Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum: Difference between revisions

October 3 General Strike

The general strike proposal was originally put forward by the anarcho-syndicalist CGT and CNT along with some smaller anarchist groups - not the CCOO who endorsed it just recently, as did the UGT. It was also originally proposed with a neutral view towards independence and primarily as a response to the repression of the Spanish government.

Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing

Cyberattack refers to various means of malicious acts that either steals, alters, or destroys a specified target by hacking into a susceptible computer systems. Misinformation on the other hand is false or incorrect information that is spread intentionally or unintentionally (i.e. without realizing it is untrue).

They are not related. The last paragraph of the Press coverage and social media section of the article talked exclusively about the alleged misinformation actions originating from Russian media outlets and social network bots. There was no mention in the text about cyberattacks.

In this edit by Edgarmm81 that difference was ignored even though the article itself made it explicitly clear that it was referring only to cyberatacks and not to misinformation campaings: "han hecho hincapié en distinguir entre las campañas de manipulación de la información que puedan desarrollarse en redes sociales y los ciberataques". Even though the information is not relevant to the article as there was no claim of cyberattacks, it was used to refer to the alleged misinformation campaign (it was added at the end of that paragraph) as a "conspiracy theory" and claim that the Spanish National Criptology Center disregarded it. The term "conspiracy theory" was not used in the article, and the article clearly stated that it was not talking about misinformation, so I removed the edit clarifying that there is a difference between misinformation and cyberattacks.

Iñaki LL undid my edit adding back the misleading information claiming that the edit summary was confusing and citing WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VER. Since I did not see the relevance of neither of the two policies cited by Iñaki, I restored the article for the second time adding to the edit summary the fact that there was a misrepresentation of the source, that the term "conspiracy theory" was used, that there was original research and asking Iñaki to bring the issue to the talk page per WP:BRD. Instead he chose to revert once again with this edit summary: "Info per WP:VER, do stop WP:BATTLEGROUND, stick to consensus seeking". Iñaki did at least change "conspiracy theory" for "dismissed foreign intervention" but the information is still unrelated and that claim is out of context as it relates to hacking which was never in question. It is misleading and again in that context is a case of WP:OR. I thought my edit summary was clear enough, I hope this is clearly explains why the edit should be removed and I expect for Iñaki to do so or to clearly explain his reasons why as I still don't understand how WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VER apply here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Crystallizedcarbon. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon Listen, you seem to be misunderstanding what WP is about, the information is sourced and accurate, no doubt. You have a history of content blanking, etc. Now coming back to the content, this is how my compromise attempt stands: "On 21 Nov 2017, the Spanish National Criptology Center (CCN), subsidiary of the Spanish Intelligence (CNI), dismissed foreign intervention by stating they "did not find any Russian Government nor any other state cyberattack during the Catalan affair"; this is the source, one that anyone can check.

Extending artificially discussions not only is unconstructive, but straight WP:TEND. By the way, thanks for not pinging me, I will come back. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BallenaBlanca The Spanish delegation (an "El País" journalist amongst them) who accused Russia of interference in the Catalan Referendum failing to prove any of their accusations in a hearing in front of a UK Parliament Comission. So we can find both: False accusations regarding Russia interference along with no cyberattacks (as Spanish National Criptology Center stated). On the other hand, Rusia terminated its financial aid to "El País" in 2016. Personally, it seems a blatant blackmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Edgarmm81, please do add indentation. You should understand that WP has its protocoles, and that they are as important as the content you add. That means that raw information may not be valid, Youtube is not a valid source in WP. If you can arrange the rest of information in the right place and according to source, that should be good, otherwise anyone may come and call into question your edits. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki, please stop your personal attacks. The userserbox with the ballot box in you userpage referring to this referendum and to Mariano Rajoy together with you history of edits here indicates your strong bias in this article. Please keep your comments centered on the content and I will do the same.

