538 vs. B = Olot: 13717 votes / total pop. (2017) 34194

A = Castelldefels: 13231 votes / total pop. (2017) 65954 vs. B = Igualada: 15233 votes / total pop.(2017) 39316

Mstrubell (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

2013 Abstentions?

First sentence under "2013" says two abstentions. Third says five did not vote. Is there a difference between abstaining and not voting?

Opinion polling - results visualisation

As far as I can understand here, results colouring in the opinion polls section is misleading: "No" is not winning (i.e. coloured) if the sum of Yes is higher. Possibly it would be appropriate to put "Yes" (1st question only) as a separate first column, to clearly visualize the distance to "No". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.24.87.26 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be misleading considering it's two questions at once. I've just removed the colouring instead, people can manually add the results themselves for each of the questions. Second Quantization (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is there a crown over the catalan/aragonese shield? Is independence leading to a catalan monarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.248.177 (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it's the coat-of-arms of Catalonia. Hanii (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an Estelada (independence flag) would be better, even if it's not an official emblem?Tomclarke (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that wouldn't be neutral; independence is one possible outcome of the referendum, but not the only possibility. Why not use the Senyal? As the symbol of the current government, it's neither backward-looking nor speculative. Alec 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec.brady (talk • contribs)

Catalonian?

I think someone should change the name of the article because of the gentilice. The people from Catalonia are catalans not catalonians.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.163.180 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Negative mate, in English they are Catalonians. 85.180.42.67 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. "Catalans". Always. No question. Catalan people. Catalan language. Catalan cultue, food, geogaphy... "Catalonian" should NEVER be used. I myself am an Anglo-Catalan! Mstrubell (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral section

The section that lists the position of each political party should be rewritten per WP:NPOV. The adjectives applied by the author to certain parties, like "social", "liberal", "Spanish nationalist" or "Spanish unionist", are highly debatable and should at the very least be backed with references.--Hispalois (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sentence mis-attributed to Ban Ki-Moon

I was intrigued by the sentence attributed in the article to Ban Ki-Moon ("The United Nations respect self-determination processes"). I have double-checked it against the original speech and, to my surprise, I have found out that he actually didn't say anything like that.

The UN secretary general was visiting Andorra when a journalist asked him in Catalan about the United Nations' position on the "ongoing self-determination processes". After a pause for translation, Ki-Moon answered as follows (the recording can be listened to at Vilaweb site, which is currently reference number 46 of the article):

The United Nations has a firm and principled position that human rights and human dignity should be firmly upheld and protected everywhere [or "every year"?], and all the pending issues between the countries and among the countries should be resolved through peaceful means, through dialog, respecting the genuine aspirations of the people concerned. This is what I can tell you as the Secretary General.
And I really urge the leaders around the world to exercise their political will, political leadership, and wisdom to resolve all the issues through dialog and peaceful means.

Vilaweb summed up the speech saying that "L'ONU respecta els processos d'autodeterminació" (= "The UN respect self-determination processes"), a subjective opinion, but then other media took this sentence to have been Ban Ki-Moon's textual words. This is what the Catalan News Agency reported (reference 44 of the article), and the newspaper El Punt Avui as well (reference 45); and many others, including translations into Spanish [1], and French [2].

I would like to request comments on how to modify the article so as to reflect Ban Ki-Moon's true words. --Hispalois (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the wrongly attributed quote from the article. If you have suggestions on how the true words should be quoted, please indicate it here. --Hispalois (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand is that some Catalan newspaper summarized his speech and erroneously claimed that he said "The United Nations respect self-determination processes"? I think it would be best to simply quote his exact words to avoid confusion. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here, I found his speech on UN's website. http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=2761

“ The United Nations has a firm and principled position that human rights and human dignity should be firmly upheld and protected. All the issues between the countries and among the countries should be resolved through peaceful means, through dialogue, respecting the genuine aspirations of the people concerned. This is what I defend as Secretary-General. And I really urge the leaders around the world to exercise their political will, political leadership and wisdom to resolve all these things through dialogue and peaceful means. Thank you very much. ”

I think the second sentence ("All the issues between the countries and among the countries should be resolved through peaceful means, through dialogue, respecting the genuine aspirations of the people concerned.") is the one that should be added to the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Becoming a state vs. independent

What exactly does the first question entail? What would it mean if Catalonia were to "become a state" but not become independent? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Becoming a state in the federal Republic of Spain, or something to that effect. --Jotamar (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Federal? Republic? {{citationrequired}}, please.--Hispalois (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This article really needs to address what 'become a state' means. I am very politically aware but it isn't obvious. Is it a sovereign state? (although that would contradict the second question) or a federal state like the states of Germany or the USA? If that's the case then how is that any different to the situation at present where Catalunya is an autonymous region? Would becoming a state not be a backwards situation to the status quo? Do the articles on ca.wikipedia or es.wikipedia clarify the meaning in any way?--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the ambiguity in the question is the result of an ambiguity in the English language. The English language does not have two different words for an independent state and a federal state. Unfortunately, I do not know sufficient Spanish to know whether the same is case with Spanish (and I know no Catalan at all). --Vitzque (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As a native Spanish speaker, I can confirm that the word "estado" is as ambiguous as the English word "state". The government of Catalonia has not issued any explanation to clarify what the two proposed questions mean, and in particular what 'become a state' but not an independent one might mean. Therefore writing such a clarification would be primary research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. --Hispalois (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As another native Spanish speaker, I re-confirm it. The current Spanish Constitution does not consider any other "state" other than the Spanish state, while the federal-like regions in which Spain is divided are called Autonomous Communities (right now, Catalonia is one of them). Thus, the meaning of a "Yes/No" result, aka "Catalonia should be a state" but not an independent one, is presently unknown. It is assumed that the Catalan regional government intends this result to trigger a internal reorganization of Spain so that (at least) Catalonia gets more exclusive powers, but they have evaded all attempts to make them be more specific. However, any such changes would very likely require a rewriting of the Spanish Constitution, which is certainly not a given. Of course, so would require having Spain consent to Catalan independence (i.e. the Yes/Yes option), but at least that could conceivably be done unilaterally... Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 20:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In this context a "state" includes not just an independent state but any federal arrangement, unlike the current one. The threshold would entail, basically, Catalonia obtaining all powers except, perhaps, defence, and a foreign diplomatic status. Or a "free state" status like Puerto Rico. Mstrubell (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with Crimean referendum

Are there any information about comparison Catalan referendum to Crimean one? EU is strongly against unilateral and unconstitutional referendum on Crimea, and officially has announced that wouldn’t recognize its results. Catalan referendum is de facto also unilateral and unconstitutional, so probably EU reaction will be similar. Aotearoa (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's political science fiction and there are so many differences (e.g. the military pressure, EU-Russia relations). --Davidpar (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

NYT distinguished both referendums: "It is important at this stage of the confrontation in Ukraine to clarify that the issue is not simply “who owns Crimea.” There is a difficult question there, and as secession-minded people in Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia have shown, there are legitimate ways to raise it." --Davidpar (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, situation is different. But most of official comments said that referendum had been illegal because Ukrainian law, not because Russian intervention/invasion. And Catalan referendum is illegal according Spanish law, that why there are same analogies. Aotearoa (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

According to this [3], the referendum violates the Spanish Constitution and will be illegal since it is not approved by the national government in Madrid. II am also pretty sure that the Kosovo independence referendum in 1991, which occurred way before any ethnic cleansing or genocide there took place, was also illegal according to the Yugoslav law at the time.75.80.145.53 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are five legal and democratic ways for the referendum. Catalan political parties are seeking a referendum agreed with Madrid, as happens in Scotland. If it's not possible, is because the Spanish Government totally opposes Catalonia's independence, its self-determination, and the organisation of a vote. In Catalonia there is a democratic mandate expressed in the last elections. Anyway, as I said, that's political science fiction and we still don't know if the EU would recognize its results or not. --Davidpar (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, yesteday at The Washington Post: "There are a whole range of reasons that Scotland and Catalonia are not much like the situation in Crimea". --Davidpar (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point is that as long as the Spanish government does not allow the referendum, it will be invalid and illegal according to the Constitution of Spain and the situation would likely remain this way since both the PP and PSOE opposes the referendum. The circumstance of Catalonia is somewhat different to both Scotland and Crimea, but the main argument against the Crimean referendum is similar in that it is illegal as it violates Ukrainian constitution and territorial integrity and thus illegitimate. The only difference between Crimea and Catalonia is that Catalonia does not, at the moment, have a foreign supporter that would have the ability to prevent Spain from using its force to suppress the illegal referendum. On the other hand, the British govt agrees to a referendum in Scotland. I am pretty sure Rajoy is already pointing this out as a precedent saying that it is illegal and out of selfishness of the Catalans "Catalan News Agency". So, it is not about the presence of foreign military, but concerns legality. 75.80.145.53 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Some countries, especially from the Baltic states, said that referendum had been illegal not only because Ukrainian law, but also the Russian invasion: "Conducting a referendum in such a manner is contrary to the Ukrainian constitution and is being carried out in a situation where acts of aggression have been carried out against Ukraine and Russian troops are present in the region, the ministry stated" / "The referendum has been organized in a clear violation of the national, namely, Ukrainian Constitution and took place in the illegitimate presence of foreign - Russian - troops, the Foreign Affairs Ministry said". This WSJ article explains too the diferences between both referendums and the wish of the Spanish govt to compare time and time again with the Crimean situation. --Davidpar (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And British Premier Cameron also said[4] that the referendum is not legal, not only because the Ukrainian Constitution, but also because there's no reasonable time to grant a fair campaing, and because there's no option to choose to remain the "status-quo" (to say "no"). As far as I'm concerned, the Catalan sovereignity process fulfill these requests[5]. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Graham Watson quote