Information may be sourced and accurate, That does not mean that it may also be not relevant for the article or the section, and that as it happens here be misleading and false if placed in the wrong context as it is now.

• Please tell if you think that any part of this text is making reference to cyberattacks or if you think that it is talking about misinformation:

The Spanish newspaper El País argued that "the network of fake-news producers that Russia has employed to weaken the United States and the European Union is now operating at full speed on Catalonia",[248] involving a network of Russian media outlets and social network bots which, according to the argument, aimed to influence local and global discussion of events. Later investigations by Medium-DFRL found support for some but not all of the arguments made by Spanish outlets.[249] It is argued that the goal wasn't specifically to support Catalan independence but to "foment divisions to gradually undermine Europe’s democracy and institutions"[250] and at discrediting Spanish legal and political authorities,[251] while Russian authorities have denied that Russian actors had any involvement.[251] 

• ¿Do you disagree that the article used as a source clearly stated that they were referring only to cyberattacks and explicitelly mentioned that it was not talking about possible misinformation campaigns?

If there are no claims of cyberatacks in the paragraph there is no sense adding a sentence that denies them. The fact that it is verifiable and comes from a reliable source is irrelevant, as not all verifiable content on the subject should be included in the article. Here you are using a true and verifiable statement that is not relevant to the preceding text and you are adding it out of context which implies a different message (in the first version that the misinformation campaign was a "conspiracy theory dismissed by CNI" and in your last version that it "dismissed foreign intervention" without clarifying it is talking about something else)

Even if the statement was added outside the paragraph on misinformation, there have been no serious claims of any cyberattacks by Russia or any other states so it would make absolutely no sense to add a section about cyberattacks in the article.

If you have any valid argument to keep the statement please share it, if not, I ask you one last time to please remove the content yourself, It is verifiable, but it has no encyclopedic relevance, and the way it was added to the article make it clearly misleading. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

For your behaviour in this article, in your page. I am going to be very short here, I am not going to add anything more to what I said above. With you specially, strictly with diffs and short sentences. This is the relevant paragraph as it stands now. I removed the misrepresentation of source (I would call it an overstatement) you pointed in your edit summary to get consensus, which is accurate. If you think something is incorrect add the nuance where relevant smoothly, and with a short, clear edit summary. As the paragraph stands now, it reads smoothly, naturally and I see no inconsistencies. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The information added is not relevant since there is no mention anywhere else of cyberattacks. It is also misplaced as the paragraph talks about misinformation and the source itself says that the quoted information does not. Additionally in that context "dismissed foreign intervention" is misleading. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Strictly on this contribution (La Vanguardia). I decided to remove it, because it refers rather to attacks against Spanish public administration on the application of the article 155, so it belongs in that article, per source. I suggest the editor goes there and adds it there. By contrast, the arrests of Catalan politicians for organizing the referendum would belong here.

That should fix this discussion. The article continues to be full of imprecisions, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICK and misrepresentation of sources though. A complete disgrace, but I do not feel like running the gauntlet.Iñaki LL (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes Iñaqui, it does. I do appreciate it when you center your arguments on the content. As far as the arrest of Catalan politicians I also think the information is relevant and that it belongs in the "political effects" section. I myself tried to add it various times (see here) but Impru20 argued at Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_6#Remove/summarize_Aftermath_section that it was not relevant to the article. I still think it should be included, I did not press my arguments at that time to avoid an edit war, but if you want we can try to reach a consensus with impru20 to add it back. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am Iñaki. On this particular issue, yes it does belong in another place. Crystallizedcarbon, a descriptive and constructive edit summary would have helped a lot (this article has a long history to realize the problems in the Edit summary). Edgarmm81, that was not very helpful. I bring here Edit Summary guidelines for everyone. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think my edit summary did and do follow those guidelines. They explained the reasons for the edits and when that was not enough I expanded my arguments here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon

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. 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)