I don't know exactly what Graham Watson said, but I simply don't believe someone from Britain said anything as completely un-English - grammatically, not politically! - as 'I believe in the democracy' - that must have been 'I believe in democracy' (compare the Beatles song 'All you need is love', not 'All you need is the love'). Since this is clearly a translation from some other language (Catalan?), other parts of the quote may be wrong as well. In any case, these words should not be presented as Watson's own (i.e. in quotes) until they have been checked - surely a general rule when writing Wikipedia articles.92.65.213.42 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How about this documented quote "I understand how the Catalans feel and that they want to decide on their future in a referendum. The union between Catalonia and Spain has never been voluntary, unlike the case of Scotland and the UK.” Source: http://www.cataloniavotes.eu/en/debate/who-says-what/ http://www.cataloniavotes.eu/en/graham-watson-2/

The Naomi Klein quote might be more to the point: “I believe in self-determination and I believe in democracy and I think that if there is a democratic desire for independence it should be respected. Whether it is in Catalonia or in Scotland or in Quebec, where I was born.” http://www.cataloniavotes.eu/en/debate/who-says-what/ Mstrubell (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Legality of Spain and EU?

This article seems a little biased. It is not contemplating a section of legality... is that on purpose? 85.180.42.67 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean, Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New name

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move to the proposed "official" title. A subsequent discussion might find consensus to move the page to Catalan independence referendum, 2014 or Catalan status referendum, 2014, but that was not clear enough here to justify a move to a particular new title. Please note that these are all descriptive titles and that WP:RECOGNIZABLE is perhaps an easier argument to follow than WP:COMMONNAME here, although they both refer to the same section of WP:AT. I'd guess that future commenters will find "self-determination" or "independence" do seem more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than the proposed "status", despite that word's use in other titles on referenda. Dekimasuよ! 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014 → Citizen participation process on the political future of Catalonia, 2014 – Official name. It's not a "self-determination" referendum P.G.Antolinos (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC) This participation procces is not a referendum, and the original referendum was not a "self-determination" referendum.--P.G.Antolinos (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME we don't use official names just because they are official. How about 2014 general ballot on the independence of Catalonia (a descriptive title) Our article describes it as a vote on independence a vote on Catalan independence that has been called by the Government of Catalonia for 9 November 2014 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Current title is in line with WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. "Catalonian independence referendum, 2014" would also be appropriate. The fact that it's a non-binding "consultation" doesn't need to be included in the title (many referendums are non-binding - e.g. Swedish prohibition referendum, 1922). Number 57 15:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate "Catalonia independence referendum, 2014" than the current name, but this "referendum" it's not only about independence. There are 2 questions:

"Do you want Catalonia to be a State?

If so, do you want Catalonia to be an independent State?"

Because of this, I think it would be better "Catalonia's political future referendum, 2014" or "Referendum on the political future of Catalonia, 2014" considering that official name was "Non-referendum popular consultation on the political future of Catalonia 2014" for the original "referendum" and "Citizen participation process on the political future of Catalonia" for the current process.--P.G.Antolinos (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Catalan status referendum, 2014" (in line with Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012) would work for me too. Number 57 15:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal based on WP:COMMONNAME, but what about something like Catalan status referendum, 2014? This is what is used for other referendums with multiple options: Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012, Saba status referendum, 2004, United States Virgin Islands status referendum, 1993. TDL (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal (Catalan status referendum, 2014)--P.G.Antolinos (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME Fry1989 ^eh? 00:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. the title is more informative as it is.---Pedro (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Results should be on top

We should put the results on top of the article using {{Infobox multichoice referendum}} as soon as reliable sources report the results. Feon {^t/_c} 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Results by district

Working on a table which breaks down the results by region, just keeping it here temporarily until it is fully complete. Feel free to suggest any changes/comments.

Local authority	"Yes-Yes" ballots	"Yes-No" ballots	"No" ballots	Yes-Yes (%)	Yes-No (%)	No (%)	Valid Ballots
Alt Camp	15,012	846	519	94.55%	5.34%	3.27%	15,877
Alt Empordà	36,131	2,349	1,474	90.43%	5.89%	3.69%	39,954
Alt Penedès	36,648	2,846	1,227	90.00%	6.99%	3.01%	40,721
Alt Urgell	6,854	485	203	90.88%	6.43%	2.69%	7,542
Alta Ribagorça	1,033	150	60	83.11%	12.07%	4.83%	1,243
Anoia	33,365	3,077	1,705	87.46%	8.07%	4.47%	38,147
Bages	62,593	4,561	2,457	89.92%	6.55%	3.53%	69,611
Baix Camp	44,779	4,074	2,477	87.24%	7.94%	4.83%	51,330
Baix Ebre	23,435	1,638	962	90.01%	6.29%	3.70%	26,035
Baix Empordà	39,586	2,469	1,326	91.25%	5.69%	3.06%	43,381
Baix Llobregat	142,611	30,329	14,945	75.90%	16.14%	7.95%	187,885
Baix Penedès	17,753	1,977	1,240	84.66%	9.43%	5.91%	20,970
Barcelonès	479,315	84,171	32,475	80.43%	14.12%	5.50%	595,961
Berguedà	18,706	612	287	95.41%	3.12%	1.46%	19,605
Cerdanya	5,554	389	191	90.54%	6.34%	3.11%	6,134
Conca de Barberà	9,047	388	197	93.93%	4.03%	2.05%	9,632
Garraf	32,730	4,268	1,400	85.24%	11.12%	3.65%	38,398
Garrigues	8,836	396	152	94.16%	4.22%	1.62%	9,384
Garrotxa	23,652	789	377	95.30%	3.18%	1.52%	24,818
Gironès	59,374	3,723	1,687	91.65%	5.75%	2.64%	64,784
Maresme	123,179	13,236	5,013	87.10%	9.36%	3.54%	141,428
Montsià	19,256	1,445	921	89.06%	6.68%	4.26%	21,622
Noguera	14,511	758	398	92.62%	5.84%	2.54%	15,667
Osona	68,233	2,616	1,076	94.87%	3.64%	1.50%	71,925
Pallars Jussà	4,981	272	114	92.81%	5.07%	2.12%	5,367
Pallars Sobirà	2,738	156	52	92.94%	5.23%	1.77%	2,946
Pla d'Urgell	13,817	699	398	92.64%	5.23%	2.67%	14,914
Pla de l'Estany	14,187	483	177	95.55%	3.25%	1.19%	14,847
Priorat	4,887	177	82	94.97%	3.44%	1.59%	5,146
Ribera d'Ebre	8,841	531	119	93.15%	5.59%	1.25%	9,491
Ripollès	11,762	534	288	93.47%	4.24%	2.89%	12,584
Segarra	7,715	396	199	92.84%	4.77%	2.39%	8,310
Segrià	54,538	5,545	2,843	86.67%	8.81%	4.52%	62,926
Selva	45,249	3,294	1,871	89.75%	6.53%	3.71%	50,414
Solsonès	5,572	289	106	93.38%	4.84%	1.78%	5,967
Tarragonès	42,472	5,635	3,971	81.55%	10.82%	7.63%	52,078
Terra Alta	4,404	282	184	90.43%	5.79%	3.78%	4,870
Urgell	14,023	701	328	93.16%	4.66%	2.18%	15,052
Val d'Aran	1,091	241	223	70.16%	15.50%	14.34%	1,555
Vallès Occidental	199,433	32,402	14,254	81.04%	13.67%	5.79%	246,089
Vallès Oriental	103,850	12,959	6,047	84.53%	10.55%	4.92%	122,856

109.158.191.32 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. With all due respect, this table is missing the most important piece of data: what fraction of the electorate voted. Since most of the people opposed to independence abstained, that is a key metric to take into account. --Hispalois (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree but that isn't openly available as of yet. 86.136.51.9 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit: If you could find me a source outlining turnout by region I would gladly add it in. Italay90 (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Italay90. In this source you have the turnout percentage by district, calculated as the number of ballots divided by the total number of 16+ year-old inhabitants. --Hispalois (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not turnout. Turnout is the total number of people registered to vote in the area. Italay90 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Turnout can easily be derived from that, since turnout % = ballots/registeredvoters * 100 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The El Pais article cited above gives turnout as a proportion of adult population, not of registered voters; in this example there are separate columns for turnout (% of registered voters) and VAP turnout (% of voting-age population). We may have to settle for the VAP version, as long as we carefully explain the difference. Here are the VAP turnout figures, as given by El Pais:

Local Authority	VAP Turnout
Alt Camp	45.2%
Alt Empordà	31.8%
Alt Penedès	49.4%
Alt Urgell	43.8%
Alta Ribagorça	16.1%
Anoia	39.8%
Bages	46.7%
Baix Camp	34.1%
Baix Ebre	39.9%
Baix Empordà	41.3%
Baix Llobregat	30.1%
Baix Penedès	26.9%
Barcelonès	32.5%
Berguedà	57.3%
Cerdanya	40.9%
Conca de Barberà	56.9%
Garraf	34.2%
Garrigues	56.4%
Garrotxa	55.3%
Gironès	45.6%
Maresme	41.3%
Montsià	38.2%
Noguera	48.5%
Osona	58.8%
Pallars Jussà	47.0%
Pallars Sobirà	48.7%
Pla d'Urgell	50.5%
Pla de l'Estany	60.4%
Priorat	62.5%
Ribera d'Ebre	50.3%

It's perhaps also worth mentioning that - according to the idea.int site - the number of registered voters in Spain has, since 2008, averaged 92.8% of the VAP. (Interestingly, up to 2004 it averaged 103.9%. I presume there was some change in procedures around that time). Alec 02:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec.brady (talk • contribs)

Faced by the threat of personal data being used publicly for a poll that though covered by a Catalan law, was blocked by the Constitutional court, the Catalan government opted not to publish the census, but to construct it as voting occurred, checking ID data (nationality, age and place of residence) did not disqualify the elector from voting at the appropriate polling station. This is why no exact turnout percentages could be given. El País figures, based on TOTAL population of each district, allow the reader to get a pretty good idea of the main trends of where turnout was higher or lower, without the figures being precise. Mstrubell (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Corruption and vote manipulation

No mention of the many proven allegations of manipulation and corruption accompanying this farce? Children and other minors voting, people voting multiple times (some doing it to have photographic evidence of the ability to do this), ID numbers and other personal information written on ballots, illegals being bribed to vote, etc. Not to mention that this 41% turn-out number is more than questionable; most local (Catalan) sources indicate a number close to 30-35% without counting illegal immigrants, minors and multiple voters.T.W. (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please try to maintain a more objective point of view, loaded language like "farce" makes you come across as extremely biased.

If you feel that there's a lack of mentions about those topics, how about you go digest some reputable sources and edit the article using them? Or, if you don't have the time, at least collect the sources and put them here so that others may do it for you. Mechordeus (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not concerned with sounding 'biased' when commenting on an article that refrains from presenting key information. The sources are there and if need be I will collaborate, but as of now I am not explicitly involved in this or any other article.T.W. (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is 'there'? Within the article itself? I checked the English, Spanish, and Catalan articles and could find no such sources, or the 'key information' that you allude to. If by 'there' you mean the nebulous Internet... Well, thanks for the meaningful contribution. Mechordeus (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider Societat Civil Catalana (a Catalan group which collects many sources from various reliable sources and a few original works) and the various works they've presented since the start of the referendum. I'm sorry, I don't have time to elaborate or contribute formally, but giving a heads-up is certainly necessary.T.W. (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In case I don't get to it myself, here's a link to their website (available in Spanish and Catalan) for future contributors: https://societatcivilcatalana.cat. Note that they seem to be a biased primary source, but that shouldn't impact their value as a repository of secondary sources. Mechordeus (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My, you couldn't come off as more impartial if you tried. If you think the group is biased because they present outside views from major international sources (e.g. Fitch Ratings), then simply put aside their original works and focus on those they bring from a variety of internal and external sources (meaning from within and outside of Catalonia). If not, you can opt to rely on NacióDigital.cat or Televisió de Catalunya if you feel they're more unbiased. Please, let us leave systematic indoctrination within the Catalan and Azerbaijani Wikipedias for the time being, alright? Thank you.T.W. (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. I only edit the English Wikipedia as of now, and if you check my edit history you'll note I have not contributed to any "indoctrination." Impartiality is a very important value to me, specially when I do have a horse in a race. Hence why I asked for sources and contribution, instead of bickering about the validity of your purported point of view.

I'm calling them biased because they are *explicitely* pro-union, anti-separatist, and have been called an "anti-ANC" (in the sense that they are a reflection, not that they are against that organization in particular). You would do well to read up on what bias is, and how to account for it. You would also do well to re-read my comment, and notice that I said that their bias "shouldn't impact their value as a repository of secondary sources." In case it isn't clear, I'm saying that their original works are biased, but their source collecting looks good. Mechordeus (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

T.W. perhaps if Spain allowed an official vote which could be universally monitored, what you consider a "farce" would not have been the only option available. However, just by the aggressive way you write about this and attack Mechordeus, I'd observe you're against Catalan independence, which causes me to take your claims with a very heavy grain of salt. That is, of course, unless you will provide some recognised sources and not force others to look them up for you. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unbiased" does not mean presenting appealing information for two or more parties; unbiased means presenting information and drawing conclusions based on facts, without alteration or convenient omission of 'certain' key points. Societat Civil Catalan has a clear objective, that is true and they don't seek to deny it, and they achieve and bring forth their point of view by presenting factual texts from a variety of different sources and authors, internally and externally. So, the fact that they don't 'cater' to separatism does not make them a 'biased' source. Second of all, I didn't accuse you or anyone of 'contributing' to any other Wikipedia, but it is a sad reality that both the Catalan and Azerbaijani (as well as other Wikipedias) are dominated by systematic indoctrination that present information as it appeals to certain political views (e.g. Catalan articles often and without question treat Catalonia and Spain as two different nations/states which as it stands, it is utterly false. The Azerbaijani Wikipedia promotes the fabrication of its country's history and excludes mentions of its Armenian heritage without questioning or consequence). Let's keep it that way.

There's no need to be against independence to label this whole process a farce; one needs only to look at the many scandals surrounding it, as well as the informality behind the whole ordeal. The fact that the current article as it stands fails to draw on these points does not make the subject any less of a farce. Even persons who volunteered for this 'process' backed out due to its lacking democratic guarantees, which was proven time and time again (then that person was flamed and threatened in social medias).

Spain is not going to allow something that is unConstitutional to please a small minority of the population in one region (people who supported the vote ceased to do so when it was decreed so) just like the United States, or France, or Germany, or any other democratic state would not. So it's not a question of legality; the regional president, Artur Mas, gave himself a chance to prove the process could carry forth 'democratically' (the defiance of the state aside), but this was far from being the case.T.W. (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unconstitutional only in the minds of the Spanish Unionists. It really doesn't matter whether you are for independence or against it, you have to agree that it is simply impossible to force a perpetual union when part of a country wants to leave by just whining "that's unconstitutional!!!!", and yet that is the very argument the Spanish Government is trying to make so it doesn't have to deal with this issue which is very very real and where a large part of the population in Catalonia wants a free voice whatever the outcome is. This is Spain's fault, Spain is denying them their human right and leaves them really only two options: A: this "farce" which has no legal effect but at least tries to accomplish some sort of public referendum peacefully, or B: Violence, like that of ETA or the IRA or FLQ. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Spanish "unionists" because Spain is not an union. Catalonia and Spain are not two different parts of a larger component; Catalonia is one of 17 integral parts of what makes up Spain. By the way, your biased agenda is becoming more evident with every statement. The biggest mistake Catalan separatists make, along with any outside support they may find, is to assume that Catalonia belongs exclusively to the Catalans, and this is not the case. No part of Spain belongs to any one group within Spain, and this holds true for every other region (e.g. Galicia does not belong exclusively to the Galicians); decisions regarding any one part of the Spanish territory resides on all citizens, not just one portion. Giving this [fabricated] 'right' only to the citizens of Catalonia (even if illegal immigrants, minors and others were not included) is a serious violation of the rights of the rest of the Spanish citizens, because the territorial integrity of their homeland is a right given to all citizens and is to be protected as such. This holds true for any nation, including 'unions' like the United States, where the no part of the whole resides exclusively on one group (e.g. decisionsconcerning Florida as a part of the United States are not exclusively to its citizens). This is one of many mistakes made by you Catalan separatists as you continue to claim that "not constitutional" is an empty statement; you can choose to carry forth this belief, but it is not empty; it is not constitutional and there are good reasons behind it.

Another mistake made by many is the assumption that this issue is a Catalonia vs. Spain thing, when this is also not true. The majority of Spaniards have little opinion on the subject and are basically just sick and tired of the whole ordeal forming about 80% of the issues discussed on the daily media. The issue is one of Catalonia against itself, as Artur Mas and his political and institutional followers have managed to feed off of tension they've created between one Catalonia and another, as the separatists have seized control over the government, the media and the institutions and seek to impose their minority ideologies on the whole. I don't blame the editors of this article for feeling a bit 'left out' of much of the reality, since few sources have made an important effort to denounce the reality of this process which will go nowhere and have chosen to remain neutral and diplomatic (also, despite repeated efforts, Catalan victim-ism has not gathered formal support outside of Catalonia, regardless of whether Catalan separatists want to throw the 'fascist' card around like they've done up until now) and count only on internal 'formal' (for lack of a better word) support.T.W. (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this discussion ends here as this is not a message board and we've gone gone beyond discussing the article or any changes that need to be made. Sources showcasing the corrupt happenings throughout this process and its lack of democratic formality will become more abundant as these become more formally denounced. As more and more Catalans grow weary of the process, I imagine this won't take long. Sources are out there; the question becomes whether we dig them out or conveniently choose to leave them out. Cheers.T.W. (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, this conversation does not end here, not when you started this and attacked another user but did not post any reliable sources. I don't care what any country's constitution says, you can not force a perpetual union of your citizens for eternity. What if 70% of Catalans wanted to be independent? What if it was 80%? What if it was practically 100% and the only way Spain was able to keep Catalonia from becoming independent was to send in the military and force them? Self-determination is a human right, you can not simply ban it, and by pretending to ignore this issue and hide behind a constitution, Spain is only further inciting the drive for independence. I am not a "Catalan Separatist", I support human rights and on this issue both my country (Canada) and the United Kingdom only a month ago both realised that we can not force our countries to stay together by will alone. It is only a sign of nationalistic ego that Spain believes it is any different. If a proper vote is not allowed, the only other alternative besides violence is a unilateral declaration of independence similar to Kosovo, which Catalonia is trying so hard to avoid. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Turnout

Given that most of the political parties and organizations opposed to independence boycotted the consultation, turnout is a key metric to take into account. The Catalan government have announced a turnout number in absolute terms: 2.305.290 votes. However they have not provided any estimate of the percentage of the electorate that this represents.

That calculation has been made by journalists. One source of uncertainty is the number of eligible non-Spanish residents of Catalonia, who were part of the electorate for this vote provided they had a Tarjeta de Identidad de Extranjero; this represents perhaps 900,000 persons. The two estimates I have found are the following:

• El País: 37.02%, based on a 16+ year-old census population of Catalonia of 6.228.531 persons (including non-Spanish citizens).
• BBC: 41.6%, does not give the source for the total population figure (it says the figure is "based on the Catalan government's preliminary data" but this must refer to the number of votes).

Please add any other estimates of turnout here but please also leave this important discussion in the article. --Hispalois (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No that is fatally incorrect. Elpais has based their turnout purely on census data - this does not take into account the electoral register (ie. people who can actually vote/have registered to vote). When taken in context, which you haven't done, the BBC source refers to preliminary data (data taken prior to the referendum) of Catalonia's government, it states (in context): "Based on the Catalan government's preliminary data, 41.6% turned out." This means that the official turnout of those registered to vote was 41.6%.

Further to this, Elpais has a bias towards Spain wheras the BBC must legally remain unbiased, meaning it is highly likely that, as stated by the BBC, turnout was at 41.6%.

If we take the source from Elpais into context via google translate it states: "Estimates of the Government estimate that 5.4 million over 16 Spanish citizens in Catalonia and 900,000 foreign residents -of which we do not know from where they have a green card -. This figure orientation coincides roughly with the figures provided by the National Statistical Institute. The INE reflects the "resident population" without specifying nationality born before 1998 and therefore potentially call vote is 6,228,531 people. Given this census, exact, one would have voted 37.02%".

Firstly - this does not mention how many people are not on the electoral register. Secondly - it admits that it does not itself consider which foreign residents actually have a green card, those without green cards are ineligible to vote. The source also does not take into account WHEN residents were born meaning it further includes those aged below the legal voting age. Italay90 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Italay90. I disagree with most of what you wrote. Let me first try to state facts that hopefully we can agree on:

• The Catalan government's official turnout results is 2.305.290 votes (source).
• The Catalan government has not published any official estimate of turnout in %. (otherwise please tell me where)
• There is uncertainty regarding the total number of eligible electors because of the number of eligible non-Spanish residents in Catalonia.
• I have corrected my statement above: the requirement for non-Spaniards to vote was merely to have a Tarjeta de Identidad de Extranjero. This is not a "green card" as google translates it, as it is awarded to any legal resident (ie visa or more than 6 months of residence authorization). EU citizens who did not have a TIE were eligible too if they could provide some other legal proof of residence in Catalonia.

Several approaches can be taken to calculate the turnout percentage. If you assume that all non-Spaniards older than 16 were eligible, then there would have been 6,228,531 electors (this number excludes all persons less than 16 years old) and therefore turnout would be 37.01%. This is the calculation made by El País. The opposite approach is to exclude all non-Spaniards, even though at least part of them were eligible and may have actually voted. This is the approach that seems to have been taken by the BBC. Both make sense and therefore both should be included in the article. --Hispalois (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I fear you have misinterpreted the sources - I can't argue with someone who does not understand them. The BBC's turnout is based on FIGURES RELEASED BY THE CATALAN GOVERMENT. El Paiz has simply used census data - this is inaccurate as it does not take into account all eligible voters and disregards all ineligible voters over the age of 16. The figures released by the BBC are therefore official in accordance with the Catalan government, who published them, and Catalonian law. Italay90 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition as set out by El Paíz goes against the meaning of turnout, please refer to Voter turnout. This article states: "Who is eligible varies by country, and should not be confused with the total adult population." Again the figure on the BBC reflects all those eligible to vote. Census data also includes those who are not eligible to vote and therefore is does not reflect the true turnout of the election - for example, the majority of ineligible voters might have voted in the referendum if they were in-fact eligible, they should not be considered as they COULD NOT VOTE. Italay90 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please find an **official** press statement, website, or document that actually shows turnout? I cannot. As things stand, I would say that the BBC's turnout data is not official, but an estimate based on (partially or wholly) official sources. That's a far cry from an official turnout. Holding a BBC report as equivalent to an official release is a bit much, specially when that same number is not found in other sources (if it is, show those sources, particularly ones from the government or its media).

I agree with Hispalois that, for now, the turnout has no official figure as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You two should stop edit-warring. Mechordeus (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Merchordeus, thanks for putting it so well. Italay90, I'm afraid it is you who misinterpreted the BBC statement, and by the way there is no need to shout in this discussion. Here you are two additional references that mention turnout percentages albeit without detailing their source or calculation method:

• The Economist reported that "Turn-out was 37% of the more than 6m people able to vote.".
• Two researchers from the University College London mention that "ca. 37% of those eligible did [vote]"

I propose to revert the latest edit by Italay90 and include these two new references but prefer to hear other opinions before doing it. Cheers --Hispalois (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the media's consensus seems to be circa 37%, but there's no official figures so I think leaving the earlier edit that gives a range of possible turnouts makes the most sense. Mechordeus (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I have reintroduced a sentence with the range of possible turnouts and added the two extra references. Thanks. --Hispalois (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article not very clear

I just read the lead and some of the article, and being non-Spanish, non-Catalan and non-European, I probably missed a lot of context, but from what I know and read on this page, I am quite confused.

The lead should probably be rewritten to include a more concise summary, including important details such as:

• What this referendum actually was/is
• What is the meaning of this referendum, de facto and de jure
• What are the implications of the vote

Hopefully someone can undertake this task, and I will gladly come back to read the article again, since this is a very interesting topic!

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey. I have added the phrase "non-binding" to the lead, and the text of the two questions so that people understand what Yes-Yes and Yes-No means. Hopefully that makes a bit clearer. However, some of the questions you ask do not have a straightforward answer. Implications are largely a matter of political opinion by now. --Hispalois (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121223052044/http://www.unitatpopular.cat:80/programa/programa to http://www.unitatpopular.cat/programa/programa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150911101254/http://www.cup.cat/pagina/qu%C3%A8-%C3%A9s-a-cup to http://www.cup.cat/pagina/qu%C3%A8-%C3%A9s-a-cup
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130910010350/http://catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/%E2%80%9Cno-one%E2%80%9D-can-simply-ban-referendum-catalan-independence-says-ft-international-affairs- to http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/%E2%80%9Cno-one%E2%80%9D-can-simply-ban-referendum-catalan-independence-says-ft-international-affairs-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006085117/http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/consulta/?newLang=en_GB to http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/consulta/?newLang=en_GB
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/our-response-people-catalonia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620185859/http://www.icps.es/sondeigs.asp?con=35&apr=1 to http://www.icps.es/sondeigs.asp?con=35&apr=1#35
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006085117/http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/consulta/?newLang=en_GB to http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/consulta/?newLang=en_GB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620185859/http://www.icps.es/sondeigs.asp?con=35&apr=1 to http://www.icps.es/sondeigs.asp?con=35&apr=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-binding (but nevertheless legal), or null and void (and illegal)?

I am sorry that Wikipedia has messed up with my explanation...I think, a "non-binding (consultative) referendum" in the English language and in the English-speaking World generally means a referendum held or conducted with lawful basis and authority (but the results of the said referendum would NOT automatically authorize the Government, or the executive branch of the government, the power or the authority to directly or in effect (indirect) change some law or laws made by Parliament, Congress or the legislature) (see the Scottish example in the example of the United Kingdom [6]); whereas an "unofficial referendum" generally or usually refers to an illegal referendum conducted without lawful basis or authority, and its results is legally-speaking null and void...possibly a case of lost in translation (the different meaning of terms (including and perhaps especially political terms) in different languages), methinks! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)